Amgeneral Insurance Berhad Laile Binti Mohd Yusof & 2 Lg

Amgeneral Insurance Berhad Laile Binti Mohd Yusof & 2 Lg

Judge followed the more recent Court of Appeal approach on s109 RTA but found on the facts the Second Defendant was not an authorised driver and committed material misrepresentation/non-disclosure when renewing the policy in the First Defendant's name; the unauthorised driver exclusion was applicable and the insurer was entitled to avoid the policy; accordingly the policy is void and the insurer not liable under section 96 RTA for claims arising from the accident.

Citation
WA-24NCC-665-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: AMGENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD; First Defendant: LAILE BINTI MOHD YUSOF; Second Defendant: NAVIN A/L OMANTHOO; Third Defendant: TAMILSALVAN
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
17 February 2020
Case Number
WA-24NCC-665-12/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons (insurance Declaratory Relief) / Judgment Grounds of Judgment
Outcome
Application allowed. Declaration granted that the insurance policy JVD4858588 in respect of motorcycle No. BLS 5251 is void and unenforceable; Plaintiff insurer not liable under section 96 RTA for claims under that policy arising from the 19/02/2018 accident.
Legal Topics
Insurable Interest, Utmost Good Faith / Duty of Disclosure, Policy Avoidance / Misrepresentation, Authorised Vs Unauthorised Driver, Section 96 Road Transport Act Liabilities, Section 94 and 109 RTA Interpretation, Transfer of Ownership Vs Registration, Schedule 9 Financial Services Act Obligations
Source Language
Malay/English
Insurance Law Road Transport Law Contract Law Tort (vicarious Liability) Property/sale of Goods Insurable Interest Utmost Good Faith / Duty of Disclosure Policy Avoidance / Misrepresentation +5 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 7 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AMGENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD

Plaintiff

LAILE BINTI MOHD YUSOF

First Defendant

NAVIN A/L OMANTHOO

Second Defendant

TAMILSALVAN

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons (insurance Declaratory Relief) / Judgment Grounds of Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the motor insurance policy JVD4858588 is void because the registered owner had sold the vehicle prior to the accident and therefore lacked insurable interest
  2. 2 Whether s109 (and related provisions) of the Road Transport Act deems the registered owner to be the owner for RTA purposes and prevents transfer of insurable interest absent registration
  3. 3 Whether the Second Defendant was an authorised driver of the First Defendant such that he was covered under the policy

Ratio Decidendi

Judge followed the more recent Court of Appeal approach on s109 RTA but found on the facts the Second Defendant was not an authorised driver and committed material misrepresentation/non-disclosure when renewing the policy in the First Defendant's name; the unauthorised driver exclusion was applicable and the insurer was entitled to avoid the policy; accordingly the policy is void and the insurer not liable under section 96 RTA for claims arising from the accident.

Court Disposition

Application allowed. Declaration granted that the insurance policy JVD4858588 in respect of motorcycle No. BLS 5251 is void and unenforceable; Plaintiff insurer not liable under section 96 RTA for claims under that policy arising from the 19/02/2018 accident.

Orders

  • The policy number JVD4858588 in respect of motorcycle No. BLS 5251 for the period 08/02/2018 to 07/02/2019 is declared void and unenforceable against the Plaintiff.
  • The Plaintiff is not liable for any order or judgment under section 96 of the Road Transport Act 1987 for any claims filed under the said policy including any actions arising from the accident on 19/02/2018.