Lim Kitt Ping Lynnette v People's Insurance Co Ltd and Another

JurisdictionSingapore
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
JudgeKan Ting Chiu J
Judgment Date12 May 1997
Neutral Citation[1997] SGHC 122
Citation[1997] SGHC 122
Docket NumberSuit No 2235 of 1992
Plaintiff CounselToh Peng Ann (Toh & Co)
Defendant CounselBenedict Chan (Goh Poh & Partners)
Published date19 September 2003
Date12 May 1997
Subject MatterNon-payment of premium within premium warranty period,Insurance,Premium warranty clause,Whether dispute should be referred to arbitration,Compliance with premium warranty clause impossible,Debit note issued out of time,Whether insurers relieved from liability under policy,Motor vehicle insurance
Judgment:

1.KAN TING CHIU J

The plaintiff received a BMW car from her father as a birthday gift. He also arranged for the car to be insured with The People`s Insurance Co Ltd (hereinafter referred to as `the insurers`). He insured it with them because he was a director of Kwang Hua Insurance Agencies Pte Ltd (hereinafter referred to as `Kwang Hua`), their brokering agent.

2.The parties went through several steps insuring the car. On 5 April 1991Kwang Hua issued the insurers` cover note which was pre-signed by them. Kwang Hua then forwarded a copy of the cover note and the plaintiff`s proposal form to the insurers. The insurers did not issue a policy or collect the premium straightaway on receiving the documents. The insurance policy was issued on 25 June together with a debit note for the premium. Kwang Hua issued its own debit note to the plaintiff on 31 July and paid the insurers the premium by their cheque dated 30 October 1991. The insurers issued their receipt on 11 February 1992. The receipt was issued after three months because the insurers took legal advice before they presented the cheque for payment. The insurers pleaded in their defence that they accepted the payment without prejudice to their right to rely on the premium warranty clause, but that was not stated on the receipt nor in any contemporaneous correspondence and was not raised in evidence during the trial.

3.The cover note stated that the plaintiff was insured `in the terms of the company`s usual form of Comprehensive/Third Party Policy`. The insurers` debit note and the policy bore the notation `Subject to 60 days premium warranty clause attached`.

4.The premium warranty clause provided that

Notwithstanding anything herein contained to the contrary and subject only and without prejudice to Clause 2 hereinafter set out, it is hereby declared and agreed that it is a condition precedent to liability under this Policy, Renewal Certificate, Endorsement or Cover Note that any premium due must be paid and actually received in full by the company, the registered broker or registered agent through whom this policy was effected:LABEL="(a)">when the period of insurance is 60 days or more, within sixty (60) days from the:

(i) Inception date of the coverage under the Policy, Renewal Certificate or Cover note; or

(ii) Effective date of the coverage stated on each Endorsement, if any, issued under the Policy, Renewal Certificate or Cover Note when the effective date of coverage stated on the Endorsement is on or after the Insurance date of the Endorsement; or

(iii) Issuance date of each Endorsement, if any, issued under the Policy, Renewal Certificate or Cover Note where the effective date of coverage under the Endorsement is before the issuance date; or

(b) where the total premium under any single Policy exceeds S$50,000 and the company has allowed payment of that premium by instalments, within sixty (60) days from the:Inception date of the cover under the Policy, Renewal Certificate or Cover Note for the first instalment and thereafter from the agreed dates on which the subsequent instalments become payable and Effective date of coverage of any Endorsement issued under such Policy, for the first instalment and thereafter from the agreed dates on which the subsequent instalments become payable or

(c) when the period of insurance is less than sixty (60) days within the period of insurance specified in the Policy, Endorsement, Renewal Certificate or Cover Note.

2 In the event any of the abovementioned premium is not paid in full to the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Tay Eng Chuan v Ace Insurance Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 27 June 2008
    ...context, an example of a Scott v Avery clause can be found in the High Court case of Lim Kitt Ping Lynnette v People’s Insurance Co Ltd [1997] 3 SLR 1018 (“People’s Insurance Co Ltd”). The material clause in that case (“condition 8”) read as follows (id at All differences arising out of thi......
  • Tay Eng Chuan v Ace Insurance Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 27 June 2008
    ...context, an example of a Scott v Avery clause can be found in the High Court case of Lim Kitt Ping Lynnette v People’s Insurance Co Ltd [1997] 3 SLR 1018 (“People’s Insurance Co Ltd”). The material clause in that case (“condition 8”) read as follows (id at All differences arising out of thi......
1 books & journal articles
  • Arbitration
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review Nbr. 2008, December 2008
    • 1 December 2008
    ...to a suit by the insured who had failed to comply with the condition precedent: see Lim Kitt Ping Lynnette v People”s Insurance Co Ltd[1997] 3 SLR 1018. Much, however, depends on the specificity of the covenant which the parties had entered into. 3.2 The plaintiff in Tay Eng Chuan v Ace Ins......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT