Etiqa Takaful Bhd Abuseman bin Jamaluddin Etiqa Takaful Bhd

Etiqa Takaful Bhd Abuseman bin Jamaluddin Etiqa Takaful Bhd

The Court of Appeal held that while the policy was void and unenforceable as between the insurer and the insured for breach of policy conditions, section 94 RTA 1987 prevents an insurer from relying on such contractual breaches to evade liability to third parties; accordingly the High Court order disentitling the third party was set aside and the third party's statutory rights under s96(1) are preserved.

Citation
Q-02(A)-2351-11/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Parties
Appellant: Abuseman bin Jamaluddin; Respondent: Etiqa Takaful Bhd
Court
A
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
21 February 2019
Case Number
Q-02(A)-2351-11/2017 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed in favour of the 2nd Respondent; High Court declaration that insurer is not responsible to comply with Session Court orders set aside insofar as it affected the 2nd Respondent
Legal Topics
Policy Repudiation, Third Party Statutory Rights, Statutory Interpretation, Declaratory Relief, Duty to Notify, Section 94 RTA 1987, Section 96 RTA 1987
Source Language
Malay/English
Insurance Law Road Transport Law Civil Procedure Policy Repudiation Third Party Statutory Rights Statutory Interpretation Declaratory Relief Duty to Notify +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Abuseman bin Jamaluddin

Appellant

Etiqa Takaful Bhd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an insurer may rely on a High Court declaration under s96(3) RTA 1987 to avoid liability to a third party where the policy is voidable for breach by the insured
  2. 2 Whether s94 RTA 1987 renders policy conditions excluding insurer liability to third parties inoperative
  3. 3 Whether the High Court erred by failing to consider s94 when granting declaratory relief that disentitled the third party

Ratio Decidendi

The Court of Appeal held that while the policy was void and unenforceable as between the insurer and the insured for breach of policy conditions, section 94 RTA 1987 prevents an insurer from relying on such contractual breaches to evade liability to third parties; accordingly the High Court order disentitling the third party was set aside and the third party's statutory rights under s96(1) are preserved.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in favour of the 2nd Respondent; High Court declaration that insurer is not responsible to comply with Session Court orders set aside insofar as it affected the 2nd Respondent

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and High Court order set aside in respect of the declaration disentitling the 2nd Respondent
  • Costs awarded of RM5000 to the Appellant, subject to allocator