Rochor Rd Ferrari crash payout rejection is test case by AXA Options

[Vinlis77]

it is nothing to do with Ma Chi's estate or wealth. It is all about how this accident happened.

AXA is not trying luck on this. in contrast, i think Ma Chi's family is trying luck to get insurance $$. if AXA lost, you can see more accidents and a lot of drivers are driving like no tomorrow. why? because it proof that you do not need to watch out for red light, you do not need to maintain speed limit, you do not need to follow traffic law. because no matter what happen, you just pay premium and whatever s--t you get yourself into and get others involved, you are well covered.

it is funny how clearly the video showed the whole story and yet ppl come and support Ma Chi's family to win the case. do you know what exactly this means?

I think people are not supporting MC family in this case but rather should insurance company honor a claim? In your opinion is that if axa lost, we would see more accidents? Question: does people deliberately go out and look for accidents to happen? Risk their life unnecessarily just because got insurance cover? Actually the case is still vague. It may be technical fault with the Ferrari for all may know that makes it accelerate suddenly and render it unstoppable. So we just have to be objective rather than a pre judgement. Wait for the conclusive evidences to surface before judgement.

[Vinlis77]

by cheonging red lights 7-8 secs after it turned red with HIGH speed is asking for trouble.
i support AXA in not paying out to the ma chi bai estate of his family member.
not sure why are some people worried about consumer rights?unless you are those who cheong red lights always after 7-8 sec it turns red?

having said that,it's still a norm to see people cheong red light after 1-2 secs max.

Seriously I believe no one in the right frame of mind would cheong red light after 7-8 sec. Many reasons or senarios could have happen in this case. Example, technical failure in the Ferrari which cause it to accelerate suddenly? The traffic lights timing at fault? LTA change the timing of the traffic lights after several accidents simultaneously. Or human errors, poor judgement or severly distracted.
Therefore without seeing the evidences, we should not conclude who is really at fault. The video is inconclusive with so many variables listed.
To support the insurance company is premature. Imaging insurer twisted their words in order not to pay? Is this right? An accident is an accident, collision is an accident unless deliberately caused.that will be term suicide.

[Othello]

Therefore without seeing the evidences, we should not conclude who is really at fault.

Are you f**king joking ? It's clear as day who is at fault - Muah Chi of course !

[Pangarans]

I am referring to the defence for this case raised in court yesterday. They said traffic infrastructure inadequate therefore leading to the 'accident'? I can understand it if the driver is driving at 50kph or 60kph....maybe didn't see the light and run the light. But the Ferrari driver was driving at breakneck speed as can be seen from the video. He's just a blur on the video the camera barely capturing the car itself. Can imagine how fast he is going. By saying that Ferrari is a fast car and premium is higher, therefore AXA should foresee this...are you saying that fast cars is allowed to break traffic rules and drive at whatever speed?

Also what nonsense the Lexus driver 2 weeks later also involved in accident at same place. The driver was drunk! Their senses is already dulled by the alcohol.

Defence should muster another approach to this case.

This post has been edited by Pangarans: Sep 20 2012, 10:37 AM

[Pangarans]

I think people are not supporting MC family in this case but rather should insurance company honor a claim? In your opinion is that if axa lost, we would see more accidents? Question: does people deliberately go out and look for accidents to happen? Risk their life unnecessarily just because got insurance cover? Actually the case is still vague. It may be technical fault with the Ferrari for all may know that makes it accelerate suddenly and render it unstoppable. So we just have to be objective rather than a pre judgement. Wait for the conclusive evidences to surface before judgement.

Good point you raised on the technical fault with Ferrari but if this is the case, I am wondering why defense didn't' bring up this line of defense in their court papers? Surely defence can get Hong Seh to confirm if its a technical fault.

Really I fail to see how it can be poor judgement or due to timing error when the guy is driving so fast the camera barely captured the car on film. You know there is another traffic light in less than 100m after the Bugis Junction one. For that matter, there are many lights along the few hundred meters stretch. Just for discussion....my personal opinion here.

This post has been edited by Pangarans: Sep 20 2012, 10:48 AM

[Qwiktime]

The insurance company is just trying their luck. In the end they will sure have to settle for something one.

[Acemundo]

Good point you raised on the technical fault with Ferrari but if this is the case, I am wondering why defense didn't' bring up this line of defense in their court papers? Surely defence can get Hong Seh to confirm if its a technical fault.

Really I fail to see how it can be poor judgement or due to timing error when the guy is driving so fast the camera barely captured the car on film. You know there is another traffic light in less than 100m after the Bugis Junction one. For that matter, there are many lights along the few hundred meters stretch. Just for discussion....my personal opinion here.

even if we buy this argument, it takes two technical fault

1) sudden acceleration of this proportion
2) simultaneous brake fault because the car didn't really slow down

how likely is this? i know no one can be 100% sure, but where business is concern, they need to make the call when they are about 60-100% sure. they dont have such thing is as long 1% doubt, they still give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant.

[Suv8]

Seriously I believe no one in the right frame of mind would cheong red light after 7-8 sec. Many reasons or senarios could have happen in this case. Example, technical failure in the Ferrari which cause it to accelerate suddenly? The traffic lights timing at fault? LTA change the timing of the traffic lights after several accidents simultaneously. Or human errors, poor judgement or severly distracted.
Therefore without seeing the evidences, we should not conclude who is really at fault. The video is inconclusive with so many variables listed.
To support the insurance company is premature. Imaging insurer twisted their words in order not to pay? Is this right? An accident is an accident, collision is an accident unless deliberately caused.that will be term suicide.

I think lets not be judgmental. Accidents are just that - an accident. Can happen to anyone of us one day. If you failed to pay attention to your front while you were driving because your friend was talking to you or you dropped something, and collided into a pedestrian or another car, or you failed to notice the lights were red because of whatever reason, and if that is not an accident (negligence), then NO driver will be covered. Then what is covered? the only situation a motor insurer will not indemnify, apart from expressed exclusions, is wilful conduct meaning deliberately, knowingly or knowing but not caring. I wouldnt want my insurer and a lot of bros n sisters in car forums etc are always cussing that insurers always slow in settling claims, to have them examining your claim by trying to read your m ind or intention and assesing on that basis.

[Suv8]

I think lets not be judgmental. Accidents are just that - an accident. Can happen to anyone of us one day. If you failed to pay attention to your front while you were driving because your friend was talking to you or you dropped something, and collided into a pedestrian or another car, or you failed to notice the lights were red because of whatever reason, and if that is not an accident (negligence), then NO driver will be covered. Then what is covered? the only situation a motor insurer will not indemnify, apart from expressed exclusions, is wilful conduct meaning deliberately, knowingly or knowing but not caring. I wouldnt want my insurer and a lot of bros n sisters in car forums etc are always cussing that insurers always slow in settling claims, to have them examining your claim by trying to read your m ind or intention and assesing on that basis.

Sorry I was supporting Vinliss77 when i said the above.

[Darryn]

I think lets not be judgmental. Accidents are just that - an accident. Can happen to anyone of us one day. If you failed to pay attention to your front while you were driving because your friend was talking to you or you dropped something, and collided into a pedestrian or another car, or you failed to notice the lights were red because of whatever reason, and if that is not an accident (negligence), then NO driver will be covered. Then what is covered? the only situation a motor insurer will not indemnify, apart from expressed exclusions, is wilful conduct meaning deliberately, knowingly or knowing but not caring. I wouldnt want my insurer and a lot of bros n sisters in car forums etc are always cussing that insurers always slow in settling claims, to have them examining your claim by trying to read your m ind or intention and assesing on that basis.

Again, the argument of the insurance company is that the act of horse man were so bad that it's no longer an accident. The speed so high, the gap in lights so long....

Which is not without merit.

The danger is - if they get away with it here, then what is the next one they get away with. Where does the line between stupid / reckless and asking for an accident lie?

[Maldini03]

What if u make an illegal u-turn & bang motorcyclist to heaven? Think about it deep deep..........

That is an accident.

[Acemundo]

Again, the argument of the insurance company is that the act of horse man were so bad that it's no longer an accident. The speed so high, the gap in lights so long....

Which is not without merit.

The danger is - if they get away with it here, then what is the next one they get away with. Where does the line between stupid / reckless and asking for an accident lie?

i think most people that were against the AXA were afraid it opens up precedent for insurance company to get away with paying more other accidents.

most people that were for the AXA recognised that this ferrari crash is too extreme to be labelled as accident under normal driving for reasonably able driver.

my advice to the first group is why worry about something that has not happened? and businesses provide service or goods under normal usage. it was never meant to cover extreme (to the extent of unreasonable) usage. drink driving is an example of unreasonable usage. that ma chi case hasn't properly been defined previously as unreasonable usage doesn't mean it is not unreasonable usage.

This post has been edited by Acemundo: Oct 2 2012, 03:09 PM

[PorkChong]

when the lights turn red after 7 sec and you still proceed to cheong and killed other motorists.
it's no longer consider under accident in your case,it's manslaughter.