T
Tokio Marine Insurans Berhad
Organisation 3 cases
About Tokio Marine Insurans Berhad
Tokio Marine Insurans Berhad appears as a party in 3 judgments in the MY Case Law database, spanning February 2025 to December 2025. Tokio Marine Insurans Berhad appeared as respondent in 3 cases. Cases span the High Court (3).
How many court cases involve Tokio Marine Insurans Berhad?
Tokio Marine Insurans Berhad appears in 3 published judgments from February 2025 to December 2025. Most commonly as respondent (3 cases).
Practice Areas
The Appellant/Plaintiff claimed to have sustained serious injuries, including the amputation of two fingers, as a result of a motorcycle accident on 17 February 2018, while riding a motorcycle bearing registration number WYY 4581. The accident was said to have involved another vehicle bearing registration number WKG 189. The First Respondent/Defendant was the driver and owner of motorcar WKG 189. The Second Respondent/Defendant, the insurer of the said vehicle, was subsequently allowed to intervene in these proceedings following a successful appeal to the High Court, which was upheld by the Court of Appeal (see Tokio Marine Insurans (Malaysia) Berhad v Dharmalingam & Anor 2021 8 AMR 681; 2021 CLJU 1647; 2021 MLRHU 1595 and Dharmalingam Sangamany lwn Sivakumar Rajagopal & Satu Lagi 2022 MLRAU 24). The Sessions Court dismissed the Appellant/Plaintiff’s claim and allowed the counterclaim by the Second Respondent/Defendant after a full trial. The Appellant/Plaintiff appealed to this Court against the decision of the Sessions Court. This Court dismissed the appeal with costs of RM5,000.00. The Appellant/Plaintiff has now appealed to the Court of Appeal (in Enclosure 33) against the decision of this Court on the issues of liability, quantum, and the counterclaim. These are the grounds of decision of this Court. 1 KEMALANGAN JALAN RAYA: Mahkamah ini telah membenarkan sebahagian rayuan plaintif iaitu hanya terhadap defendan pertama sahaja di mana defendan pertama didapati bertanggungan 100% dalam kemalangan tersebut manakala keputusan HMS yang bijaksana yang menolak tuntutan plaintif terhadap defendan kedua dan ketiga adalah dikekalkan 1 Insurance 1 Policy exempted insurer from liability if death or bodily injury caused to any person employed by the insured arising out of and in the course of his employment. 1 The lorry owner’s employee, travelling in an insured vehicle driven by an authorized driver died due to the driver’s negligence 1 Representative of the deceased’s estate sued both the lorry owner and the authorized driver in respect of damages. 1 Whether the insurer’s argument that it was exempt from liability because the deceased was an employee was only valid via-à-vis its contract with the lorry owner, but not its contract with the authorized driver, who was not the employer. 1
Respondent (3)
jb-12bncvc-12-06-2025 MYHC
Abu Talib Bin Baba v Tokio Marine Insurans (M) Berhad
11 December 2025
ba-12b-43-04-2024 MYHC
DHARMALINGAM A/L SANGAMANY v 1. ) SIVAKUMAR A/L RAJAGOPAL 2. ) TOKIO MARINE INSURANS (MALAYSIA) BERHAD
13 April 2025
da-12b-27-08-2024 MYHC
KAMARIAH BINTI ALI v 1. ) MASLIZA BINTI MOHAMED 2. ) MOHD SAHABUDDIN BIN MOHAMED 3. ) TOKIO MARINE INSURANS (M) BERHAD
2 February 2025