SINGAPORE: Insurer AIA Singapore has taken former insurance agent Lin Qiren to court, alleging the ex-agency leader owes around S$8.45 million (US$6.65 million) arising from failed sales targets tied to AIA-provided office space.
According to court filings seen by CNA, the dispute centres on a series of Dedicated Agency Space Efficiency Challenge agreements (DASECs).
Under two agreements, AIA granted Mr Lin licences to occupy AIA-leased office premises in Tampines and Jurong, as well as Woodlands and Jurong.
In return, Mr Lin was required to achieve commission targets through the sale of insurance and financial products to validate his occupation of the space.
The Tampines and Jurong DASEC involved office premises at Asia Green in Tampines and at Vision Exchange in Jurong, while the Woodlands and Jurong DASEC concerned premises at Woodlands Square and Vision Exchange.
The Woodlands and Jurong premises spanned more than 62,000 sqft in total, while the Tampines premises were not stated in court documents.
AIA said the DASECS were agreed between both parties in 2018 and 2021.
If targets were not met, Mr Lin would have needed to pay for shortfalls according to formulas that took into account office space allocation, the number of validated months and other factors.
The formula also took into account the amount of S$5.20 per square foot, which AIA said reflected the approximate market rental rate per month for the Tampines and Jurong premises.
TAMPINES AND JURONG DASEC
According to AIA’s statement of claim, originally filed in November 2024, Mr Lin failed to meet the required targets for the Tampines premises, recording a commission shortfall of millions.
As a result, Mr Lin was purportedly obliged to pay AIA nearly S$2.49 million. AIA said that Mr Lin acknowledged that the sum would be recouped via clawbacks unless he achieved additional targets.
AIA claimed that Mr Lin racked up another nearly S$6,687.96 through expenses incurred from purchasing insurance policies between September 2021 and September 2022.
As of September 2022, AIA recovered S$674,017.87 from Mr Lin by deducting commissions he earned to offset the owed amount.
The company said Mr Lin still owed about S$1.81 million over the Tampines and Jurong DASEC.
WOODLANDS AND JURONG DASEC
AIA further alleged shortfalls under the Woodlands and Jurong DASEC, resulting in Mr Lin owing around S$2.2 million.
Under this agreement, Mr Lin was also obliged to reimburse AIA for renovation costs and fees related to the premises, amounting to S$4.43 million, the company claimed.
Mr Lin’s agency contracts were terminated in July 2022.
In letters sent to Mr Lin in September 2023, then in October 2024, AIA demanded payment from Mr Lin but did not receive any, it said.
Mr Lin had contested the sum stated in one letter, alleging that there was an error and that he would provide his own calculation. But AIA said it did not receive any such calculations.
DEFENCE AND COUNTERCLAIM
Mr Lin did not dispute signing the agency contracts or entering into the DASECs, but challenged AIA’s entitlement to recover the sums claimed.
He said he entered the DASECs to carry out the business of Qiren Organisation. According to its LinkedIn page, Qiren Organisation described itself as an authorised representative of AIA Singapore with more than 490 financial services consultants and managers since it was founded in 2013.
Its main company page has since been taken down. Business filings show that it changed its name to Sweven before being struck off.
In his filed defence, Mr Lin claimed that he was in “no position” to negotiate the terms of the DASECs before signing them.
His main argument was that the formulas behind the penalty amounts did not provide a genuine or true estimate of AIA’s losses, if any.
He said that the penalty formulas were “extravagant in comparison to the greatest losses” AIA could conceivably have suffered, and that it was “unconscionable” for AIA to rely on the formula.
Lin also disputes AIA’s calculations, repeatedly stating that he was unable to verify the figures used to compute the amounts claimed.
He further argued that COVID-19 restrictions materially affected his ability and that of financial consultants to meet sales targets.
Overall, Mr Lin denied all the amounts sought by AIA, save for the S$6,687.96 that was partly incurred from insurance policies he purchased from the insurer.
Alongside his defence, Mr Lin filed a counterclaim seeking S$674,017.87 in commissions that he says AIA withheld, in addition to interests and costs.
He argued that AIA was not entitled to use the commissions to set off any sum that he owed.
AIA’S REPLY TO COUNTERCLAIM
AIA rejected Mr Lin’s counterclaim and maintained that it had acted fully within its contractual rights.
It pointed to contract clauses, which allowed it to deduct any sums due to Mr Lin against amounts “outstanding, due or owing” by Mr Lin to AIA.
AIA also disputed the characterisation of the DASEC clauses as penalties. It argued that the payment obligations were primary obligations forming part of the consideration for allowing Mr Lin to occupy office space without paying rent.
Referring to the amount of S$5.20 per square foot used to calculate the penalty amount, AIA said this was the amount it would have been able to charge a third party renting the Tampines and Jurong premises that were occupied by Mr Lin.
Since proceedings began in 2024, the case has seen extensive developments, with more than 60 filings to the court.
The filings detail failed mediation, changes in lawyers representing Mr Lin, amendments in claims from both sides and the exchange of witness lists. Mr Lin was listed as the only witness for the defence.
At one point, Mr Lin applied to add five individuals linked to AIA, including its CEO, as defendants to his counterclaim, but subsequently dropped this.
In one of the most recent applications filed last month, AIA applied to adduce an expert witness to testify on renovation costs, signalling that both sides were gearing for trial. Parties also underwent a case conference on Jan 20.
AIA is represented by a team of lawyers led by Mr Rakesh Kirpalani from Drew & Napier, while Mr Lin’s lawyers include senior counsel Siraj Omar from his eponymous firm.