Fire

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.