Quek Kwee Kee v. American International Assurance: Accident Insurance & Drug Intoxication
Quek Kwee Kee Victoria and Ker Kim Tway, executors of the estate of Quek Kiat Siong, appealed the High Court's decision to dismiss their claim against American International Assurance Company Ltd and AIA Singapore Pte Ltd. The claim was made under two personal accident insurance policies after Mr. Quek Kiat Siong died from multi-organ failure due to mixed drug intoxication. The Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore, presided over by Sundaresh Menon CJ, Chao Hick Tin JA, and Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, allowed the appeal, finding that Mr. Quek's death was the result of an injury caused by an accident within the scope of the insurance policies.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal over denied insurance claim after Quek Kiat Siong's death from drug intoxication. Court examines 'accident' definition in insurance policies.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AIA Singapore Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Quek Kwee Kee Victoria (Executor of the Estate of Quek Kiat Siong, deceased) | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Ker Kim Tway (Executor of the Estate of Quek Kiat Siong, deceased) | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Chao Hick Tin | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judge of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Mr. Quek Kiat Siong was found dead in his bedroom on August 4, 2012.
- The cause of death was determined to be multi-organ failure due to mixed drug intoxication.
- Mr. Quek had two personal accident insurance policies with American International Assurance Company Ltd.
- The insurance company denied the claim, stating that the death was not accidental.
- Mr. Quek suffered from chronic back pain, insomnia, depression, and anxiety.
- He was prescribed multiple medications by Dr. Yeo and Dr. Ang.
- Post-mortem toxicology reports showed elevated levels of bromazepam, duloxetine, mirtazapine, and olanzapine in his blood.
5. Formal Citations
- Quek Kwee Kee Victoria (executor of the estate of Quek Kiat Siong, deceased) and another v American International Assurance Co Ltd and another, Civil Appeal No 57 of 2016, [2017] SGCA 10
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mr Quek Kiat Siong found unresponsive and pronounced dead | |
| Autopsy carried out | |
| State coroner carried out a preliminary investigation | |
| Respondent informed the 1st Appellant that the claim was not payable | |
| Respondent notified the Appellants’ solicitors that the assured sums were not payable to the Estate | |
| Appellants commenced Suit No 820 of 2014 | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Interpretation of 'Accident' in Insurance Policies
- Outcome: The court held that an injury caused by or sustained in an accident under the Insurance Policies connotes an injury sustained in circumstances where the insured neither intended nor expected to suffer the injury and where the injury is not the result of the natural progression of disease.
- Category: Substantive
- Causation of Death
- Outcome: The court found that the Deceased's death was the result of an injury caused by or sustained in an accident within the scope of the Insurance Policies.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Payment of assured sum under insurance policies
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Insurance Claim
10. Practice Areas
- Insurance Claims
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Insurance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quek Kwee Kee Victoria (executrix of the estate of Quek Kiat Siong, deceased) and another v American International Assurance Co Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 93 | Singapore | The High Court dismissed the Appellants’ claim, holding that the Deceased had consumed overdoses of at least three drugs, and that as a result, his death was not an accident entitling the Estate to payment under the insurance policies. |
| In re United London and Scottish Insurance Company, Limited | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1915] 2 Ch 167 | England | Cited for the principle that clear language in an insurance policy must be given effect, even if it is harsh on the assured. |
| Fenton v J Thorley & Co Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1903] AC 443 | England | Cited for the definition of 'accident' as an unlooked-for mishap or an untoward event which is not expected or designed. |
| Kathleen De Souza v Home and Overseas Insurance Co Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] Lloyd’s Reinsurance Law Reports 453 | England | Cited for relating the notion of an accident to something unexpected. |
| Groves v Amp Fire & General Insurance Co (NZ) Ltd | High Court of Wellington | Yes | [1990] 1 NZLR 122 | New Zealand | Cited for the observation that the concept of what an accident is in the realm of personal injury has troubled judges and academics alike. |
| Clidero v Scottish Accident Insurance Co | Scottish Court of Session (First Division) | Yes | (1892) 19 R 355 | Scotland | Cited for the principle that the means by which an injury is caused must be accidental, not just the result. |
| Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd v Long | N/A | Yes | [1931] NZLR 528 | New Zealand | Followed and applied Clidero. |
| Landress v Phoenix Mutual Life Insurance Co | Supreme Court of the United States | Yes | 291 US 491 (1934) | United States | Applied Clidero. |
| Dhak v Insurance Co of North America | N/A | Yes | [1996] 1 WLR 936 | England | Cited as an example of where the distinction between intended means and unintended results is still good law in England. |
| Wickman v Northwestern National Insurance Co | N/A | Yes | 908 F 2d 1077 (1st Cir 1990) | United States | Rejected the means-result distinction and observed that the means-result distinction was a technical one that was not in harmony with the understanding of the common man. |
| MacLeod v New Hampshire Insurance Co Ltd | N/A | Yes | 1998 SLT 1191 | Scotland | Rejected the distinction between intended means and unintended results. |
| Australian Casualty Co Ltd v Federico | High Court of Australia | Yes | [1986] HCA 32 | Australia | Rejected the distinction between intended means and unintended results. |
| Martin v American International Assurance Life Co | Supreme Court of Canada | Yes | [2003] SCC 16 | Canada | Rejected the distinction between intended means and unintended results and held that the phrases “accidental death” and “death by accidental means” had essentially the same meaning and connoted a death that was in some sense unexpected. |
| Gregg v Scott | N/A | Yes | [2005] 2 AC 176 | England | Cited for the limits of statistical evidence. |
| R v Alan James Doheny | N/A | Yes | [1997] 1 Cr App Rep 369 | England | Cited for the principle that a court must not confine itself to the opinions of experts where the ultimate finding of fact to be made rests on a consideration of the entirety of the factual matrix before the court. |
| Eu Lim Hoklai v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 167 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a court must not confine itself to the opinions of experts where the ultimate finding of fact to be made rests on a consideration of the entirety of the factual matrix before the court. |
| Sudha Natrajan v The Bank of East Asia Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 141 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it would be inappropriate, given the circumstances, for the Respondent to now insinuate that the Appellants might have tampered with the evidence for the purpose of presenting a favourable version of events in court. |
| Glenlight Shipping Ltd v Excess Insurance Co Ltd | Scottish Court of Session | Yes | [1981] SC 267 | Scotland | Cited for the observation that it was not always the case that the common law meaning of the term “accident” would become irrelevant whenever the term was defined in the insurance policy. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Coroners Act 2010 | Singapore |
| Misuse of Drugs Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Accident
- Insurance Policy
- Drug Intoxication
- Multi-Organ Failure
- Personal Accident Insurance
- Post-Mortem Redistribution
- Mixed Drug Intoxication
- Elevated Drug Levels
15.2 Keywords
- insurance
- accident
- drug intoxication
- death
- claim
- appeal
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Accident Insurance | 95 |
| Insurance | 85 |
| Automobile Accidents | 5 |
| Civil Litigation | 5 |
| Personal Injury | 5 |
| Civil Procedure | 5 |
16. Subjects
- Insurance
- Accident
- Medical Law
- Toxicology