ST Forum: Don't Let Insurers Leave Car Owners In Renewal Fix

[Vulcann]

From ST Forum:

 

http://www.straitstimes.com/archive/saturd...al-fix-20120929

 

Don't let insurers leave car owners in renewal fix

 

Published on Sep 29, 2012

 

MY FAMILY car has been insured for more than 10 years without any claim, and had accumulated a no-claim discount of 50 per cent.

 

Recently, the car got into an accident while being driven by my daughter. Although she is a young driver, she has three years of driving experience.

 

I had to pay an excess of $3,200 for the claim, including the excess for a young driver, and lost the no-claim discount.

 

My insurance policy is due to expire soon, but NTUC Income has refused to renew it on account of the claim, explaining its decision as "market practice".

 

I was told to find another insurer. I tried to do so but was rejected or slapped with unfair and unrealistically excessive renewal fees because of the claim.

 

It is compulsory for a car to be insured before it can be driven on the road.

 

NTUC Income should know that accidents can happen unexpectedly and that they cannot be avoided. That is why insurance is necessary.

 

By rejecting my renewal, how does it expect me to find insurance elsewhere? In my case, I have already paid a large amount of excess and lost my no-claim discount. Are these not enough?

 

The Monetary Authority of Singapore should look into market practices that deprive motorists of compulsory motor coverage.

 

Tan Yau Cher

[Vulcann]

...and the other side of the story

 

From ST Forum:

 

http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/forum-...riving-20121003

 

WHY MOTOR INSURER REJECTED CLIENT

No insurance renewal for dangerous driving...

 

Published on Oct 03, 2012

 

MR TAN Yau Cher wrote that NTUC Income rejected his motor insurance renewal application for his family car, following a claim he made for an accident that happened when his daughter was driving it ("Don't let insurers leave car owners in renewal fix"; last Saturday).

 

We have clear video footage of the accident submitted by third-party claimants.

 

The evidence shows Mr Tan's daughter speeding towards the traffic junction and failing to stop at the red light.

 

More than five seconds had elapsed between the traffic light turning red and Ms Tan crossing the junction.

 

Her car collided with two vehicles, injuring a driver who had the right of way and causing damage to all three vehicles.

 

Ms Tan herself has seen this video footage.

 

NTUC Income never disputed that this was an accident and we accepted the claim.

 

However, we take a strong stand against dangerous driving and any disregard for the safety of people and property.

 

Given the evidence on hand, we decided not to renew the policy.

 

Peh Chee Keong

 

Vice-President and Head,

 

Motor Insurance

 

NTUC Income

 

[Vulcann]

Of course there is this other point to ponder: Can the insurer "punish" the policy holder even though the accident was caused by someone else who drove his car?

 

From ST Forum:

 

http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/forum-...er-too-20121003

 

WHY MOTOR INSURER REJECTED CLIENT

...'Compulsory' rule must apply to insurer too

 

Published on Oct 03, 2012

 

I AGREE with Mr Tan Yau Cher ("Don't let insurers leave car owners in renewal fix"; last Saturday) that the Monetary Authority of Singapore should review market practices that deprive motorists of compulsory insurance.

 

This is an unfair practice. In the case described by Mr Tan, a motorist who made a mistake in one accident is being punished repeatedly by insurers.

 

Because of his daughter's mistake, Mr Tan loses his no-claim bonus, which carries a substantial discount on motor premiums.

 

He also faces a second penalty of having to pay a stiffer premium, if he can finally get an insurer to offer him coverage.

 

If he does not obtain coverage, NTUC Income's decision effectively bars Mr Tan from driving, although he was not involved in the accident.

 

He cannot drive because he owns the car that someone else drove and which was involved in an accident.

 

Is this acceptable or fair?

 

If the Government insists on compulsory motor coverage, it must also, in fairness, require insurers to renew coverage and impose a limit on the premium hike following an accident.

 

Leong Kok Seng

 

 

[ER-3682]

This is the results of reckless driving,anyway the insurance company already paid over $12k to the victims..anyway even Mr Tan changes his insurance company,the premium will be very expensive,because of reckless driving...insurance companies 'shun' these drivers.

Edited October 2, 2012 by ER-3682

[Othello]

this 2 fellas living in la-la-land is it ? So typical of Singaporeans thee days, at fault still complain. He never disclose how much is his total liability. Friend of my got into accident recently, and repair amounts to $103,000. No insurers except 1 wanted him -> Premium $6,000+, he said HENG AH and went down immediately to pay premium fearing that the insurer might change their mind

 

From the word NO CLAIM BONUS, it's a privilege, not entiltlement, insurer increased premium to cover one' loss seems reasonable to me.

 

Maybe these 2 jokers should start an insurance company so those 'poor' drivers can go patronise them and then they will cover all those buang drivers cheap cheap

Edited October 2, 2012 by Othello

[Kiario]

this Ms Tan, 5 seconds already still chiong red-light, should really revoke her license.

[Nicholas]

Why cannot just use Directasia.com?

 

As for the daughter, 3 yrs experience obviously taught her nothing.

Edited October 2, 2012 by Nicholas

[Arianyeo]

Singaporeans like to complain about everything.. now that this is in the news... all other insurers will even think twice about providing a quote to him..

 

He just slappe.d himself

[Vulcann]

This is the results of reckless driving,anyway the insurance company already paid over $12k to the victims..anyway even Mr Tan changes his insurance company,the premium will be very expensive,because of reckless driving...insurance companies 'shun' these drivers.

 

Bro you knew the case? How you know the pay out is over $12k leh?

 

Anyway agree with you and other bros that once you have a bad record, your NCD will be affected and either your premium will increase or in some cases shunned by insurers.

[JackRabbit]

But why you guys siding the insurance companies on this case? If the daughter is at fault - just prevent her from driving. Why refuse to grant the father who was not involved with the accident with insurance cover, even at higher premium?

 

Think about your own situation - hypothetically - what if one of your own family, eg wife or gf, happens to drive your car and get into an accident. And then the insurance company refuse to insure YOU because of that - even if you were nowhere near the accident - would that be right?

Edited October 3, 2012 by JackRabbit

[Ender]

This should teach him not to lend hi car to risky drivers even if they are family. Red light for 5 secs, still cross, tsk..

[2012]

...and the other side of the story

 

From ST Forum:

 

http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/forum-...riving-20121003

 

WHY MOTOR INSURER REJECTED CLIENT

No insurance renewal for dangerous driving...

 

Published on Oct 03, 2012

 

MR TAN Yau Cher wrote that NTUC Income rejected his motor insurance renewal application for his family car, following a claim he made for an accident that happened when his daughter was driving it ("Don't let insurers leave car owners in renewal fix"; last Saturday).

 

We have clear video footage of the accident submitted by third-party claimants.

 

The evidence shows Mr Tan's daughter speeding towards the traffic junction and failing to stop at the red light.

 

More than five seconds had elapsed between the traffic light turning red and Ms Tan crossing the junction.

 

Her car collided with two vehicles, injuring a driver who had the right of way and causing damage to all three vehicles.

 

Ms Tan herself has seen this video footage.

 

NTUC Income never disputed that this was an accident and we accepted the claim.

 

However, we take a strong stand against dangerous driving and any disregard for the safety of people and property.

 

Given the evidence on hand, we decided not to renew the policy.

 

Peh Chee Keong

 

Vice-President and Head,

 

Motor Insurance

 

NTUC Income

 

By all means blacklist or ban the driver, but why ban the insurer or owner? F the insurance company

[JackRabbit]

I think the question here is how can insurance companies reject renewal ? Perhaps it's a bit of a irony here, because NCD = No Claim Discount, after you claim you lose it and just means you don't get NCD. Having said that, each insurance company has it's own right to reject accepting a customer, and you take your money somewhere else. But certainly the "market practice" reason given is a little weak, and goes to show how unprofessional customer service is in these companies. Just like how some places tell you "it's policy".

 

 

exactly...suddenly, the insurance companies have the right to become judge, jury and executioner to all and sundry - worse, because motor insurance is compulsory.

 

All those who knee-jerk and support the insurance companies' shoddy practices in such instances (and in Ma Chi's case where AXA just suka suka try to waive liability) just shoot themselves in the foot - because once there is acceptance, mark my words, one day you'll find yourselves in this same mess and start crying mother-father. It's just a case of a frog boiling slowly in the pot - accept these cases now, and you are slowly cooking yourself.

[RadX]

By all means blacklist or ban the driver, but why ban the insurer or owner? F the insurance company

 

 

think ntuc playing safe, but shooting itself in the foot

[Othello]

But why you guys siding the insurance companies on this case? If the daughter is at fault - just prevent her from driving. Why refuse to grant the father who was not involved with the accident with insurance cover, even at higher premium?

 

Think about your own situation - hypothetically - what if one of your own family, eg wife or gf, happens to drive your car and get into an accident. And then the insurance company refuse to insure YOU because of that - even if you were nowhere near the accident - would that be right?

 

erm, because the father is the main policyholder ? Actually not all insurers reject him, he's just not happy that he has to pay more

 

[RadX]

erm, because the father is the main policyholder ? Actually not all insurers reject him, he's just not happy that he has to pay more

 

 

yup. The crux is he has to pay more. Dun see why that is not fair.......

[Nojoke123]

chionging red lights need to be punished. no case to discussed.

[Othello]

I think the question here is how can insurance companies reject renewal ? Perhaps it's a bit of a irony here, because NCD = No Claim Discount, after you claim you lose it and just means you don't get NCD. Having said that, each insurance company has it's own right to reject accepting a customer, and you take your money somewhere else. But certainly the "market practice" reason given is a little weak, and goes to show how unprofessional customer service is in these companies. Just like how some places tell you "it's policy".

 

why not ? Such policies are always yearly renewable, as a business they can choose not to take whoever's business mah. And it really is market practice (see the above example of my friend who got rejected by 19 insurers !!!!)

 

I'm not defending or siding with insurers, but sometimes must look at consumer point + business point mah. If any one insurer is PRO-consumer, sure to close down within 3 years if they keep paying out and keep retaining "bad" customers. For every 1 "sh*t' insurer, you have 100 unscrupulous bogus-claim workshops ..... these artificially inflated claims are one of the main reasons why motorcar insurance never goes down!