SlideShare uma empresa Scribd logo
1 de 9
Baixar para ler offline
QUESTION 8 [Nurul Iffah & Partners]
Silpa operates a car service station at Jalan Bukit, Petaling Jaya. Zantax sent his car to the
said service station regularly to have it washed. He left instructions with the service station
that the car was to be returned to him after it had been washed at a certain address and if he
was not at that address, the car was to be returned to the service station. Silpa has been
providing this additional service to Zantax in the past by sending the car back to him after it
had been washed.
On 1.1.2000 Bungee, an employee of Silpa, drove the car after it had been washed to the
address given by Zantax and not finding him at that address, drove the car back to the service
station. On the way back, he knocked into and injured a cyclist at Jalan Kuda, Petaling Jaya.
The car was badly damaged at the front. On 1.4.2001 Bungee was found liable by the
Magistrates Court for reckless driving. Zantax’s insurers, Simply Good Insurers, settled the
claims of the cyclist and Zantax on 1.5.2001. Then Simply Good Insurers arranged for Zantax
to sue Silpa and Bungee. Advise Silpa.
ANSWER
In this case, the insured is Zantax, the Insurer is Simply Good Insurer. The facts of
this case did not mention about the policy and what it covers but presumably it is a motor
insurance policy which cover Zantax’ car, Zantax and Third Party against any loss or damage
cause by Zantax or permitted driver. The tort-feasor is Bungee which knocked a victim, the
cyclist. The person having cause of action (plaintiff) is Zantax while the defendants are Silpa,
the owner of car service station and Bungee, an employee of the car service station. This case
revolves around the principle of Subrogation.
The General Principle of Insurance policy is that, when the Insured suffered loss of
insured peril, they have the right to be indemnified by the Insurer, subject to the maximum
amount stated in the policy1
. They must also observe Indemnity Principle, where claim of
sum insured when the insured peril occurs must not be more than the cost of actual loss2
.
Several issues arise especially on who can claim, whether an insured can claim from more
than one party, ie: insurer and tort-feasor and who has the right to sue the tort-feasor, the
insured or the insurer?
On the question of who can make the claim, we must first determine the type of
insurance policy. Since this is a motor insurance policy which presumably give a
comprehensive cover, the person that can make a claim are the insured policy holder and also
the third party involved. However, the claimants must satisfy the requirements to give notice
of claim to the insurer. It must be a written request for payment of claim, made within a
reasonable time from date of notice of loss and prove that the notice is made under the policy.
There is not much issue on this. Zantax and the cyclist may claim from Simply Good Insurer.
The main issue in this case is whether Simply Good Insurers can pursue subrogated
action against Silpa and Bungee. The case of Burnand v Rodocanachi (1882)3
defines
Subrogation as the right of one person (insurer) having indemnified another (insured) under a
legal obligation to do so, to stand in the place of that other (insured) of all the rights and
remedies of that other (insured), whether already enforced or not. Subrogation is a common
law principle which is implied in every contract of indemnity by the operation of law4
. Courts
1
John Birds, Bird’s Modern Insurance Law, Seventh Edition, Sweet & Maxwell, 2007
2
Ibid
3
Burnand v Rodocanachi (1882) 7 APP. CAS. 333 HL, (per Lord Blackburn)
4
Nik Ramlah Mahmood, Insurance Law in Malaysia, Butterworths, 1992
do allow modifications and even exclusion of Subrogation by express terms in the contract5
.
By principle of Subrogation, where a contract of insurance is one of indemnity, after the
insured is indemnified for his loss by the insurer, the insurer acquires two distinct rights from
the insured; Firstly, the right to any benefit already in the hands of the insured which
extinguishes or diminishes the loss and secondly, the right to any cause of action which the
insured may have against a Third Party (TP) in relation to the said loss6
. The transference of
both of these rights from the insured to the insurer amounts to Subrogation.
There are two elements that must be satisfied; firstly, it must be a contract of
indemnity and secondly the Insured must have been indemnified by the Insurer. With regard
the first element, the contract must be one of indemnity ie; property or liability and not
contract of contingency for example life and personal accident policies7
. The court in case of
Castellain v Preston (1883)8
explains why subrogation must be a contract of indemnity that is
to prevent the assured from recovering more than a full indemnity and it has been adopted
solely for that reason. An insured cannot recover more than full indemnity for his loss. He
also cannot make a profit out of such a contract at the expense of either the Insurer or a TP9
.
With regards to the second element, the indemnity nature of a contract merely gives
the insurer a contingent right to subrogation. The right would only be translated into vested
right when the insured have been indemnified by the Insurer10
. Once the Insured is
indemnified for his loss, the insurer is entitled to any other benefit in the Insured’s hands and
to any cause of action against a TP which may bring about such a benefit. The insured must
be ‘fully indemnified’ or ‘full indemnity’ which means where the insured were given full
compensation for the insured’s loss or full indemnity for the loss to the extent of the cover
provided by the policy11
. However the court in case of Page v Scottish Insurance
Corporation12
implies that there can be a right of subrogation even before the insured is fully
compensated for his loss provided the insured remains dominus litis (Master of a suit) in all
TP proceedings. There is also a case where the Insured may receive a full indemnity but may
later succeed in recovering more than the claim payment from the third party. Provided that
5
Ibid
6
Ibid
7
Ibid
8
Castellain v Preston (1883) 11 QBD 380
9
Nik Ramlah Mahmood, Insurance Law in Malaysia, Butterworths, 1992
10
Ibid
11
Ibid
12
Page v Scottish Insurance Corporation (1929) [140] LT 571
the benefits are solely to benefit the Insured for example, gift or a windfall. In case of
Burnand v Rodocanachi [1882]13
the court held that payment by TP to Insured was solely for
Insured’s benefit. Insurer cannot recover sum from Insured because it was given not for
purpose of reducing the loss. As compared to case of Stearns v Village Main Reref Gold
Mining Co. [1905]14
, the court held that payment received by Insured was to reduce loss
suffered by him. Therefore, the Insurer had a right of subrogation. However this will not be
discussed any further as it is not the main concern of this case at hands.
The main issue in this case revolves around the Insurer’s Rights against Third Party.
Generally by the principle of Subrogation, the Insurer has a right to any cause of action which
the insured may have against a TP in relation to the loss suffered by the insured. However, it
must be noted that the rights which may be passed to the insurers by virtue of subrogation are
only the rights which the insured has, be it in respect of a right in tort, contract, custom or
usages15
. In this case it involves torts. Torts is when and where the insured has sustained
some damage, lost of rights or incurred liability due to the tortuous acts of some other person.
Then the insurer, having indemnified him for his loss is entitled to take action to recover the
outlay from the wrongdoer. In Lister v Ramfold Ice (1956)16
, the court held that the insured
would have a right in tort against the individuals involved. The Insurers will assume these
rights and attempt to recover their outlays from the guilty party. In an action taken by insurers
in this situation they shall use the name of the Insured17
.
It must be stressed here that neither a TP nor an Insurer can avoid liability for the
Insured’s loss simply because one of them has indemnified the Insured18
. An Insurer who has
indemnified the Insured can pursue the Insured’s cause of action against the TP. However the
Insurer is not conferred with a fresh and independent cause of action. The cause of action
remains with the Insured and it is only in the Insured’s name that the Insurer can pursue it19
.
Hence, before an Insurer can pursue a subrogated action against a TP, there must be a cause
of action vested in and exercisable by the Insured. The Insurer can sue a TP in its own name,
only if, the Insured has assigned his rights against the TP to the Insurer. Besides, an Insured
13
Burnand v Rodocanachi (1882) 7 APP. CAS. 333 HL
14
Stearns v Village Main Reef Gold Mining Co Ltd (1905) 10 Com Cas 89 (CA)
15
Nik Ramlah Mahmood, Insurance Law in Malaysia, Butterworths, 1992
16
Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd [1956] AC 555
17
Nik Ramlah Mahmood, Insurance Law in Malaysia, Butterworths, 1992
18
Teo Kim Kien & Ors v Lai Sen & Anor [1980] 2 MLJ 125
19
Nik Ramlah Mahmood, Insurance Law in Malaysia, Butterworths, 1992
who is called upon by the Insurer to lend his name to an action against a TP must do so
provided the Insurer has agreed to indemnify him against costs20
. The Insured is under a duty
to assist the insurers in enforcing claims and to do nothing which would prejudice the
insurer’s chances of recovery against a TP.
Let’s take a look at a case which is very similar to the case at hand that is case of Teo
Kim Kien & Ors v Lai Sen & Anor [1980]21
. In this case, the first respondent (Insured) sent
his car to a service station to be washed, requesting that it be sent to a particular address
thereafter. Accordingly, after washing the car, the second respondent (employee at service
station), drove the car to the said address but as there was no one there, he decided to return it
to the service station. On his way back, he negligently knocked a motor cyclist. Damages
awarded to the motorcyclist were paid by the first respondent’s Insurer who also paid for the
repair of the car and for other expenses. At the Insurer’s request the first respondent brought
an action against the appellants as owners of the service station. This action succeeded and
the appellants appealed, inter alia, on the ground that the first respondent had in fact suffered
no loss because all his claims had been settled by the Insurer.
The issue in this case is whether operators of service station liable for negligence of
employee. There are several Defences made by Appellant, (owner of the service station).
Firstly he argued that the Second Respondent (driver) was at the relevant time the agent of
First Respondent (insured), and secondly, that First Respondent (Insured) had suffered no
loss as the claims had been met by the insurers and therefore the claim was "totally
misconceived, frivolous and an abuse of the process of law". However Chang Min Tat FJ
held that Second Respondent (Driver) was the servant or agent of the Appellant (owner) at
the time of accident and under the doctrine of subrogation the claim of the first Respondent
(insured) against the Appellant (owner) though brought by the insurers was maintainable.
Besides that, Appellant was entitled to obtain judgment in the third party action against
Second Respondent in view of his admitted negligence. He also cited Lord Diplock in Hobbs
v Marlowe [1978] AC 16, at page 37. If the damages suffered by the insured himself either to
his person or to his car had been settled and paid to him by the insurer under the policy… the
doctrine of subrogation still applies… the insurer may require the insured to take an action
against the wrong-doer for the recovery of all the damages flowing from the latter's
negligence.
20
Ibid
21
Teo Kim Kien & Ors v Lai Sen & Anor [1980] 2 MLJ 125
In applying, it can be seen that in this case, it involves a motor insurance policy which
is a contract of indemnity. The terms of the policy was not stated in the facts of the case. But
generally it must have covered Zantax’ car, Zantax and Third Party against loss, injury or
death caused by him or permitted driver. To apply the principle of Subrogation, there are two
elements that must be fulfilled. First, it must be of a contract of indemnity and second, the
Insurer must have indemnified the Insured. In Castellain v Preston (1883)22
, the court
explains that ‘Subrogation’ is concerned with the mutual rights and liabilities of parties to a
contract of insurance. ..where an insurer indemnifies an assured for a loss, he is entitled to
‘stand in the shoes’ of the assured and to receive the benefit of all of the rights and remedies
which the assured may have against third parties in respect of such loss. According to the
principle of Indemnity, Zantax may only recover his loss from his Insurer, Simply Good
Insurer up to the amount of the loss. He cannot make profit out of his loss by acquiring
benefits both from the Insurer and the defendants, Bungee and Silpa.
In this case, the accident was caused by the negligent act of an employee of a Car
Service Station, Bungee. He as a driver of the Car Service Station has a duty of care to drive
carefully and deliver the clients’ cars in a good condition but he breached his duty by driving
recklessly and caused an accident. The car was badly damaged at the front as it had knocked
and injured another, the cyclist. Zantax suffer loss for the damage of his car and need to
compensate the cyclist for the injury caused. Therefore, Zantax has a strong cause of action
against Bungee. Bungee is an employee of Silpa (owner of the Car Service Station). Under
Contract, according to Agency principle, Bungee is an agent of Silpa and an agent acts for
and on behalf of his Principal. Silpa as the Principal therefore held the same liability and may
be sued by Zantax. While under Torts, Silpa may be liable by virtue of vicarious liability
where it imposes a responsibility upon one person for the failure of another, with whom the
person has special relationship, in this case as employer-employee, to exercise such care as a
reasonably prudent person would use under similar circumstances.
It must be noted here that Bungee is permitted to drive the car back to the particular
address given by Zantax and if he was not at that address, the car was to be returned to the
service station. This means that at the time that the accident occurred, Zantax’ motor
insurance policy does cover the loss.
22
Castellain v Preston (1883) 11 QBD 380
The second element is that the Insurer must have indemnified the Insured. It can be
seen that Simply Good had after the accident settled the claims of the cyclist for the injury
caused and Zantax for the damage of his car to the extent of the cover provided by the policy.
In this case, the facts were silent on whether or not there were express terms on Subrogation
in the policy. It can however be assumed that the principle of Subrogation is applicable as it
is an implied rights in all insurance contracts of Indemnity. Since both elements has fulfilled,
the Insurer may therefore uses his vested rights to subrogation as was laid down in case of
Stearns v Village Main Reref Gold Mining Co. [1905]. Simply Good Insurers may acquire
the rights owned by Zantax to gain any benefits received from TP as to his loss and rights to
take action against the TP for the loss, provided that Zantax is the dominus litis of the
proceedings.
Under Subrogation Principle, Insurer may have two rights to be subrogated to it. In
this case, there is no issue regarding the rights to the benefits received from third parties. The
issue is on whether Simply Good Insurer has a subrogated right to sue Silpa and Bungee.
Since Zantax has a strong cause of action against those two and the elements under
Subrogation is fulfilled, Simply Good Insurer therefore has the said right of Subrogation. The
cause of action must however be in the name of Zantax. Simply Good Insurer has no standing
if it wants to start a fresh and independent cause of action against Silpa and Bungee. As in the
case of Lin Lin Shipping Sdn Bhd23
, Richard Malanjum JC held that ‘The doctrine of
subrogation applies where an insured brings an action against the wrongdoer if called upon to
do so by the insurer; but it is his own cause of action and not of the insurer.’ Though cause of
action filed is that of the Insured, he is only a nominal plaintiff. The real plaintiff is the
subrogated insurer as they are the one having the carriage and control of the suits by
instructing solicitors, paying for the action, and the person to benefit from the action, and to
lose by the action, if it is lost. This was held in case of Kementerian Pertahanan Malaysia &
Anor v Malaysian International Shipping Corp Bhd & Ors [2007]24
. Since Zantax has been
called upon by Simply Good Insurer to lend his name to an action against Silpa and Bungee,
he must do so as he is under a duty to assist the insurers in enforcing claims and to do nothing
which would prejudice the Simply Good Insurer’s chances of recovery against Silpa and
Bungee. This is as according to the rule laid out in case of Teo Kim Kien.
23
Lin Lin Shipping Sdn Bhd v Govindasamy Mahalingam Civil Appeal No KG 21
24
Kementerian. Pertahanan Malaysia & Anor v Malaysian International. Shipping Corp Bhd & Ors [2007] 5
MLJ 393 (per Zaleha Zahari JCA)
In advising Silpa who is an employer of the tort feasor, Bungee. She might not escape
from the suit as she has special relationship with Bungee ie, Employer-employee and
Principal-Agent. By virtue of both Agency Principle and Vicarious Liability, Silpa is liable
for the acts or omissions of her agent. Besides the employer usually has a deeper pocket than
the employee. It is a clear cut case of Negligence caused by Bungee and as explained above,
the Principle of Subrogation is correctly applied. Silpa would be unable to argue that Zantax
had in fact suffered no loss because all his claims had been settled by the Insurer as had been
decided in case of Teo Kim Kien & Ors V Lai Sen & Anor [1980] which is very similar to the
facts of the case at hands. Silpa is advise to pay the damages if found guilty by the court but
she may sue Bungee by separate cause of action.
REFERENCES
1. Nik Ramlah Mahmood, Insurance Law in Malaysia, Butterworths, 1992
2. John Birds, Bird’s Modern Insurance Law, Seventh Edition, Sweet & Maxwell,
2007
FACULTY OF LAW
UiTM SHAH ALAM
ASSIGNMENT 2
INSURANCE LAW AND PRACTICE II
PREPARED FOR:
PROF MADYA RAMLAH MOHD NOH
PREPARED BY:
NURUL IFFAH IBRAHIM SHUKRI (2010573349)
GROUP:
LAWB06B
DATE OF SUBMISSION:
12TH
DECEMBER 2013

Mais conteúdo relacionado

Mais procurados

Contract of Wadiah and its Application in Islamic Banking
Contract of Wadiah and its Application in Islamic BankingContract of Wadiah and its Application in Islamic Banking
Contract of Wadiah and its Application in Islamic BankingNabil Bello
 
Company law I - Tutorial Work Q&A's
Company law I - Tutorial Work Q&A'sCompany law I - Tutorial Work Q&A's
Company law I - Tutorial Work Q&A'ssurrenderyourthrone
 
Article 121(1A) of federal constitution
Article 121(1A) of federal constitutionArticle 121(1A) of federal constitution
Article 121(1A) of federal constitutionmirey
 
Fatal Claims - For Revision Purposes Only
Fatal Claims - For Revision Purposes OnlyFatal Claims - For Revision Purposes Only
Fatal Claims - For Revision Purposes OnlyAzrin Hafiz
 
Underlying principles governing relationship between partners
Underlying principles governing relationship between partnersUnderlying principles governing relationship between partners
Underlying principles governing relationship between partnersIntan Muhammad
 
Law of Contract Notes - Exemption Clause
Law of Contract Notes - Exemption ClauseLaw of Contract Notes - Exemption Clause
Law of Contract Notes - Exemption Clausesurrenderyourthrone
 
Security dealings charge
Security dealings   chargeSecurity dealings   charge
Security dealings chargeHafizul Mukhlis
 
Torts _occupiers_liability
Torts  _occupiers_liabilityTorts  _occupiers_liability
Torts _occupiers_liabilityFAROUQ
 
Takaful and Insurance underwriting
Takaful and Insurance underwritingTakaful and Insurance underwriting
Takaful and Insurance underwritinghatimabbas
 
POSITION OF LOCUS STANDI IN MALAYSIA AND UNITED KINGDOM
POSITION OF LOCUS STANDI IN MALAYSIA AND UNITED KINGDOMPOSITION OF LOCUS STANDI IN MALAYSIA AND UNITED KINGDOM
POSITION OF LOCUS STANDI IN MALAYSIA AND UNITED KINGDOMASMAH CHE WAN
 
EXAMPLE Q & A Law of contract
EXAMPLE Q & A Law of contract EXAMPLE Q & A Law of contract
EXAMPLE Q & A Law of contract Shadina Shah
 
al-ijarah thumma al-bay (AITAB)
al-ijarah thumma al-bay (AITAB)al-ijarah thumma al-bay (AITAB)
al-ijarah thumma al-bay (AITAB)Badriah Nordin
 

Mais procurados (20)

Partners and Outsiders
Partners and OutsidersPartners and Outsiders
Partners and Outsiders
 
AL-IJARAH
AL-IJARAHAL-IJARAH
AL-IJARAH
 
Contract of Wadiah and its Application in Islamic Banking
Contract of Wadiah and its Application in Islamic BankingContract of Wadiah and its Application in Islamic Banking
Contract of Wadiah and its Application in Islamic Banking
 
Company law I - Tutorial Work Q&A's
Company law I - Tutorial Work Q&A'sCompany law I - Tutorial Work Q&A's
Company law I - Tutorial Work Q&A's
 
Article 121(1A) of federal constitution
Article 121(1A) of federal constitutionArticle 121(1A) of federal constitution
Article 121(1A) of federal constitution
 
Fatal Claims - For Revision Purposes Only
Fatal Claims - For Revision Purposes OnlyFatal Claims - For Revision Purposes Only
Fatal Claims - For Revision Purposes Only
 
Underlying principles governing relationship between partners
Underlying principles governing relationship between partnersUnderlying principles governing relationship between partners
Underlying principles governing relationship between partners
 
Law of Contract Notes - Exemption Clause
Law of Contract Notes - Exemption ClauseLaw of Contract Notes - Exemption Clause
Law of Contract Notes - Exemption Clause
 
Security dealings charge
Security dealings   chargeSecurity dealings   charge
Security dealings charge
 
CONTRACT OF SALE (Al-Bay')
CONTRACT OF SALE (Al-Bay')CONTRACT OF SALE (Al-Bay')
CONTRACT OF SALE (Al-Bay')
 
FAMILY LAW - NULLITY OF MARRIAGE
FAMILY LAW - NULLITY OF MARRIAGEFAMILY LAW - NULLITY OF MARRIAGE
FAMILY LAW - NULLITY OF MARRIAGE
 
Tort - Remedi
Tort - RemediTort - Remedi
Tort - Remedi
 
Torts _occupiers_liability
Torts  _occupiers_liabilityTorts  _occupiers_liability
Torts _occupiers_liability
 
Takaful and Insurance underwriting
Takaful and Insurance underwritingTakaful and Insurance underwriting
Takaful and Insurance underwriting
 
Charge
ChargeCharge
Charge
 
Partnership Law in Malaysia
Partnership Law in MalaysiaPartnership Law in Malaysia
Partnership Law in Malaysia
 
POSITION OF LOCUS STANDI IN MALAYSIA AND UNITED KINGDOM
POSITION OF LOCUS STANDI IN MALAYSIA AND UNITED KINGDOMPOSITION OF LOCUS STANDI IN MALAYSIA AND UNITED KINGDOM
POSITION OF LOCUS STANDI IN MALAYSIA AND UNITED KINGDOM
 
EXAMPLE Q & A Law of contract
EXAMPLE Q & A Law of contract EXAMPLE Q & A Law of contract
EXAMPLE Q & A Law of contract
 
al-ijarah thumma al-bay (AITAB)
al-ijarah thumma al-bay (AITAB)al-ijarah thumma al-bay (AITAB)
al-ijarah thumma al-bay (AITAB)
 
Hire Purchase Act (Business Law)
Hire Purchase Act (Business Law)Hire Purchase Act (Business Law)
Hire Purchase Act (Business Law)
 

Destaque

PRODUK ETIQA TAKAFUL
PRODUK ETIQA TAKAFULPRODUK ETIQA TAKAFUL
PRODUK ETIQA TAKAFULhasrizel
 
Insurance ii (written assignment)
Insurance ii (written assignment)Insurance ii (written assignment)
Insurance ii (written assignment)FAROUQ
 
eTiQa Takaful
eTiQa TakafuleTiQa Takaful
eTiQa TakafulWanBK Leo
 
Insurance 2 written
Insurance 2 writtenInsurance 2 written
Insurance 2 writtenFAROUQ
 
Succesful Islamic Insurance 21st Century
Succesful Islamic Insurance 21st CenturySuccesful Islamic Insurance 21st Century
Succesful Islamic Insurance 21st CenturyISEConsult
 
Insurans etiqa takaful (2)
Insurans etiqa takaful (2)Insurans etiqa takaful (2)
Insurans etiqa takaful (2)Akihisa Akimoto
 
Takaful presentation by muhammad ashfaq
Takaful presentation by muhammad ashfaqTakaful presentation by muhammad ashfaq
Takaful presentation by muhammad ashfaqasfhaq
 
Risk Management and Insurance
Risk Management and InsuranceRisk Management and Insurance
Risk Management and InsuranceJohn Daniel
 
Insurance take home test
Insurance take home testInsurance take home test
Insurance take home testFAROUQ
 
Pelaburan terbaik maybank etiqa
Pelaburan terbaik maybank etiqaPelaburan terbaik maybank etiqa
Pelaburan terbaik maybank etiqaHaffiz Mohd Nasir
 
Project Management In The Automotive Industry
Project Management In The Automotive IndustryProject Management In The Automotive Industry
Project Management In The Automotive IndustryGestion Projet Automobile
 
Insurance Law - Law 428 case list
Insurance Law - Law 428 case listInsurance Law - Law 428 case list
Insurance Law - Law 428 case listFAROUQ
 
Project risk management in automotive industry
Project risk management in automotive industryProject risk management in automotive industry
Project risk management in automotive industrySumit Bhattacharya
 

Destaque (20)

Ins200 pp
Ins200 ppIns200 pp
Ins200 pp
 
PRODUK ETIQA TAKAFUL
PRODUK ETIQA TAKAFULPRODUK ETIQA TAKAFUL
PRODUK ETIQA TAKAFUL
 
Takaful Presentation Full
Takaful Presentation FullTakaful Presentation Full
Takaful Presentation Full
 
Insurance ii (written assignment)
Insurance ii (written assignment)Insurance ii (written assignment)
Insurance ii (written assignment)
 
eTiQa Takaful
eTiQa TakafuleTiQa Takaful
eTiQa Takaful
 
Insurance Vs Islamic Insurance(takaful)
Insurance Vs Islamic Insurance(takaful)Insurance Vs Islamic Insurance(takaful)
Insurance Vs Islamic Insurance(takaful)
 
Insurance 2 written
Insurance 2 writtenInsurance 2 written
Insurance 2 written
 
Succesful Islamic Insurance 21st Century
Succesful Islamic Insurance 21st CenturySuccesful Islamic Insurance 21st Century
Succesful Islamic Insurance 21st Century
 
Insurans etiqa takaful (2)
Insurans etiqa takaful (2)Insurans etiqa takaful (2)
Insurans etiqa takaful (2)
 
Takaful presentation by muhammad ashfaq
Takaful presentation by muhammad ashfaqTakaful presentation by muhammad ashfaq
Takaful presentation by muhammad ashfaq
 
Risk Management and Insurance
Risk Management and InsuranceRisk Management and Insurance
Risk Management and Insurance
 
Insurance take home test
Insurance take home testInsurance take home test
Insurance take home test
 
Pelaburan terbaik maybank etiqa
Pelaburan terbaik maybank etiqaPelaburan terbaik maybank etiqa
Pelaburan terbaik maybank etiqa
 
Project Management In The Automotive Industry
Project Management In The Automotive IndustryProject Management In The Automotive Industry
Project Management In The Automotive Industry
 
Kurnia
KurniaKurnia
Kurnia
 
Insurance Law - Law 428 case list
Insurance Law - Law 428 case listInsurance Law - Law 428 case list
Insurance Law - Law 428 case list
 
Legal Issues in Takaful
Legal Issues in Takaful Legal Issues in Takaful
Legal Issues in Takaful
 
Project risk management in automotive industry
Project risk management in automotive industryProject risk management in automotive industry
Project risk management in automotive industry
 
Takaful
TakafulTakaful
Takaful
 
Takaful
Takaful Takaful
Takaful
 

Semelhante a Insurance 2 assignment

SMU ASSIGNMENTS- MBA-IV-Finance
SMU ASSIGNMENTS- MBA-IV-FinanceSMU ASSIGNMENTS- MBA-IV-Finance
SMU ASSIGNMENTS- MBA-IV-FinanceSharath Alva
 
ILJ_Article_Oct_06[1]
ILJ_Article_Oct_06[1]ILJ_Article_Oct_06[1]
ILJ_Article_Oct_06[1]Mark Sarakis
 
Indemnity contract | contract law | contract II | KSLU
Indemnity contract | contract law | contract II | KSLUIndemnity contract | contract law | contract II | KSLU
Indemnity contract | contract law | contract II | KSLUKarthikSP22
 
Foundation of insurance law is a contingent contract
Foundation of insurance law is a contingent contractFoundation of insurance law is a contingent contract
Foundation of insurance law is a contingent contractAbir Hossain Talukder
 
SIMS-SPECIAL FEATURES OF INSURANCE CONTRACT
SIMS-SPECIAL FEATURES OF INSURANCE CONTRACTSIMS-SPECIAL FEATURES OF INSURANCE CONTRACT
SIMS-SPECIAL FEATURES OF INSURANCE CONTRACTSIMS
 
Special contracts of indemnity and guarantee - Legal aspects of management
Special contracts of indemnity and guarantee - Legal aspects of managementSpecial contracts of indemnity and guarantee - Legal aspects of management
Special contracts of indemnity and guarantee - Legal aspects of managementsaranshjain50
 
Contract of Indemnity
Contract of IndemnityContract of Indemnity
Contract of IndemnityAmrita Singh
 
Pros And Cons Rea Essay
Pros And Cons Rea EssayPros And Cons Rea Essay
Pros And Cons Rea EssayJill Turner
 
Contract of Indemnity and Guarantee
Contract of Indemnity and GuaranteeContract of Indemnity and Guarantee
Contract of Indemnity and GuaranteeFaizanur1984
 
Negotiating investor interest in indemnity clauses
Negotiating investor interest in indemnity clausesNegotiating investor interest in indemnity clauses
Negotiating investor interest in indemnity clausesAditi Duggal
 
Insurance FUNDAMENTALS/PRINCIPLES OF GENERAL INSURANCE
Insurance FUNDAMENTALS/PRINCIPLES OF GENERAL INSURANCEInsurance FUNDAMENTALS/PRINCIPLES OF GENERAL INSURANCE
Insurance FUNDAMENTALS/PRINCIPLES OF GENERAL INSURANCEAijaz Sawar
 

Semelhante a Insurance 2 assignment (20)

LAW601_-_TOPIC_6.pptx
LAW601_-_TOPIC_6.pptxLAW601_-_TOPIC_6.pptx
LAW601_-_TOPIC_6.pptx
 
Privity And Law Of Contract
Privity And Law Of ContractPrivity And Law Of Contract
Privity And Law Of Contract
 
Contract -II , unit-1
 Contract -II   ,  unit-1 Contract -II   ,  unit-1
Contract -II , unit-1
 
Mf0009 II
Mf0009 IIMf0009 II
Mf0009 II
 
SMU ASSIGNMENTS- MBA-IV-Finance
SMU ASSIGNMENTS- MBA-IV-FinanceSMU ASSIGNMENTS- MBA-IV-Finance
SMU ASSIGNMENTS- MBA-IV-Finance
 
ILJ_Article_Oct_06[1]
ILJ_Article_Oct_06[1]ILJ_Article_Oct_06[1]
ILJ_Article_Oct_06[1]
 
Pecuniary loss
Pecuniary lossPecuniary loss
Pecuniary loss
 
Indemnity contract | contract law | contract II | KSLU
Indemnity contract | contract law | contract II | KSLUIndemnity contract | contract law | contract II | KSLU
Indemnity contract | contract law | contract II | KSLU
 
LLB LAW NOTES ON CONTRACTS
LLB LAW NOTES ON CONTRACTS LLB LAW NOTES ON CONTRACTS
LLB LAW NOTES ON CONTRACTS
 
Foundation of insurance law is a contingent contract
Foundation of insurance law is a contingent contractFoundation of insurance law is a contingent contract
Foundation of insurance law is a contingent contract
 
SIMS-SPECIAL FEATURES OF INSURANCE CONTRACT
SIMS-SPECIAL FEATURES OF INSURANCE CONTRACTSIMS-SPECIAL FEATURES OF INSURANCE CONTRACT
SIMS-SPECIAL FEATURES OF INSURANCE CONTRACT
 
Special contracts of indemnity and guarantee - Legal aspects of management
Special contracts of indemnity and guarantee - Legal aspects of managementSpecial contracts of indemnity and guarantee - Legal aspects of management
Special contracts of indemnity and guarantee - Legal aspects of management
 
Contract of Indemnity
Contract of IndemnityContract of Indemnity
Contract of Indemnity
 
Insurance act(Previous year question)
Insurance act(Previous year question)Insurance act(Previous year question)
Insurance act(Previous year question)
 
Indemnity
IndemnityIndemnity
Indemnity
 
Pros And Cons Rea Essay
Pros And Cons Rea EssayPros And Cons Rea Essay
Pros And Cons Rea Essay
 
Contract of Indemnity and Guarantee
Contract of Indemnity and GuaranteeContract of Indemnity and Guarantee
Contract of Indemnity and Guarantee
 
Negotiating investor interest in indemnity clauses
Negotiating investor interest in indemnity clausesNegotiating investor interest in indemnity clauses
Negotiating investor interest in indemnity clauses
 
Insurance
InsuranceInsurance
Insurance
 
Insurance FUNDAMENTALS/PRINCIPLES OF GENERAL INSURANCE
Insurance FUNDAMENTALS/PRINCIPLES OF GENERAL INSURANCEInsurance FUNDAMENTALS/PRINCIPLES OF GENERAL INSURANCE
Insurance FUNDAMENTALS/PRINCIPLES OF GENERAL INSURANCE
 

Mais de FAROUQ

Mahan Sea Power
Mahan Sea PowerMahan Sea Power
Mahan Sea PowerFAROUQ
 
Power of attorney
Power of attorney Power of attorney
Power of attorney FAROUQ
 
PERATURAN-PERATURAN ANGKATAN TENTERA(BIDANGKUASA TERUS) 1976
PERATURAN-PERATURAN ANGKATAN TENTERA(BIDANGKUASA TERUS) 1976PERATURAN-PERATURAN ANGKATAN TENTERA(BIDANGKUASA TERUS) 1976
PERATURAN-PERATURAN ANGKATAN TENTERA(BIDANGKUASA TERUS) 1976FAROUQ
 
PERATURAN-PERATURAN ANGKATAN TENTERA (BIDANGKUASA TERUS) 1976
PERATURAN-PERATURAN ANGKATAN TENTERA (BIDANGKUASA TERUS) 1976PERATURAN-PERATURAN ANGKATAN TENTERA (BIDANGKUASA TERUS) 1976
PERATURAN-PERATURAN ANGKATAN TENTERA (BIDANGKUASA TERUS) 1976FAROUQ
 
KAEDAH-KAEDAH ANGKATAN TENTERA (PENJARAAN DAN TAHANAN) 1976
KAEDAH-KAEDAH ANGKATAN TENTERA (PENJARAAN DAN TAHANAN) 1976KAEDAH-KAEDAH ANGKATAN TENTERA (PENJARAAN DAN TAHANAN) 1976
KAEDAH-KAEDAH ANGKATAN TENTERA (PENJARAAN DAN TAHANAN) 1976FAROUQ
 
KAEDAH-KAEDAH ANGKATAN TENTERA (MAHKAMAH TENTERA) 1976
KAEDAH-KAEDAH ANGKATAN TENTERA (MAHKAMAH TENTERA) 1976KAEDAH-KAEDAH ANGKATAN TENTERA (MAHKAMAH TENTERA) 1976
KAEDAH-KAEDAH ANGKATAN TENTERA (MAHKAMAH TENTERA) 1976FAROUQ
 
PERATURAN-PERATURAN ANGKATAN TENTERA(HUKUMAN MEDAN) 1976
PERATURAN-PERATURAN ANGKATAN TENTERA(HUKUMAN MEDAN) 1976PERATURAN-PERATURAN ANGKATAN TENTERA(HUKUMAN MEDAN) 1976
PERATURAN-PERATURAN ANGKATAN TENTERA(HUKUMAN MEDAN) 1976FAROUQ
 
KAEDAH-KAEDAH ANGKATAN TENTERA (LEMBAGA SIASATAN) 1976
KAEDAH-KAEDAH ANGKATAN TENTERA (LEMBAGA SIASATAN) 1976KAEDAH-KAEDAH ANGKATAN TENTERA (LEMBAGA SIASATAN) 1976
KAEDAH-KAEDAH ANGKATAN TENTERA (LEMBAGA SIASATAN) 1976FAROUQ
 
Torts _measure_of_damage
Torts  _measure_of_damageTorts  _measure_of_damage
Torts _measure_of_damageFAROUQ
 
Torts _fatal_accident_clai
Torts  _fatal_accident_claiTorts  _fatal_accident_clai
Torts _fatal_accident_claiFAROUQ
 
Tracing 1_
Tracing  1_Tracing  1_
Tracing 1_FAROUQ
 
Torts remoteness
Torts remotenessTorts remoteness
Torts remotenessFAROUQ
 
Torts duty of_care
Torts duty of_careTorts duty of_care
Torts duty of_careFAROUQ
 
Torts defamation iii
Torts defamation iiiTorts defamation iii
Torts defamation iiiFAROUQ
 
Torts defamation ii
Torts defamation iiTorts defamation ii
Torts defamation iiFAROUQ
 
Torts defamation i
Torts defamation iTorts defamation i
Torts defamation iFAROUQ
 
Torts damages
Torts damagesTorts damages
Torts damagesFAROUQ
 
Torts damage to_property
Torts damage to_propertyTorts damage to_property
Torts damage to_propertyFAROUQ
 
Torts contributARY negligence
Torts contributARY negligenceTorts contributARY negligence
Torts contributARY negligenceFAROUQ
 
Torts causation of_facts
Torts causation of_factsTorts causation of_facts
Torts causation of_factsFAROUQ
 

Mais de FAROUQ (20)

Mahan Sea Power
Mahan Sea PowerMahan Sea Power
Mahan Sea Power
 
Power of attorney
Power of attorney Power of attorney
Power of attorney
 
PERATURAN-PERATURAN ANGKATAN TENTERA(BIDANGKUASA TERUS) 1976
PERATURAN-PERATURAN ANGKATAN TENTERA(BIDANGKUASA TERUS) 1976PERATURAN-PERATURAN ANGKATAN TENTERA(BIDANGKUASA TERUS) 1976
PERATURAN-PERATURAN ANGKATAN TENTERA(BIDANGKUASA TERUS) 1976
 
PERATURAN-PERATURAN ANGKATAN TENTERA (BIDANGKUASA TERUS) 1976
PERATURAN-PERATURAN ANGKATAN TENTERA (BIDANGKUASA TERUS) 1976PERATURAN-PERATURAN ANGKATAN TENTERA (BIDANGKUASA TERUS) 1976
PERATURAN-PERATURAN ANGKATAN TENTERA (BIDANGKUASA TERUS) 1976
 
KAEDAH-KAEDAH ANGKATAN TENTERA (PENJARAAN DAN TAHANAN) 1976
KAEDAH-KAEDAH ANGKATAN TENTERA (PENJARAAN DAN TAHANAN) 1976KAEDAH-KAEDAH ANGKATAN TENTERA (PENJARAAN DAN TAHANAN) 1976
KAEDAH-KAEDAH ANGKATAN TENTERA (PENJARAAN DAN TAHANAN) 1976
 
KAEDAH-KAEDAH ANGKATAN TENTERA (MAHKAMAH TENTERA) 1976
KAEDAH-KAEDAH ANGKATAN TENTERA (MAHKAMAH TENTERA) 1976KAEDAH-KAEDAH ANGKATAN TENTERA (MAHKAMAH TENTERA) 1976
KAEDAH-KAEDAH ANGKATAN TENTERA (MAHKAMAH TENTERA) 1976
 
PERATURAN-PERATURAN ANGKATAN TENTERA(HUKUMAN MEDAN) 1976
PERATURAN-PERATURAN ANGKATAN TENTERA(HUKUMAN MEDAN) 1976PERATURAN-PERATURAN ANGKATAN TENTERA(HUKUMAN MEDAN) 1976
PERATURAN-PERATURAN ANGKATAN TENTERA(HUKUMAN MEDAN) 1976
 
KAEDAH-KAEDAH ANGKATAN TENTERA (LEMBAGA SIASATAN) 1976
KAEDAH-KAEDAH ANGKATAN TENTERA (LEMBAGA SIASATAN) 1976KAEDAH-KAEDAH ANGKATAN TENTERA (LEMBAGA SIASATAN) 1976
KAEDAH-KAEDAH ANGKATAN TENTERA (LEMBAGA SIASATAN) 1976
 
Torts _measure_of_damage
Torts  _measure_of_damageTorts  _measure_of_damage
Torts _measure_of_damage
 
Torts _fatal_accident_clai
Torts  _fatal_accident_claiTorts  _fatal_accident_clai
Torts _fatal_accident_clai
 
Tracing 1_
Tracing  1_Tracing  1_
Tracing 1_
 
Torts remoteness
Torts remotenessTorts remoteness
Torts remoteness
 
Torts duty of_care
Torts duty of_careTorts duty of_care
Torts duty of_care
 
Torts defamation iii
Torts defamation iiiTorts defamation iii
Torts defamation iii
 
Torts defamation ii
Torts defamation iiTorts defamation ii
Torts defamation ii
 
Torts defamation i
Torts defamation iTorts defamation i
Torts defamation i
 
Torts damages
Torts damagesTorts damages
Torts damages
 
Torts damage to_property
Torts damage to_propertyTorts damage to_property
Torts damage to_property
 
Torts contributARY negligence
Torts contributARY negligenceTorts contributARY negligence
Torts contributARY negligence
 
Torts causation of_facts
Torts causation of_factsTorts causation of_facts
Torts causation of_facts
 

Último

How to Show Error_Warning Messages in Odoo 17
How to Show Error_Warning Messages in Odoo 17How to Show Error_Warning Messages in Odoo 17
How to Show Error_Warning Messages in Odoo 17Celine George
 
Education and training program in the hospital APR.pptx
Education and training program in the hospital APR.pptxEducation and training program in the hospital APR.pptx
Education and training program in the hospital APR.pptxraviapr7
 
In - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptx
In - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptxIn - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptx
In - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptxAditiChauhan701637
 
Patient Counselling. Definition of patient counseling; steps involved in pati...
Patient Counselling. Definition of patient counseling; steps involved in pati...Patient Counselling. Definition of patient counseling; steps involved in pati...
Patient Counselling. Definition of patient counseling; steps involved in pati...raviapr7
 
A gentle introduction to Artificial Intelligence
A gentle introduction to Artificial IntelligenceA gentle introduction to Artificial Intelligence
A gentle introduction to Artificial IntelligenceApostolos Syropoulos
 
The Stolen Bacillus by Herbert George Wells
The Stolen Bacillus by Herbert George WellsThe Stolen Bacillus by Herbert George Wells
The Stolen Bacillus by Herbert George WellsEugene Lysak
 
SOLIDE WASTE in Cameroon,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.pptx
SOLIDE WASTE in Cameroon,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.pptxSOLIDE WASTE in Cameroon,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.pptx
SOLIDE WASTE in Cameroon,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.pptxSyedNadeemGillANi
 
2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptx
2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptx2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptx
2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptxSandy Millin
 
How to Solve Singleton Error in the Odoo 17
How to Solve Singleton Error in the  Odoo 17How to Solve Singleton Error in the  Odoo 17
How to Solve Singleton Error in the Odoo 17Celine George
 
CapTechU Doctoral Presentation -March 2024 slides.pptx
CapTechU Doctoral Presentation -March 2024 slides.pptxCapTechU Doctoral Presentation -March 2024 slides.pptx
CapTechU Doctoral Presentation -March 2024 slides.pptxCapitolTechU
 
Ultra structure and life cycle of Plasmodium.pptx
Ultra structure and life cycle of Plasmodium.pptxUltra structure and life cycle of Plasmodium.pptx
Ultra structure and life cycle of Plasmodium.pptxDr. Asif Anas
 
Quality Assurance_GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE
Quality Assurance_GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICEQuality Assurance_GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE
Quality Assurance_GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICESayali Powar
 
DUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRA
DUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRADUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRA
DUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRATanmoy Mishra
 
Prescribed medication order and communication skills.pptx
Prescribed medication order and communication skills.pptxPrescribed medication order and communication skills.pptx
Prescribed medication order and communication skills.pptxraviapr7
 
The basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptx
The basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptxThe basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptx
The basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptxheathfieldcps1
 
5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...
5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...
5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...CaraSkikne1
 
Drug Information Services- DIC and Sources.
Drug Information Services- DIC and Sources.Drug Information Services- DIC and Sources.
Drug Information Services- DIC and Sources.raviapr7
 

Último (20)

How to Show Error_Warning Messages in Odoo 17
How to Show Error_Warning Messages in Odoo 17How to Show Error_Warning Messages in Odoo 17
How to Show Error_Warning Messages in Odoo 17
 
Education and training program in the hospital APR.pptx
Education and training program in the hospital APR.pptxEducation and training program in the hospital APR.pptx
Education and training program in the hospital APR.pptx
 
In - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptx
In - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptxIn - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptx
In - Vivo and In - Vitro Correlation.pptx
 
Patient Counselling. Definition of patient counseling; steps involved in pati...
Patient Counselling. Definition of patient counseling; steps involved in pati...Patient Counselling. Definition of patient counseling; steps involved in pati...
Patient Counselling. Definition of patient counseling; steps involved in pati...
 
Personal Resilience in Project Management 2 - TV Edit 1a.pdf
Personal Resilience in Project Management 2 - TV Edit 1a.pdfPersonal Resilience in Project Management 2 - TV Edit 1a.pdf
Personal Resilience in Project Management 2 - TV Edit 1a.pdf
 
A gentle introduction to Artificial Intelligence
A gentle introduction to Artificial IntelligenceA gentle introduction to Artificial Intelligence
A gentle introduction to Artificial Intelligence
 
The Stolen Bacillus by Herbert George Wells
The Stolen Bacillus by Herbert George WellsThe Stolen Bacillus by Herbert George Wells
The Stolen Bacillus by Herbert George Wells
 
SOLIDE WASTE in Cameroon,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.pptx
SOLIDE WASTE in Cameroon,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.pptxSOLIDE WASTE in Cameroon,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.pptx
SOLIDE WASTE in Cameroon,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,.pptx
 
2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptx
2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptx2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptx
2024.03.23 What do successful readers do - Sandy Millin for PARK.pptx
 
How to Solve Singleton Error in the Odoo 17
How to Solve Singleton Error in the  Odoo 17How to Solve Singleton Error in the  Odoo 17
How to Solve Singleton Error in the Odoo 17
 
CapTechU Doctoral Presentation -March 2024 slides.pptx
CapTechU Doctoral Presentation -March 2024 slides.pptxCapTechU Doctoral Presentation -March 2024 slides.pptx
CapTechU Doctoral Presentation -March 2024 slides.pptx
 
Ultra structure and life cycle of Plasmodium.pptx
Ultra structure and life cycle of Plasmodium.pptxUltra structure and life cycle of Plasmodium.pptx
Ultra structure and life cycle of Plasmodium.pptx
 
Quality Assurance_GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE
Quality Assurance_GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICEQuality Assurance_GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE
Quality Assurance_GOOD LABORATORY PRACTICE
 
Prelims of Kant get Marx 2.0: a general politics quiz
Prelims of Kant get Marx 2.0: a general politics quizPrelims of Kant get Marx 2.0: a general politics quiz
Prelims of Kant get Marx 2.0: a general politics quiz
 
DUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRA
DUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRADUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRA
DUST OF SNOW_BY ROBERT FROST_EDITED BY_ TANMOY MISHRA
 
Prescribed medication order and communication skills.pptx
Prescribed medication order and communication skills.pptxPrescribed medication order and communication skills.pptx
Prescribed medication order and communication skills.pptx
 
The basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptx
The basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptxThe basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptx
The basics of sentences session 10pptx.pptx
 
March 2024 Directors Meeting, Division of Student Affairs and Academic Support
March 2024 Directors Meeting, Division of Student Affairs and Academic SupportMarch 2024 Directors Meeting, Division of Student Affairs and Academic Support
March 2024 Directors Meeting, Division of Student Affairs and Academic Support
 
5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...
5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...
5 charts on South Africa as a source country for international student recrui...
 
Drug Information Services- DIC and Sources.
Drug Information Services- DIC and Sources.Drug Information Services- DIC and Sources.
Drug Information Services- DIC and Sources.
 

Insurance 2 assignment

  • 1. QUESTION 8 [Nurul Iffah & Partners] Silpa operates a car service station at Jalan Bukit, Petaling Jaya. Zantax sent his car to the said service station regularly to have it washed. He left instructions with the service station that the car was to be returned to him after it had been washed at a certain address and if he was not at that address, the car was to be returned to the service station. Silpa has been providing this additional service to Zantax in the past by sending the car back to him after it had been washed. On 1.1.2000 Bungee, an employee of Silpa, drove the car after it had been washed to the address given by Zantax and not finding him at that address, drove the car back to the service station. On the way back, he knocked into and injured a cyclist at Jalan Kuda, Petaling Jaya. The car was badly damaged at the front. On 1.4.2001 Bungee was found liable by the Magistrates Court for reckless driving. Zantax’s insurers, Simply Good Insurers, settled the claims of the cyclist and Zantax on 1.5.2001. Then Simply Good Insurers arranged for Zantax to sue Silpa and Bungee. Advise Silpa.
  • 2. ANSWER In this case, the insured is Zantax, the Insurer is Simply Good Insurer. The facts of this case did not mention about the policy and what it covers but presumably it is a motor insurance policy which cover Zantax’ car, Zantax and Third Party against any loss or damage cause by Zantax or permitted driver. The tort-feasor is Bungee which knocked a victim, the cyclist. The person having cause of action (plaintiff) is Zantax while the defendants are Silpa, the owner of car service station and Bungee, an employee of the car service station. This case revolves around the principle of Subrogation. The General Principle of Insurance policy is that, when the Insured suffered loss of insured peril, they have the right to be indemnified by the Insurer, subject to the maximum amount stated in the policy1 . They must also observe Indemnity Principle, where claim of sum insured when the insured peril occurs must not be more than the cost of actual loss2 . Several issues arise especially on who can claim, whether an insured can claim from more than one party, ie: insurer and tort-feasor and who has the right to sue the tort-feasor, the insured or the insurer? On the question of who can make the claim, we must first determine the type of insurance policy. Since this is a motor insurance policy which presumably give a comprehensive cover, the person that can make a claim are the insured policy holder and also the third party involved. However, the claimants must satisfy the requirements to give notice of claim to the insurer. It must be a written request for payment of claim, made within a reasonable time from date of notice of loss and prove that the notice is made under the policy. There is not much issue on this. Zantax and the cyclist may claim from Simply Good Insurer. The main issue in this case is whether Simply Good Insurers can pursue subrogated action against Silpa and Bungee. The case of Burnand v Rodocanachi (1882)3 defines Subrogation as the right of one person (insurer) having indemnified another (insured) under a legal obligation to do so, to stand in the place of that other (insured) of all the rights and remedies of that other (insured), whether already enforced or not. Subrogation is a common law principle which is implied in every contract of indemnity by the operation of law4 . Courts 1 John Birds, Bird’s Modern Insurance Law, Seventh Edition, Sweet & Maxwell, 2007 2 Ibid 3 Burnand v Rodocanachi (1882) 7 APP. CAS. 333 HL, (per Lord Blackburn) 4 Nik Ramlah Mahmood, Insurance Law in Malaysia, Butterworths, 1992
  • 3. do allow modifications and even exclusion of Subrogation by express terms in the contract5 . By principle of Subrogation, where a contract of insurance is one of indemnity, after the insured is indemnified for his loss by the insurer, the insurer acquires two distinct rights from the insured; Firstly, the right to any benefit already in the hands of the insured which extinguishes or diminishes the loss and secondly, the right to any cause of action which the insured may have against a Third Party (TP) in relation to the said loss6 . The transference of both of these rights from the insured to the insurer amounts to Subrogation. There are two elements that must be satisfied; firstly, it must be a contract of indemnity and secondly the Insured must have been indemnified by the Insurer. With regard the first element, the contract must be one of indemnity ie; property or liability and not contract of contingency for example life and personal accident policies7 . The court in case of Castellain v Preston (1883)8 explains why subrogation must be a contract of indemnity that is to prevent the assured from recovering more than a full indemnity and it has been adopted solely for that reason. An insured cannot recover more than full indemnity for his loss. He also cannot make a profit out of such a contract at the expense of either the Insurer or a TP9 . With regards to the second element, the indemnity nature of a contract merely gives the insurer a contingent right to subrogation. The right would only be translated into vested right when the insured have been indemnified by the Insurer10 . Once the Insured is indemnified for his loss, the insurer is entitled to any other benefit in the Insured’s hands and to any cause of action against a TP which may bring about such a benefit. The insured must be ‘fully indemnified’ or ‘full indemnity’ which means where the insured were given full compensation for the insured’s loss or full indemnity for the loss to the extent of the cover provided by the policy11 . However the court in case of Page v Scottish Insurance Corporation12 implies that there can be a right of subrogation even before the insured is fully compensated for his loss provided the insured remains dominus litis (Master of a suit) in all TP proceedings. There is also a case where the Insured may receive a full indemnity but may later succeed in recovering more than the claim payment from the third party. Provided that 5 Ibid 6 Ibid 7 Ibid 8 Castellain v Preston (1883) 11 QBD 380 9 Nik Ramlah Mahmood, Insurance Law in Malaysia, Butterworths, 1992 10 Ibid 11 Ibid 12 Page v Scottish Insurance Corporation (1929) [140] LT 571
  • 4. the benefits are solely to benefit the Insured for example, gift or a windfall. In case of Burnand v Rodocanachi [1882]13 the court held that payment by TP to Insured was solely for Insured’s benefit. Insurer cannot recover sum from Insured because it was given not for purpose of reducing the loss. As compared to case of Stearns v Village Main Reref Gold Mining Co. [1905]14 , the court held that payment received by Insured was to reduce loss suffered by him. Therefore, the Insurer had a right of subrogation. However this will not be discussed any further as it is not the main concern of this case at hands. The main issue in this case revolves around the Insurer’s Rights against Third Party. Generally by the principle of Subrogation, the Insurer has a right to any cause of action which the insured may have against a TP in relation to the loss suffered by the insured. However, it must be noted that the rights which may be passed to the insurers by virtue of subrogation are only the rights which the insured has, be it in respect of a right in tort, contract, custom or usages15 . In this case it involves torts. Torts is when and where the insured has sustained some damage, lost of rights or incurred liability due to the tortuous acts of some other person. Then the insurer, having indemnified him for his loss is entitled to take action to recover the outlay from the wrongdoer. In Lister v Ramfold Ice (1956)16 , the court held that the insured would have a right in tort against the individuals involved. The Insurers will assume these rights and attempt to recover their outlays from the guilty party. In an action taken by insurers in this situation they shall use the name of the Insured17 . It must be stressed here that neither a TP nor an Insurer can avoid liability for the Insured’s loss simply because one of them has indemnified the Insured18 . An Insurer who has indemnified the Insured can pursue the Insured’s cause of action against the TP. However the Insurer is not conferred with a fresh and independent cause of action. The cause of action remains with the Insured and it is only in the Insured’s name that the Insurer can pursue it19 . Hence, before an Insurer can pursue a subrogated action against a TP, there must be a cause of action vested in and exercisable by the Insured. The Insurer can sue a TP in its own name, only if, the Insured has assigned his rights against the TP to the Insurer. Besides, an Insured 13 Burnand v Rodocanachi (1882) 7 APP. CAS. 333 HL 14 Stearns v Village Main Reef Gold Mining Co Ltd (1905) 10 Com Cas 89 (CA) 15 Nik Ramlah Mahmood, Insurance Law in Malaysia, Butterworths, 1992 16 Lister v Romford Ice and Cold Storage Co Ltd [1956] AC 555 17 Nik Ramlah Mahmood, Insurance Law in Malaysia, Butterworths, 1992 18 Teo Kim Kien & Ors v Lai Sen & Anor [1980] 2 MLJ 125 19 Nik Ramlah Mahmood, Insurance Law in Malaysia, Butterworths, 1992
  • 5. who is called upon by the Insurer to lend his name to an action against a TP must do so provided the Insurer has agreed to indemnify him against costs20 . The Insured is under a duty to assist the insurers in enforcing claims and to do nothing which would prejudice the insurer’s chances of recovery against a TP. Let’s take a look at a case which is very similar to the case at hand that is case of Teo Kim Kien & Ors v Lai Sen & Anor [1980]21 . In this case, the first respondent (Insured) sent his car to a service station to be washed, requesting that it be sent to a particular address thereafter. Accordingly, after washing the car, the second respondent (employee at service station), drove the car to the said address but as there was no one there, he decided to return it to the service station. On his way back, he negligently knocked a motor cyclist. Damages awarded to the motorcyclist were paid by the first respondent’s Insurer who also paid for the repair of the car and for other expenses. At the Insurer’s request the first respondent brought an action against the appellants as owners of the service station. This action succeeded and the appellants appealed, inter alia, on the ground that the first respondent had in fact suffered no loss because all his claims had been settled by the Insurer. The issue in this case is whether operators of service station liable for negligence of employee. There are several Defences made by Appellant, (owner of the service station). Firstly he argued that the Second Respondent (driver) was at the relevant time the agent of First Respondent (insured), and secondly, that First Respondent (Insured) had suffered no loss as the claims had been met by the insurers and therefore the claim was "totally misconceived, frivolous and an abuse of the process of law". However Chang Min Tat FJ held that Second Respondent (Driver) was the servant or agent of the Appellant (owner) at the time of accident and under the doctrine of subrogation the claim of the first Respondent (insured) against the Appellant (owner) though brought by the insurers was maintainable. Besides that, Appellant was entitled to obtain judgment in the third party action against Second Respondent in view of his admitted negligence. He also cited Lord Diplock in Hobbs v Marlowe [1978] AC 16, at page 37. If the damages suffered by the insured himself either to his person or to his car had been settled and paid to him by the insurer under the policy… the doctrine of subrogation still applies… the insurer may require the insured to take an action against the wrong-doer for the recovery of all the damages flowing from the latter's negligence. 20 Ibid 21 Teo Kim Kien & Ors v Lai Sen & Anor [1980] 2 MLJ 125
  • 6. In applying, it can be seen that in this case, it involves a motor insurance policy which is a contract of indemnity. The terms of the policy was not stated in the facts of the case. But generally it must have covered Zantax’ car, Zantax and Third Party against loss, injury or death caused by him or permitted driver. To apply the principle of Subrogation, there are two elements that must be fulfilled. First, it must be of a contract of indemnity and second, the Insurer must have indemnified the Insured. In Castellain v Preston (1883)22 , the court explains that ‘Subrogation’ is concerned with the mutual rights and liabilities of parties to a contract of insurance. ..where an insurer indemnifies an assured for a loss, he is entitled to ‘stand in the shoes’ of the assured and to receive the benefit of all of the rights and remedies which the assured may have against third parties in respect of such loss. According to the principle of Indemnity, Zantax may only recover his loss from his Insurer, Simply Good Insurer up to the amount of the loss. He cannot make profit out of his loss by acquiring benefits both from the Insurer and the defendants, Bungee and Silpa. In this case, the accident was caused by the negligent act of an employee of a Car Service Station, Bungee. He as a driver of the Car Service Station has a duty of care to drive carefully and deliver the clients’ cars in a good condition but he breached his duty by driving recklessly and caused an accident. The car was badly damaged at the front as it had knocked and injured another, the cyclist. Zantax suffer loss for the damage of his car and need to compensate the cyclist for the injury caused. Therefore, Zantax has a strong cause of action against Bungee. Bungee is an employee of Silpa (owner of the Car Service Station). Under Contract, according to Agency principle, Bungee is an agent of Silpa and an agent acts for and on behalf of his Principal. Silpa as the Principal therefore held the same liability and may be sued by Zantax. While under Torts, Silpa may be liable by virtue of vicarious liability where it imposes a responsibility upon one person for the failure of another, with whom the person has special relationship, in this case as employer-employee, to exercise such care as a reasonably prudent person would use under similar circumstances. It must be noted here that Bungee is permitted to drive the car back to the particular address given by Zantax and if he was not at that address, the car was to be returned to the service station. This means that at the time that the accident occurred, Zantax’ motor insurance policy does cover the loss. 22 Castellain v Preston (1883) 11 QBD 380
  • 7. The second element is that the Insurer must have indemnified the Insured. It can be seen that Simply Good had after the accident settled the claims of the cyclist for the injury caused and Zantax for the damage of his car to the extent of the cover provided by the policy. In this case, the facts were silent on whether or not there were express terms on Subrogation in the policy. It can however be assumed that the principle of Subrogation is applicable as it is an implied rights in all insurance contracts of Indemnity. Since both elements has fulfilled, the Insurer may therefore uses his vested rights to subrogation as was laid down in case of Stearns v Village Main Reref Gold Mining Co. [1905]. Simply Good Insurers may acquire the rights owned by Zantax to gain any benefits received from TP as to his loss and rights to take action against the TP for the loss, provided that Zantax is the dominus litis of the proceedings. Under Subrogation Principle, Insurer may have two rights to be subrogated to it. In this case, there is no issue regarding the rights to the benefits received from third parties. The issue is on whether Simply Good Insurer has a subrogated right to sue Silpa and Bungee. Since Zantax has a strong cause of action against those two and the elements under Subrogation is fulfilled, Simply Good Insurer therefore has the said right of Subrogation. The cause of action must however be in the name of Zantax. Simply Good Insurer has no standing if it wants to start a fresh and independent cause of action against Silpa and Bungee. As in the case of Lin Lin Shipping Sdn Bhd23 , Richard Malanjum JC held that ‘The doctrine of subrogation applies where an insured brings an action against the wrongdoer if called upon to do so by the insurer; but it is his own cause of action and not of the insurer.’ Though cause of action filed is that of the Insured, he is only a nominal plaintiff. The real plaintiff is the subrogated insurer as they are the one having the carriage and control of the suits by instructing solicitors, paying for the action, and the person to benefit from the action, and to lose by the action, if it is lost. This was held in case of Kementerian Pertahanan Malaysia & Anor v Malaysian International Shipping Corp Bhd & Ors [2007]24 . Since Zantax has been called upon by Simply Good Insurer to lend his name to an action against Silpa and Bungee, he must do so as he is under a duty to assist the insurers in enforcing claims and to do nothing which would prejudice the Simply Good Insurer’s chances of recovery against Silpa and Bungee. This is as according to the rule laid out in case of Teo Kim Kien. 23 Lin Lin Shipping Sdn Bhd v Govindasamy Mahalingam Civil Appeal No KG 21 24 Kementerian. Pertahanan Malaysia & Anor v Malaysian International. Shipping Corp Bhd & Ors [2007] 5 MLJ 393 (per Zaleha Zahari JCA)
  • 8. In advising Silpa who is an employer of the tort feasor, Bungee. She might not escape from the suit as she has special relationship with Bungee ie, Employer-employee and Principal-Agent. By virtue of both Agency Principle and Vicarious Liability, Silpa is liable for the acts or omissions of her agent. Besides the employer usually has a deeper pocket than the employee. It is a clear cut case of Negligence caused by Bungee and as explained above, the Principle of Subrogation is correctly applied. Silpa would be unable to argue that Zantax had in fact suffered no loss because all his claims had been settled by the Insurer as had been decided in case of Teo Kim Kien & Ors V Lai Sen & Anor [1980] which is very similar to the facts of the case at hands. Silpa is advise to pay the damages if found guilty by the court but she may sue Bungee by separate cause of action. REFERENCES 1. Nik Ramlah Mahmood, Insurance Law in Malaysia, Butterworths, 1992 2. John Birds, Bird’s Modern Insurance Law, Seventh Edition, Sweet & Maxwell, 2007
  • 9. FACULTY OF LAW UiTM SHAH ALAM ASSIGNMENT 2 INSURANCE LAW AND PRACTICE II PREPARED FOR: PROF MADYA RAMLAH MOHD NOH PREPARED BY: NURUL IFFAH IBRAHIM SHUKRI (2010573349) GROUP: LAWB06B DATE OF SUBMISSION: 12TH DECEMBER 2013