SINGAPORE Law and Practice Contributed by: Simon Goh and Wang Ying Shuang, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Furthermore, with regards to claim disputes arising out of Integrated Shield Plans (IP – an optional health insurance coverage provided by private insurance companies, typically as an add-on or supplement to the basic and compulsory health insurance scheme for Singapore citizens and Permanent Residents), insureds can also make use of the Clinical Claims Resolution Process (CCRP). The CCRP is an initia- tive proposed by the Multilateral Healthcare Insurance Committee commissioned by the Ministry of Health on 27 April 2021 to provide a platform to address issues related to health insurance. The CCRP accepts requests from parties who agree to seek a final and binding determination of their dispute of a clinical nature related to a claim under an IP. The CCRP Panel only hears cases from IP policyholders (ie, patients), medical practitioners and institutions and IP insurers. Rules on Limitation Section 6 of the Limitation Act 1959 provides that the limitation period for the following actions is six years from the date on which the cause of action accrued: • actions founded on a contract or on tort; • actions to recover any sum recoverable by virtue of any written law other than a penalty or forfeiture or sum by way of penalty or forfeiture. Given that policy coverage disputes are largely con- tractual disputes, the limitation period of six years will start to run from the time when the insured’s cause of action arises under the policy. That said, as it is not unusual for insurance policies to provide for a sepa- rate contractual limitation period, it would be prudent to ensure that the terms of the policy do not provide for any time period for commencing action. Third Party Enforcing Insurance Contract • actions to enforce a recognisance; • actions to enforce an award; and As mentioned in 6.5 Multiple Insured or Potential Ben- eficiaries , the doctrine of privity of contract applies to contracts of insurance as well. Therefore, a third party who is not privy to the contract cannot enforce an insurance contract nor sue an insurer in connection with an insurance contract. However, there are some exceptions where legislation has intervened to provide for certain remedies, as follows.
• Under the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, a third party may enforce an insurance con- tract if the contract of insurance either expressly provides that the third party may enforce their rights, or if the terms of the contract purport to confer a benefit on the third party. It is common for insurance policies to exclude the application of this statute. • Under the Third Parties (Rights Against Insurers) Act 1930, where an insured takes out a policy against liability to third parties and the insured becomes bankrupt, the third party would be enti- tled to step into the shoes of the insured and make a claim against the insurers directly. • Under the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act 1960, an insurer must comply with judgments made in favour of a third party fol- lowing a motor vehicle accident. Where the insured has become bankrupt or has been wound up, a victim of an accident or an involuntary creditor may be entitled to recover its judgment debt directly from the bankrupt-tortfeasor’s insurer under this Act. 9.2 Insurance Disputes Over Jurisdiction and Choice of Law Where there is a dispute over jurisdiction, it would first be necessary to determine whether the parties’ agreement contains a jurisdiction clause, and if said jurisdiction clause is an exclusive jurisdiction clause or a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause. Exclusive Jurisdiction Clause Where there is an exclusive jurisdiction clause, par- ties typically agree to refer all disputes arising from such contracts to a particular jurisdiction in a bid to avoid disputes over the proper forum; the selected forum would have exclusive jurisdiction ( Vinmar Over - seas (Singapore) Pte Ltd v PTT International Trading Pte Ltd [2018] 2 SLR 1271). An applicant seeking to enforce an exclusive jurisdiction clause bears the burden of showing a “good arguable case” that an exclusive jurisdiction agreement exists and governs the dispute in question. A party who commences proceedings in a court not named in the exclusive jurisdiction clause would be in breach of the exclusive jurisdiction clause. The non-breaching party can then apply to stay proceedings commenced in breach of
408 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook