Jump to content

Insurance companies should payout if their insured driver is above the legal alcohol limit and involved in any accident


Fxfx
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi all, I am sure that many of you will feel the same way as me. This has been happening in Singapore for the longest time and I feel it is time for insurance companies to sort this out. A common scenario is like this: Car A hits Car B from behind, the problem is driver A is intoxicated. B will be placed in a dilemma, if he reports A for drink driving, then insurance for A won't pay for any damages. B will lose out here. But if B reports this as a normal accident and A gets away scot free, then it is likely A will cause further serious even fatal damage down the road with their habit

Insurance companies should be forced to pay up on behalf of their insured driver for the assessed liabilities and then afterward sue their client  (drunk driver) for compensation. Reason being they have the resources to engage lawyers to easily get this done. On the other hand, which car driver (in B's shoes)  is going to engage a lawyer to fight his case, knowing the costs are prohibitive etc. So for the moment, anyone who is in B's shoes will suffer financial loss  from such accidents unnecessarily even though they are totally not at fault

If we buy insurance, then we should it to cover our bs should the need arise especially when we are not at fault, otherwise we buy for what? 

↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 10
Link to post
Share on other sites

TP should set a Law,those Drunk Drivers,once into an Accident,should ''froze'' their Bank Accounts & Assets,so that the Insurance Companies can get Money from them..i heard many to prevent payment,transfer their Assets to their other Famil;y Members..& they declared Bankrupt once charged.

Edited by ER-3682
  • Praise 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

actually, moral of the story for me personally is this. 

We are not police or law enforcement , we do not know if anyone is drunk or not.

That red face could be a flush from all the adrenaline or it could be a salon tan. 

In an accident, first i would check for injuries. Got injury send to hospital.

No injuries, i would just take photos and or video. the other guy dun want to exchange particulars also never mind. 

Then file a claim. The rest not relevant to me, cos i not police or judge.  Finish. Get compensated (eventually).

What for go and say this guy drink driving. Hokkien say " take l*n knock head"

I would abandon the moral high ground in an instant, just to get my money.

But thats just me, because moral high ground everyone can take, money not easy to earn.  😋

 

  • Praise 7
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Fxfx said:

Hi all, I am sure that many of you will feel the same way as me. This has been happening in Singapore for the longest time and I feel it is time for insurance companies to sort this out. A common scenario is like this: Car A hits Car B from behind, the problem is driver A is intoxicated. B will be placed in a dilemma, if he reports A for drink driving, then insurance for A won't pay for any damages. B will lose out here. But if B reports this as a normal accident and A gets away scot free, then it is likely A will cause further serious even fatal damage down the road with their habit

Insurance companies should be forced to pay up on behalf of their insured driver for the assessed liabilities and then afterward sue their client  (drunk driver) for compensation. Reason being they have the resources to engage lawyers to easily get this done. On the other hand, which car driver (in B's shoes)  is going to engage a lawyer to fight his case, knowing the costs are prohibitive etc. So for the moment, anyone who is in B's shoes will suffer financial loss  from such accidents unnecessarily even though they are totally not at fault

If we buy insurance, then we should it to cover our bs should the need arise especially when we are not at fault, otherwise we buy for what? 

The problem does not lie with insurers.

The biggest problem lies with MAS.  MAS is THE REGULATOR of Insurers.

Even Bolehland & Cecaland also mandate culprit insurers pay victim 1st.

Sadly, without COMPLAINTS from VICTIMS (a lot of it), nothing will change.

Edited by inlinesix
  • Praise 6
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, inlinesix said:

The problem does not lie with insurers.

The biggest problem lies with MAS.  MAS is THE REGULATOR of Insurers.

Even Bolehland & Cecaland also mandate culprit insurers pay victim 1st.

Sadly, without COMPLAINTS from VICTIMS (a lot of it), nothing will change.

In Singapore if the victim kpkb there is an insurance body that will pay .. but that’s from hearsay.. so victim still have Avenue to cliam ... when I say victim is those maimed in the process of the accident..

if kanna fender bender 2 -3k type then Boh kangtao 

  • Praise 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Agree with the TS on this, but to achieve this, it's a mission like fighting world hunger (maybe going to oppy MP got better chance 😁

I had been personally been hit head-one by a drunk driver. I was stopped at a T junction waiting for right turn when the drunk driver's car slammed into my stationary car. Several members of the public called 995 and cut the story short, the drunk driver was arrested on the spot. Insurance won't pay. But thank God the drunk driver paid in full for the major repair + medical + a few Ks of loss of use. Everything settled privately, but that is possible only because the drunk driver is a rich guy. 

I shudder to think if the drunk driver is someone not in good financial position. Then we will really have no recourse. 

Edited by Rickster
  • Praise 1
  • Haha! 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rickster said:

Agree with the TS on this, but to achieve this, it's a mission like fighting world hunger (maybe going to oppy MP got better chance 😁

I had been personally been hit head-one by a drunk driver. I was stopped at a T junction waiting for right turn when the drunk driver's car slammed into my stationary car. Several members of the public called 995 and cut the story short, the drunk driver was arrested on the spot. Insurance won't pay. But thank God the drunk driver paid in full for the major repair + medical + a few Ks of loss of use. Everything settled privately, but that is possible only because the drunk driver is a rich guy. 

I shudder to think if the drunk driver is someone not in good financial position. Then we will really need have no recourse. 

if u kanna one that kanna driving suspension type lagi worst.. 

and is reticent and kanna sentences n go back to squats u in a whole world of pain 

u just have to own self cliam own self n go one corner n suck thumb 

Edited by Sdf4786k
  • Praise 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Need your MP to legislate the bill and hope enough people ask their MP for it. This is something for politicians, not insurers. Insurers will naturally exclude if there is no regulation to provide such coverage.

  • Praise 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Weez911 said:

Need your MP to legislate the bill and hope enough people ask their MP for it. This is something for politicians, not insurers. Insurers will naturally exclude if there is no regulation to provide such coverage.

I may be wrong, but I'm assuming that there will be plenty of such cases whereby victims of drink driving has been seeing their MPs asking about assistance over the years.

But why isn't anything done about this is anybody's guess.

Not sure if it may be easier to bring this up in parliament and suggest that victims of drink driving can claim their own insurance without losing their NCD.

Edited by Rickster
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rickster said:

I may be wrong, but I'm assuming that there will be plenty of such cases whereby victims of drink driving has been seeing their MPs asking about assistance over the years.

But why isn't anything done about this is anybody's guess.

I also don't know. They have super majority in parliament and they can pass this tomorrow if they want to.

Maybe it is WP fault for not asking for it. 

Edited by Weez911
  • Haha! 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Hamburger said:

Incumbents are there to protect businesses rather than consumers. 

Ask the cartels, they would agreed with both hands and feet up. 

Especially car owners.

If the market is filled with Corolla, we can call ourselves poor.

Unfortunately, our market is filled with Audi/BMW/Merc.

  • Haha! 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

I dunno why MAS is in charge...first of all they are a stat board which operates in an area far detached from the business of road traffic. True enough yes, they may oversee all insurers in Singapore but if we see how the Ministry of Health gets to have its say on matters relating to Medishield and hospitalisation policy coverage...then you will, by equivalency and comparison, notice how LTA is very far remote from having its say on road traffic related insurance issues.

OYK should take this up instead of MAS. Too bad i guess he is still blinded by the need to establish travel bubbles here there and everywhere. 

These are peasant issues which require attention. Unfortunately pappies will just tell you if they change the ruling, then we can expect more drunkards to hit the roads because they now know insuance will pay for their mistakes, so suck it up.

Link to post
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, Kyrios said:

I dunno why MAS is in charge...first of all they are a stat board which operates in an area far detached from the business of road traffic. True enough yes, they may oversee all insurers in Singapore but if we see how the Ministry of Health gets to have its say on matters relating to Medishield and hospitalisation policy coverage...then you will, by equivalency and comparison, notice how LTA is very far remote from having its say on road traffic related insurance issues.

MAS is just the regulator, or policemen if you will. Their role is to ensure the Banking and Insurer Acts/subsidiary regulations are adhered to by Financial Institutions. They are not legislators. 

Legislators are our elected MP. If enough people apply pressure, the bill will be passed. MP only listen to your votes and my vote. That's how the world spin. 👍

  • Praise 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Weez911 said:

MAS is just the regulator, or policemen if you will. Their role is to ensure the Banking and Insurer Acts/subsidiary regulations are adhered to by Financial Institutions. They are not legislators. 

Legislators are our elected MP. If enough people apply pressure, the bill will be passed. MP only listen to your votes and my vote. That's how the world spin. 👍

A lot of insurance regulator around the world will set a minimum standard for claims and underwriting.

The same regulator is also the enforcer of these minimum standards.

 

  • Praise 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, Weez911 said:

MAS is just the regulator, or policemen if you will. Their role is to ensure the Banking and Insurer Acts/subsidiary regulations are adhered to by Financial Institutions. They are not legislators. 

Legislators are our elected MP. If enough people apply pressure, the bill will be passed. MP only listen to your votes and my vote. That's how the world spin. 👍

Yes, don't blame the enforcer of the law, blame the lawmakers.

A disparate group of customers vs a vested business group with an association?

That is why we need a bipartisan consumer watchdog.  

If someone well versed in insurance starts a logical petition to force insurers to pay up and claim on their customers (illegality), i will sign it.  No pressure, no action. 

Edited by Voodooman
  • Praise 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Voodooman said:

That is why we need a bipartisan consumer watchdog.  

If someone well versed in insurance starts a logical petition to force insurers to pay up and claim on their customers (illegality), i will sign it.  No pressure, no action. 

Bro as much as I support the idea of bipartisanship, when has pap ever allowed such an organisation to sprout without having 1 or 2 backbackbenchers (often as a patron or emeritus something) in the said organisation?

Unfortunately this area of legislation has very limited reach (cars are expensive in Singapore, plus probability of drink-driving cum insurance claims), hence nobody in pap really pays much attention to it. I don't see such a legislation enacted in our lifetime unless it happens to one of their own, touchwood.

↡ Advertisement
  • Praise 1
  • Haha! 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...