1. ) Mohd Suhairi Bin Alias (Seorang Yang Kurang Upaya Dan Membawa Tindakan Ini Melalui Ibu Yang Sah Danwakil Litigasi Beliau Iaitu Pemohon/pencelah Kedua) 2. ) Rasmawati Binti Yaacob v 1. ) TUNE INSURANCE MALAYSIA BERHAD 2. ) TUAN SOM BINTI TUAN KADIR 3. ) ZURINA BINTI OTHMAN

Case Significance

Confirms that on a section 96(3) Road Transport Act 1987 application an insurer's policy will not respond to an accident that occurred before the renewed policy's operative time, the sole issue being whether coverage existed at the material moment.

This Court of Appeal decision concerns an insurer's application under section 96(3) of the Road Transport Act 1987 to establish that a motor insurance policy did not respond to a particular road accident, and the narrow question of whether there was insurance coverage at the material time. The dispute arose from a collision between a motorcycle and a motorcar. The insurer, Tune Insurance Malaysia Berhad, contended that the policy covering the motorcar had been renewed only after the accident had already occurred, the precise time of renewal being stated in the cover note. The appellants — an injured party who was a person under disability and sued through his mother as litigation representative, together with a co-appellant — challenged the insurer's position, and the case also raised whether the doctrine of waiver could operate to render the policy applicable notwithstanding the timing of renewal. At first instance the High Court had not declared the entire policy void; instead it granted the alternative relief sought, declaring that the policy did not extend to the accident in question because the accident had occurred prior to the policy's purchase. On appeal the Court of Appeal reiterated that the principal issue was a narrow one — whether insurance coverage existed at the material time of the accident — and concurred with the Judicial Commissioner who had answered that question in the negative. It rejected the appellants' arguments, including any suggestion that the equality provision of the Federal Constitution was engaged, and affirmed the High Court's decision. The appeal was unanimously dismissed with costs of RM5,000.00 subject to allocatur. The judgment illustrates that where an accident precedes the operative time of a renewed motor policy, the policy will not respond to that accident. The Court stressed that the outcome turned entirely on the chronology recorded in the cover note, and that neither the doctrine of waiver nor the constitutional argument advanced by the appellants could extend cover to an accident that had already happened before the renewed policy took effect.