Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Uberrimae fidei

Legal area

Court

27 Sept 2024

ROSALIND GOH LEE LING 1. ) GREAT EASTERN LIFE ASSURANCE (MALAYSIA) BERHAD 2. ) HENG AIK JOON 3. ) TAN YEE VON

Citation

BA-22NCC-27-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-27-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the plaintiff knowingly withheld material medical history of bronchitis and GERD, failed to correct inconsistent medical statements, and thus committed fraudulent non-disclosure of material facts under FSA Schedule 9 and Contracts Act; the insurer was entitled to repudiate and rescind the policy and the plaintiff's claims were dismissed; agents were not shown to be negligent.
22 Sept 2023

Kunasegaran a/l Vadevelloo Berjaya Sompo Insurance Berhad

Citation

AB-12BNCvC-3-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

AB-12BNCvC-3-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove entitlement to policy proceeds on balance of probabilities because he knowingly omitted material facts and committed dishonest/reckless misrepresentations (failure to disclose other policies and the insured's lack of valid licence); insurers had complied with statutory pre-contractual notice obligations under Schedule 9 FSA 2013; the unlicensed riding and related breaches fell within policy exclusion clauses and Paragraph 15 of Schedule 9 permits insurers to avoid consumer insurance contracts for deliberate or reckless misrepresentation; s.114 adverse inference did n…
12 May 2023

CHONG LAI KENG PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE MALAYSIA BERHAD

Citation

BA-22NCC-21-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-22NCC-21-02/2022 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the Life Assured knowingly and fraudulently suppressed disclosure of three existing AIA policies which were material to Prudential's underwriting decision; accordingly under Paragraph 13 Schedule 9 FSA the insurer was entitled to avoid the two policies and repudiate the claim, and the plaintiff's claim was dismissed with costs.
26 Aug 2020

XXXX XXXX

Citation

BA-11B-12-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-11B-12-04/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The appeal was dismissed because the High Court declaratory order was not served on the respondent as required by s96(3) RTA and therefore could not be relied upon to defeat the respondent's Magistrate judgment; the Magistrate judgment was regular and based on evidence before the court, liability issues were res judicata, and the insurer must satisfy the judgment; accordingly the learned Magistrate's decision was upheld.
22 Jul 2020

ZAMRI BIN OTHMAN MOHAMAD ROIFF BIN MD ARIB & 2 others

Citation

WA-24NCC-486-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCC-486-09/2019 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The originating summons was dismissed because the insurer obtained a declaratory order repudiating the policy before the plaintiff obtained judgment and, until judgment is obtained a third party has no legal interest to be served; where the insurer was not present at the liability trial and there are allegations of fraud that affect enforceability of the policy, the correct remedy is a separate recovery action under s.96(1) with full trial to determine fraud and policy issues rather than enforcing the liability judgment by mere presentation or by originating summons.

Malaysia Case Law

ROSALIND GOH LEE LING 1. ) GREAT EASTERN LIFE ASSURANCE (MALAYSIA) BERHAD 2. ) HENG AIK JOON 3. ) TAN YEE VON

Kunasegaran a/l Vadevelloo Berjaya Sompo Insurance Berhad

CHONG LAI KENG PRUDENTIAL ASSURANCE MALAYSIA BERHAD

XXXX XXXX

ZAMRI BIN OTHMAN MOHAMAD ROIFF BIN MD ARIB & 2 others