Lim Keenly Builders v Tokio Marine: Workmen's Compensation Policy Interpretation

Lim Keenly Builders Pte Ltd ("Lim Keenly"), the main contractor for a project, appealed to the Court of Appeal of Singapore against the High Court's decision to dismiss its claim for indemnity from Tokio Marine Insurance Singapore Ltd ("Tokio Marine") under a Workmen’s Compensation Policy. The claim arose after a workman employed by Utracon Structural System Pte Ltd ("Utracon"), a subcontractor, was injured and sued Lim Keenly. The Court of Appeal, delivered by Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, allowed the appeal, holding that the Workmen's Compensation Policy covered liability towards all employees of all contractors involved in the project, not just the employees of the insured party.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Court of Appeal allowed Lim Keenly Builders' appeal, holding that the Workmen's Compensation Policy covered liability to all contractors' employees.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Tokio Marine Insurance Singapore LtdRespondentCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Lim Keenly Builders Pte LtdAppellantCorporationAppeal AllowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealYes
V K RajahJustice of the Court of AppealYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Adrian Aw Hon WeiGurbani & Co.
Richard Kuek Chong YeowGurbani & Co.
Ong Pei ChingDrew & Napier LLC
Adrian TanDrew & Napier LLC
Boo Moh ChehKurup & Boo
Aziah HussinDrew & Napier LLC
Joseph Yeo Zhu QuanDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. Lim Keenly was the main contractor for the design and erection of an industrial building.
  2. Lim Keenly contracted two policies with Tokio Marine: a Workmen’s Compensation Policy and a Contractors’ All Risks Policy.
  3. A workman employed by Utracon, a subcontractor, was seriously injured at the project worksite.
  4. The workman sued Lim Keenly for breach of statutory duties and common law duty as occupier.
  5. Lim Keenly brought third party proceedings against Tokio Marine for an indemnity under the WC Policy and/or the CAR Policy.
  6. The Plaintiff and the Appellant reached a settlement on the first day of trial and interlocutory judgment was entered for 95% of the Plaintiff’s damages, to be assessed.
  7. At trial, Lim Keenly abandoned its claim based on the CAR Policy, relying solely on the WC Policy.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Lim Keenly Builders Pte Ltd v Tokio Marine Insurance Singapore Ltd, Civil Appeal No 87 of 2010, [2011] SGCA 31
  2. Mohammed Shahid Late Mahabubur Rahman v Lim Keenly Builders Pte Ltd (Tokio Marine Insurance Singapore Ltd, third party), , [2010] 3 SLR 1021

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Workmen’s Compensation Policy and Contractors’ All Risks Policy contracted
Workman seriously injured at the Project worksite
High Court judge dismissed the appellant’s claim
Civil Appeal No 87 of 2010 filed
Judgment reserved
Court of Appeal allowed the appeal

7. Legal Issues

  1. Interpretation of Workmen's Compensation Policy
    • Outcome: The court held that the Workmen's Compensation Policy covered liability towards all employees of all contractors involved in the project.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Scope of 'in the Insured's employment'
      • Construction of Operative Clause
      • Effect of Risk 001 Clause
      • Effect of Deletions from Exceptions Clause
      • Interpretation of Endorsements A and B

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Indemnity

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Statutory Duty
  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Construction Litigation
  • Insurance Claims

11. Industries

  • Construction
  • Insurance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Mohammed Shahid Late Mahabubur Rahman v Lim Keenly Builders Pte Ltd (Tokio Marine Insurance Singapore Ltd, third party)High CourtYes[2010] 3 SLR 1021SingaporeDecision from which this appeal arose.
Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd v B-Gold Interior Design & Construction Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2008] 3 SLR(R) 1029SingaporeCited for the principles of contractual interpretation.
Tay Eng Chuan v Ace Insurance LtdCourt of AppealYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 95SingaporeCited regarding the drafting of insurance contracts.
Awang bin Dollah v Shun Shing Construction & Engineering Co Ltd and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[1997] 2 SLR(R) 746SingaporeThe Respondent relies heavily upon as authority in its favour.
General Accident Fire and Life Assurance Corporation, Limited, and another v Midland Bank, Limited, and OthersEnglish Court of AppealYes[1940] 2 KB 388EnglandCited for the principle that fraud on the part of one co-insured did not affect the insurer’s obligations to all the other co-insured.
The New India Assurance Company Limited v Dewi Estates Limited & OthersHong Kong Court of First InstanceYes[2009] HKCU 1403Hong KongProvides a useful illustration of the approach that ought to be taken.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Workmen’s Compensation Act (Cap. 354)Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore
Work Injury Compensation Act (Cap 354, 2009 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Workmen’s Compensation Policy
  • Contractors’ All Risks Policy
  • Operative Clause
  • Insured
  • Sub-contractors
  • Indemnity
  • Risk 001 Clause
  • Exceptions Clause
  • Endorsements A and B

15.2 Keywords

  • Workmen's Compensation
  • Insurance Policy
  • Construction
  • Subcontractor
  • Indemnity
  • Singapore
  • Court of Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Workers Compensation90
Contract Law80
Insurance75
Construction Law50

16. Subjects

  • Insurance
  • Construction
  • Contract Law
  • Work Injury Compensation