Fire

A business owner agreed to handle some goods for a new customer. The usual warehousing standards and shipment tracking were in place and the goods were delivered on time in good condition. However, the customer failed to make payment and refused to pay despite many reminders were sent as she claimed the goods were delivered in poor condition. Luckily, he kept all the evidence to prove that the customer acknowledged the goods were delivered in good condition and he demanded that the customer to make full payment or legal action would follow. 

The invoice remained unpaid, however the business owner used the policy and managed to get himself covered by the Legal Shield Insurance for RM 51,000 of legal cost incurred in pursing the customer and enforcing the contract in court.

A business owner purchased two fork lift trucks for his new warehouse. In just 6 months of usage, one of the forklifts developed a gearbox fault which caused the truck immovable. A complaint was made to the vehicle supplier, however, the supplier claimed that it was not his fault and the cause of the damages was due to poor driving skills.  

The business owner disagreed and he pursued a legal action against the supplier to demand for his full responsibility to get the truck repaired and replaced. Since he is a policyholder, the legal cost of RM 42,000 was covered by the Legal Shield Insurance in pursuing the vehicle supplier and he also managed to obtain an out of court settlement covering the full repair costs. 

A business owner received a summon from the police after one of his employees was stopped in the company’s lorry which was alleged to have been overloaded. The business owner was charged and the case proceeded to court. As a result, the business owner was found not guilty after his lawyer contended that the lorry was not overloaded and it was in accordance with all relevant regulations. As a policyholder, the total of RM 36,000 of his legal costs was covered by the Legal Shield Insurance.

A business owner had an employee who used to be productive when he first joined the company. However, after a few years working with the company, the employee’s work performance begin to drop. The business owner was no longer able to tolerate with his employee’s poor performance. As a Legal Shield’s insurance policyholder, the business owner took the opportunity to contact Liberty’s Legal Support Line to seek further advise on the situation. As advised by the lawyer, he finally decided to issue out a warning letter to his employee and instructed to improve his performance within 4 weeks or disciplinary action will be taken against him. 

Within the 4 weeks period, the employee presented a positive improvement and due to his good performance, the business owner decided to retain the employee and no disciplinary action was taken against the employee.

By retaining the employee, the business owner managed to save cost for a new recruitment process as well as potential legal fees in relation to the said employee. On the contrary, if the employee failed to present a positive improvement, a disciplinary action would have been taken against him and may not have resulted in potential legal fees. Thus, the fees will be covered by Liberty’s Legal Shield Insurance.   

A landlord owned a large warehouse and rented to various tenants. One of the tenants used the unit as a car showroom and an office. At the end of the lease, the tenant did not renew the lease and left the premise in a bad condition although it was clearly stated in the contract that the tenant must ensure to return the rental unit in the same condition as it was when they moved into the unit. The landlord then decided to sue the tenant for the dilapidations. 

The case was resolved at a court hearing, but not before the landlord had incurred RM 27,000 in legal fees which was covered by Liberty’s Legal Shield Insurance. 

A tenant leased the whole top floor of a large distribution center. After few months of leasing the unit, the tenant discovered that the roof was leaking and caused damage to all the goods stored in the unit that belonged to the tenant’s clients. 

The tenant requested his landlord to fix the roof but the landlord refused and claimed it was the tenant’s responsibility to repair. The tenant was not satisfied with the landlord’s actions and decided to sue the landlord. The case was brought to court and the judge decided that the landlord must hold the responsibility to fix the damages and ordered the landlord to compensate the tenant for his losses. The tenant’s legal fees of RM 39,000 was covered by Liberty’s Legal Shield insurance and the rest of the cost was recovered from the  landlord. 

A business owner operated a small logistics company specializing in expatriate relocations. One of his employees had a laptop containing 250 clients’ personal data stolen from his car. The data included names, addresses and property contents information. The Personal Data Protection Commission (PDPC) considered imposing a financial penalty to the business owner. The business owner through his lawyer explained that the robust procedures they had for data protection included the encryption of data stored on the laptop.

The PDPC eventually decided not to impose the penalty. However as a policyholder of Liberty’s Legal Shield Insurance, his legal fees of RM 25,000 was covered by the insurance.

A distributor owns a distribution center far from residential areas. However, following a number of complaints from local residents about noise pollution on the weekends, the authorities investigated the distributor’s premise and revoked his license to operate from the premise. The distributor appealed against the decision, setting out their excellent track record and number of years trading with zero reports of noise pollution occurring outside of daytime hours. On appeal, the local authority reinstated his license and they continued trading business as usual. His legal cost of RM 18,000 was covered by Liberty’s Legal Shield Insurance.