Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

ROAD ACCIDENT – MOTOR INSURANCE CLAIM – FEDERAL COURT TO INSURERS – NO MORE DELAYING THIRD-PARTY PAYOUTS!

1. Summary and Facts

Chen Boon Kwee v Berjaya Sompo Insurance Bhd [2025] 1 MLJ 158 the Federal Court addressed a significant issue in motor insurance claims – whether an insurer can refuse payment of a judgment sum until a separate recovery suit is filed.

The appellant, Chen Boon Kwee, was injured while traveling in a vehicle owned by his wife Tan Saw Kheng (TSK) and insured by Berjaya Sompo Insurance Bhd. After a court ruling found the driver liable for the accident, Berjaya Sompo refused to pay the damages awarded, arguing that the appellant needed to file a separate recovery action.

Both the High Court and Court of Appeal sided with the insurer, prompting an appeal to the Federal Court.

2. Legal Issues

i. Whether Section 91(1)(b)(bb) of the Road Transport Act 1987 (“RTA”) excluded the insurer’s liability for passenger injury?
ii. Whether Chen Boon Kwee could enforce the judgment directly against the insurer under Section 96(1) of the RTA, or if he needed to file a separate recovery suit?
iii. Whether the insurer’s failure to obtain a court declaration under Section 96(3) of the RTA prevented it from avoiding liability?

3. Court Findings

• The Federal Court ruled in favor of Chen Boon Kwee, overturning the earlier decisions and making key rulings:
• Under Section 96(1) of the RTA, an insurer must pay the judgment sum directly once a third party has obtained a judgment against the insured. The court clarified that previous rulings requiring a separate lawsuit were incorrect and placed an unfair burden on accident victims.
• If an insurer wants to deny liability, it must seek a court declaration under Section 96(3) of the RTA before the judgment is entered. Since Berjaya Sompo did not take this step, it could not refuse payment.
• The appellant was traveling for work, which qualified him for coverage under Section 91(1)(b)(bb) of the RTA. The insurer’s attempt to deny coverage on this basis was rejected.

4. Practical Implications

This ruling significantly benefits third-party accident victims by ensuring that insurers cannot create unnecessary legal hurdles to delay payouts. The decision reinforces that:

• Third-party claimants do not need to file a separate recovery suit once they have secured a court judgment.
• Insurers must obtain a court declaration before disputing liability – failure to do so means they must pay.
• The RTA is a social protection law meant to safeguard accident victims, and insurers cannot rely on technicalities to avoid payment.

This case strengthens consumer protection in motor insurance claims and ensures a faster, fairer process for accident victims.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

Read More »
16 11 月 ,2025 尚無留言
zh_TWZH
en_USEN ms_MYMY zh_TWZH
× 联系我们