William Chai
Lawyer
M/s Chung Ting Fai & Co. Advocate & Solicitor (Consultant)
2018– Present
M/s William Chai Sunforester LLC(Managing Director)
2003 – 2015
M/s William Chai & Rama (Precedent Partner)
1981 to 2003
Key Responsibilities
William Chai have practised Insurance Law for over thirty-four (34) years. Insurance Law is his specialty cases.
Cases he have handled included Personal Injuries in Motor Accident (PIMA), Workmen’s Compensation and Work Injury Compensation Accident (WICA), Personal Accident Policies, Fire Insurance, Burglary and Theft Insurance, Insurance Against Pecuniary Loss, Contractors,’ All Risk Policies, Fire Insurance, Goods in Transit Policies.
Acting for an Insurer gives him a sense of worthiness and privilege. Central to acting for an Insurer is to ensure that the interest of the Insurer is well protected.
In brief, the case should be expeditiously and amicably closed well within the mandate reserve of the Insurer, and legal costs at the Insurer’s approval as well. The co-operation given by the Insured should also be well received and appreciated.
In the span of my experience, William have seen the growth in abundance of insurance cases and precedents now that there is no longer any dearth of Insurance authorities.
Mr.Chai would like to cite four cases (out of many) which he did which received approval from my Insurer clients.
Practice
PP vs Ng Soo Ngo (1986)
This was one of William’s earlier cases. The Insured was charged with the offence of dangerous driving, in such a manner that somewhere nearto the road traffic junction between Ang Mo Kio and Marymount Road, he had caused an ambulance to turn turtle resulting in the death of a “star nurse”, and three others injured.
The Insured opted to go to trial and William defended him. The Insured was merely fined $5,000.00 with no custodial sentence. One contention raised by the Defence at the trial was that the ambulance was “slender” and expert evidence was adduced to show its vulnerability to overturn under the circumstances.
Interestingly not long after the trial, broader ambulances were seen on the road and till today there have been no more instances of overturning ambulances. The Insured was certainly fortunate to get away with just a $5,000.00 fine.
Sequel to PP vs Ng Soo Ngo
As anticipated, the executors of the “Late Star Nurse” commenced Civil Proceedings against the Insured (“Insurer”). At that time, there were some changes in the law of Tort, namely a claim for damages for “lost years.” Essentially, a lost year’s claim is a claim made by a personal injury claimant for money they would have received had their life not been cut short because of the defendant’s negligence.
As the “star nurse” deceased was a young unmarried lady in her twenties, a straightforward calculation would mean that she could sue for at least $900,000.00 (at least $5,000.00 per month x 15 years).
The case was settled out of court at $100,000.00, all in, inclusive of costs. This was achieved after some tough and skillful negotiations, and, William believe it also came with a stroke of luck. The claimant was also drawn to the fact that the deceased estate would also benefit from insurance payout from the Ministry of Health’s insurers.
Clients
Overseas Union Radio vs Nippon Fire and Marine Insurance (1996)
This was a fire insurance claim for $3,000,000.00 against Nippon Insurance. The defense was arson and fraud. Several complicated issues came up at the trial, including fraudulent invoices, making the hearing more complex.
Mr.Chai was glad his Partner, Mr Rama, was with him. With the assistance of good forensic experts and efficient Loss Adjusters, the claim was dismissed with costs.
To protect the Insurer’s interest on costs, William made a charge on the Plaintiff’s company property, and with the Court’s approval, a sum of $250,000.00 on party and party costs was obtained in favour of the Insurer. This was a case in which the Insurer’s reserve was left intact and untouched.
Wee Ramayah & Partners vs Winterthur Insurance (2002)
This was a claim against the Insurer by former District Court Judges, both the Ramayah Brothers. The fire at Colombo Court, near the old Supreme Court then, was well known. The Claimant made a claim on their Business Interruption Policy for nearly a million dollars because of the fire. Insurer turned it down because it was manifestly excessive.
The matter came up for Arbitration under one of its policy terms. The hearing went on for seven (7) days before former Justice Goh Joon Seng.
The learned Arbitrator made a reward, reducing the million-dollar claim to $350,000.00 with costs.
The claimants appealed to the High Court but they withdrew their appeal on the day of the hearing of the Appeal.
At times, cases are made difficult not only because of the principles of law but because of the statue of the claimant. Here the Ramayah Brothers were judges, and their partner was also the son of our former Chief Justice Ms Wee Chong Jin, and there was expectation of recognition of their status by then which could be intimidating.
Maya Seah vs AIA Singapore Insurance Pte Ltd (HC/Suit 495/2019)
The Plaintiff was a single woman, aged 37, and had embarked on a slimming regime with one Dr. Keith Ong of Parsons Clinic. She was obese and had no serious health issues although she had “white coat” hypertension, i.e., her blood pressure was high when in a clinical setting. Nearing completion of her slimming medication she suffered a stroke.
She had a Personal Accident Policy with the Defendant Insurer and she claimed the policy for $750,000.00. The insurer rejected her claim on the ground that the Plaintiff’s stroke and total disability were “as a result of a disease” which fell squarely within an exclusion clause that exonerated them from liability.
Mr.Chai was instructed by the Plaintiff to claim on the policy on her behalf. Generally, all the specialist medical reports are highly respectable and they concluded that the case of the Plaintiff’s illness was “idiopathic” or unknown.
Nevertheless, William Chai succeeded in proving that the cause of the Plaintiff’s disability/stroke was because of an accident and not by disease or illness.
It was also William’s view that there was a cause of action against Dr. Keith for professional medical negligence, but the Plaintiff was since relieved after the successful recovery felt that she could not take the stress of pursuing the malpractice suit. Strangely too, AIA Insurance who had a right to subrogation did not pursue the action.
Amongst the Insurance companies which Mr.Chai had acted for included: –
- AXA Insurance
- Allianz Insurance
- India Insurance
- Liberty Insurance
- Tokio Marine Insurance
- NTUC Income Insurance
- OAC (Now known as Great Easter Insurance)
- EQ Insurance
- London and Pacific Insurance Co Bhd
The rest of the Insurance Companies were under mergers and acquisitions. They included Cosmic Insurance, Keppel Insurance, Industrial and Commercial Insurance, Winterthur Insurance, Taisho Marine and Fire Insurance, Nippon Insurance, and Wing On Life Insurance.
William Chai gained invaluable experience in representing these Insurance companies. Apart from them, he was also involved in Civil Litigation as well as Arbitration cases.
William Chai is a believer in Jesus Christ, and in late 2014/2015, he received a calling to do some mission work. Accordingly, he stopped practice and went on sabbatical leave to embark on it.
On William Chai’s return, he joined M/s Chung Ting Fai & Co in 2018 and since then he practised on the premise that whatever instructions come his way, he would just handle them.
William Chai say that however, “insurance runs in my blood” and he find greater satisfaction in doing insurance work. Probably the reason is in his name too, as “William” means “Resolute Protector,” and it resonates with insurance law practice! He would always like to be on that platform.
Academic Qualification
1988 – Queen Mary College, University of London – LLM; specializes in Commercial & Insurance Law (passed with distinctions in Marine and General Insurance).
1978 – Lincoln’s Inn; Barrister-at-Law.
