Singapore Insurance Law Round-up (October - December 2025)
A round up of our various social media posts on insurance law developments in Singapore between 1 October 2025 and 31 December 2025.
Image credit - mehdi-mirzaie
(1) Do architects and contractors owe a duty of care when installing a gate at a new project?
In Tey Song Kiem Mrs Goh Cheow Miang v Mohd Jaffar Bin Ismail practising as Ffusion Architects & Another [2025] SGDC 260, the claimant was injured when her automated gate fell on her. The gate had been installed about 1 year prior to the accident when the claimant’s home was reconstructed. She looked to her architect and the reconstruction contractor engaged by her husband.
👩💼 The court dismissed her claim against the architect. There was no privity of contract so the architect had not breached its contractual duties to her. With regards to tortious duties, the court was of the view that there was proximity notwithstanding the lack of contract because the claimant was known by the architect to be one of the persons who would ultimately benefit from the architect’s professional skill. Precedent case law also pointed to there being no policy considerations which militate against the duty of care being imposed. The court then held that the architect’s duty of care in respect of the Automated Gate was confined to the design intent and did not stretch to detailing how the gate was to be operated or installed. The court’s conclusion was based on the scope of the underlying contract ad the fact that the architect was not involved in the fabrication, supply, installation, testing, commissioning of the gate. Further, an architect’s general duty of supervision of the building works did not extend to the supervision of its testing and installation.
👷♂️ The court allowed the case against the contractor. The court was not persuaded by the contractor’s argument that it was not the party which had fabricated and installed the gate (the contractor was saying that these roles were done by one of its related companies). Further, the contract’s own worker had admitted to supervising the installation of the gate.
👷 There was proximity between the contractor and the claimant as the contractor knew that the claimant would be using the fate. And there was no reason not to impose a duty of care.
👷♀️ The contractor breached its duty by not installing a stopper of sufficient height to prevent the gate falling over. There was no contributory negligence in the claimant manually shutting the gate as such manual use was to be expected.
💲 As the trial was bifurcated the court went on to access damages. The court ordered the contract to pay the Claimant the total of $134,261.80 plus interest costs and disbursements.
(2) Bad Vibrations - Soh Chuan Swee & anor v L.S. Construction Pte Ltd [2025] SGDC 253
This case arose from a dispute between the owners of a house and the contractor who was building across the road. The Claimants homeowners alleged that the Defendant was negligent in carrying out “vibration causing works” when constructing the Affinity at Serangoon development. The vibration causing works included demolition, pile-driving and I-beam installation.
🧱 The Claimants failed to prove that the Defendant breached its duty of care by failing to act in accordance with industry practices when performing the vibration causing works – the vibrations were within industry level and the Defendant’s offer to do perform repair works on the Claimant’s house on a without admission of liability basis was not an admission of liability.
🧱 On the issue of causation, both sides called expert witnesses but the District Judge preferred the evidence of the Defendant’s expert and concluded that the causation was not made out. The Defendant’s expert testified that the damage was cosmetic rather than structural and that there were no complaints of damage from the owners of houses neighbouring the claimants’ house
The Claimants’ claim was therefore dismissed.
(3) MAS enforcement actions in Q3 included against intermediaries for misselling insurance products to a vulnerable client and for forging a client’s signature to establish a new insurance policy.
The former actions were found to have breached section 36(1) of the Financial Advisers Act 2001 and paragraphs 11 and 35 of the Notice on Recommendations on Investment Products.
Both individuals were also found not to be a fit and proper persons as defined in the Guidelines on Fit and Proper Criteria.
(4) Fairprice Group has been given the go ahead to use remotely supervised AV vehicles.
Remote driving is the process of controlling a vehicle from a separate location. High speed internet connections are to transmit live video feeds and sensor data from the vehicle to an operator elsewhere. This allows the operator to control the vehicle's steering, braking, and acceleration.
The UK Law Commission looked into remote driving in 2022/23.
The Law Commission recommended the creation of a new statutory scheme in the UK to license any organisation which operates remotely driven vehicles without no user-in charge (NUIC) features. It referred to such organisation as the Entity for Remote Driving Operation or “ERDO”. The commission recommended that an ERDO be covered by no fault insurance.
No fault insurance is a type of policy under which the insured party is indemnified by their own insurer for losses, regardless of the source of the cause of loss.
Link to Law Comm paper - https://lnkd.in/gTD6-6BS
(5) Computerization of manual records for the purposes of investigation found not to amount to a business record for the sake of the business record hearsay exemption - De Beaute (SSC) Pte Ltd V Tan Mong Ngoh [2025] SGDC 268
If pleadings form the bones of a litigation then evidence forms the flesh. In Singapore hearsay evidence (statements made outside of court but presented in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted) are inadmissible unless a hearsay exception applies. One such exception is the business record exception. This exception is commonly encountered by claims officers overseeing the defence of claims and subrogation recoveries.
The recent De Beaute decision reaffirmed that the rationale for the business records exception is that a statement made in the ordinary course of business is a record of historical fact made from a disinterested standpoint, and which may thereby be presumed to be true.
The court held that the rule did not apply to records not made or compiled in the ordinary course of business.
(6) Higher WICA limits kick in.
Maximum death compensation will increase from $225,000 to $269,000, while minimum compensation will increase from $76,000 to $91,000.
Total permanent incapacity compensation will increase from $289,000 to $346,000 maximum, with minimum compensation will increase from $97,000 to $116,000.
These are increases of almost 20% and reflect the growing cost of living and medical treatment in Singapore.
(7) Has AI struck again? What are the implications?
In the recent decision of Tan Hai Peng Micheal and another(as the executors of the estate of Tan Thuan Teck, deceased) v Tan Cheong Joo and another and other matters [2025] SGHC 217 the High Court noted that two fictious authorities were cited in closing submissions. In paragraph 100 the Judge opined that "there are reasonable grounds to suspect that the Fictitious Authorities were likely to have been generated by an AI Tool(s) used in the preparation of the defendants’ closing submissions."
🧑⚖️ Justice S Mohan has directed counsel to address the court further for him to consider issues in greater detail, together with all questions pertaining to costs, in a subsequent judgment.
Can the use of AI hallucinated cases land an advocate in contempt of court proceedings? Recent decisions suggest YES.
➡️ On 2 December 2025 the Ontario Superior Court of Justice took the nuclear step of referring a lawyer to the Attorney General for criminal contempt stemming from the use of AI generated material. The lawyer had admitted deliberately making untruthful and misleading oral and written statements about her use of AI, including an outright denial that she had even used AI.
See https://lnkd.in/g-CgjRmd
➡️ In the earlier English decision of Ayinde v London Borough of Haringey and Al-Haroun v Qatar National Bank [2025] EWHC 1383 the Hight Court noted that it had the power to (1) refer matters to the police for criminal investigations, (2) commence contempt of court proceedings, (3)refer matters to the appropriate regulator, (4) strike out a case and/or apply cost sanctions and (5) give a public admonishment. The High Cout opined that deliberately including fake citations would amount to contempt of court as would lying about the use of AI in witness statements. On the facts of the case the court was of the view that referral to the appropriate regulators was suitable.
See https://lnkd.in/d-5mP5fi
(8) Are lawyer's interactions with an AI model protected by any privilege?
Sections 128 and 131 of the Evidence Act 1893 provide generally for legal professional privilege in Singapore.
🤓 Section 128 provides that " advocate or solicitor is at any time permitted, unless with his or her client’s express consent, to disclose any communication made to him or her in the course and for the purpose of his or her employment as such advocate or solicitor by or on behalf of his or her client, or to state the contents or condition of any document with which he or she has become acquainted in the course and for the purpose of his or her professional employment, or to disclose any advice given by him or her to his or her client in the course and for the purpose of such employment."
🤓 Section 131 provides that " No one may be compelled to disclose to the court any confidential communication which has taken place between him or her and his or her legal professional adviser unless he or she offers himself or herself as a witness, in which case he or she may be compelled to disclose any such communications as may appear to the court necessary to be known in order to explain any evidence which he or she has given, but no others."
(9) Insurance Agent fails in Agency Agreement dispute - See Jen Sen v Prudential Assurance Co Singapore (Pte) Ltd [2025] SGHC 223
📣 In this case the Claimant agent was concerned that the Defendant insurer had breached advertising guidelines set out by Monetary Authority of Singapore. He reported the matter internally but after investigations were concluded with no result, the Claimant wrote 13 times to MAS under the pseudonym “Patrick Goh" to complain. the Defendant insurer then served a termination notice under cl 13(c) of the Agency Agreement on the Claimant.
👩⚖️ The Claimant sued for wrongful dismissal but the High Court dismissed the claim, holding that the termination was done in accordance with the Agency Agreement. Since the termination was not wrongful, there was no viable claim for breach of the Agency Leaders Long-Term Incentives Scheme.
👩⚖️ The Claimants claims under UCTA and unjust enrichment also failed.
(10) 🔦 Court shines a line on the computation of PDPA financial penalties - Re Marina Bay Sands Pte. Ltd. [2025] SGPDPC 6.
💾 In October 2023, 665,495 MBS patrons had their personal data illegally accessed and exfiltrated by unknown threat actor(s). MBS admitted to breaching the Protection Obligation (section 24 PDPA) by failing to take reasonable security measures to protect the personal data in its possession. What had happened is that account passwords were set to 4 digits based on the member’s birthdate as default with no requirement for change on first use. The passwords were thus vulnerable to being deciphered. The vulnerability lasted for at least 6 months during which time certain data was exfiltrated and put up for sale on the dark web.
💸 PDPC imposed a financial penalty on MBS under Section 48J of the PDPA. The fine was set at $315,000 taking into account:
(a) The scale of the event - more than half a million people were affected, the vulnerability lasted for 6 months and data was sold on the dark web.
(b) MBS had otherwise implemented adequate and appropriate security arrangements.
(c) MBS took prompt actions after being informed of the incident to mitigate and prevent repeat occurrences.
(d) MBS admitted fault and co-operated.
(e) Post 2021, the maximum financial penalty impossible for contraventions of Parts 3 to 6A of the PDPA by organisations whose annual turnover in Singapore exceeds S$10 million has increased from S$1 million to 10% of their annual turnover in Singapore.
🤓 The commission agreed that the breach was negligent but also said that the risk was NOT one which was only discernible upon a retrospective assessment.
👨⚖️ Importantly, the court clarified the 5 step Framework it uses to compute Financial Penalties (FPs)
Preliminary Step – Determining the Case Max FP
Step 1 – Identifying the level of culpability and harm
Step 2 – Calculating the Starting FP
Step 3: Aggravating and mitigating factors
Step 4: Impact of the financial penalty on the organisation
Step 5 – Final adjustment
(11) MAS proposed Guidelines on AI Risk Management offer insurers guidance on the responsible use of AI.
✍ Insurance claims assessors using AI on an ad-hoc basis to assist in an initial review of claims documents would not be regarded as using AI as an integrated part of their business processes.
🖥️ Incorporation of AI into insurance claims assessment process with AI forming the core part of a workflow that processes supporting documents such that the unavailability of AI would delay claims processing would be regarded as using AI as an integrated part of their business processes.
The guidelines set out expectations for FIs in the following key areas:
💥 Oversight of AI Risk Management. Board and senior management of FIs play a key role in the governance and oversight of AI risk management, including the establishment and implementation of frameworks, structures, policies and processes for AI risk management, and fostering the appropriate risk culture for the use of AI.
💥 Key AI Risk Management Systems, Policies and Procedures. To support oversight and risk management of AI use, FIs need to establish clear identification processes for AI usage across the firm, maintain accurate and up-to-date AI inventories, and implement risk materiality assessments that factor impact, complexity and reliance dimensions.
💥 AI Life Cycle Controls, Capabilities and Capacities. To manage the risks of AI throughout its lifecycle, FIs should plan for and implement robust controls in key areas such as data management, fairness, transparency and explainability, human oversight, third-party risks, evaluation and testing, monitoring and change management. Such controls should be applied based on their relevance and be proportionate to the assessed risk materiality of AI usage. FIs should also ensure that their capabilities and capacities are adequate for their use of AI.
(12) NEA fined $230k for safety lapses related to the 2021 Tuas incineration plant explosion that claimed two lives – when are criminal charges relevant in civil proceedings?
📃 Under Section 45A of the Evidence Act, evidence of a party’s plea of guilt in related criminal proceedings is admissible as evidence in the subsequent civil proceedings though it is not conclusive in and of itself.
🔥 Accordingly, insurers with subrogation rights will often wait for a prosecution to go through before commencing action.
👩⚖️ However, in Lim Seng Chye v Pex International Pte Ltd and another [2019] SGHC 28 at [102-103], the High Court made it clear that the conviction must relate to the alleged negligent act in order to be of use.
(13) On duty of care, breach and causation - Federal Fire Engineering Pte Ltd v Eigen E&C Pte. Ltd. and another [2025] SGMC 72.
The Claimant (Federal) had carried out servicing of fire alarms for the two Defendants. When servicing the 2nd Defendant’s alarm, the Claimant’s engineer apparently followed instructions given by a non-party leading to the engineer omitting to turn on the extinguishment disablement switch. In turn this led to aerosol extinguishant being discharged, which damaged the alarm panel.
💥 Applying the Spandeck test, the court held that the Claimant’s engineer owed a duty of care to the 2nd Defendant.
👉 Factual Foreseeability – the court rejected the Claimant’s argument that there was no foreseeability on account of the manufacturer of the alarm panel had not telling the Claimant that the alarm panel could be damaged by aerosol discharge. The court held that it was foreseeable that if the engineer did not take care he could damage the panel.
👉 Proximity – the court rejected the Claimant’s argument that there was no proximity because the engineer was not told that the panel could be destroyed by aerosol discharge. The court held that there was no failure to advise because the specific risk was not discussed with the 2nd Defendant. Further, the Claimant was an authorised distributor of the alarm system and should have know of the risks.
👉 Public policy – there were no policy reasons militating against a duty of care.
💥 Breach – the engineer breached his duty when he followed instructions given by the non party without checking on his technical competence.
💥 Vicarious liability - the two stage AIA test applied. First step met because the engineer was a full time employee of the Claimant. Second stage met because the engineer was carrying out works within the scope of the engagement.
💥 Causation - was there a need for the 2nd Defendant to prove damages at this stage (applying Salmizan and Tan Woo Thian)? It was clear from the Case Conferences that the 2nd Defendant had commissioned an expert report on the extent of damage which had been held back pending the liability trial to save costs. Further, there was some evidence of loss in the evidence already before the court.
(14) Why did a Singapore judge recently apportion 20% contribution against a Grab passenger who did not wear his seat belt?
In Baek Jongwoo v John s/o Susaretnam [2025] SGDC 312 District Judge Tay Jingxi apportioned 20% liability against the Claimant for not wearing his seatbelt.
👩⚖️ The judge held that in assessing contributory negligence the inquiry centres on the passenger’s responsibility for the injuries they sustained as a result of the collision. The court must also consider the relative causative potency and the relative moral blameworthiness of breaches of duty of both driver and passenger.
🚗 Mr Baek’s sole justification for not wearing a seatbelt at the material time was his claim that he did not have sufficient time to do so. According to Mr Baek the accident happened within 20 seconds of him boarded the car and during this time he was still sorting himself out.
⏳ District Judge Tay Jingxi held that the amount of time Mr Baek allegedly had to fasten his seatbelt was not a relevant issue. This is because Mr Baek’s obligation to wear a seatbelt was statutory and arose even before the car moved off. To allow the car to move off amounted to contributory negligence because at this point he had already failed to take reasonable care for his own safety. If a time allowance was introduced, it would run against the wordings of the applicable road-safety legislation.
📒 As to the 20% apportionment, the District Judge relied on a publication called the Motor Accident Guide which itself draws on earlier case law from both Singapore and overseas.
(15) Do pet owners owe a duty of care to members of the public? If so, what are the boundaries of the duty? Can the liability be insured?
Tan Shuh Lin (Administrator of the Estate of Tan Kut Fai, Deceased) v Loong Kai Jun Matthew [2025] SGDC 303 concerned a tragic accident in which a resident at a condo fell backwards after seeing his neighbour’s corgi emerge from a lift. The resident sued his neighbour for losses arising (with his estate taking over after the resident passed away).
The court applied the Spandeck test. This is a two-stage test of (a) proximity and (b) policy considerations, with a threshold requirement of factual foreseeability.
🐩 On the facts, the test was satisfied
(1) factual foreseeability - it was foreseeable to the Defendant that someone could fall and be injured if the Defendant did not handle or control the Corgi appropriately when exiting the Condo lift.
(2) first stage of proximity – there was physical, circumstantial and causal proximity as Mr Tan fell as a result of the Incident involving the Defendant and his dog. There was also an assumption of responsibility by the Defendant and reliance by Mr Tan that the Defendant would take reasonable care in handling or controlling the Corgi when exiting the Condo Lift. Further, it is pertinent that the Condo By-laws set out various requirements that pet owners such as the Defendant had to follow.
(3) there are no policy considerations that point against a duty of care arising. Further, English courts have previously found that pet owners owe a duty of care to others.
🐩 The standard of care is the objective standard of a reasonable person using ordinary care and skill. The standard would be higher if the corgi was an aggressive dog.
🐕🦺 The court held that on the facts there was no breach of duty. The Defendant owner had the corgi restrained on a short leash and the corgi did not lunge at the neighbour. The corgi was not known to be aggressive.
🐶 Whilst the case made no mention of insurance, there are pet liability policies on the market. Many of the policies available in Singapore combine third party liability cover with coverage for medical cover for the pet.
(16) Appeal Judge apportions 25% liability against passenger who stood on the road to alert other road users to his broken-down vehicle - Lim Wai Kit Jeff v Arumugam Alamuthu [2025] SGHC 254.
🚗 On the night of 14 June 2021, the Respondent was a passenger in a lorry which was forced to stop near the Pioneer South Road Exit (Exit 18) of the AYE due to a punctured front tyre. He alighted and stood behind the lorry to redirect oncoming traffic. He did so while standing on the continuous white line separating the grass verge from the leftmost lane of the carriageway. Meanwhile the Appellant was riding his motorcycle on the leftmost lane of the AYE and approaching Exit 18. The Appellant was riding about one car’s length / two metres) behind a large vehicle. The large vehicle swerved to avoid the broken-down lorry but the Appellant was unable to react and time and hit the Respondent.
🚘 There was a trial on liability. On 7/5/25 the District Judge (DJ) said she was minded to apportion liability at 90/10 against the Appellant but directed parties to consider entering a consent judgment. When parties returned on 21/5/25 there was no agreement on liability so the Judge entered a judgment. The High Court Judicial Commissioner (JC) would later determine that the 14 day timeline for appeal started to run on 21/5/25.
🚨 The JC went on to consider that the Respondent was 25% at fault rather than 10%. The JC looked at the likelihood and the gravity of the potential injury of a person who stands on a road and considered whether the Respondent’s actions reflected this. He expressed the view that Pedestrian traffic on expressways is extremely dangerous and risks serious injury. He agreed with the DJ that instead of standing on the leftmost side of the carriageway, the Respondent should have directed traffic from the relative safety of the grass verge. The JC was also critical of the Respondent for failing to use the warning triangle that was on board the lorry and for facing diagonally towards the right side of the expressway rather than facing the on-coming traffic more squarely.
🚨 The JC commented that “While precedents are helpful guides in principle, the proper apportionment of liability for an accident is ultimately a question of judgment that turns on the facts of the particular case. In determining apportionment, the court will weigh: (a) the relative causative potency or extent to which each party’s conduct contributed to the damage; and (b) the relative moral blameworthiness of each party, which is a more wide-ranging consideration that takes into account various factors to arrive at a just and equitable result on the facts: Ting Jun Heng v Yap Kok Hua [2021] SGHC 44 at [42].”
(17) Plaintiff fails in his road traffic case - Chan Kong Thoe v Tricilia Tang Pei Lu [2025] SGDC 318
In October 2014, the Plaintiff and Defendant were involved in a road traffic accident. The Plaintiff was involved in a second accident in January 2015.
In the law suit which arose from the first accident, a consent interlocutory judgment (IJ) was entered in 2018, with the Defendant accepting 85% liability. The IJ was entered pre-Salmizan and therefore causation was a live issue at the assessment of damages (AD) hearing.
At the AD hearing the Plaintiff contended that the 2014 accident injured his neck, back and knees, rendering him chronically disabled and largely unemployable in the security industry. He quantified his loss at over $500,000. In contrast, the Defendant contended that the 2014 accident only caused minor injuries and that the Plaintiff’s present status was due to the 2015 accident and/or natural age-related degeneration. The Defendant quantified the claim at $8,438.80.
👩⚖️ The Court found that the Plaintiff had failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the claimed injuries and losses were caused by the accident. The court awarded $8,852.45. Central to the decision were the following:
(1) The Court assessed that the Plaintiff was not a credible witness. This assessment was critical because several heads of claim depended primarily on the Plaintiff’s subjective account of pain, disability, and functional limitation.
(2) The Court found that the Plaintiff’s account to his medical experts lacked credibility. This affected the weight given to his experts’ testimonies.
(3) The Plaintiff chose not to call his forensic accountant as a witness at the trial and, further, the expert report lacked probative value as the expert had not been provided with sufficient data to make an accurate assessment of the plaintiff’s pre-trial or future loss of earnings.
(4) There was no evidence that the Plaintiff was unable to return to his pre-accident vocation because of injuries from the 2014 accident. And the plaintiff did not provide any evidence to show that he would suffer such risk or disadvantage from the minor injuries caused by the 2014 Accident. Hence the claims for LFE and LEC failed.