Insurance claims and admissions of liability: The importance of reserving rights

Singapore Client Update SEPTEMBER 2026

1

© RAJAH & TANN SINGAPORE LLP

INSURANCE & REINSURANCE

Insurance Claims and Admissions of

Liability: The Importance of Reserving

Rights

Introduction

The phrase "liability being otherwise admitted" has been used in insurance policies for decades across the global industry. It may appear in the context of an arbitration clause where parties agree to submit issues of quantum to arbitration, "liability being otherwise admitted".

However, does this phrase require all liability to have been admitted, or will a partial admission of liability suffice?

In Far Ocean Sea Products Pte Ltd v United Overseas Insurance Ltd [2026] SGHC 182, the

Singapore High Court ("Court") found that all liability had to have been admitted. In doing so, it considered the language of the phrase, the commercial purpose of the phrase, and how the phrase had been interpreted by foreign courts. On the facts, the insurer had not admitted full liability, and therefore the arbitration agreement had not become operative.

The Court emphasised that this was not an "anti-arbitration" stance. Rather, its approach was to interpret the arbitration agreement in context and purposively. Having done so, it was clear that the

Applicant could not bring its claims within the scope of the arbitration agreement.

The Respondent was successfully represented by Simon Goh (Head), Alvin Ee (Partner), and Alicia

Lim (Senior Associate) of Rajah & Tann Singapore's Insurance and Reinsurance Practice Group.

Below, we delve into the Court's reasoning and highlight the practical lessons for insurers and loss adjusters with regard to admission of liability.

Background to the Dispute

The Applicant was a supplier of frozen seafood products. It leased an industrial property ("Premises"), comprising several processing rooms and cold rooms ("Cold Rooms"). The Respondent was its insurer.

On 31 March 2024, the parties renewed a fire insurance policy ("Policy") covering the Premises for one year for a sum insured of S$12.58 million. The Policy contained two key clauses:

2

1. A time bar clause, under which the Respondent would not be liable for any loss or damage after 12 months from its occurrence unless the claim was the subject of pending action or arbitration;

and

2. An arbitration clause, which provided that if any difference shall arise as to the amount to be paid under the Policy "(liability being otherwise admitted)", such difference would be referred to an arbitrator.

On 28 June 2024, a fire caused by an electrical fault damaged the Premises. The following events took place thereafter:

1. July 2024: The parties began extensive negotiations over the scope and cost of the reinstatement works.

2. April to May 2025: The Applicant granted, and the purchaser exercised, an option to purchase the Premises on an "as is, where is" basis. The Respondent was not aware that the Applicant had done so.

3. May 2025: The Respondent allowed reinstatement works on only two of seven claim items. It contended that the Cold Rooms and temporary works items were not covered and maintained that the scope of coverage was subject to the Respondent's approval pending the Applicant's commencement and completion of its reinstatement works.

4. 28 June 2025: The 12-month contractual time bar took effect, but discussions continued.

5. Mid-December 2025: After learning that the Applicant had issued an option to purchase the

Premises on an "as is, where is" basis in April 2025, which was exercised in May 2025, the

Respondent invoked the time bar to disclaim liability entirely. The Respondent took the view that the sale of the Premises removed any basis for a reinstatement claim, since reinstatement works were not done and were no longer required on the Premises.

6. January 2026: The Applicant appointed new solicitors, issued a notice of arbitration, and applied under section 10(1) of the Arbitration Act 2001 ("AA") for an extension of time.

The threshold question of whether the Court had the power to extend time under section 10(1) of the

AA turned on whether the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause. This depended on whether liability had to have been fully admitted by the Respondent, or whether the admission of some liability would suffice.

The Court had to determine:

1. The applicable standard of review for determining whether a dispute falls within an arbitration agreement under section 10(1) of the AA, being either (i) a prima facie standard of review where the Court looks only at whether, on its face, there appears to be a valid and operative arbitration agreement that is applicable to the dispute; or (ii) a "full merits" standard of review requiring the

Court to actually be satisfied on the point;

3

2. The proper interpretation of "liability being otherwise admitted", namely whether partial or full admission of liability was required; and

3. Whether liability had in fact been admitted in this case.

Decision of the Court

"Full Merits" Standard of Review

The Court held that the "full merits" standard applied. A party invoking section 10(1) of the AA is asking the Court to exercise a statutory power (in this case, to extend time). The Court may only exercise this statutory power when the dispute is one to which the arbitration agreement applies, making it a condition precedent to the exercise of such power.

This differs from stay applications under section 6 of the AA, where the question concerns the regulation of proceedings before the Court. Whether and on what terms proceedings are to be stayed is a matter for the court, and there is no difficulty of principle in a court giving effect to party autonomy and the doctrine of kompetenz-kompetenz by adopting only a prima facie standard of review before exercising the power to stay the proceedings before it.

Full Admission of Liability Required

The arbitration agreement in the Policy stated that "If any difference shall arise as to the amount to be paid under this Policy (liability being otherwise admitted) such difference shall be referred to an arbitrator …".

The question was whether this required the insurer to have admitted liability in full, leaving only the amount payable to be determined, or whether an admission of some liability was enough. The Court held that the phrase requires all questions or aspects of liability to have been admitted, leaving only questions of quantum for the arbitrator.

1. Language of the phrase: The word "otherwise" conveys that liability as a whole has been admitted. The word "all" is unnecessary to produce that meaning. On the contrary, a word such as

"some" or "partial" would have been needed to qualify "liability" and produce the opposite effect.

2. Commercial purpose: This interpretation of the phrase fits with a reasonable commercial purpose, namely that legal questions of liability would be decided by judges, while technical questions of quantum could be determined more efficiently and cost-effectively by an arbitrator qualified in a technical discipline.

3. Consistency of interpretation: The phrase is in widespread use in insurance contracts, with

English courts construing it in the same way for decades. Certainty of meaning is particularly important for persons engaged in commerce. Accordingly, a court should be slow to depart from an established definition.

Liability Had Not Been Otherwise Admitted

It was common ground between the parties that at least one claim – regarding whether the Cold

Rooms fell within the Policy – remained in clear dispute. Following the sale of the Premises, the

4

© RAJAH & TANN SINGAPORE LLP LAWYERS WHO KNOW ASIA parties were also in dispute as to whether the Applicant's reinstatement claims could be converted to claims for a loss in value under the Policy.

As such, liability had not been admitted, and the arbitration agreement had not become operative. The

Court found that it therefore had no power to extend time for the Applicant to commence arbitration.

Key Takeaways

The decision highlights the importance of clear and consistent communications during the claims-handling process. Insurers and loss adjusters should expressly reserve their rights and state that their investigation, assessment or engagement with a claim does not constitute an admission of liability.

This is particularly important where discussions remain ongoing or certain aspects of the claim are disputed, as ambiguity in correspondence may give rise to arguments that liability has been admitted.

If you have any queries on the above, please reach out to our team set out on this page.

For regional Insurance & Reinsurance matters, please see Rajah & Tann Asia's Insurance and

Reinsurance Practice Group for more information.

5

Contacts

INSURANCE & REINSURANCE

Simon Goh

HEAD

D +65 62320645

simon.goh@rajahtann.com

Alvin Ee

PARTNER

D +65 62320929

alvin.ee@rajahtann.com

Please feel free to also contact Knowledge Management at RTApublications@rajahtann.com.

6

Regional Contacts

Cambodia

Rajah & Tann Sok & Heng Law Office

T +855 23 963 112 | +855 23 963 113

kh.rajahtannasia.com

Myanmar

Rajah & Tann Myanmar Company Limited

T +951 9253750

mm.rajahtannasia.com

China

Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP

Representative Offices

Shanghai Representative Office

T +86 21 6120 8818

F +86 21 6120 8820

Shenzhen Representative Office

T +86 755 8898 0230

cn.rajahtannasia.com

Philippines

Gatmaytan Yap Patacsil Gutierrez & Protacio

(C&G Law)

T +632 8248 5250

www.cagatlaw.com

Singapore

Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP

T +65 6535 3600

sg.rajahtannasia.com

Indonesia

Assegaf Hamzah & Partners

Jakarta Office

T +62 21 2555 7800

F +62 21 2555 7899

Surabaya Office

T +62 31 5116 4550

F +62 31 5116 4560

www.ahp.co.id

Thailand

Rajah & Tann (Thailand) Limited

T +66 2656 1991

th.rajahtannasia.com

Vietnam

Rajah & Tann LCT Lawyers

Ho Chi Minh City Office

T +84 28 3821 2673 | +84 28 3521 2832

Hanoi Office

T +84 24 3267 6127 | +84 24 3267 6128

vn.rajahtannasia.com

Lao PDR

Rajah & Tann (Laos) Co., Ltd.

T +856 21 454 239

la.rajahtannasia.com

Malaysia

Christopher & Lee Ong

T +603 2273 1919

F +603 2273 8310

www.christopherleeong.com

Rajah & Tann Asia is a network of legal practices based in Asia.

Member firms are independently constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local legal requirements. Services provided by a member firm are governed by the terms of engagement between the member firm and the client.

This Update is solely intended to provide general information and does not provide any advice or create any relationship, whether legally binding or otherwise.

Rajah & Tann Asia and its member firms do not accept, and fully disclaim, responsibility for any loss or damage which may result from accessing or relying on this Update.

7

Our Regional Presence

Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP is one of the largest full-service law firms in Singapore, providing high-quality advice to an impressive list of clients. We place strong emphasis on promptness, accessibility and reliability in dealing with clients. At the same time, the firm strives towards a practical yet creative approach in dealing with business and commercial problems. As the Singapore member firm of the Lex Mundi Network, we are able to offer access to excellent legal expertise in more than 100 countries.

Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP is part of Rajah & Tann Asia, a network of local law firms in Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines,

Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Our Asian network also includes regional desks focused on Brunei, Japan and South Asia.

The contents of this Update are owned by Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP and subject to copyright protection under the laws of Singapore and, through international treaties, other countries. No part of this Update may be reproduced, licensed, sold, published, transmitted, modified, adapted, publicly displayed, broadcast (including storage in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently for any purpose save as permitted herein) without the prior written permission of Rajah & Tann

Singapore LLP.

Please note also that whilst the information in this Update is correct to the best of our knowledge and belief at the time of writing, it is only intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter and should not be treated as a substitute for specific professional advice for any particular course of action as such information may not suit your specific business and operational requirements. It is to your advantage to seek legal advice for your specific situation. In this regard, you may contact the lawyer you normally deal with in Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP or email Knowledge Management at RTApublications@rajahtann.com.