Singapore Insurance Law Round Up (March – June 2025)

In this article we draw together our various social media posts on insurance law developments in Singapore between 1 March 2025 and 30 June 2025.

(1)  Lessons from Lorinet, Pierre Andre Jacques v Helu-Trans (S) Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 66 - a subrogation action arising from damage to a valuable sculpture when it fell from its wall mount.

In this matter, a sculpture was mounted by the Defendant in 2014 and fell from the wall in 2016. A recovery action for breach of contract and negligence was brought in 2022.  The action was dismissed in April 2025.

Take homes from Lorinet, Pierre Andrew Jacques v Helu-Trans (S) Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 66:

➡️ The contract claim was time barred but the tort claim was not. Under Section 24A(3)(a) of the Limitation Act, the clock starts ticking when the cause of action accrued. For the breach of contract claim this would have been the date on which the sculpture was hung (i.e. 7 May 2014). For the negligence claim the cause of action accrued when the damage materialised (i.e. on the date of the fall, 18 Sept 2016).
 
➡️ The existence of contractual exclusions and limitations of liability in the contract for the installation works did not prevent there being a concurrent tortious duty of care. This was because the clauses in the contract did not upset the balance of rights and obligations which the parties had freely negotiated in their contract. On the facts, the exclusion clauses were found to be concerned with damage during transportation rather than installation and the limitation of liability clause was unreasonable and therefore unenforceable under S2(2) of the Unfair Contract Terms Act.
 
➡️ The Claimant was unable to rely on the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur to raise a presumption of causation in his favour. At the time of the accident the sculpture and mounting were not in the control over the Defendant.

(2)  Singapore High Court decides on how an English Law marine insurance policy responds to a constructive total loss claim arising from the capsize of a vessel - Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Argoglobal Underwriting Asia Pacific Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 82

This matter involved the capsizing of a ship under tow. The dispute centred on whether the ship was a constructive total loss. There was a dispute as to whether an expert’s report and parallel emails should be able to be relied on.

The High Court in Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Argoglobal Underwriting Asia Pacific Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 82 allowed emails and expert reports to come in as evidence under the business records exception to the rule against hearsay. The fact that no prior notice was given by the Claimant of its intention to refer to hearsay evidence was, on the facts, insufficient to trigger the court to exercise its discretion to exclude the evidence. This was because the Defendant knew of the contents of the documents ahead of the trial and was not prejudiced by the lack of notice

The court then went on to hold:

⚓The loss was a constructive total loss under English Law.

⛴️ The loss was due to the peril of the seas (i.e. accidental and unexpected ingress of water). The Defendants were unsuccessful in showing that the loss was due to the vessel being decrepit.  The court favoured the evidence of the Claimant’s expert which was found to be more objective and better supported by calculations and models.

🚢 On the facts, the ship owners had acted as agents for OCBC in procuring insurance and had not breached their duty of fair presentation of risk under the UK’s Insurance Act 2015. The court also found that there were no breaches of the warranties contained in the policy.

🛳️ SGHC found that one section of the marine insurance policy was a gambling or wagering contract and therefore void.

🛶 The Court did not entertain the claim for damages for late payment under Section 13(1) of the UK Insurance Act 2015 as it was not pleaded and not addressed by the English law experts.

(3) One Expert, Two Parties, and a More Efficient Courtroom?

A recent decision by the Singapore High Court in Crystal Beauty Pte Ltd v Xu Jasmine and another [2025] SGHC 86 highlights the value that a joint expert may be able to deliver to insures.

In this case, both parties agreed to instruct a single, independent property expert to opine on the duties of an estate agent in an unusual property transaction.

The judge commended parties for using as joint expert, noting that, "... a jointly appointed expert focusing on the key issues would be able to provide an impartial and independent assessment, reduce the risk of either party alleging bias… and largely eliminate the risk of conflicting expert testimonies – a reality in the adversarial process that can prolong litigation and increase costs."

While joint experts may not suit every case, in this instance a joint appointment was able to save time and cost

(4)  Court takes into account efforts made by parties at amicable resolution when assessing costs - Cheng Shi Ying Cherissa v Khoo Chong Kiat and another [2025] SGHC 91.

➡️ In assessing costs, the High Court Judge in Cheng Shi Ying Cherissa v Khoo Chong Kiat and another [2025] SGHC 91 noted that “both parties had made efforts to reach an amicable resolution, but their respective ideas of what a reasonable sum should be to settle amicably were just too far apart.”

➡️ The Judge opined that “the amount offered is not the same thing as the reasonableness of that offer” as reasonableness depends on the merits of the case.

❗ Insurers should take note of this decision which is one of the first to consider the cost implications of parties’ attempts at amicable resolution.

(5)  Is a performance bond an on-demand bond or an indemnity performance bond?

In Tradesmen Pte Ltd v Ten-League Corporations Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 114 the High Court applied the earlier CA decision of JBE Properties Pte Ltd v Gammon Pte Ltd [2011] 2 SLR 47 and held that the bond in question was an indemnity performance bond and restrained the respondents call on the bond.

🏗️ The respondent had engaged the applicant as a contractor to complete works which been begun by an earlier contractor. The contract between the respondent and applicant included a letter of award as well as a copy of the REDAS Conditions. The letter of award required the applicant to provide a performance bond and the REDAS conditions provided specimen wording for the bond.

📜 The bond which was obtained contained two key clauses. Clause 1 contained an undertaking to the respondent “in full immediately upon demand”. Clause 2 then stated that the respondent would be indemnified against all losses, damages costs, expenses it sustained.

➡️ The applicant argued that the bond was an indemnity performance bond which could only be called upon if the respondent had actually incurred a loss (which it had not). Even if the bond was a performance bond, the applicant argued that the call was fraudulent or unconscionable.

🧐 The court noted that Clause 1 seems to give the bond the effect of an on-demand performance bond but Clause 2 pulled in the opposite direction. Given the contradictory effects of the clauses, the court looked at the extrinsic evidence to determine parties’ intentions. The court was of the view that the terms of the contract indicate that the parties intended for the bond to operate as an indemnity performance bond because:
1.     Parties had clearly chosen to depart from the specimen on-demand bond contained in the REDAS conditions.
2.     Parties had chosen not to include provisions from the REDAS conditions about set-off of potential losses, such suggested an intention to limit the effect of the bond to identifying only actual losses.
3.     The bond was given in lieu of cash that would have served as a 10% security deposit / retention sum. The purpose of the retention sum was to provide the respondent with an indemnity for actual loss.

❗ The respondent was therefore restrained from being able to call on the bond.

(6) Developments in Motor Insurance law

 Three recent RTA case:  

🚌 Lee Sim Leng v SMRT Buses Ltd [2025] SGHC 11 = $5.4m claim but damages assessed at $15,000 for a whiplash type injury superimposed on pre-existing cervical spondylosis and $2,373.16 for special damages.

🚍 Tran Thi Phuong Nga v SBS Transit Ltd and another [2025] SGDC 20 = it is generally not necessary for a driver of a single-decker or double-decker bus to wait for all passengers to be seated before moving off. Also, momentarily steering a bus with only one hand did not amount to a breach of duty of care.

🚐 Chua Kok Hwee (Administrator of the Estate of Wong Lai Cheng, deceased) and another v Murugauel and another [2025] SGDC 21 = the bus driver was found to be have been negligent in not using his hand brake when the bus’s brake system suddenly failed. However, the bus company was not at fault as they had in place an adequate brake checking and maintenance regime and the brake failure occurred suddenly.

And developments in road traffic laws:

 🚓 From 1 Jan 2026 motorists in Singapore will face enhanced penalties for speeding offences.

🚑 The decision by MHA to enhance penalties has been driven by increased number of speeding related issues in 2024. The MHA press release notes that the number of speeding violations reached a 10-year high in 2024 and there was also a 43.8% increase in speeding-related fatal accidents, from 2023 to 2024.

🚙 The clampdown on speeding should be welcomed by motor insurers. In Singapore the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act 1960 requires every user of a motor vehicle to be insured against third party death or bodily injury.

🚓 From 1 July 2025, cyclists and users of non-motorised PMDs can be penalised for riding on designated pedestrian-only footpaths. Watch out for the new markings below!

(7)  Developments in data privacy

New guidance on the use of NRIC numbers from the PDPC which insurers and insurance lawyers should note:

➡️ While organisations may use NRIC numbers to identify who a person is over the phone or when using digital services, NRIC numbers should not be used to prove that a person is who he claims to be (authenticate the person) for the purposes of trying to gain access to services or information meant only for that person.

➡️ Currently, private sector organisations may require a person to use his NRIC number as a password to gain access to information intended only for him, for instance, in insurance documents. It is unsafe for organisations to use NRIC numbers in this manner because a person’s NRIC number may be known to others, permitting anyone who knows his NRIC number to impersonate him and easily access his personal data or records.

➡️ Organisations that are using full or partial NRIC numbers to authenticate persons should transition away from this practice as soon as possible. This includes not setting NRIC numbers as default passwords (e.g., in password-protected files sent via e-mail), and not using full or partial NRIC numbers together with other easily obtainable personal data (e.g., passwords combining an individual’s partial NRIC number and date of birth, such as “567A01Jan80”).

➡️ If it is necessary to authenticate a person, organisations should consider alternative methods, for example requiring the person to use strong passwords, security token or fingerprint identification.

ILAS COMMITTEE