Zhu Yong Zhen v American International Assurance Co, Ltd and another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chan Tai-Hui Jason AR
• Judgment Date: 16 April 2010
• Neutral Citation: [2010] SGHC 115
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Suit No 515 of 2009 Summonses No. 4895, 4926, 4952 & 5561 of 2009
• Year: 2010
• Published date: 22 April 2010
• Hearing Date: 02 December 2009,11 November 2009,07 April 2010
• Plaintiff Counsel: The plaintiff in person
• Defendant Counsel: Adrian Wong (Rajah & Tann LLP),The second defendant in person.
• Subject Matter: Commercial Transactions,Breach of contract,Tort,Defamation
• Citation: [2010] SGHC 115

Chan Tai-Hui Jason AR: Introduction

This case involves a disgruntled Plaintiff who has sued her former insurance company for alleged breach of contract. The Plaintiff has also sued her former lawyer for alleged collusion with the insurance company. The insurance company has in turn counterclaimed against the Plaintiff, based on the allegedly defamatory contents of an online web log set up by the Plaintiff. All parties have applied inter alia to strike out each others’ claims. After hearing parties’ submissions, I struck out the Plaintiff’s claims and dismissed her application for summary judgment against both defendants. I now give the reasons for my decision.

Parties’ applications

Four applications were heard by me in the present case: (a) SUM 4895/2009: the 1st Defendant’s application for: (i) Summary determination under O 14 r 12 as to whether the policy benefit illustration (“PBI”) dated 29 April 1993 has contractual effect and/or is enforceable against the 1st Defendants; (ii) Summary determination under O 14 r 12 as to the interpretation of the PBI; (iii) Striking out of the Plaintiff’s claim against the 1st Defendant pursuant to O 14 and/or O 18 r 19. (b) SUM 4926/2009: the 2nd Defendant’s application for the Plaintiff’s claim to be struck out pursuant to O 18 r 19(1). (c) SUM 4952/2009: the 1stDefendant’s application for: (i) Summary determination under O 14 r 12 for the natural and ordinary meaning of the alleged defamatory statements pleaded in the defence and counterclaim; (ii) Judgment in favour of the 1st Defendant to be entered against the Plaintiff under O 14 in connection with the alleged defamatory statements, such that the Plaintiff be enjoined from publishing further defamatory statements online; (iii) Damages to be assessed. (d) SUM 5561/2009: the Plaintiff’s application for: (i) Striking out of the 1st Defendant’s defence and counterclaim; (ii) Striking out of the 2nd Defendant’s defence.

I will deal with the applications in the same order as they appear above.

Summary of factual history

The Plaintiff is a Singapore citizen. The 1st Defendant is an insurance company incorporated in Hong Kong and registered in Singapore. The 2nd Defendant is a practicing lawyer in Singapore.

Dispute concerning Critical Year feature with the 1st Defendant

Sometime in 1993, the Plaintiff purchased a “Singapore Financial Guardian” life insurance policy from the 1st Defendant. This policy was for an assured sum of S$200,000.00, for which the Plaintiff would pay an annual premium of S$3,883.00 (“the Policy”). The Plaintiff was entitled to receive dividends from the Policy every year.

The Policy included a Critical Year feature, which refers to the projected last year in which the Plaintiff would have to make out-of-pocket annual premium payments. After the Critical Year point, the annual premiums would be paid from the Policy's declared and accumulated dividends. The Policy would effectively be self-sustaining, and the Plaintiff would not need to make any further out-of-pocket payments for the annual premiums.

Before purchasing the Policy, the Plaintiff met with a representative of the 1st Defendant, one Oscar Huang (“Oscar”). The Plaintiff was given a document, which she refers to as an “Original Policy Quotation” and which the 1st Defendant refers to as a “Policy Benefit Illustration”. The document itself does not bear either title. In this judgment, I will refer to the document as an “Original Policy Quotation” (“OPQ”). My adoption of the Plaintiff’s terminology does not translate into an acceptance of her arguments concerning this document's effect, for reasons that follow in this judgment. A copy of the OPQ is enclosed as an annex to this judgment.

The OPQ provides numerical values for items such as annual premiums paid, current year dividends and cash surrender values. These values are provided for a 30-year period. The OPQ expressly states “CRITICAL YEAR : 16”. The OPQ also expressly states that future dividends are not guaranteed, and that the interest rates reflected are not guaranteed and are for illustration purposes only. The values contained in the OPQ were for an insured sum of S$100,000.00, and the annual premium value stated in the OPQ was S$2,091.50

After receiving the OPQ from Oscar, the Plaintiff submitted an application form to the 1st Defendant on or about 14 May 1993. In her application form, the Plaintiff requested for an insurance policy with an assured sum of S$200,000.00. The premium payable under the Policy was S$3,883.00. The Policy also stated that “(t)his policy and the application for it, a copy of which is attached to and made a part of the policy, constitute the entire contract”. The application form submitted by the Plaintiff also contained a declaration, which stated:

“No statement, information or agreement made or given by or to the person soliciting or taking this application or by or to any other persons shall be binding on the Company, unless reduced to writing, and then if presented to and approved by an officer specified in the policy”.

The Plaintiff claims that her Policy would have reached the Critical Year point in 2008, after which she would no longer need to make any out-of-pocket annual premium payments. In 2008, the Plaintiff claims that she received a letter from the 1st Defendant informing her that she would need to continue making premium payments until the age of 85, instead of the age of 45 as allegedly stated in the OPQ. In other words, the Plaintiff would have to continue making premium payments after 2008. The Plaintiff wrote a letter to the 1st Defendant saying that she no longer needed to make any out-of-pocket premium payments. In support of her contention, she sent the 1st Defendant a copy of the OPQ and other documents.

The 1st Defendant replied to the Plaintiff to inform her that according to their records, she had purchased an insurance policy for S$200,000.00 and that the projected Critical Year point for her Policy was 15 years. These values were different from those contained in the OPQ submitted by the Plaintiff, which was for a sum of S$100,000.00 and had an illustrated Critical Year of 16 years. The Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant continued to exchange correspondence throughout 2008.

Between November and December 2008, the Plaintiff contacted and communicated with Mr Amarjeet Singh S.C., who had been appointed in 2003 by the 1st Defendants as the Independent Adjudicator for claims relating to Critical Year policies. This adjudication process ultimately proved futile, because the Plaintiff refused to sign the Independent Adjudicator's Request for Adjudication Form. The Independent Adjudicator's office therefore informed the Plaintiff that there would be no adjudication meeting, and that Mr Amarjeet Singh S.C. would have no jurisdiction over the matter because she refused to sign the Request for Adjudication Form.

The Plaintiff's Blog

On 13 October 2008, the Plaintiff set up an online web log at the internet address http://AIAInsuranceDispute.BlogSpot.Com (“the Blog”). She claimed that it was to share with other affected investors her findings on her dispute with the 1st Defendant concerning the Policy and its Critical Year feature. The Plaintiff also claimed that she had emailed the entire contents of the blog to the 1st Defendant prior to its activation. On 7 November 2008, the 1st Defendant's solicitors issued a letter to the Plaintiff and demanded that she de-activate the Blog. On 10 November 2008, the Plaintiff de-activated the blog and informed the 1st Defendant's solicitors by email of its de-activation.

Non-payment of premiums in 2009

In March 2009, the Plaintiff wrote to the 1st Defendant to instruct the latter to pay her policy premium for the year 2009 from the Policy’s dividends. The 1st Defendant in turn requested the Plaintiff to sign and complete several forms. However, the Plaintiff took issue with a portion of the form titled "DECLARATION AND AUTHORISATION". She deleted this portion, and returned the form to the 1st Defendant. The 1st Defendant then wrote back to the Plaintiff and informed her that her request to use her dividends to pay the Policy's premiums could not be processed if she defaced the prescribed forms. This issue was not resolved despite lengthy correspondence between the Plaintiff and the 1st Defendant. It appears that the Plaintiff did not pay any premiums due for her Policy in 2009.

Plaintiff's dealings with Engelin Teh Practice

In February 2009, the Plaintiff engaged a law firm, Engelin Teh Practice ("ETP"), with a view to sue the 1st Defendant for breach of contract. After discussing the case with the Plaintiff and reviewing documents provided by her, ETP informed the Plaintiff that the OPQ was not sufficient. The Plaintiff has pleaded in her statement of claim that ETP informed her that "the surrender value of the policy in the OPQ is based on the non guaranteed interest rate of 7%. As such, and in essence, the surrender value contains a non guaranteed element as well": paragraph 223 of the Statement of Claim. ETP informed the Plaintiff that her claim would depend on whether Oscar had represented to her that the interest element was guaranteed. It is not disputed that Oscar did not inform the Plaintiff that the interest rate was guaranteed. The Plaintiff has pleaded that it was "impossible" for Oscar to have stated that the interest rate was definite: paragraph 226 of the Statement of Claim.

ETP also informed the Plaintiff that her allegations of the 1st Defendant's misconduct could be defamatory. While ETP was prepared to address the Plaintiff's claims concerning the Critical Year dispute in a letter of demand against the 1st Defendant, ETP was not prepared to include the Plaintiff's allegations of misconduct without clear and incontrovertible evidence: paragraph 238 of the Statement of...