Ferrari Driver's Family Sues Insurers

[Bic_cherry]

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

These terms are technicalities only, not to be bothered to much with. More important is if the insurer has the ability to repudiate their own liability and reclaim any compensation paid to 3rd party victims from the policy holder... the contract states the agreement very clearly.

 

For safe and conscientious drivers, there is really no need to worry.

[Bic_cherry]

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.

SG law is good to victims insofar that it requires the insurer to cough out the $$$ first.

 

How insurer chooses to recover the $$$ is another issue- in this case between Ma Chi's estate and AXA.

 

To bad for Ma Chi's estate, just 1

has made a million $$$ payout/ liability difference (to the benefit of taxi occupants) by correctly identifying assailant vs victim. The YouTube video will also decide who gets paid what.

 

Motor insurance should remain a force of good and not a license to commit road rage and get off the hook, criminally, financially or otherwise scot free.

[Mustank]

a few day liao, axa no sound no picture leh