Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

ROAD TRANSPORT ACT – INSURANCE – DECLARATION TO NOT INDEMNIFY THE INSURANCE

1. Summary and Facts

In Mohd Riza bin Mat Rani & Ors v Zurich General Takaful Malaysia Bhd & Anor [2025] 2 MLJ 224, an appeal case involving an accident between a car driven by the 1st appellant and a motorcycle ridden by the 2nd appellant and 3rd appellant (pillion). The car’s insurance policy was issued by Zurich General to the registered owner. The investigation revealed that the chassis number of the car in the accident differed from that insurance policy, asserting the car was a ‘cloned’ car. Zurich applied under Section 96 Road Transport Act 1987 (“RTA”) for a declaration that the policy was void, arguing they did not insure the actual vehicle involved.

The High Court granted the declaration, therefore the appellants appealed.

2. Legal Issues

• Whether Zurich Takaful General Malaysia as the insurer at the time of the accident can avoid the policy given by relying on the basis that the car was ‘cloned’.
• Whether the absence of “insurable interest” defeats the third-party claims.

3. Court’s Findings

• The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal by the appellants and set aside the High Court’s decision.
• Under Section 96 of RTA 1987, compulsory third-party insurance exists to protect innocent third-party road users as it reflects a social policy.
• The insurers cannot avoid liability by relying solely on contractual terms as it was a statutory liability which did not prejudice innocent third-parties.
• The insurer remained liable for the coverage as long the registration number of the car and owner was matched with JPJ records.
• Zurich failed to explain renewal circumstances and did not show compliance with para 5, Schedule 9, Financial Services Act 2013.

4. Practical Implications

This decision affirms several important legal principles governing the rights and liabilities of insured road users under Malaysian motor insurance law:
• Section 96 of RTA 1987 mandates that insurers indemnify third-party claimants once a policy is valid and subsisting, irrespective of disputes between the insurer and insured.
• The absence of insurable interest does not invalidate the insurer’s obligation to satisfy judgments in favour of third parties, provided registration number and registered owner match official JPJ records.
• An insurer cannot rely on discrepancies in vehicle particulars to avoid liability if, under para 5, Sch 9 FSA 2013, it failed to exercise its continuing duty of utmost good faith and diligence in verifying the risk at renewal, especially for third-party claims under s 96 RTA 1987.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

ROAD TRANSPORT ACT – INSURANCE – DECLARATION TO NOT INDEMNIFY THE INSURANCE

In Mohd Riza bin Mat Rani & Ors v Zurich General Takaful Malaysia Bhd [2025] 2 MLJ 224, the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal by the claimants and set aside the High Court’s decision which had favoured the insurer. The Court held that Zurich was not entitled to repudiate liability under the motor takaful policy, as the alleged non-disclosures were not proven to be material or made dishonestly. Emphasising the principles of fairness and protection inherent in takaful, the Court ruled that technical omissions should not be used to defeat the rights of accident victims and their families.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – A PEACEFUL WIN: COURT STRIKES DOWN CRIMINAL PENALTY FOR NO NOTICE UNDER PAA

In Amir Hariri bin Abd Hadi v Public Prosecutor [2025] 4 MLJ 807, the Court of Appeal struck down Section 9(5) of the Peaceful Assembly Act 2012 as unconstitutional. The provision, which criminalised organisers for failing to give 10 days’ prior notice of an assembly, was held to be a disproportionate restriction on the constitutional right to peaceful assembly under Article 10(1)(b). The Court emphasised that while notice requirements under Section 9(1) remain valid for regulatory purposes, criminal penalties for non-compliance imposed an unjustifiable burden on fundamental liberties. This landmark ruling strengthens constitutional protections for public assemblies in Malaysia.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

MARITIME LAW – LIEN, LOSS AND LMAA: ENGLISH COMMERCIAL COURT ORDERS SALE OF DETERIORATING CARGO

In Lord Marine Co Ltd v Vimeksim Trans SA & Anor [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 52, the English Commercial Court exercised its powers under s.44 Arbitration Act 1996 to order the sale of a deteriorating cargo of Ukrainian corn over which the shipowners had exercised a lien for unpaid freight. Mr Justice Bryan held that the cargo was the “subject of the proceedings” and that the court could intervene to preserve its value pending LMAA arbitration. The decision clarifies that a “freight prepaid” stamp does not estop owners where freight has not actually been paid and the bills of lading never left owners’ possession, and that possession can be maintained even when the cargo is stored in a receivers’ warehouse. This case reinforces the court’s readiness to act swiftly to prevent the loss of value in perishable cargo while safeguarding parties through fortified undertakings in damages.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

SUMMARY JUDGMENT – NO ESCAPE FOR GUARANTORS – COURT GRANTS SUMMARY JUDGMENT TO OCBC IN LOAN DEFAULT DISPUTE

In OCBC Bank (Malaysia) Bhd v Agroglobal Sdn Bhd [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 558, the Singapore High Court granted summary judgment against the borrower and its guarantors, dismissing bare allegations of misrepresentation and non-disbursement. The decision reaffirmed that signed facility and guarantee documents are binding, and generic denials- absent credible evidence – will not prevent judgment. The case highlights the judiciary’s strict stance on enforcing loan agreements and signals that guarantors cannot plead ignorance of clear contractual obligations.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

MARITIME LAW – PORT CHARGES – BERTH AND BILL – COURT ANCHORS LIABILITY FOR PORT DUES ON IDLE VESSEL

In Marina Developments Ltd v Owner(S) Of “Sy Explorer” [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 428, the court upheld the Port Authority’s statutory right to recover outstanding berthing charges, despite claims of abandonment by the vessel’s owners. The judgment reinforces that unless formal legal abandonment procedures are undertaken, port dues will continue to accrue. This decision affirms that even stationary vessels carry financial obligations, and port authorities can enforce recovery under maritime law protocols.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

MARITIME LAW – BILLS OF LADING – NO BILL, NO CARGO – SHIPOWNERS HELD LIABLE FOR MISDELIVERY WITHOUT ORIGINAL BL

In the pivotal case of The Doric Valour [2025] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 401, the Court of Appeal affirmed the stringent maritime principle that cargo cannot lawfully be released without the surrender of original bills of lading. Rejecting shipowners’ reliance on indemnities to justify cargo delivery without original documents, the Court emphasized the sanctity of the bill of lading as the cornerstone of secure international trade. This decision serves as a robust reminder for maritime operators that compliance with established shipping documentation procedures is mandatory to avoid serious liabilities.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us