Zhu Yong Zhen v AIA Singapore: Breach of Contract & Defamation in Insurance Policy Dispute

In Zhu Yong Zhen v AIA Singapore Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard a case brought by Zhu Yong Zhen against AIA for breach of contract regarding an insurance policy. AIA counterclaimed for defamation based on statements made on Zhu's blog. The court, presided over by Chan Seng Onn J, dismissed both Zhu's claim for breach of contract and AIA's counterclaim for defamation. The court found that the policy terms were contained in the policy booklet, not the Policy Benefit Illustration (PBI), and that AIA had not proven publication of the defamatory statements.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Both the Plaintiff's claim and the Defendant's counterclaim are dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Insurance policyholder Zhu Yong Zhen sued AIA for breach of contract. AIA counterclaimed for defamation. The court dismissed both claims.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
AIA Singapore Pte LtdDefendantCorporationCounterclaim DismissedLost
Zhu Yong ZhenPlaintiffIndividualClaim DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Seng OnnJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Adrian Wong Soon PengRajah & Tann LLP
Chow Chao Wu JansenRajah & Tann LLP

4. Facts

  1. Mdm Zhu purchased an insurance policy from AIA in 1993.
  2. A Policy Benefit Illustration (PBI) showed a 'Critical Year' after which premiums would be paid from accumulated dividends.
  3. AIA later communicated that the 'Critical Year' was a projection, not a guarantee.
  4. Mdm Zhu started a blog with statements AIA claimed were defamatory.
  5. AIA offered Mdm Zhu a Critical Year Support Program (CYSP).
  6. Mdm Zhu claimed AIA breached the contract by requiring payments beyond the 'Critical Year'.
  7. AIA counterclaimed for defamation based on statements made on Mdm Zhu's blog.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Zhu Yong Zhen v AIA Singapore Pte Ltd and another, Suit No 515 of 2009/Z, [2013] SGHC 37

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Mdm Zhu met an AIA insurance agent named Oscar Huang.
Mdm Zhu completed and signed a policy application form.
Date of the application form was changed.
Policy was backdated.
AIA approved the application.
Policy booklet delivered to Mdm Zhu.
AIA established the Critical Year Support Program.
Mdm Zhu received a letter from AIA regarding the CYSP.
Mdm Zhu received a second letter from AIA regarding the CYSP.
Mdm Zhu replied and declined to select any of the options presented to her.
AIA replied stating its position that the Critical Year was merely a projection.
Support offer was despatched to Mdm Zhu.
Mdm Zhu wrote a letter to AIA’s then Executive Vice President and General Manager, Mark O’Dell.
Mdm Zhu wrote again to Mr O’Dell, threatening to publish her “research findings”.
AIA replied declining to invest in Mdm Zhu’s business.
Mdm Zhu sent an email to AIA’s customer care address providing access to her as-yet unpublished blog.
Mdm Zhu opened public access to her blog.
AIA’s lawyers, Rajah & Tann LLP, wrote to Mdm Zhu objecting to the publication of the blog.
Mdm Zhu deactivated the blog.
Mdm Zhu claims AIA refused to execute her instructions to pay her policy premiums out of the accumulated dividends since 2009.
AIA’s lawyers told Mdm Zhu that AIA was agreeable to maintain the status quo of the Policy.
AIA gave assurances that Mdm Zhu’s policy remained in force.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court held that the Policy Benefit Illustration (PBI) did not form part of the contract and that the terms of the contract were governed by the policy booklet. Therefore, there was no breach of contract.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Interpretation of contract terms
      • Incorporation of extrinsic terms
      • Effect of entire agreement clause
    • Related Cases:
      • [2007] 3 SLR(R) 537
      • [1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 334
  2. Defamation
    • Outcome: The court held that AIA failed to establish that the defamatory statements on Mdm Zhu's blog were published to third parties. Therefore, the defamation claim was dismissed.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Publication of defamatory statements
      • Proof of access by third parties
    • Related Cases:
      • [2007] 1 WLR 113
      • [2005] EWCA Civ 288

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Injunctive Relief

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Defamation

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Insurance Litigation

11. Industries

  • Insurance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
International Testing Co Pte Ltd v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[1998] 2 SLR(R) 1026SingaporeCited to support the principle that a contract of insurance arises from an offer made by an insured and an acceptance of that offer by the insurer.
Rust v Abbey Life Assurance Co LtdUnknownYes[1979] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 334England and WalesCited for the principle that an insurance policy may become a binding contract even if the insured has not seen or expressly assented to all the detailed terms, provided such terms are the usual terms of the insurers.
Lee Chee Wei v Tan Hor Peow Victor and others and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 537SingaporeCited for the principle that an entire agreement clause will confine the terms of a contract within the four corners of the document in which they are found.
Al Amoudi v BrisardUnknownYes[2007] 1 WLR 113England and WalesCited for the principle that in the case of an internet libel, the claimant must prove that the material in question was accessed and downloaded by a third party.
Steinberg v Pritchard Englefield (a firm)Court of Appeal of England and WalesYes[2005] EWCA Civ 288England and WalesCited for the principle that an inference of substantial publication of a defamatory letter on the defendant’s website was “irresistible” because it was accessible to anyone who fed the claimant’s name into a standard search engine or who accessed the defendant’s website.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed)Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Policy Benefit Illustration
  • Critical Year
  • Critical Year Support Program
  • Accumulated Dividends
  • Defamatory Statements
  • Publication
  • Entire Agreement Clause

15.2 Keywords

  • insurance policy
  • breach of contract
  • defamation
  • critical year
  • policy benefit illustration
  • AIA
  • Zhu Yong Zhen

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Breach of Contract75
Insurance Bad Faith70
Contract Law70
Defamation60
Policy Interpretation50

16. Subjects

  • Insurance Dispute
  • Contractual Interpretation
  • Defamation
  • Insurance Policy Terms