GURPREET GILL MAAG v Chubb Insurance Singapore Limited

Facts

Ms Gurpreet Gill Maag held a Chubb Masterpiece homeowner's policy with Chubb Insurance Singapore Limited for 21 January 2023 to 21 January 2024. Its personal liability cover extends to defamation, and its defence coverage provision obliges the insurer to defend a covered person against any suit seeking covered damages for personal injury, even if the suit is groundless.

On 28 November 2023 she, her husband and two companies associated with her sued Mr Ian McKee in the High Court (OC 823) over confidentiality breaches and defamation connected with Vuulr Pte Ltd, a company in which she was a shareholder and board observer and to which her wholly owned companies Unum and Illume provided fundraising and consulting services for fees. Mr McKee counterclaimed in defamation, alleging she called him a liar in public at the end of a meeting at the Four Seasons Hotel on 24 November 2022. She admitted calling him a liar but pleaded justification and qualified privilege, relying on what she said was his misleading conduct of Vuulr's affairs.

In District Court Originating Application No 30 of 2025 she sought declarations that Chubb must defend her against the counterclaim. Chubb accepted the insuring clause was triggered but relied on the business pursuits and director's liability exclusions and on breaches of policy conditions.

Issues

1. Whether the insurer's duty to defend is separate from its duty to indemnify
2. Whether the business pursuits exclusion applied, and whether the incidental business at home carve-out saved the claim
3. Whether the director's liability exclusion applied
4. Whether the insurer had admitted liability through a settlement offer or by recommending that she keep her lawyers

Holding

The District Court dismissed the application for declarations that the insurer was obliged to defend her against the counterclaim. Costs followed the event and were fixed at $15,000, inclusive of disbursements, payable by the applicant.

Reasoning

Relying on Canadian authority, including Nichols v. American Home Assurance Co., the court held that absent express words the duty to defend extends only to claims that could trigger indemnity, judged from the pleadings. Exclusions bear on the duty to defend indirectly through the scope of indemnity.

The policy defines business broadly, and the words arising out of are wide. Her fee-earning work through Unum and Illume was carried on for gain, regularly over several years, and was a business pursuit. The meeting, whatever its informality, was attended by people with commercial interests in Vuulr and discussed its business; the counterclaim and her defence both turned on Vuulr's affairs. Wilkinson v. Security National Insurance Co was distinguished because that exclusion lacked the arising from wording and the remarks there came after the insured's employment ended. A homeowner's policy is not meant to cover business liability, which should be separately insured. She offered only bare assertions for the carve-out, and the work was not management of her own investments.

The director's liability exclusion also applied: given her roles in the three companies and her complaints about sums owed to Unum and Illume, the words were spoken in her capacity as an officer. Both exclusions were unambiguous, so contra proferentem did not arise, and the conditions point was left undecided.

The $10,000 settlement offer, though not marked without prejudice, was made in negotiations while maintaining non-liability, and the advice to keep her counsel came while coverage was still being assessed. Neither was an admission.

From the judgment