QBE Insurance v Winterthur Insurance: Breach of Contract & Promissory Estoppel in Double Insurance Claim
QBE Insurance (International) Ltd sued Winterthur Insurance (Far East) Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore, seeking a declaration that Winterthur was liable to contribute 50% towards a claim of a common insured. Andrew Ang JC dismissed QBE's application, finding no agreement between the parties to share liability and holding that QBE was estopped from claiming contribution due to its conduct in handling the claim without consulting Winterthur. The court also found that QBE had breached the terms of an alleged agreement, discharging Winterthur from its obligations.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
QBE Insurance sues Winterthur Insurance for contribution to a claim. The court found no agreement for contribution and estopped QBE due to its conduct.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| QBE Insurance (International) Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Winterthur Insurance (Far East) Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Ang | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Michael Eu | ComLaw LLC |
| K Anparasan | Khattar Wong and Partners |
4. Facts
- QBE issued a workmen’s compensation policy to IRE Corporation, covering its sub-contractors.
- Winterthur issued a workmen’s compensation policy to LSW Scaffolding.
- An employee of LSW Scaffolding was injured at the project site.
- The injured workman brought an action against LSW Scaffolding and IRE Corporation.
- QBE's claims manager allegedly agreed with Winterthur's claims manager that both would contribute to the claim.
- QBE's solicitors consented to interlocutory judgment against LSW Scaffolding without consulting Winterthur.
- QBE did not respond to Winterthur's correspondence regarding the claim.
5. Formal Citations
- QBE Insurance (International) Ltd v Winterthur Insurance (Far East) Pte Ltd, OS 565/2004, [2005] SGHC 11
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| QBE issued a workmen’s compensation policy to IRE Corporation Ltd. | |
| Ng Yeok Onn, a workman, was injured at the Project site. | |
| The Injured Workman brought an action against LSW Scaffolding and IRE Corporation. | |
| The Injured Workman’s lawyers forwarded a letter to LSW Scaffolding and IRE Corporation giving them notice of the issuance of the Writ against them | |
| IRE Corporation forwarded the letter from SMT & Partners and the Writ to QBE. | |
| IRE Corporation submitted a claim form under the QBE policy to QBE. | |
| QBE instructed ComLaw LLC to enter appearance on behalf of IRE Corporation. | |
| Winterthur notified QBE that LSW Scaffolding had forwarded a copy of the Writ to it. | |
| Stephen Chua Lai Soon of QBE spoke with Corina Tay of Winterthur. | |
| Winterthur notified ComLaw that LSW Scaffolding had breached the policy condition. | |
| Winterthur sent a reminder to ComLaw enclosing its fax of 10 September 2002. | |
| Corina Tay wrote to ComLaw, stating that Winterthur would consider the matter closed if no response was received. | |
| ComLaw wrote to Winterthur claiming equal contribution should be made by QBE and Winterthur. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that QBE had breached the terms of the alleged agreement between itself and Winterthur.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Breach of express terms
- Failure to perform contractual obligations
- Promissory Estoppel
- Outcome: The court held that QBE was estopped from relying on the alleged agreement due to its conduct and Winterthur's detrimental reliance.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Representation by silence
- Detrimental reliance
- Doctrine of Contribution
- Outcome: The court found that it would be inequitable to require Winterthur to contribute under the doctrine of contribution due to QBE's conduct.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that Winterthur is liable to contribute 50% towards the claim of a common insured
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Contribution
10. Practice Areas
- Insurance Litigation
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Greenwood v Martins Bank, Limited | House of Lords | Yes | [1933] AC 51 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that silence may amount to a representation where there is a duty to speak. |
| Nasaka Industries (S) Pte Ltd v Aspac Aircargo Services Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 626 | Singapore | Cited as a Singapore case that approved Greenwood v Martins Bank, Limited regarding silence as representation. |
| Tacplas Property Services Pte Ltd v Lee Peter Michael | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 637 | Singapore | Cited as a Singapore case that approved Greenwood v Martins Bank, Limited regarding silence as representation. |
| Everbright Commercial Pte Ltd v AXA Insurance S’pore Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2000] 4 SLR 226 | Singapore | Cited as a Singapore case that approved Greenwood v Martins Bank, Limited regarding silence as representation. |
| Hughes v Metropolitan Rly Co | House of Lords | Yes | (1877) 2 App Cas 439 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle of promissory estoppel. |
| Birmingham and District Land Co v London and North Western Rly Co | Court of Appeal | Yes | (1888) 40 ChD 268 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle of promissory estoppel. |
| Legal and General Assurance Society Ltd v Drake Insurance Co Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] QB 887 | England and Wales | Discusses the doctrine of contribution between co-insurers, but its correctness was doubted by the Privy Council in Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd v Provincial Insurance Plc. |
| Monksfield v Vehicle and General Insurance Company Ltd | Mayor’s and City of London Court | Yes | [1971] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 139 | England and Wales | Discussed in relation to the right of an insurer to repudiate a claim and its effect on contribution, and ultimately endorsed by the Privy Council in Eagle Star. |
| Eagle Star Insurance Co Ltd v Provincial Insurance Plc | Privy Council | Yes | [1994] 1 AC 130 | Bahamas | Dealt with similar issues on an appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Bahamas. The Privy Council undermined the authority of Lloyd LJ’s statement quoted in [33] above. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Workmen’s compensation policy
- Sub-contractor
- Double insurance
- Doctrine of contribution
- Promissory estoppel
- Interlocutory judgment
- Breach of policy condition
- Duty to speak
15.2 Keywords
- insurance
- contribution
- promissory estoppel
- breach of contract
- workmen compensation
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Insurance | 80 |
| Breach of Contract | 75 |
| Contract Law | 75 |
| Estoppel | 70 |
| Contribution | 70 |
| Double Insurance | 65 |
| Agency Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Insurance
- Contract
- Equity