Bespoke Motoring Sdn Bhd bought the supercar in August 2018 and insured it for RM1.79 million with AmGeneral Insurance Bhd.
On Oct 5 that year, the Ferrari was involved in a collision with another car on the MEX Highway, resulting in severe damage to the Ferrari.
At the time, the car was being driven by Lee Koon Tong, who was named an authorised driver.
Lee had told the court an “unknown” vehicle from his left side had suddenly switched into his lane. He said his attempt to avoid a collision saw him lose control and cause the Ferrari to “swerve and spin into oncoming traffic”.
As Lee drove a few hundred metres further in an attempt to manoeuvre the car back to the correct side of the road, another vehicle collided into it.
Bespoke Motoring subsequently notified AmGeneral Insurance of the accident and filed an insurance claim.
The insurance firm eventually offered a settlement of RM1.5 million on Feb 22, 2019, which the company accepted.
However, two months later, it revoked the settlement offer, claiming that Lee was drunk at the material time and that he only lodged a police report a few days after the accident.
In response, Lee said he could only lodge the report later as he was on medical leave.
AmGeneral Insurance also alleged that Bespoke Motoring “misrepresented” the nature of the accident in the claim form, which they said was a fraudulent claim and amounted to a fundamental breach of contract.
Bespoke Motoring then filed a suit to set aside the firm’s revocation decision as well as recover the RM1.5 million settlement.
In her decision, Justice Liza Chan held that AmGeneral Insurance had not proven on the balance of probabilities that it was entitled to reject the policy.
“The defendant (AmGeneral Insurance) already knew that the witness (Lee) was driving against the traffic and he only lodged the police report one day after the accident.
“A claim form was submitted to the defendant, wherein Lee maintained his version of the accident. He also admitted that he was summoned by the police as a result of the accident and that he was not under the influence of alcohol,” said Chan.
The court took note that AmGeneral Insurance’s internal investigators probed the accident for about five months, and they approved Bespoke Motoring’s claim as Lee’s statement did not reveal any inconsistencies.
“The defendant approved the claim and provided a settlement offer, which in the court’s view, thereby waived any alleged breach by the plaintiff (Bespoke Motoring),” Chan said.
She pointed out that during the trial, an AmGeneral Insurance fraud investigation officer testified that a tow truck driver had claimed Lee appeared to be intoxicated at the scene of the accident.
“The witness candidly admitted that he was unable to provide any other details about the truck driver. Clearly, what the driver said is ‘plainly inadmissible hearsay evidence’,” said Chan.
She also said the evidence given by a traffic policeman had “shot down in flames” claims that Lee was drunk.
She said the police had never investigated or charged Lee in court with reckless or dangerous driving under Section 42 of Road Transport Act 1987.
“Lee’s evidence on why he was driving against the flow of traffic and how the accident happened is not inherently improbable, and I accept his evidence.
“I feel confident in my conclusion on his evidence because there is consistency in his police report and claim form,” she said.
The judge held that having considered the evidence in its entirety, there was no “fraud”, or “active concealment” or “deliberate suppression” of facts so as to deny Bespoke Motoring its claim.