Ferrari Driver's Family Sues Insurers

[Xanavi]

Ok that Ma Chi accident is just too extreme, but let's be less extreme and think back, how many of you guys actually got this mindset, accident just claim insurance lor, than sometimes neglect to drive defensively and always want right of way as the quote " accident just claim insurance lor "

 

Actually what matter most is not claim insurance, but more of how to prevent accident in the 1st place. So to prevent it is really to have the habit not to think " accident just claim insurance " but to think ok even I have right of way, but the other driver too fierce already and give way to him if not accident and may not be able to claim insurance due to the other person rackless action. So end up both actually no collision as compared to " you so fierce, but I have right of way so I don't care and just claim insurance when accident happen "

 

You can start a poll if you are curious, but I can say, I seldom heard people saying "just claim insurance lor".

[Mllcg]

ask sp4wn about drunk driver and accidents.

 

sibeh smelly

[Mllcg]

actually, look on the bright side. if insurace coy dont pay, the victims families can sue mr ma's estate. then the family will be in deep s--t.

 

they are doing this to cover their own ass

[Yewheng]

actually, look on the bright side. if insurace coy dont pay, the victims families can sue mr ma's estate. then the family will be in deep s--t.

 

they are doing this to cover their own ass

 

Yes, that's should be the way and not the opposite, ferrari driver's family sues insurers..

Edited August 14, 2012 by Yewheng

[Kopites]

You can start a poll if you are curious, but I can say, I seldom heard people saying "just claim insurance lor".

 

common phrase should be "private settlement" first.

[Kiadaw]

I do not know the Terms & condition, but in other countries, at least the one I am now, if the insurance found you breaking the law, speeding or due negligence, like having worn out tires (or wrong tires), they have the right not to pay out.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Kiadaw

[Bic_cherry]

What is the use of buying insurance for car if insurance don insure collision BTW anyone know what is the co. that insured ma chi Ferrari? can post here? Must stay far far away from them :angry:

What I u'stand is that car insurance is actually SG govt policy, according to Mr K Anparasan, 42, partner at law firm KhattarWong "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' (Sat, Aug 21, 2010; The New Paper)]

 

Thus the backbone of ALL motor insurance policies is to make sure the victim (3rd party) is not left uncompensated- everything else being secondary.

 

'Comprehensive insurance' though the term might mislead is actually against theft, vandalism (non-witnessed hit n runs), natural calamity, windscreen damage/ some other accident/ misfortune not consequent to any willful act/ neglect by the driver.

 

AXA insurance is the insurer of Ma Chi's Ferrari and I think that insofar as their their efforts at apportioning blame correctly (such as in the case of Ma Chi where driver liability is obvious) and where all insurer losses are reclaimed from reckless/ illicit drivers prevents unnecessary escalation in insurance premiums- AXA motor insurance is a responsible insurance division that ought to be supported by all safe and careful drivers island-wide.

 

I would also prefer their life insurance policies insofar that I find the compensation to the 3rd party victims (taxi uncle and his passenger) just and fair as this would be a good sign that AXA is a fair and just insurance company, performing it duties conscientiously and responsibly.

 

The rest of the Ionescu case is appended for your perusal, please be informed:

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

 

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

=====

Further info:

'Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (CHAPTER 189)'.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Bic_cherry

[Bic_cherry]

There are merits to AXA's stand. This is an incident; not just an accident. I support their determination to be the only insurer to have the balls to stand up against bad publicity. This will be a landmark case in Singapore. Eventually, it's up to the courts to decide on the matter.

 

With regard to the unfortunate third-parties, they can sue against MC's estate. In any case, I think that the third-parties will be fairly compensated by the court. Don't get me wrong, I want some form of compensation to go to all affected. However, with regard to the act, condoning it will have long-term repercussions for all of us as this may set a precedence for future 'langas'. It's ok for the insurers to pay ... sure they can, afterall, it's all about pricing future premiums ... but are you ok with paying 30-50% more premiums at your renewal? If you are not, then the answer is obvious.

Agreed that it is the duty of insurers NOT to accept eventual liability for avoidable accidents despite their immediate default liability according to 'Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (CHAPTER 189)'- a simplified explanation being the Ionescu case viewable at http://www.asiaone.com/News/The%2BNew%2BPa...820-233114.html

 

Insurers shouldn't be liable to accidents willfully caused by careless/ reckless driving, drunk/ intoxicated driving/ street racing etc etc as compensating such will simply drive up vehicle premiums unfairly and unnecessary for all drivers.

 

All drivers should be expected to drive defensively and expect detailed investigations should any claim be made against their motor insurance policy.

 

Perhaps NTUC (rather than AXA) should have set the precedence in such payout decisions and strive to keep motor premiums low. Otherwise, motor premiums will surely rise to stratospheric levels as drivers abuse the insurer loophole of lax investigation; further depriving those who really need cars from ever obtaining one due to unaffordable motor premiums- much to the detriment of all Singapore.

 

Ref:

- 'Motor insurance premiums continue to rise' - 'Motor insurance premiums continue to rise': "SINGAPORE : Motor insurance premiums will continue to go up this year as insurers look to recoup underwriting losses, said the president of the General Insurance Association of Singapore (GIA) Derek Teo." [CNA, 17Mar2011]

[Yewheng]

Agreed that it is the duty of insurers NOT to accept eventual liability for avoidable accidents despite their immediate default liability according to 'Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (CHAPTER 189)'- a simplified explanation being the Ionescu case viewable at http://www.asiaone.com/News/The%2BNew%2BPa...820-233114.html

 

Insurers shouldn't be liable to accidents willfully caused by careless/ reckless driving, drunk/ intoxicated driving/ street racing etc etc as compensating such will simply drive up vehicle premiums unfairly and unnecessary for all drivers.

 

All drivers should be expected to drive defensively and expect detailed investigations should any claim be made against their motor insurance policy.

 

Perhaps NTUC (rather than AXA) should have set the precedence in such payout decisions and strive to keep motor premiums low. Otherwise, motor premiums will surely rise to stratospheric levels as drivers abuse the insurer loophole of lax investigation; further depriving those who really need cars from ever obtaining one due to unaffordable motor premiums- much to the detriment of all Singapore.

 

Ref:

- 'Motor insurance premiums continue to rise' - 'Motor insurance premiums continue to rise': "SINGAPORE : Motor insurance premiums will continue to go up this year as insurers look to recoup underwriting losses, said the president of the General Insurance Association of Singapore (GIA) Derek Teo." [CNA, 17Mar2011]

 

Yes I fully agree and support. Hope court ruling don't favour to the victim family side, if not more of such nonsense accident will keep appearing and make insurance premium sky high.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Yewheng

[Raymondism]

its okay lah.. i think my sentence structure not very good.

honest mistake ar?

[Xanavi]

common phrase should be "private settlement" first.

 

Yeah, that's the common phrase.

Anyway, the real deterrence for reckless driving is the possibilities of lost of lives and properties. And the hassle one have to go through after an accident. Not inability to claim insurance. AXA should have taken into account the risks involved when insuring the Ferrari driver. It's their underwriter fault for not calculating the max risk to maximize profits. There's only a handful of Ferrari drivers in Singapore. They have all the time and resources to do a risk profile on this person before insuring.

 

 

 

[Chongster]

If i am not wrong, the article says that AXA repudiated (i.e. voided) the policy which means the WHOLE policy is cancelled. Don't forget the insurance policy is a contract between the vehicle owner (the insured) and itself (the insurer). The "third party" (which is the public) is not party to the insurance contract. When a third party makes a claim, they are actually claiming against the insured (who is then covered by the policy provided by the insurer). The injured is not claiming directly from the insurer. Hence if the insurer is now repudiating its insurance policy, then the third party(ies) will have to claim against the insured directly (probably in the courts unless can come to a settlement) hence AXA advised the insured's family not to sell of MC's assets and they may need it to pay third party claims later on. Other than the victim's family, another 3rd party is the bank who provided the car loan (if there was one) and also the government for damages to public property. If the insurer's attempt to void the policy fails, then they would have to compensate all third parties and MC's assets will remain with his surviving family.

 

Please correct me if i am wrong.

 

yah, you are wrong. that's precisely what the motor vehicle (third party insurance and compensation) act is for, to stop this kind of nonsense. It makes it compulsory for insurer to pay out, but if the policy owner breaches the insurance terms and conditions, it makes the sum recoverable by the insurer against the policy owner.

 

 

[Ben5266]

As they say abt banks too

 

'give u an umbrella when it's sunny, and take it away when it rains'.....same for ins cos

Eh... UV is more harmful than rain. So correct what....

[Kelvingoh45]

Which accident is not a collision and which collision is not an accident.

[Lv3338]

Which accident is not a collision and which collision is not an accident.

 

even someone insured for normal policy...and after the suicide period deem defined in the policy...

the insurance company has still have to pay.....

Edited August 15, 2012 by Lv3338

[Lv3338]

Yes I fully agree and support. Hope court ruling don't favour to the victim family side, if not more of such nonsense accident will keep appearing and make insurance premium sky high.

 

who is the victim family side ? ma chi or taxi driver / japanese lady ?

[Galantspeedz]

racing with myself can?

 

can.... you can do shadow racing

[Brendon1980]

I think we need to look at the basis why MC's family decided to sue the insurers.

I think the picture is far greater than that, as to what amount to be compensated is only a guage there could be more unexpected/unforeseen cost involved hence for the insurers to take first liability is probably creating one safety barrier for MC's family. Well perhaps I could be wrong.

If MC family is keen to compensate for the cause of the incident, they would have fork out the money first since they are not poor and take legal action as follow up with the insurer.

Well bottomline is MC's family or the insurer, someone must cough out the money.