I hate motor insurance...

[Ev0lutionz]

Stupid clauses.. Zzz. I was looking for a commercial vehicle to move some stuffs and i called a few and most of them are 23 and above. One was closer to my age, 22 and above, still not qualify, one year difference! I drive very often too. So they are fine with renting to those who havent touch car for long periods of time?

[Unfair]

Stupid clauses.. Zzz. I was looking for a commercial vehicle to move some stuffs and i called a few and most of them are 23 and above. One was closer to my age, 22 and above, still not qualify, one year difference! I drive very often too. So they are fine with renting to those who havent touch car for long periods of time?

 

Sometimes its their insurance policy that restricts them.

If you get into any accident, the excess might be + $2000 or something.

 

How to take the risk ?

[Dunno]

In Sillypore, everything goes by the book. There's one silly clause in my insurance also. If the driver is >26 yrs old, excess is only $500 and will be waived if I go to an authorised workshop. If <=26 years old, excess is freaking $3500 and no waiver!

 

Here, it's all up to the insurance company to list their excess amounts.

Edited July 3, 2010 by Dunno

[Limlien]

Well if everyone behave well then there won't be any accident mah and there won't be any clauses enforced.

 

Haven said so, well they are also doing a business. If u open a business, u want to make money or lose money?

 

 

[HARDGAYHOOOO]

Well if everyone behave well then there won't be any accident mah and there won't be any clauses enforced.

 

Haven said so, well they are also doing a business. If u open a business, u want to make money or lose money?

 

My point exaxtly...to add on to that , the older you are ,doesnt always amount to the fact that you are more experience on the road. As you have mentioned bro, will you rather one that meet up to the citeria but havent been driving for quite some time???Hence, maybe I can post another similar case....the higher the rank in the uniform sector doesnt always amount to the fact that they are more experience in their field... a degree holder can sign on SPF and get a direct entry to the rank of inspector , hence earning moe pay than the others???? SOunds a bit unfair too right ???

 

Bro(Starter of this post) to you , it may be ridiculous to have such a claus but to them, the older the better , more secure. It is their take on that,ultimately they are just trying to earn a business, not doing us a service lor.... As a ceo to a big and reputational firm, will u rather employ someone just with a ITE cert or master degree??? You think only degree holders are cabable ma???? this is life la...bo bian one

[Zxcvb]

This is life lah. You try to get about 100 guys around your age (20yrs-old) to drive, then get another 100 30yr-olds to drive the same vehicle. Statistic will show your age group more prone to accidents, period, full-stop. Understand?

[Friendstar]

This is life lah. You try to get about 100 guys around your age (20yrs-old) to drive, then get another 100 30yr-olds to drive the same vehicle. Statistic will show your age group more prone to accidents, period, full-stop. Understand?

 

 

I totally agree with u.

 

 

Statistics don't lie.

 

If I run a business. I won't rent out my car to a 21 yo "highly experienced" driver. He may have good skills, but might be complacent for his age

[Kiadaw]

I totally agree with u.

 

 

Statistics don't lie.

 

If I run a business. I won't rent out my car to a 21 yo "highly experienced" driver. He may have good skills, but might be complacent for his age

 

Sad but true. If you want to blame, blame the other people your age that is incompetent.

[Victor68]

While I can appreciate that every time a car meets an accident, the insurance company will not be able to cover the cost with the premium paid.

 

By getting others to pay for a few and make a huge profit out of it is also criminal More so when it is compulsory to buy insurance. I am no expert in this area but to nap those making big bucks from such insurance scam, surely there are many ways.

 

If a motorist is never involved in any accident or any claim for the past 35 years, why should he made to pay the same as others but only a 50% discount?

 

 

[Neutralsg]

Ev0lutionz Jul 3 2010, 03:07 PM Post #1

 

Stupid clauses.. Zzz. I was looking for a commercial vehicle to move some stuffs and i called a few and most of them are 23 and above. One was closer to my age, 22 and above, still not qualify, one year difference! I drive very often too. So they are fine with renting to those who havent touch car for long periods of time?

-----------------------------

Insurers likely reason:

1) The more skilful the young driver is, the more likely he is to display his antics.

2) The more skilful the older driver is, the more likely he will be a sensible driver.

 

It may seem stereotyping but underwriters do carry out their due diligence for the sake of prudent business policies.

 

Just my 2 cents.

[Troyempire]

wat to do. This is SG.

[Casiraghi]

Hi,

 

I don't have enough posts to start my own topic yet but I'm hoping that someone has heard of a similar situation and managed to get it sorted out. I was involved in a car accident a few months back, I was the driver and sustained some injuries and hence the police came down and settled the case. As I was in hospital, a family member took the advice of the workshop to do a claim on my insurance first so as to speed up the repairs. Eventually the police ruled that the other driver was at fault and even issued a fine and demerit points. It seems quite clear cut right?

 

But now the other driver's insurance company apparently refuses to pay or answer to the letter of demand. Hence I have to pay the excess for my own insurance, loss of NCD and higher insurance premiums as well as all my medical expenses. That doesn't seem to make sense right?

[Kusje]

While I can appreciate that every time a car meets an accident, the insurance company will not be able to cover the cost with the premium paid.

 

By getting others to pay for a few and make a huge profit out of it is also criminal More so when it is compulsory to buy insurance. I am no expert in this area but to nap those making big bucks from such insurance scam, surely there are many ways.

 

If a motorist is never involved in any accident or any claim for the past 35 years, why should he made to pay the same as others but only a 50% discount?

 

You realize that this is the entire basis of insurance? Everyone comes together to pool their premiums so that in the event of a loss, they can use the premiums to pay for it. How is it criminal? To my knowledge, it isn't compulsory to buy insurance as you can opt to provide a cash guarantee (can't remember the amount but it is quite hefty).

[SimonTan]

Next time just buy third party!

 

 

[Redplanet]

Next time just buy third party!

 

Third party, fire & theft type of insurance is only for those fully paid up vehicles....Correct me if i got it wrong.

 

If not, every tom dick & harry will avoid buying comprehensive policy liao.

[Neutralsg]

Kusje Yesterday, 10:13 PM | In Reply To Victor68 Post #13

 

QUOTE (Victor68 @ Jul 11 2010, 04:55 PM)

While I can appreciate that every time a car meets an accident, the insurance company will not be able to cover the cost with the premium paid.

 

By getting others to pay for a few and make a huge profit out of it is also criminal More so when it is compulsory to buy insurance. I am no expert in this area but to nap those making big bucks from such insurance scam, surely there are many ways.

 

If a motorist is never involved in any accident or any claim for the past 35 years, why should he made to pay the same as others but only a 50% discount?

 

 

You realize that this is the entire basis of insurance? Everyone comes together to pool their premiums so that in the event of a loss, they can use the premiums to pay for it. How is it criminal? To my knowledge, it isn't compulsory to buy insurance as you can opt to provide a cash guarantee (can't remember the amount but it is quite hefty).

-----------------------------------------

Can you advise where you got this info from because I thought it is basic requirement by LTA to present an insurance certificate at time of road tax renewal i.e. at least a third party insurance cover. Presume cash guarantee is to cover the finance co., (if vehicle is still being financed) to protect their vested interest.

[Neutralsg]

Redplanet Yesterday, 11:58 PM | In Reply To SimonTan Post #15

 

QUOTE (SimonTan @ Jul 18 2010, 10:49 PM)

Next time just buy third party!

 

 

Third party, fire & theft type of insurance is only for those fully paid up vehicles....Correct me if i got it wrong.

 

If not, every tom dick & harry will avoid buying comprehensive policy liao.

----------------------------------

Generally, you are correct.

[Little_prince]

TS really sounds like a spoiled brat...