Any negative feedbacks from Direct Asia policy holders?

[Versatile]

Anyone?

 

 

[Galantspeedz]

 

you should do a search you know.....

 

anyway if i rem.. someone insurance was void during accident due to certain modifications...

[Versatile]

you should do a search you know.....

 

anyway if i rem.. someone insurance was void during accident due to certain modifications...

 

Based on MCF "Direct Asia" search only shown 1 result.

 

The results shown only shows general claim rejected due to legal exhaust modification or 4x accidentss within a year which is not relevant to the information i'm looking for e.g. how long is the claim process and what could be the possible reason of claim rejection upon a accident or with regards to private use, commercial, commute to work use etc.

Edited September 27, 2011 by Versatile

[georgehk]

I am writing to share my unfortunate experience with Direct Asia Insurance Pte Ltd.

 

 

My family had a car accident end March this year, but when we filed our insurance claim with Direct Asia, it was rejected under the following policy wording:

 

‘Your policy does not cover any authorized driver whose license has been suspended or cancelled at any time in the 5 years immediately preceding the date of your policy.'

 

I notice there are many unfamiliar wordings and clauses in Direct Asia insurance policy. There is a need to re-look at all these wordings whether they are fair to the insurance policy holder whether is providing sufficient protection to the motorists in Singapore.

 

The driver’s license was suspended slightly less than 5 years ago in July 2010 for one month due to accumulation of demerit points.

 

I have spoken to my immediate family, friends, business counterparties, insurance agents, lawyers and car dealers on such clause and they all find such wordings are not usual to the motor insurance industry in Singapore.

 

Direct Asia has been launching an aggressive marketing campaign in Singapore. Many motorists just like me, are enticed to get a quick price quote from Direct Asia after seeing many advertisements for big savings. However, we may not fully understand the implication of the policy wordings or consider carefully the limitation of protection. The policy holder may think he/ she can fulfil all the conditions without realizing unforeseen circumstances where an authorized driver is not covered. As an example, if I engage a valet to drive my car home after a drink, in the event of an accident, if the valet had his license suspended 4 years ago, Direct Asia will not cover my claim as well. But, it is not practical to check with the valet on such condition before hiring, and even if I did, if the valet hides the facts from me, how will I know?

 

I notice the government has just opened up life insurance to online subscription. However, the scope is very small, only offering the plain vanilla insurance product in a standard package, easy to understand and for a limited amount. They are aware of the risks involved to consumers like me to purchase insurance online without agent involvement.

 

Direct Asia’s insurance policy is not a standard insurance product given the many unfamiliar clauses, leaving the general public vulnerable in the event of an accident. Please understand that a non- insurance payout will have a chain effect on all the parties involved in an accident, as well as the workshops repairing the cars. I propose such motor insurance policy should not be sold online without any personal guidance by either an agent or a trained representative.

 

In short, insurance is supposed to mean protection. We do not want an on-line insurance product that is easy to buy, cheap but full of unusual clauses and difficult to claim. I consider this a selling a false sense of security / protection. What we want is a comprehensive, easy to understand insurance policy to protect the public. It’s not worth saving small money on the insurance premium and buy an insurance that doesn’t give us the protection we expected, that only provides for a false sense of being protected in the case of an accident.

 

Finally, I would recommend Direct Asia to consider stop using 'Robinhood' as their corporate image, because I feel I have been robbed of rightful coverage.

 

[Jman888]

I am writing to share my unfortunate experience with Direct Asia Insurance Pte Ltd.

 

 

My family had a car accident end March this year, but when we filed our insurance claim with Direct Asia, it was rejected under the following policy wording:

 

‘Your policy does not cover any authorized driver whose license has been suspended or cancelled at any time in the 5 years immediately preceding the date of your policy.'

 

I notice there are many unfamiliar wordings and clauses in Direct Asia insurance policy. There is a need to re-look at all these wordings whether they are fair to the insurance policy holder whether is providing sufficient protection to the motorists in Singapore.

 

The driver’s license was suspended slightly less than 5 years ago in July 2010 for one month due to accumulation of demerit points.

 

I have spoken to my immediate family, friends, business counterparties, insurance agents, lawyers and car dealers on such clause and they all find such wordings are not usual to the motor insurance industry in Singapore.

 

Direct Asia has been launching an aggressive marketing campaign in Singapore. Many motorists just like me, are enticed to get a quick price quote from Direct Asia after seeing many advertisements for big savings. However, we may not fully understand the implication of the policy wordings or consider carefully the limitation of protection. The policy holder may think he/ she can fulfil all the conditions without realizing unforeseen circumstances where an authorized driver is not covered. As an example, if I engage a valet to drive my car home after a drink, in the event of an accident, if the valet had his license suspended 4 years ago, Direct Asia will not cover my claim as well. But, it is not practical to check with the valet on such condition before hiring, and even if I did, if the valet hides the facts from me, how will I know?

 

I notice the government has just opened up life insurance to online subscription. However, the scope is very small, only offering the plain vanilla insurance product in a standard package, easy to understand and for a limited amount. They are aware of the risks involved to consumers like me to purchase insurance online without agent involvement.

 

Direct Asia’s insurance policy is not a standard insurance product given the many unfamiliar clauses, leaving the general public vulnerable in the event of an accident. Please understand that a non- insurance payout will have a chain effect on all the parties involved in an accident, as well as the workshops repairing the cars. I propose such motor insurance policy should not be sold online without any personal guidance by either an agent or a trained representative.

 

In short, insurance is supposed to mean protection. We do not want an on-line insurance product that is easy to buy, cheap but full of unusual clauses and difficult to claim. I consider this a selling a false sense of security / protection. What we want is a comprehensive, easy to understand insurance policy to protect the public. It’s not worth saving small money on the insurance premium and buy an insurance that doesn’t give us the protection we expected, that only provides for a false sense of being protected in the case of an accident.

 

Finally, I would recommend Direct Asia to consider stop using 'Robinhood' as their corporate image, because I feel I have been robbed of rightful coverage.

 

 

 

 

are you going to find a 3rd thread and post the same thing again?

[georgehk]

no, I think these 2 threads are relevant to my experience.

[Watwheels]

That's why I try to read as much as I could even though I do not like to go through the car insurance terms & conditions. I believe most drivers just look at the price and do not read....much. You may say I'm kiasu and kiasee. But sadly that's how insurance works. If you want more coverage and less restrictions you gotto pay more. You pay less for less coverage.

 

You ask ppl no use one lah. Who really go into the details? It's all down to "how much" and get it over with. Moreover we have our life to get on with and do not have much memory to keep all of the T&C in mind. Unfortunately such safety assurance is more business oriented and profit driven dan in the interest of the drivers and their wallet. Welcome to capitalism. It sucks.

[Forte3737]

no, I think these 2 threads are relevant to my experience.

I feel it's your fault for letting the driver drive your car. Insurance has the right not to cover you

[RadX]

locking this and stick to one