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

[Sdf4786k]

19 hours ago, Weez911 said:

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.

I had the impression the China man Ferrari that crash into the taxi managed to change the claims against the farrari?

[Beehive3783]

On 1/17/2021 at 11:36 AM, 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.

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.

Must pray for drunk driver to hit some VVIP then things will get moving. If you're a peasant, sorry go claim your own insurance and suck thumb.

The ruling party is just reactive, not proactive. No offence

[Beehive3783]

33 minutes ago, Sdf4786k said:

I had the impression the China man Ferrari that crash into the taxi managed to change the claims against the farrari?

If I remember correctly, the Ferrari's insurer only paid for bodily injuries/fatalities. Property damage is not covered when DUI.

[Sdf4786k]

1 hour ago, Beehive3783 said:

If I remember correctly, the Ferrari's insurer only paid for bodily injuries/fatalities. Property damage is not covered when DUI.

Imagine if insurance played hardball and don’t pay a single cent

[Atrecord]

3 hours ago, Rickster said:

That is the thing.

The offender must be made to take full responsibility of the mess. The victim should not need to bear any consequences, let alone a heavy one.

Insurers have the right to reject claims because their customer is in breach of a contract (for being drunk). However, when the victim claim's his/her own insurance, they should not be losing any NCD, or worse, get any loading for future renewals because of a not-at-fault claim.

sigh... what to do? my fren was not VIP... LLST lor. really dun understand SG why we are so "not protected"... same as when hit by MY cars...

[Macrosszero]

17 hours ago, Voodooman said:

Won't affect NCD and no additional loading for such claims? Then ok lah.  

Quite certain it will under the terms of “no-claim”. Some insurers are more specific - asking about any at-fault claims when you apply to be covered. Others just talk about claims in general. 

But you’d need to weigh out the opportunity cost of waiting for the court to pass judgement, civil claims yadda yadda yadda vs. the lost NCD and the increased loading, but I think that’s something you can try appealing for.

[Sp4wn]

2 hours ago, Beehive3783 said:

Must pray for drunk driver to hit some VVIP then things will get moving. If you're a peasant, sorry go claim your own insurance and suck thumb.

The ruling party is just reactive, not proactive. No offence

read my lengthy (old) post on this.

same advice my lawyer gave me at that point in time (based on his own experience)

get hit by a guy driving S500 - no problem, sue him gao gao, he will pay quietly rather than risk his name appear in newspaper

get his by someone driving a crap car (leave it to your imagination) and he will just say .. sue me lah (which happened in my case) and due to his age and lack of assets ... he wont even sit in jail to eat curry rice ... infact, the govt fined him (iirc $2k or $5k) which was more than what I got in terms of my medical bill payments (but again, i should be thankful I am thankful, my injuries were mainly superficial with bruising and I was able to crawl out of the passenger side window and still stand on my own 2 feet). 

ymmv

[Vid]

3 hours ago, Sp4wn said:

the problem is that this topic has been beaten to death so many times and the end result is always the same. the victim gets the blame. considering its almost a decade since my accident with no change in legislation, I can only assume this is something we have to live with. I'm not sure why the government wont step in to rectify this issue .. but I certainly wish they would at least give their explanations or justifications instead of keeping mum. 

The motivation, or the lack-of, is obviously money. This gov is pro-business. By legislating a law, it will drive businesses away, or simply jack up premium that is already super high.

[Watwheels]

I think insurance companies wont want to get involved with too many legal matters. Expect clients to seek their own legal recourse from drink driving accidents. Considered criminal case? I dunno. This kinda cases confirm will drag for a couple of years. To them is waste time waste money. If more lawyers or law firms get involved with the insurers our premiums will surely go up. 

Just think about what you wish for. Such cases happen in small numbers so no need for too many professionals to get involved and raise premiums for majority drivers.

Quote

Drink-driving has real and serious consequences both on yourself and others. ... It is also a criminal offence to be in charge of a vehicle while drunk under section 68 of the RTA, even if you are not driving it. One wrong decision is all it takes. Don't drink and drive.

So it's a criminal offense. It's out of the insurers' hands?

Avoid going out late at night? So that can avoid drink drivers?

[Totak]

Sadly, nothing will change until 1 drunken whack into a high profile personnel. 

Why did michael fay kena caught so fast and whacked.... 1 of the cars that kena was a judge's car. 

 

 

[Voodooman]

39 minutes ago, Watwheels said:

I think insurance companies wont want to get involved with too many legal matters. Expect clients to seek their own legal recourse from drink driving accidents. Considered criminal case? I dunno. This kinda cases confirm will drag for a couple of years. To them is waste time waste money. If more lawyers or law firms get involved with the insurers our premiums will surely go up. 

Just think about what you wish for. Such cases happen in small numbers so no need for too many professionals to get involved and raise premiums for majority drivers.

So it's a criminal offense. It's out of the insurers' hands?

Avoid going out late at night? So that can avoid drink drivers?

Make sense. G knows the cost is more than the benefit as a whole. So if you suay suay kanna hit by a drunk driver, just suck thumb and blame it on your bad luck. 

Edited January 18, 2021 by Voodooman

[Mustank]

On 1/17/2021 at 7:36 AM, 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? 

If you drive a Musso, just need to call ambulance for the behind drunk guy

 

[D_orai]

Why can't the drunken driver's insurance pays out the victim only, and deny paying the drunken fella.

Let's say an example of a normal accident, SCENARIO 1, where Person A (car) hits Person B (car/human), and person A is NOT intoxicated BUT was using a mobile phone while driving. So Person A's insurance company will pay out to both parties correct? Even if it is a criminal case, where Person B is badly injured, and Person A gets arrested for causing accident due reckless driving as he used a mobile phone, which is against the law.

Now let's see a drunken driving case SCENARIO 2, where Person A IS intoxicated. Why can't it be a similar to scenario A? In both scenarios, both drivers cause an accident due to unawareness of the road, which can be classified as reckless driving correct? So why can't the insurance company of Person A, just pay out to the affected party only? In this case, they can save some cost as they do not have to pay out to Person A since he was intoxicated when he caused the accident, and drink driving is against the law. They can then increase the drunken fella's premium as what they do to normal accident claims.

There is no additional risk to be spread out among other insured drivers since it is similar to causing any other road accident so I don't see why premiums will have to increase for everyone.

Appreciate some clarity on this. 

Edited January 20, 2021 by D_orai

[Totak]

Becos, ins co will not pay for exclusions, driving under the influence of alcohol etc etc blah blah.....  is an exclusions inside the terms and condition in the policy wordings. 

This is a total breach of the policy and it cannot react unless ah gong make some changes rules and regulations. 

Only thing GIA or their MIB has agreed is they will pay 3rd party bodily injures and death only.

 
 

[inlinesix]

4 minutes ago, Totak said:

Becos, ins co will not pay for exclusions, driving under the influence of alcohol etc etc blah blah.....  is an exclusions inside the terms and condition in the policy wordings. 

This is a total breach of the policy and it cannot react unless ah gong make some changes rules and regulations. 

Only thing GIA or their MIB has agreed is they will pay 3rd party bodily injures and death only.

in both Bolehland & CECAland, culprit insurer has to compensate victim regardless of a legal or illegal act.

Their regulator is very on the ball if consumer complaint.

[Totak]

or til their own kena then they will wake up.