AXA rejects Ma Chi's family insurance claims!

[Darthrevan]

Insurance company AXA Singapore has said it intends to recover from the estate of deceased driver Ma Chi whatever payouts it makes to victims involved in the Ferrari crash in May.

 

This is on top of its decision to reject any liability it has to offer a payout to Ma's estate.

 

The accident saw Ma, a China national, allegedly running a red light and colliding with a taxi, which then crashed into a motorcycle.

 

Three people died from the collision.

 

They included Ma, taxi driver Mr Cheng Teck Hock and his passenger Ms Shigemi Ito.

 

Ma Chi's wife and mother took AXA Singapore to court after the insurance company said it was withdrawing coverage of the fatal incident.

 

Channel NewsAsia understands that the cost of the payout is equivalent to the cost of a brand new Ferrari 599 GTO, which is worth about $1,539,200.

 

Under the law here, all road traffic victims who are injured or fatally injured by motor vehicles on public roads would receive the appropriate compensation.

 

But AXA Singapore, which is represented by United Legal Alliance, explained that the collision was not considered an "accident" under its insurance policy.

 

Its lawyers highlighted that Ma had driven the car "at an extremely excessive speed, far above the road speed limit of 60km/h."

 

They also noted that Ma failed to stop at the junction despite the lights showing red, failed to stop or slow down to avoid the collision, and collided into the taxi resulting in the taxi hitting a motorcycle.

 

The defence counsel claimed that Ma's conduct was "so clearly reckless and dangerous that it was not a risk intended to be covered under the insurance policy."

 

They also argued that Ma was "doing an act which he knew or ought to have known was courting imminent death to himself and others."

 

The insurance company added that "the collision was highly probable, forseeable and to be expected."

 

According to AXA Singapore, this means that any deaths or injuries in the collision was not due to "an accidental means" under its policy.

 

Ma was not drunk at the time of the deadly crash, according to a Health Sciences Authority report.

 

Channel NewsAsia understands that none of the third party victims - Mr Cheng Teck Hong, Ms Shigemi Ito, Ms Wu Weiwei, who was in Ma's car, and motorcyclist Mr Muhammad Najib Ghazali, have made any claims against AXA Singapore at this point.

 

AXA Singapore said that it is prepared to pay compensation to third party victims even if no judgment has been entered against Ma's Estate, "subject to Ma Chi's Estate agreement or the Court's direction."

 

But it added that it intends to recover the claims from Ma's estate with its counterclaim.

 

AXA first informed the Ma family of its decision to reject liability earlier this year.

 

Shortly after, the family stated that they disagreed with AXA's position.

 

A spokesperson from AXA Singapore said that the counterclaim is a standard process in the case of a repudiated or voided policy.

 

A pre-trial conference is expected to take place in October.

 

Source: http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/sin...1223953/1/.html

[Yewheng]

It's a good move by AXA. I fully support it.

[Tayspiderx]

Kong Hee should consider these United Legal Alliance sia

[Beehive3783]

Good to know that AXA will make payouts to victims of the crash and then claim the monies from Ma Chee B's estate.

 

Their lawyers are right in a way, the farker willfully drove many times over the speed limit and without disregard for traffic rules. In a way, they can also contest that the farker was racing to void the policy good and proper.

[Yewheng]

Kong Hee should consider these United Legal Alliance sia

 

What Ma Chi accident got to do with Kong Hee ?? [hur]

[Tayspiderx]

Not always to see legal case can counterclaim defendant especially high profile cases. Who knows Kong Hee might counterclaim n double his 55mil ... Lol

[Yewheng]

Not always to see legal case can counterclaim defendant especially high profile cases. Who knows Kong Hee might counterclaim n double his 55mil ... Lol

 

We are talking about Ma Chi claim, and you just out of nowhere add in Kong Hee ??

 

Want talk about Kong Hee case, go search the forum and continue topic from where it stops. [laugh]

[macrosszero]

Does that mean that if you speed at anything above the road limit, your insurer can reject coverage?

[Doosan]

What Ma Chi accident got to do with Kong Hee ?? [hur]

[laugh]

 

[Rncw]

What Ma Chi accident got to do with Kong Hee ??

 

恭喜麻吉

[Tayspiderx]

Fine no more kh I too bore of tat bugger, though wat tryin to say these united legal alliance is force not to be taken lightly

[Solar]

Does that mean that if you speed at anything above the road limit, your insurer can reject coverage?

 

yes.. this is what i see in the above article too. if they manage to find that u break the law (road limit, illegal mod, etc), they use this as precedence and reject payout how? sway sway kenna counter sued till pok

[Vid]

Mai tu liao. All the victims should go claim quick. Find a lawyer or something and draft out whatever that need to be compensated. Loss of earning, hospital bills, future medical bills, depression, etc... etc.... Leave the rest to AXA to fight with Ma Chi estate.

[Yewheng]

Fine no more kh I too bore of tat bugger, though wat tryin to say these united legal alliance is force not to be taken lightly

 

You want talk about KH no one can stop you la, but at least post in correct TS. If not it will become very confusing, one moment KH, another moment Ma Chi. Not friendly to read leh.

[Donut]

Does that mean that if you speed at anything above the road limit, your insurer can reject coverage?

 

If u look at your policy carefully, u r supposed to exercise reasonable due care while driving and obeying the laws.

 

I fully support AXA decision. This will send a signal to all drivers about driving properly and insurance will not pay if u broke the law

[Yewheng]

If u look at your policy carefully, u r supposed to exercise reasonable due care while driving and obeying the laws.

 

I fully support AXA decision. This will send a signal to all drivers about driving properly and insurance will not pay if u broke the law

 

[thumbsup]

[Donut]

yes.. this is what i see in the above article too. if they manage to find that u break the law (road limit, illegal mod, etc), they use this as precedence and reject payout how? sway sway kenna counter sued till pok

 

Of coz. The insurance should not pay if the driver broke the law. Why should the insurance pay for your deliberate mistakes?

 

If I make a illegal U turn and knock into someone, I expect someone else to shoulder my mistakes?

[Damienic]

If u look at your policy carefully, u r supposed to exercise reasonable due care while driving and obeying the laws.

 

I fully support AXA decision. This will send a signal to all drivers about driving properly and insurance will not pay if u broke the law

 

but there can be grey areas too. it says this case is not an accident due to driving way above speed limits and beating red light. but most accidents do carry certain element of neglience too. say if someone drives within speed limit but he was unwell that day and didn't see the red light carefully and then went on to beat the red light and hit another vehicle, then the insurance company says it is not an accident because he beat the red light? I see that this leaves a lot of room for arguments to reject liability.