China Insurance v Liberty Insurance: Double Insurance & Contribution Claims

China Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd sued Liberty Insurance Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore on 28 February 2005, seeking contribution under the doctrine of double insurance. The plaintiff argued that both policies covered the same insured, subject matter, and risk. The defendant contended that its policy covered industrial risks, while the plaintiff's policy specifically covered marine-related risks. Andrew Phang Boon Leong JC dismissed the plaintiff's application, finding that the policies did not cover the same subject matter and risk, and therefore, there was no double insurance.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

China Insurance Co sues Liberty Insurance for contribution under double insurance. The court dismissed the claim, finding no double insurance.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
China Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationApplication DismissedLostEdwina Fan
Liberty Insurance Pte Ltd (formerly known as Liberty Citystate Insurance Pte Ltd)DefendantCorporationApplication DismissedWonM Ramasamy, Hemalatha Silwaraju
BT Engineering Pte LtdOtherCorporation
Keppel ShipyardOtherCorporation
Sim Cheng SoonOtherIndividual

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Edwina FanKelvin Chia Partnership
M RamasamyWilliam Chai and Rama
Hemalatha SilwarajuWilliam Chai and Rama

4. Facts

  1. BT Engineering procured a Workmen’s Compensation policy from Liberty Insurance.
  2. BT Engineering obtained a Workmen’s Compensation Policy from China Insurance.
  3. The China Insurance policy covered work on board two vessels at Keppel Shipyard.
  4. A BT employee was injured while working on one of the vessels.
  5. The employee commenced proceedings against BT and Keppel for damages.
  6. China Insurance sought a declaration that Liberty Insurance was liable to contribute 50% of any payment made.
  7. Liberty Insurance denied that its coverage was similar to China Insurance's.

5. Formal Citations

  1. China Insurance Co (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Liberty Insurance Pte Ltd (formerly known as Liberty Citystate Insurance Pte Ltd), OS 1272/2004, [2005] SGHC 40

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Workmen’s Compensation – Industrial Risks Policy procured from the defendant for BT Engineering Pte Ltd.
Workmen’s Compensation Policy obtained by BT Engineering Pte Ltd from the plaintiff.
Sim Cheng Soon, an employee of BT Engineering Pte Ltd, was involved in an accident.
End date of Workmen’s Compensation – Industrial Risks Policy procured from the defendant for BT Engineering Pte Ltd.
End date of Workmen’s Compensation Policy obtained by BT Engineering Pte Ltd from the plaintiff.
Case filed in court (OS 1272/2004)
Decision date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Double Insurance
    • Outcome: The court found that there was no double insurance because the policies did not cover the same subject matter and risk.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • (1876) 5 Ch D 569
      • [2001] 2 SLR 593
  2. Admissibility of Evidence
    • Outcome: The court admitted affidavit evidence to establish the factual matrix, aiding in the construction of the contracts.
    • Category: Procedural
  3. Parol Evidence Rule
    • Outcome: The court found that Section 94 of the Evidence Act did not apply, but Section 93 was relevant. The court admitted affidavit evidence to aid in establishing the factual matrix.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration that the defendant is legally liable to indemnify the plaintiff to the extent of 50% of any amount which the plaintiff is liable to pay.

9. Cause of Actions

  • Claim for contribution under the doctrine of double insurance

10. Practice Areas

  • Insurance Litigation
  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Insurance
  • Shipping

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
North British and Mercantile Insurance Company v London, Liverpool, and Globe Insurance CompanyEnglish Court of AppealYes(1876) 5 Ch D 569England and WalesCited as an illustrative example of the general principles of double insurance.
Liberty Citystate Insurance Pte Ltd v AXA Insurance Singapore Pte LtdSingapore High CourtYes[2001] 2 SLR 593SingaporeCited to illustrate the operation of a 'non-contribution clause' in the context of double insurance.
The Governor and Company of The Bank of England v Vagliano BrothersHouse of LordsYes[1891] AC 107England and WalesCited for the principle that established principles pertaining to codes generally prohibit the introduction of common law rules.
Jayasena v RPrivy CouncilYes[1970] AC 618United KingdomCited for the principle that established principles pertaining to codes generally prohibit the introduction of common law rules.
PP v YuvarajUnknownYes[1969] 2 MLJ 89MalaysiaCited for the principle that where a code is silent on specific issues, common law rules continue to be relevant.
Shaaban v Chong Fook KamFederal CourtYes[1969] 2 MLJ 219MalaysiaCited for the principle that where a code is silent on specific issues, common law rules continue to be relevant.
Tan Hock Keng v L & M Group Investments LtdSingapore High CourtYes[2001] 4 SLR 428SingaporeCited in relation to the parol evidence rule.
Tan Hock Keng v L & M Group Investments LtdSingapore Court of AppealYes[2002] 2 SLR 213SingaporeCited in relation to the parol evidence rule.
Datuk Tan Leng Teck v Sarjana Sdn BhdMalaysian High CourtYes[1997] 4 MLJ 329MalaysiaCited to elaborate on the application of section 93 of the Evidence Act.
Tan Swee Hoe Co Ltd v Ali Hussain BrosUnknownYes[1980] 2 MLJ 16MalaysiaCited in relation to collateral contracts and the parol evidence rule.
Tindok Besar Estate Sdn Bhd v Tinjar CoFederal CourtYes[1979] 2 MLJ 229MalaysiaCited in relation to collateral contracts and the parol evidence rule.
Tan Chong & Sons Motor Company (Sdn) Berhad v Alan McKnightUnknownYes[1983] 1 MLJ 220MalaysiaCited in relation to collateral contracts and the parol evidence rule.
Latham v Credit Suisse First BostonSingapore Court of AppealYes[2000] 2 SLR 693SingaporeAcknowledged the basic controversy surrounding the parol evidence rule.
Ng Lay Choo Marion v Lok Lai OiSingapore Court of AppealYes[1995] 3 SLR 221SingaporeCited in relation to the parol evidence rule.
Lemon Grass Pte Ltd v Peranakan Place Complex Pte LtdSingapore High CourtYes[2002] 4 SLR 439SingaporeCited in relation to the parol evidence rule.
Reardon Smith Line Ltd v Yngvar Hansen-TangenHouse of LordsYes[1976] 1 WLR 989England and WalesCited for the principle that the court must place itself in the same factual matrix as the parties when construing a contract.
Youell v Bland Welch & Co LtdEnglish Court of AppealYes[1992] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 127England and WalesCited for the modern approach to admitting evidence of the background to a contract.
Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building SocietyHouse of LordsYes[1998] 1 WLR 896England and WalesCited for the principles of interpretation of contracts.
BP Plc v GE Frankona Reinsurance LtdEnglish High CourtYes[2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 537England and WalesCited for the principles of interpretation of contracts.
Pacific Century Regional Development Ltd v Canadian Imperial Investment Pte LtdSingapore Court of AppealYes[2001] 2 SLR 443SingaporeCited for the principles of interpretation of contracts.
MAE Engineering Ltd v Fire-Stop Marketing Services Pte LtdSingapore Court of AppealYes[2005] 1 SLR 379SingaporeCited for the principles of interpretation of contracts.
United Lifestyle Holdings Pte Ltd v Oakwell Engineering LtdSingapore High CourtYes[2002] 2 SLR 308SingaporeCited in relation to section 94(f) of the Evidence Act.
Mt Elizabeth Hospital Ltd v Allan Ng Clinic for WomenSingapore Court of AppealYes[1994] 3 SLR 639SingaporeCited in relation to section 94(f) of the Evidence Act.
Citicorp Investment Bank (Singapore) Ltd v Wee Ah KeeSingapore Court of AppealYes[1997] 2 SLR 759SingaporeCited in relation to section 94(f) of the Evidence Act.
L Schuler AG v Wickman Machine Tool Sales LtdHouse of LordsYes[1974] AC 235England and WalesCited for the admissibility of extrinsic evidence to identify the subject matter of an agreement.
Bank of New Zealand v SimpsonAustralian Privy CouncilYes[1900] AC 182AustraliaCited for the admissibility of extrinsic evidence to identify the subject matter of an agreement.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) section 93Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) section 94Singapore
Evidence Act section 2(2)Singapore
New Zealand Contractual Remedies Act 1979 section 4New Zealand

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Double insurance
  • Contribution
  • Parol evidence rule
  • Workmen's compensation
  • Industrial risks
  • Marine-related risks
  • Factual matrix
  • Policy coverage
  • Admissibility of evidence

15.2 Keywords

  • Insurance
  • Double Insurance
  • Contribution
  • Evidence Act
  • Parol Evidence Rule
  • Singapore
  • High Court
  • Contract Law

16. Subjects

  • Insurance
  • Contract
  • Evidence

17. Areas of Law

  • Insurance Law
  • Contract Law
  • Evidence Law