Yeo Hiap Seng (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd 1. ) MSIG Insurance (Malaysia) Bhd 2. ) MPI Generali Insurans berhad

Yeo Hiap Seng (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd 1. ) MSIG Insurance (Malaysia) Bhd 2. ) MPI Generali Insurans berhad

The court dismissed the claim because (1) the vessel was not classed with an IACS member and therefore was not a 'qualifying vessel' under the Institute Classification Clause so cover under the open cover policies did not attach, and (2) independent breaches of policy warranties/exclusions (deck cargo not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
WA-27NCC-17-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Parties
Plaintiff: YEO HIAP SENG (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD; 1st Defendant: MSIG INSURANCE (MALAYSIA) BHD; 2nd Defendant: MPI GENERALI INSURANS BERHAD
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
Malaysia
Judgment Date
4 April 2024
Case Number
WA-27NCC-17-04/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Procedural Posture
Marine Cargo Insurance Dispute (commercial Division) / Final Judgment Delivered
Outcome
Plaintiff's action dismissed
Legal Topics
Institute Classification Clause (icc) / IACS Compliance, Breach of Warranty (deck Cargo / Non Containerised Cargo), Inadequate Stowage and Lashing Exclusions, Concurrent Insurance / Excess Liability, Burden of Proof in Open Cover
Marine Insurance Commercial Law Contract Law Admiralty and Maritime Law Institute Classification Clause (icc) / IACS Compliance Breach of Warranty (deck Cargo / Non Containerised Cargo) Inadequate Stowage and Lashing Exclusions Concurrent Insurance / Excess Liability +1 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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

YEO HIAP SENG (MALAYSIA) SDN BHD

Plaintiff

MSIG INSURANCE (MALAYSIA) BHD

1st Defendant

MPI GENERALI INSURANS BERHAD

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Marine Cargo Insurance Dispute (commercial Division) / Final Judgment Delivered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the carrying vessel qualified under the Institute Classification Clause (IACS membership) so as to trigger cover under the open cover policies
  2. 2 Whether carriage of cargo on deck and inadequate securing/stowage breached policy warranties and exclusions such that insurers were discharged
  3. 3 Whether the 2nd Defendant had accepted an unlisted/non-ICC vessel or otherwise admitted liability

Ratio Decidendi

The court dismissed the claim because (1) the vessel was not classed with an IACS member and therefore was not a 'qualifying vessel' under the Institute Classification Clause so cover under the open cover policies did not attach, and (2) independent breaches of policy warranties/exclusions (deck cargo not containerised and inadequately lashed/shored under deck) excluded cover; additionally the MSIG policy was not triggered because an overlapping MPI certificate insured the loss within its limit such that MSIG only covered any excess which did not arise.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's action dismissed

Orders

  • Plaintiff's action dismissed with costs
  • Costs fixed at RM75,000.00 in favour of 1st Defendant