ABC insurance company rejected B\u2019s claim for cargo damage. Unhappy with the rejection, B sued ABC insurance company and the ship owner who carries its goods for negligence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Can ABC insurance company claim contribution and indemnity against the ship owner?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201c(1) Where the insurer pays for a total loss, either of the whole, or in the case of goods of any apportionable part, of the subject-matter insured, he thereupon becomes entitled to take over the interest of the assured in whatever may remain of the subject-matter so paid for, and he is thereby subrogated to all the rights and remedies of the assured in and in respect of that subject-matter as from the time of the casualty causing the loss.\u201d<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n How is the UK Marine Insurance Act 1906 applicable in Malaysia?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n Can ABC insurance company claim contribution and indemnity before paying the B\u2019s loss?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n has accepted the insurance claim and subrogated the right of the insured, the insurance company has no cause of action against the 3rd<\/sup> party tortfeasor. In the context of insurance company against 3rd<\/sup> party, the insurance company cannot maintain any other causes of action against the tortfeasor other than by way of subrogation of the right of the insured.<\/p>\n\n\n\n On the contrary, the Sabah High Court had in Sing Yung Steel Sdn Bhd v MSIG Insurance (Malaysia) Bhd & Ors <\/u><\/em><\/strong>[2021] MLJU 3046 held that contribution and indemnity can arise in various situation independent of contract. The issue of subrogation is a matter that is to be decided at trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The decision in Sing Yung Steel<\/u><\/em><\/strong> is certainly driven by convenience. This is because if the court eventually decides the insurance company is required to pay for the losses of the insured, the right of subrogation would have arisen. It follows that the insurer is then entitled to seek contribution and indemnity against 3rd<\/sup> party tortfeasor who is liable to the loss in the first place. All these can be dealt with together in the main suit.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Both decisions have its pros and cons. Keeping in mind, a High Court judge is not bound by another High Court judge\u2019s decision (See Sundralingam v Ramanathan Chettiar <\/u><\/em><\/strong>[1967] 2 MLJ 211 (FC))<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" ABC insurance company rejected B\u2019s claim for cargo damage. Unhappy with the rejection, B sued ABC insurance company and the ship owner who carries its goods for negligence.<\/p>","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4813,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1576],"tags":[1596],"class_list":["post-4811","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-admiralty","tag-demurrage-detention-charges"],"yoast_head":"\n\n
\n
\n