Help for accident in landed estate

[1fast1]

3 hours ago, Macrosszero said:

Maybe I'm seeing it wrong, but if TS claimed OD, wouldn't the insurer still try to fight the proportion of blame to lessen their liability for repairing the other party's car? 

In the event that TS claims OD, he pays the excess, gets his own car repaired and walks off into the sunset. He wears the loss of NCD (if he didn't take up NCD protection) as well as the loading, and next year he is unlikely to renew with the same insurer. Heck, I've owned a car for the past 15 years and have never taken the same insurer back-to-back because my broker always finds me a better quote with someone else. If TS is determined not to take on at-fault loading, especially if the loading is significant, he may even not take up insurance as the primary named driver for the next few years.

I reckon TS may not suffer as much financially as he fears, as long as he is willing to put up with some inconvenience for a while.

You may be right, but I don't trust insurance companies. Or rather, I trust them to behave like they truly are: businesses, run for their own profit. The insurance companies already "know"  within a narrow range how much liability each party is supposed to assume - beyond that, all this "fighting" is so much window dressing in my opinion. The lawyers may be genuinely on the side of the client because of their fiduciary duty and ethics, but the lawyers are rarely involved, and in any case their clients are actually the companies themselves, if I'm not mistaken. 

By claiming OD, it simplifies matters for the OP's insurer (but not to OP's advantage in my view). Because they can then perhaps negotiate for a quicker settlement with the other side - they may even come to a knock-for-knock agreement, and both insurers get to profit off their respective clients (loss of NCDs, and premium-loading, which happens regardless of NCD "protector" - another scam, if you ask me). Remember, these are not the only two clients for those companies, I'm sure they have plenty of other cases that they can haggle over - even if "ethically" one case shouldn't impinge on the other. After all, clients come and go (you yourself intimated you change insurer every year) but their business relationships tend to be much longer-term.

The GIAS is supposed to provide a unified and simplified framework for the facilitation of claims, but if you ask me, it just allows the insurance companies to cartelise against consumer interests. 

[1fast1]

3 hours ago, Kenomi said:

Seen like ts is driving on the wrong side of the road. 100percent he is wrong if that is the case. He should have settled privately. Most cost him less than 1k if he had played nice. Anyway sure lose case way i see.

Pretty much impossible to avoid "driving against traffic" if cars are parking on that lane. So that alone can't be the sole determinant of liability here, since it is unavoidable. However, I think most of us agree that the TS could've gone more slowly, exercised more caution and used his horn more copiously here. Failing to do these things has causes the TS to have some liability in my view, but it's not 100 percent, not even close to it. The woman is pulling out of her driveway, the onus is on her to *check* both ways. I encounter this situation frequently when pulling out of my driveway when there are roadworks causing traffic to switch from one lane to the other - not expecting it is not an excuse. 

If the video had showed TS coming to a stop and blasting his horn but the woman driver had still insisted on turning out blindly and accelerating into him without checking, I would say she should be almost wholly to blame. 

Edited January 16, 2021 by Turboflat4

[Fxfx]

I always believed that if you are on the main road, you have absolute right of way. In this case, should your legal driving side be completely blocked, then you should still have the right of way even though you are travelling on the wrong side of the road. The onus should totally be on the vehicle which is coming out of the house (side road, no right of way) to check before coming out.   Certainly for this case, the car on the main should have reduced speed after spotting a potential accident which could happen, and the horn should have been used. Now because of these 2 factors, they will have to shoulder some liability at a minimum, but definitely the car coming out of the house is probably at least 80% to blame for the accident

[awhtc]

LTA/TP has to enforce important flouting of traffic rules more stringently e.g. landed property owners illegally reserving and parking on the public road.

At HDB estate, even parking for a few minutes in loading/unloading bay attracts a big fine and owners have to pay for their parking at designated residential lots.

[Gizmore]

I'm in the opinion that the driver exiting from her landed property should have inch out slowly to check for traffic. Being a resident there, this sort of situation is daily affair and should have been extra careful when driving out. 

AXA cannot cite driving against traffic as sole factor in rejecting claim since TS did not violate any traffic rules in doing so. Other vehicle are parked there legally. TS did nothing wrong to go against traffic to pass those parked cars. It is not like there is double white lines along the stretch that makes TS absolutely liable for the accident.

As with all insurance, this is likely to be 50-50. Which means insurance is just wasting time and is taking easy way out. If TS wants to close fast in view of CNY, then asses if cost of repair is more than excess. If less than excess, negotiate with the other party to self repair and don't waste time on insurance. Everybody pay for their own repair (i.e 50-50) at their own workshop.

 

If TS is adamant it is not his fault, then just report to own insurance and insist vehicle joining main road should give way and therefore not your fault. But this will severely drag the settlement and sometimes workshop will not start repair until insurance is settled especially for third party claim. This will likely drag pass CNY with the car stuck at workshop. 

Most likely dented bumper for both parties. Cost of repair probably less than $500. I say both parties self repair and move on. You get your car nicely repair before CNY, keep your NCD, don't need let blood suckers insurance increase premium for next renewal. 

[xia0y]

Thanks for all the replies!