SUPREME POWER AUTO SDN BHD v ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE (MALAYSIA) BERHAD

wa-22ncc-542-11-2018 High Court (Mahkamah Tinggi) 13 March 2025 • WA-22NCC-542-11/2018 • 65 min read

6 cases cited (0 SG, 6 foreign)

Catchwords

Judgment after trial – Liability - Insurance claims by the insureds for loss and damage arising from a fire incident – Whether the insureds entitled to claims extended on indemnity basis - Whether the fire was accidental and deliberately caused – Whether the Plaintiff in breach of the Insurance Policy which restricted the storage and to exclude liability of the insurer – The National Fire Protection Association 921: Guides for Fire and Explosion Investigations – Examination of scientific component by the experts – Examination of “Multiple Seats of Fire” Theory – Whether there is full room involvement – Whether the low-level burnings may cause separate fires - Expert’s failure to support their narrative of incendiary fire ignited in the absence of evidence of any accelerant at the identified multiple seats of fire – The Court’s found that the fire was accidental and not deliberately caused – The assessment or measurements available for verification of the volume of oils is based very much on estimation and unsupported data. The Warranty has not thus not been breached by the Plaintiff.

Practice Areas

Insurance

Judges (1)

Ong Chee Kwan Delivered

Counsel (11)

Othman Hashim & Co Firm Shu Yin, Teh & Taing Firm Alvin Dev Singh Counsel Plaintiff Hazwan Lee Bin Haris Lee Counsel Plaintiff Hida Yazlin Binti Mazlan Counsel Plaintiff Jane Chan Counsel Plaintiff Johan Taing Chee Fae Counsel Plaintiff Leong Zheng Yang Counsel Defendant Puvarnisha Paskaran Counsel Defendant Tharminder Singh Counsel Plaintiff Thayakugan A/L Rajendram Counsel Defendant

Parties (2)

ALLIANZ GENERAL INSURANCE BERHAD Defendant SUPREME POWER AUTO Sdn Bhd Plaintiff

Case Significance

Illustrates the rigorous NFPA 921-based scrutiny of expert fire-origin evidence, holding an insurer liable to indemnify the insured where the fire was found accidental and no storage warranty was breached.

This High Court decision at Kuala Lumpur, in the Commercial Division, is part of a set of consolidated fire-insurance suits tried together, and it concerns the insured's claim against its insurer for loss and damage caused by a fire that destroyed a factory. The insurer disputed liability on two grounds: that the fire had been deliberately caused rather than accidental, so as to fall outside the cover, and that the insured had breached a warranty restricting the storage of hazardous goods, which would entitle the insurer to avoid the policy. The trial was substantially a contest of expert opinion on the science of the fire.

The court's analysis of the cause and origin of the fire proceeded within the framework of the National Fire Protection Association's NFPA 921 Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations. It scrutinised the scientific components of the competing expert reports, including the theory that multiple seats of fire pointed to an incendiary origin, the question of full-room involvement, and whether low-level burning could indicate separate, deliberately set fires. The court found that the experts advancing an incendiary explanation had failed to support their narrative that a fire had been ignited deliberately, and it concluded that the fire was accidental.

On the second issue, the court held that the insured had not breached the storage warranty that limited the flammable liquids kept on the premises, so the insurer could not rely on it to escape liability. Having answered both the accidental-cause question and the warranty question in favour of the insured, the court held that the claim was payable and that the insureds were entitled to be indemnified. It ordered the insurers to bear the costs of the trial, fixed in a total sum apportioned across the several consolidated suits. The judgment is a detailed illustration of the rigorous, NFPA 921-based scrutiny a court applies to expert fire-origin evidence before an insurer can characterise a fire as deliberately set.

How did the court approach the expert evidence on the fire?

The court analysed the cause and origin of the fire within the NFPA 921 framework, scrutinising the multiple-seats-of-fire theory, the question of full-room involvement, and whether low-level burning indicated separate fires. It found that the experts asserting a deliberate, incendiary fire had failed to support their narrative, and concluded the fire was accidental.

What was the outcome for the insured?

Because the court found the fire accidental and that the storage warranty had not been breached, the insurer could not avoid liability. The claim was held payable, the insureds were entitled to indemnity, and the insurers were ordered to bear the costs of the trial in an apportioned sum across the consolidated suits.

Statutes Cited

Evidence Act 1950 (Cap 56)

s 101

Cases Cited (6)

UK (2)

[1955] 2 QB 157 [1962] 1 All ER 525

MY (4)

[1986] 2 MLJ 124 [2015] 6 MLJ 1 [2019] 4 MLJ 581 [2024] 4 MLJ 524

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Malaysia Courts portal.

Read on eJudgment

Source: eJudgment (wa-22ncc-542-11-2018)