BERJAYA SOMPO INSURANCE BERHAD

On the court record

A general insurer litigating motor-accident liability and quantum appeals and a fire consequential-loss claim, and a Federal Court question on the statutory limits of a motor insurer's liability under the Road Transport Act 1987.

Berjaya Sompo Insurance Berhad is a general insurer, and it appears in the corpus predominantly in motor-accident litigation, together with a property claim and a Federal Court question on the reach of a motor insurer's statutory liability. It appears as appellant, respondent and defendant across the High Court and Federal Court.

The motor-accident appeals are grounded in the ordinary work of apportioning liability and proving damage. In Malay-language civil appeals from the Sessions Court over a road accident, the court reiterated that the burden lies on the party claiming to prove every fact, noting that where defendants did not attend to give evidence and made a submission of no case to answer, the Sessions Court had held the first defendant fully liable. In another appeal a mechanic injured through the alleged negligence of another driver sued, with the insurer of one of the parties intervening. These matters turn on causation, the standard of appellate review of a Sessions Court finding, and the sufficiency of the claimant's proof.

The property-claim strand made the same point about the burden of proof in a different setting: in a claim for fire consequential loss the court emphasised that a plaintiff bringing an action for damages bears the burden to prove that the damage was suffered and to prove the quantum claimed, and that it is not enough merely to assert loss. At the Federal Court the insurer was party to a significant motor-insurance question — whether, on the facts, section 91(1)(b)(bb) of the Road Transport Act 1987 operated to exclude the insurer's statutory liability under section 96(1) of that Act to a passenger who had obtained judgment in a tortious claim for a road accident. The insurer's footprint thus combines routine appellate work on liability and quantum with a higher-court question about the statutory limits of a motor insurer's obligation to satisfy a judgment in favour of an injured third party.