What if.....accident with drink driver

[Mustank]

Seems to be lots and lots of misunderstanding out there...

Sorry to hear of your misfortune, think the one to get sued ought to be your own insurance company cos they have no idea about Singapore law.

 

Any how, hope that the following excerpt(s) clarify this issue of insurer liability from now on:

 

Victim wins civil suit against Ionescu

 

Mr Bong has sought more than $630k in damages. The default judgment was given to Ionescu, but the amount of damages to be paid will be decided later. -TNP

Sat, Aug 21, 2010; The New Paper

Exclusion clause

If a driver is convicted or pleads guilty to drink driving, the insurer's exclusion clause kicks in and the insurer can disclaim liability, he said.

But as laid out in the affidavit, even though NTUC Income is "no longer contractually bound to indemnify" Ionescu, the insurer is still required by law to pay Mr Bong first.

It will then recover the amount from Ionescu.

This is also a standard procedure in road accidents where the driver is intoxicated, said Mr K Anparasan, 42, partner at law firm KhattarWong.

He explained: "Even if the driver is under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the insurer is required to pay the victim of the accident.

"The whole idea is to make sure the victim is not left uncompensated. The insurer reserves the right to go after the driver to recover that amount."

Mr Ken Loh, 43, managing director of insurance agency M Plus Consultancy, added: "The law is made to protect the innocent, so that the accident victims do not suffer loss without redress. If no one pays their bills, then public interest is hurt."

Victim wins civil suit against Ionescu

 

===========

 

The necessary jurisdiction is also viewable as follows:

 

Under the 'Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (CHAPTER 189)'.> Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments against persons insured in respect of third-party risks:: "9.

[Sp4wn]

I think what Big Cherry did is very commendable.

 

We are given the wrong understanding that when a drunk driver hit us, we will not get compensated if we report the drink drving. now it is proven to be not true. i aint no lawyer so i dont understand the law part.

 

Question is do we need to engage lawyer to sue drunkard's isurance or our insurance company will do it for us?

 

actually, i agree as well ... i just called my insurer and cited this case to them (regarding the drunk who hit me) and let's see what happens. since my total claim is nearly 100k, let's see if I start to see a penny of it, because I've been chasing my insurer for renewal (since its due next month), but till date, they are refusing to give me a renewal ... so i think im screwed .. ><

[Mustank]

actually, i agree as well ... i just called my insurer and cited this case to them (regarding the drunk who hit me) and let's see what happens. since my total claim is nearly 100k, let's see if I start to see a penny of it, because I've been chasing my insurer for renewal (since its due next month), but till date, they are refusing to give me a renewal ... so i think im screwed .. ><

 

According to one of the brothers here, whom i cannot remember the user id, i think is was Pippco or something like that, (his picture is a bottle of wine or something like that), i think he works in auto insurance industry, :

 

1) WAIT for drunkard to be convicted

2) Take the conviction to a lawyer to claim against drunkard's insurance

 

If this true,

1) Good news is there is recourse against drunk drivers

2) BAd news: (A) you have to fork out your own $$ to repair first, (B) you have to fork out $$$ for your lawyer to use the conviction to lodge the claim againt drunkard's lawyer

[Throttle2]

use your mobile to video the whole process.

settle the money issue on the spot or ask him to write a idenmity letter to admit 100% liability on the accident.

If not, call police and forgo all your claim and pay from yr own pocket.

 

 

 

Yup.

 

It's about money usually. so let money do the talking.

 

but once it isnt about money anymore, then dont let money do the talking

 

 

 

[Chrispie]

Insurance definately will not pay a single cent if the driver is drunk.

 

My late colleague died in his WRX when it crashed into the bridge pillar outside vivocity after clubbing 2 yrs ago.

 

His case was established as drink driving. Insurance refuse to pay a single cent.

 

His single-mother (no income) & still studying teenage brother gotta settle the outstanding car loan on his behalf [shakehead]

 

 

means he got the mother as guarantor for his loan?

 

in any case, if one is to pass away, any loan that is under his name is written off right?

[Mockngbrd]

Moral of the story: If you get hit by a drunk driver, do not call the police. You stand to gain nothing.

CORRECT. Want to ez ez claim. just treat it as a normal accident. Best if can get him to sign something which admits he is at fault. Then next day just go do your normal accident report stuff... etc etc...

Edited June 14, 2012 by Mockngbrd

[Skyiet27]

No offense to b-c

 

That's y I put kns not knn

 

N hahaha

 

I only jokingly sorry

 

Angry with euro n myself lor

 

Jus woke up nv read properly n reply to it

 

My bad

 

Jus post abt accident my bil kana bang by cement truck

 

Hsha whole morning help him run ws do repair

 

Shag

 

Good day to all

 

Tonight fight back!

[Iisterry]

There's some points to be made clear.

 

People do have certain recourse against drunk drivers, uninsured drivers or untraced drivers. This scope of liability only covers bodily injury or death.

 

Section 4(1)(b) insures such person, persons or classes of persons as may be specified in the policy in respect of any liability which may be incurred by him or them in respect of the death of or bodily injury to any person caused by or arising out of the use of the motor vehicle in Singapore and in any territory specified in the Schedule.

 

The third party insurer is legally bound to payout in respect of any TPI (third party injury) claims and later attempt to recover the costs from the offender.

 

For victims of uninsured or untraced drivers, there is a body called the Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB) which will compensate the victims. The MIB is funded by all motor insurers in Singapore.

 

This legislated minimum third party coverage for all drivers is meant to provide a bare minimum avenue of legal redress for victims (bodily injury) involved in motor accidents. It safeguards against the scenario of a rogue driver knocking down and killing many pedestrians.

 

With respect to property damage, the victim has to file separate claims against the offending driver. They may have to determine if it is a worthwhile cause.

 

Now if you are doing an own damage claims on your policy due to inability to claim from the third party's insurer, your insurer has no right to refuse your claim. This is the benefit accorded to you under the provisions of your own policy with them. The losing party in this situation is the insurer as there is no possible way they can recover the amount from your next renewal (you might also likely jump ship to another insurer, thereby denying them any possibility of even recovering a single cent from you). Depending on the amount and nature of your claim, certain insurers do not even impose a loading premium.

 

If we are saying that they can raise premiums across the board, it will be a different actuarial topic altogether.

[WTF]

actually, i agree as well ... i just called my insurer and cited this case to them (regarding the drunk who hit me) and let's see what happens. since my total claim is nearly 100k, let's see if I start to see a penny of it, because I've been chasing my insurer for renewal (since its due next month), but till date, they are refusing to give me a renewal ... so i think im screwed .. ><

Wah bro, your damage so jialat.........machiam can buy a new ride liao leh......

 

Got photo to share boh???

Edited June 14, 2012 by WTF

[Ghostrider]

In short...if you are hit by a drunk driver...

 

Die die ask him/her to sign full liability agreement and indicate that he will be liable for the repairs...rental etc...

 

If he refuse to sign...call the police.

 

Which is why I say....TP should just ban drunk drivers once and for all....up the stake so that pple wanna take a chance also think twice.

[Ghostrider]

So what you are saying is that the 3rd Party insurer is still liable to pay ??

 

If that is the case, we should hire a lawyer to sue the 3rd party insurance company....

[Skyiet27]

Yup bro I agree with wat u say n i did say if we r the drunk ourself

 

We cfm will sign to all repairs

 

And thus this is y drinker still drink n drive cos it's the loophole

 

$ = can break the law

 

Life is just not fair n system full of loop hole

 

Drink driver will never be scare

 

Sad system

[Skyiet27]

U used to drive cs3?

 

See ur nick v familiar

[Babyt]

Full Liability Agreement?? Where to get?

 

write the agreement on the spot? or??

[Skyiet27]

Yup can jus write on spot

 

Or u can prepare some in ur car

 

It's jus a black n white signed by both party

 

Tdy jus wrote one

 

Hahaha

[Bic_cherry]

So is the new rule applicable to all the insurance firms? Or is it exclusive to only some firms?

It is a law applicable to motor insurance, so I believe EVERY insurance firm MUST comply (cos its the law) or risk being sued by victims and also have their insurer license revoked by SG govt.

 

Edited June 14, 2012 by Bic_cherry

[Bic_cherry]

The deficits of 'Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (CHAPTER 189)'?

Re: What if.....accident with drink driver

I think what Big Cherry did is very commendable.

We are given the wrong understanding that when a drunk driver hit us, we will not get compensated if we report the drink drving. now it is proven to be not true. i aint no lawyer so i dont understand the law part.

Question is do we need to engage lawyer to sue drunkard's isurance or our insurance company will do it for us?

Thanks for your kind words of commendation.

Me no lawyer either too, but have interest in seeing justice served.

Mahatma Gandhi says: "You must be the change you want to see in the world." (Indian political and spiritual leader (1869 - 1948))

Thus, those who just grumble that "the world is unfair" and do noting but only cover own b***side, perhaps the world would be a better place these grumblers could also consider solutions about how to make the whole situation better (rather than aggravating it further by perpetuating it and allowing others to suffer the same fate)- one cannot expect society to treat oneself better than the way one treats society.

 

"Question is do we need to engage lawyer to sue drunkard's isurance or our insurance company will do it for us?"

My humble opinion is that it depends.

My second reading of the 'Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (CHAPTER 189)' reveals what I feel are some contradictions and flaws.

 

Firstly, the intent of the act states: "An Act to provide against third-party risks arising out of the use of motor vehicles and for the payment of compensation in respect of death or bodily injury arising out of the use of motor vehicles and for matters incidental thereto.[5th February 1960]" is worded it seems to me to compensate the life and limb of 3rd party victims in a motor vehicle accident- at 'reasonable rates' where section 4 also adds that "'hospital' means an institution (not being an institution carried on for profit) which provides medical or surgical treatment for in-patients."; this definition preceded in 4(6) "The amount to be paid by the approved insurer or the owner under subsection (5) shall not exceed $400 for each person so treated as an in-patient or $40 for each person so treated as an out-patient." besides a whole shebang about the issue of the insured facing bankruptcy issues (section 10).

 

In short, the act is unnecessarily complicating, self contradictory with some figures getting outdated by inflation ("$40", "$400"- which hospital emergency department charges just $40 for walk-in treatment?).

 

My suggestion about the situation is for parliament to get its first principles right. Since "The whole idea is to make sure the victim is not left uncompensated. The insurer reserves the right to go after the driver to recover that amount." ('Victim wins civil suit against Ionescu' [TNP, 21Aug2010]) and protecting the common man, parliament in updating this act should probably remove the unnecessary mention of limits like $40 or $400 which mean nothing with inflation today. Liability limits should probably be for treatment claims to be limited to the equivalent of treatment costs as provided for by a public hospital/ institution and material damage to say not exceed $500K (amendable by parliament from time to time)- at the moment, it seems that the said act, despite being broadly termed, lacks mention about non-bodily injuries incurred although I believe this to be of significant deficit as the act seems also to have scant if no mention about compensation for future loss of income consequent to death/ disability.

Perhaps if the parliamentarians were worried about the issue of excessive claims arising from over onerous insurer liability, the perhaps a limit of S$1Million per casualty/ 3rd party individual/ company might be a reasonable limit. (the excess of which shall be claimable directly from the convicted perpetrator of the accident since in the in the absence of legal requirement to insure, the insurer might then disclaim any further liability).

 

In regards to your question whether you should engage a lawyer or seek redress through your own insurer (who would then liaise with the other insurer)- (I answer in the assumption that you are the 3rd party driver/ passenger in a car since a pedestrian I assume would probably choose the lawyer route). I guess it all depends upon the competence of your insurer, the type of damages (body injury/ property damage) and the factual evidence available at the scene; that said, speaking to your insurer would be good idea since I understand that there are some contractual terms which might restrain you from engaging your own lawyer.

 

Personally, I feel its better to report a drunk driver if simply for the good of moral purposes, since behaviour constitutes a very serious offense given the death and destruction it can potentially cause; the lack of mention about property damage not-withstanding. (I refuse to be the accessory to manslaughter by a drunk driver).

 

Even if there is no bodily injury, a civil claim against a driver convicted of drunk driving would be almost impossible to defend, and thus an easy open-shut case for any lawyer you should choose-- the converse of not calling TP (traffic police) would be no police report/ investigation and consequently even blatant denial of culpability by the other party (i.e. his story says that U caused the accident instead/ that U are accusing the wrong person)- a gamble totally not worth it.

 

Personally, I will almost always call TP unless the damage is totally minute, he compensate immediately (inclusive of a voluntary donation to charity tt I submit the next day), and seems conscious enough to decide all this- as any risk of him changing his story later is just not worth it.

 

One less drunk driver on the streets means safer roads for everybody.

 

PS: i understand that most insurers have the tacit understanding of common business interest to make both parties liable so that when it comes to premium renewal, both parties will then have to pay more (or have their NCB reduced).

 

Just my 2c, not an expert in either but feel that justice must prevail and the law should ensure and not impede that.

 

Rgds

B.C.

 

PS: The purpose of MPs is to review and improve laws towards the good of all citizens.

According to http://www.agc.gov.sg/aboutus/index.html , the mission of the AGC is "To enhance the rule of law and constitutional government in Singapore by providing sound legal advice and assistance in developing a fair and responsive legal system, furthering good public administration and protecting the interest of the state and of the people."- legislation shouldn't be too difficult to read, otherwise we all get constipated and confused over irrelevant nitty gritty; perhaps we could all either write to the AGC if we have queries about the law and where the answer doesn't suffice or wish to suggest improvements, speak to our own MP. Any MP who is unable to give us a satisfactory is UNFIT to represent us in parliament since it is the job of parliament to review and improve the laws of a country. The quality of a countries law thus reflects the quality of the countries MPs, which in turn reflects the choice of the citizens in electing these MPs... but then this issue is probably an issue for discussion on yet another day.

 

 

(PS: a copy of this post has been fwd to some parliamentarian emails on my list- hope that something good comes out of it)

Edited June 14, 2012 by Bic_cherry

[Bic_cherry]

So what you are saying is that the 3rd Party insurer is still liable to pay ??

 

If that is the case, we should hire a lawyer to sue the 3rd party insurance company....

Some one else ptd out tt the 'Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (CHAPTER 189)' seems to refer mainly to death and body injury mainly, (just the bare minimum only) with some contradictory statements within to add to the confusion.

 

My suggestion to this discussion is to avoid the term "3rd Party insurer" as might add to the confusion.

if U mean insurer of offending vehicle just say so, if U mean insurer of victim vehicle- jsut specify, me thinks 3rd party insurer technically means victim's own insurer which is really confusing.

 

Just my 2c.