MSIG Insurance (Malaysia) Berhad Nurul Idayu Binti Abd Wahab & 2 Lg

MSIG Insurance (Malaysia) Berhad Nurul Idayu Binti Abd Wahab & 2 Lg

Following the Court of Appeal line on RTA s109 and having found that the First Defendant was not an authorised driver and had made material misrepresentations and failed to disclose ownership change when renewing the policy (breach of utmost good faith and duty of disclosure), the court held the insurer was entitled...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-24NCC-599-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: MSIG INSURANCE (MALAYSIA) BERHAD; First Defendant: NURUL IDAYU BINTI ABD WAHAB; Second Defendant: NORIDAH BINTI JAAFAR; Third Defendant: AHMAD ZAHIR BIN MOHD YUSOFF
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
5 February 2020
Case Number
WA-24NCC-599-11/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons / Judgment on Originating Summons
Outcome
Originating Summons allowed; declarations granted in favour of Plaintiff
Legal Topics
Insurable Interest, Unauthorised Driver, Duty of Utmost Good Faith and Disclosure, Avoidance of Insurance Policy, Transfer of Ownership of Vehicle, Third Party Liability Under RTA
Insurance Law Road Traffic Law Contract Law Civil Procedure Insurable Interest Unauthorised Driver Duty of Utmost Good Faith and Disclosure Avoidance of Insurance Policy +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MSIG INSURANCE (MALAYSIA) BERHAD

Plaintiff

NURUL IDAYU BINTI ABD WAHAB

First Defendant

NORIDAH BINTI JAAFAR

Second Defendant

AHMAD ZAHIR BIN MOHD YUSOFF

Third Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons / Judgment on Originating Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether insurer liable under policy after sale/transfer of vehicle
  2. 2 Whether registered owner is deemed owner for RTA purposes and effect on insurable interest
  3. 3 Whether First Defendant was an authorised driver of Second Defendant

Ratio Decidendi

Following the Court of Appeal line on RTA s109 and having found that the First Defendant was not an authorised driver and had made material misrepresentations and failed to disclose ownership change when renewing the policy (breach of utmost good faith and duty of disclosure), the court held the insurer was entitled to avoid the policy and granted declarations that the insurer is not liable for the policy period and not responsible for third party claims arising from the accident.

Court Disposition

Originating Summons allowed; declarations granted in favour of Plaintiff

Orders

  • Leave granted to file Originating Summons and abridgment of time if necessary
  • Declaration that Plaintiff shall not be held responsible for compliance of any judgment obtained by the Third Defendant in Sessions Court Civil Suit No. DA-A53KJ-522-08/2019