Sumpiles Investments v AXA Insurance: Marine Policy Claim for Crane Damage
Sumpiles Investments Pte Ltd sued AXA Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore, seeking recovery under a marine insurance policy for damage to a crane on the barge Sumpile 28. The incident occurred on 4 February 2002, when the crane's boom fell. Belinda Ang Saw Ean J dismissed the claim, finding that the loss was not due to a peril insured under the policy's Institute Time Clauses (Hulls). The court also addressed defenses related to breach of warranty and utmost good faith, ultimately ruling in favor of AXA Insurance.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Action dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Sumpiles Investments sues AXA Insurance for crane damage under a marine policy. The court dismissed the claim, finding no insured peril.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AXA Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment for Defendant | Won | |
| Sumpiles Investments Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Richard Kuek | Gurbani & Co. |
| Stephanie Wong | Gurbani & Co. |
| Wendy Tan | Haq & Selvam |
| Michael Lai | Haq & Selvam |
4. Facts
- Sumpiles Investments sought recovery under a marine insurance policy from AXA Insurance.
- The insurance policy covered the floating crane barge Sumpile 28.
- The policy covered loss or damage caused by negligence of the master, officers, or crew.
- On 4 February 2002, the crane's 45m boom dropped, causing damage.
- The mechanical safety locking pawls of the luffing winches were disengaged at the time of the incident.
- The repairs for the damage amounted to $1.147 million.
- The crane was last used to lift wire slings on or about 30 January 2002.
5. Formal Citations
- Sumpiles Investments Pte Ltd v AXA Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd, Suit 563/2004, [2006] SGHC 65
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Insurance policy period begins | |
| Sumpile 28 out of class | |
| Sumpile 28 regains class | |
| Last crane operation before incident | |
| Crane boom collapses | |
| Class Maintenance Certificate issued | |
| AXA Insurance rejects claim | |
| Second Class Maintenance Certificate issued | |
| Writ issued | |
| Statement of claim amended | |
| Statement of claim amended again | |
| Final amendment to statement of claim | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Express Warranty
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff was not in breach of the NKK classed and class maintained warranty.
- Category: Substantive
- Breach of Duty of Utmost Good Faith
- Outcome: The court held that the defendant failed to establish that fraudulent devices or means were used in the presentation of the plaintiff’s claim.
- Category: Substantive
- Negligence
- Outcome: The court held that the loss was not due to a peril insured under clause 6.2.3 of the Institute Time Clauses (Hulls).
- Category: Substantive
- Proximate Cause
- Outcome: The court found that even if there was negligence, the plaintiff failed to prove that the negligence was the proximate cause of the loss.
- Category: Substantive
- Want of Due Diligence
- Outcome: The court clarified the onus of proving want of due diligence, stating that the onus of proof lies on the insurer.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Insurance Claims
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Shipping
- Insurance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kin Yuen Co Pte Ltd v Lombard Insurance Co Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 887 | Singapore | Cited to support the principle that the class authority decides whether a vessel is in class for the purpose of a 'class maintained' warranty. |
| United Shipping Co Ltd v Assicurazioni Generali | N/A | Yes | (1929) 33 Ll L Rep 15 | N/A | Cited regarding the interpretation of 'class maintained' warranty in marine insurance policies. |
| United Shipping Co Ltd v Assicurazioni Generali | Court of Appeal | Yes | (1929) 34 Ll L Rep 323 (CA) | N/A | Cited regarding the interpretation of 'class maintained' warranty in marine insurance policies. |
| Manifest Shipping Co Ltd v Uni-Polaris Insurance Co Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [2003] 1 AC 469 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the assured's duty of utmost good faith under s 17 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 (UK) encompasses a duty not to put forward a fraudulent claim. |
| Axa General Insurance Limited v Clara Gottlieb and Joseph Meyer Gottlieb | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] EWCA Civ 112 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that if the assured presents a fraudulent claim, the underwriter can deny liability even if the other claims are otherwise good. |
| Agapitos v Agnew | N/A | Yes | [2003] QB 556 | N/A | Cited to distinguish between a fraudulent claim and the use of a fraudulent device in connection with a claim. |
| Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd v Games Video Co (GVC) SA (The Game Boy) | N/A | Yes | [2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 238 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the common law rule applies also to fraudulent device used during the course of an insurer’s investigation of a claim. |
| Meridian Global Funds Management Asia Ltd v Securities Commission | N/A | Yes | [1995] 2 AC 500 | N/A | Cited for the test of 'whose act was for this purpose intended to count as the act of the company' in determining the liability of a corporate assured. |
| Lennard’s Carrying Co, Ltd v Asiatic Petroluem Co, Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1915] AC 705 | N/A | Cited to illustrate the application of the 'directing mind and will' principle in attributing liability to a company. |
| The Star Sea | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 1 Lloyd’s Law Rep 360 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the dishonesty must lie in the mind of the assured making the claim. |
| Phillips Petroleum Co v Cabaneli Naviera SA (The Theodegmon) | N/A | No | [1990] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 52 | N/A | Cited regarding the burden of proof in establishing the cause of loss in insurance claims, but distinguished on the facts. |
| Munro, Brice & Co v War Risks Association, Limited | N/A | Yes | [1918] 2 KB 78 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the onus of proof lies on the insurer to establish an exclusion or qualification to the insurance obligation. |
| Martin Maritime Ltd v Provident Capital Indemnity Fund Ltd (The Lydia Flag) | N/A | Yes | [1998] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 652 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the due diligence proviso is normally raised as a defense to a plea of negligence as an insured peril. |
| Coast Ferries Ltd v Century Insurance Co of Canada | N/A | No | [1973] 2 Lloyd’s Law Rep 232 | Canada | Cited as authority for the proposition that the burden of proof is on the assured, but the court ultimately disagrees with this proposition. |
| Jetopay Pty Ltd v Ocean Marine Mutual Insurance Association (Europe) OV | N/A | Yes | [1999] FCA 1773 | Australia | Cited for the principle that the onus rests on the insurer to establish want of due diligence in accordance with the accepted practice of insurers. |
| Avel Proprietary Limited v Multicoin Amusements Proprietary Limited | N/A | Yes | (1990) 171 CLR 88 | Australia | Cited regarding the onus of proving due diligence. |
| Vines v Djordjevitch | N/A | Yes | (1955) 91 CLR 512 | Australia | Cited regarding the onus of proving due diligence. |
| Banque Commerciale SA v Akhil Holdings Limited | N/A | Yes | (1990) 169 CLR 279 | Australia | Cited regarding the onus of proving due diligence. |
| Coast Ferries Ltd v The Coast Underwriters Ltd | British Columbia Supreme Court | No | (1971) 23 DLR (3d) 226 | Canada | Cited regarding the burden of proof, but the court disagrees with the conclusion. |
| Coast Ferries Ltd v Century Insurance Co of Canada | Supreme Court of Canada | No | [1975] 2 SCR 477 | Canada | Cited regarding the burden of proof, but the court expresses no view on this point. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Marine Insurance Act (Cap 387, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Marine Insurance Act 1906 (c 41) | United Kingdom |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Marine Insurance
- Institute Time Clauses
- Class Warranty
- Utmost Good Faith
- Negligence
- Proximate Cause
- Due Diligence
- Luffing Winches
- Mechanical Safety Locking Pawls
- Brake Air Control Valve
- Floating Crane Barge
15.2 Keywords
- Marine Insurance
- Crane Damage
- Negligence
- Breach of Warranty
- Singapore High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Marine Insurance | 90 |
| Insurance | 85 |
| Shipping Law | 70 |
| Breach of Warranty | 65 |
| Shipping | 60 |
| Contract Law | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Insurance
- Marine Insurance
- Contract Law