Ong Han Ling v American International Assurance: Insurance Fraud, Vicarious Liability & Conspiracy
Ong Han Ling and Enny Ariandini Pramana sued American International Assurance Company Ltd and others in the High Court of Singapore on 29 December 2017, alleging insurance fraud. The plaintiffs claimed that an AIA agent perpetrated an elaborate fraud by promoting a fictitious "AIA Thank You Policy." The court dismissed the defendant's counterclaim of conspiracy and found AIA vicariously liable for the agent's deceit. The court awarded the plaintiffs damages of S$1,597,250.69, plus interest.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiffs
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Elderly couple sues AIA over agent's fraud involving a fictitious policy. Court dismisses conspiracy claim, finds AIA vicariously liable for agent's deceit.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ONG HAN LING | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | Deborah Barker, Haresh Kandar, Ng Junyi |
| ENNY ARIANDINI PRAMANA | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | Deborah Barker, Haresh Kandar, Ng Junyi |
| AMERICAN INTERNATIONAL ASSURANCE COMPANY, LTD | Defendant | Corporation | Counterclaim Dismissed | Lost | Wendell Wong, Denise Teo, Priscylia Wu |
| AIA SINGAPORE PRIVATE LIMITED | Defendant | Corporation | Counterclaim Dismissed | Lost | Wendell Wong, Denise Teo, Priscylia Wu |
| MOTION INSURANCE AGENCY PTE LTD | Defendant | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Dismissed | Melvin Chan, Justin Ee |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Deborah Barker | KhattarWong LLP |
| Haresh Kandar | KhattarWong LLP |
| Ng Junyi | KhattarWong LLP |
| Wendell Wong | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Denise Teo | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Priscylia Wu | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Melvin Chan | TSMP Law Corporation |
| Justin Ee | TSMP Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- Sally Low, an AIA insurance agent, allegedly perpetrated an elaborate insurance fraud on the Ongs.
- Sally promoted a fictitious “AIA Thank You Policy” to the Ongs.
- OHL paid a premium of US$5,060,900 to AIA to purchase the fictitious policy.
- Sally misused the US$5,060,900 to purchase different AIA policies purportedly for the plaintiffs and their young teenage daughter.
- Sally induced them to surrender these “erroneous” policies and return the bulk of the surrender proceeds to Sally.
- Sally misappropriated the money to purchase stocks and properties in her own name.
- The Ongs only began to discover the falsity of Sally’s representations in January 2008.
5. Formal Citations
- Ong Han Ling and another v American International Assurance Co Ltd and others, Suit No 743 of 2012, [2017] SGHC 327
- Public Prosecutor v Sally Low Ai Ming, , [2016] SGDC 110
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Sally Low introduced to the Ongs | |
| Sally Low told the Ongs about the AIA Thank You Policy | |
| Ongs remitted US$5,060,900 to AIA for the AIA Thank You Policy | |
| Ongs called the AIA customer service centre | |
| OHL surrendered P02 | |
| Ongs applied for permanent residency in Singapore | |
| Ongs' application for permanent residency was approved | |
| Enny surrendered P05 and P06 | |
| OHL instructed his bank to remit US$1,000,000 and S$1,000,000 to Sally’s bank account | |
| Ongs discovered the falsity of the AIA Thank You Policy | |
| AIA received an official letter of complaint from OHL | |
| Sally was suspended by AIA | |
| Sally's contract with AIA was terminated | |
| Ongs sued Sally personally in Suit No 179 of 2010 and obtained default judgment | |
| Writ of Summons filed | |
| Plaintiffs amended their writ | |
| Sally gave her oral testimony before this court | |
| Sally's criminal proceedings started | |
| Sally pleaded guilty to the charges | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Conspiracy
- Outcome: The court dismissed the defendant's counterclaim of conspiracy.
- Category: Substantive
- Vicarious Liability
- Outcome: The court found AIA vicariously liable for the agent's deceit.
- Category: Substantive
- Negligence
- Outcome: The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim of negligence.
- Category: Substantive
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that no contract was formed between OHL and AIA.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Deceit
- Conspiracy
- Negligence
- Breach of Contract
- Unjust Enrichment
10. Practice Areas
- Insurance Fraud
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Insurance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EFT Holdings Inc and another v Marinteknik Shipbuilders (S) Pte Ltd and another | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 860 | Singapore | Cited for the elements required to prove unlawful means conspiracy. |
| Li Siu Lun v Looi Kok Poh and another | Singapore High Court | No | [2015] 4 SLR 667 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish the present case where the element of damage was not admitted. |
| Noble Resources SA v Philip Seth Gross | England and Wales High Court (Commercial Court) | No | [2009] EWHC 1435 (Comm) | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that damages for conspiracy are at large once proof of loss is established. |
| Lonrho plc and others v Fayed and others (No 5) | England and Wales High Court | No | [1993] 1 WLR 1489 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that reputational damage cannot constitute actual pecuniary loss unless tied to a loss of business profits. |
| R+V Versicherung AG v Risk Insurance and others | England and Wales High Court | No | [2006] EWHC 42 (Comm) | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that costs of investigation can constitute a head of loss in a conspiracy claim if causally linked to the tort. |
| Panatron Pte Ltd and another v Lee Cheow Lee and another | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements for the tort of deceit. |
| Alwie Handoyo v Tjiong Very Sumito and another and another appeal | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 308 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the burden of proof is on the party alleging forgery and more evidence is required. |
| Kwei Tek Chao v British Traders and Shippers Ltd | England and Wales High Court | Yes | [1954] 2 QB 459 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that policies issued pursuant to forged applications are null and the insurer was never truly at risk. |
| Northside Developments Pty Ltd v Registrar-General and others | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1990) 170 CLR 146 | Australia | Cited for the principle that transactions concluded with forged signatures cannot be ratified. |
| Greenwood v Martins Bank Ltd | England and Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [1932] 1 KB 371 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the only way to adopt a forged signature is if a fresh offer to contract is made or a representation is made that the forged signatures were their own. |
| Armagas Ltd v Mundogas SA | House of Lords | Yes | [1986] AC 717 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that there can be no self-authorisation by an agent and the agent’s scope of authority can only be determined by the principal’s actions and conduct. |
| Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another and another appeal | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 540 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if an agent has been conferred authority to make the specific representation that his principal has approved a transaction, he would also have been vested with at least ostensible authority to enter into the transaction on his principal’s behalf. |
| First Energy (UK) Ltd v Hungarian International Bank Ltd | England and Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 194 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that an agent who has no authority to conclude a particular transaction on his principal’s behalf may nevertheless have apparent authority to represent that his principal has approved the transaction. |
| Ng Huat Seng v Munib Mohammad Madni | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] SGCA 58 | Singapore | Cited for the two-stage test for the imposition of vicarious liability. |
| Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare Society | United Kingdom Supreme Court | Yes | [2012] 3 WLR 1319 | United Kingdom | Cited for the qualities that relationships akin to employment possess that can give rise to vicarious liability. |
| Cox v Ministry of Justice | United Kingdom Supreme Court | Yes | [2016] 2 WLR 806 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the factors for determining vicarious liability should be applied flexibly. |
| Dubai Aluminium v Co Ltd v Salaam | House of Lords | Yes | [2003] 2 AC 366 | United Kingdom | Cited for the underlying legal policy of vicarious liability based on the recognition that carrying on a business enterprise necessarily involves risks to others. |
| Lister v Hesley Hall Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [2002] 1 AC 215 | United Kingdom | Cited for the concept of enterprise risk in vicarious liability discourse. |
| Mohamud v WM Morrison Supermarkets plc | United Kingdom Supreme Court | Yes | [2016] 2 WLR 821 | United Kingdom | Cited as an example of a case where an employment relationship existed, thus only requiring the court to consider the second stage of the test for vicarious liability. |
| The Children’s Foundation, the Superintendent of Family and Child Services in the Province of British Columbia and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Ministry of Social Services and Housing v Patrick Allan Bazley | Supreme Court of Canada | Yes | [1999] 2 SCR 534 | Canada | Cited for the Bazley factors to consider in determining whether a sufficient connection exists between the conduct of the tortfeasor and the relationship between the defendant and the tortfeasor. |
| Hopkins v TL Dallas Group Ltd | England and Wales High Court | Yes | [2005] 1 BCLC 543 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that an agent’s actual authority is impliedly subject to a condition that it is to be exercised honestly and on behalf of the principal, and fraud would nullify the actual authority of the agent. |
| Lloyd v Grace, Smith & Co | House of Lords | Yes | [1912] AC 716 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that a principal is liable for its agent’s acts when such acts are within its agent’s actual or apparent authority, even when an agent is acting fraudulently for the agent’s own benefit and not the principal’s. |
| Wishing Star Ltd v Jurong Town Corp | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 909 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the aim is to put the plaintiff in a position which they would have been in had the tort not been committed, and thus to compensate them for all direct and consequential losses caused by the transaction even if such loss was not reasonably foreseeable. |
| Wee Chiaw Sek Anna v Ng Li-Ann Genevieve (sole executrix of the estate of Ng Hock Seng, deceased) and another | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 801 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the misrepresentation need not be the sole inducement, but must have played a real and substantial part and operated on their minds. |
| Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100 | Singapore | Cited for the test to determine whether a duty of care exists. |
| Go Dante Yap v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 559 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a tortious duty is simply a duty to take such care as is reasonable in the circumstances to protect the plaintiff from a certain type of loss. |
| Anwar Patrick Adrian and another v Ng Chong & Hue LCC and another | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 761 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in cases of pure economic loss, the two criteria of assumption of responsibility and reasonable reliance is often required, although relational or circumstantial, physical and/or causal proximity is also sufficient. |
| Straus v Decaire | Ontario Superior Court of Justice | Yes | [2012] ONCA 918 | Canada | Cited for the principle that a mutual fund dealer was liable in negligence for failing to train its sales representative, who promoted an unsuitable investment to the plaintiffs in that case. |
| JSI Shipping (S) Pte Ltd v Teofoongwonglcloong (a firm) | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 460 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the loss of a chance is not an independent head of loss, because the plaintiff’s loss depends on what the plaintiff would have done, rather than the hypothetical actions of a third party. |
| AG v Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 474 | Singapore | Cited for the features of a Quistclose trust. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Insurance Act (Cap 142, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Financial Advisers Act (Cap 110, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- AIA Thank You Policy
- AIA TYP
- Insurance Fraud
- Vicarious Liability
- Conspiracy
- Insurance Agent
- Policy Surrender
- Fictitious Policy
15.2 Keywords
- Insurance
- Fraud
- Vicarious Liability
- Agency
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Insurance Law
- Agency Law
- Tort Law
- Fraud
17. Areas of Law
- Tort
- Conspiracy
- Vicarious Liability
- Negligence
- Causation
- Agency
- Third party and principal’s relations
- Tortious liability
- Trusts
- Quistclose trusts
- Restitution
- Unjust enrichment
- Equitable set-off
- Insurance Law