AXA Motor Insurance - Good or not?

[Junesh1983]

Their customer service line takes at least 20 minutes for someone to answer. Been trying to call them a few days already. Email to customer service they show online is absolutely useless. They always like to say I have limited access sir, this one refer to finance, this one refer to lta etc etc. Don't believe me, try calling.

[Ooosh]

Im with AXA....30% NCD, 8 years driving experience for $3.1k

Edited June 25, 2013 by Ooosh

[Jq1988]

exora turbo, 20 years driving experience, 50% ncd....1.5k++

[Fuild]

Their customer service line takes at least 20 minutes for someone to answer. Been trying to call them a few days already. Email to customer service they show online is absolutely useless. They always like to say I have limited access sir, this one refer to finance, this one refer to lta etc etc. Don't believe me, try calling.

 

Agreed. I just went through this today. I had to wait 20-30 minutes on the line before somebody answered. The service after that was good though, no complaints.

[Directasia]

Hi Camrytron, thanks for this.

 

I thought I'd respond to this, as this couldn't be further from the truth. Our approach is to really put the customer's interests at the heart of things, so I can tell you we have absolutely no interest in voiding people's insurance!

 

Since we started we've handled 9,749 car accidents here in Singapore. Of the claims from them we've only rejected 3% of those, and have very happily paid the rest.

 

The biggest cause by far for rejection of claims is fronting - mostly this is young drivers who've declared their parents as the main driver of the car in order to fraudulently get a cheaper premium.

 

We've consistently been an advocate of a fair representation of risk, in order that we can give a competitive premium for all, and in particular that we can have a cheaper premium for those which have the lowest risk - those that appear the best or safe drivers. In order to do that we carefully assess risk, and charge appropriately. If people lie and miss-declare on their quote application then this potentially results in much higher and more frequent payouts, and that cost would then get passed on to the safe majority. That's really unfair on the vast majority of Singaporean drivers. We don't want those that try to fraudulently declare themselves to push up the costs for everyone else .... so we do make sure that we pay out all fair claims, but not where there is obvious manipulation. That's why our claims payout ratio is so high .. we have only ever refused to pay if there's something very wrong going on.

 

We are here to provide the best deal in town, and you buy insurance in order to be covered in a time of need. We are here to provide just that ... security in a time of need.

 

I hope that's of help ....

 

Was thinking of taking up AXA as their terms sound quite Ok for me.

Like to know are they also those smelly type like aviva/DA like to void people insurance.

Edited June 26, 2013 by Directasia

[Cluboxed]

DA does not quote for my car too...LOL

[Voodooman]

Hi Camrytron, thanks for this.

 

I thought I'd respond to this, as this couldn't be further from the truth. Our approach is to really put the customer's interests at the heart of things, so I can tell you we have absolutely no interest in voiding people's insurance!

 

Since we started we've handled 9,749 car accidents here in Singapore. Of the claims from them we've only rejected 3% of those, and have very happily paid the rest.

 

The biggest cause by far for rejection of claims is fronting - mostly this is young drivers who've declared their parents as the main driver of the car in order to fraudulently get a cheaper premium.

 

We've consistently been an advocate of a fair representation of risk, in order that we can give a competitive premium for all, and in particular that we can have a cheaper premium for those which have the lowest risk - those that appear the best or safe drivers. In order to do that we carefully assess risk, and charge appropriately. If people lie and miss-declare on their quote application then this potentially results in much higher and more frequent payouts, and that cost would then get passed on to the safe majority. That's really unfair on the vast majority of Singaporean drivers. We don't want those that try to fraudulently declare themselves to push up the costs for everyone else .... so we do make sure that we pay out all fair claims, but not where there is obvious manipulation. That's why our claims payout ratio is so high .. we have only ever refused to pay if there's something very wrong going on.

 

We are here to provide the best deal in town, and you buy insurance in order to be covered in a time of need. We are here to provide just that ... security in a time of need.

 

I hope that's of help ....

 

It makes sense to ensure all risks are properly assessed and the correct premium is charged but in this business, it is usual for the prudent to subsidize the reckless.

 

I have heard DA is very strict with mods, even when it relates to upgrade of sports rim, any truth to it? Since DA is all about fair representation, how many claims have been turned away because of this?

 

[Directasia]

Hi Camrytron, and thanks for this. If that's the case we do offer our best price guarantee - if your quote elsewhere is cheaper than ours on a like for like basis (i.e. it's the same level of cover offered, same options, same car/driver details, etc - comparing same with same, then we'll not just match that price, but actually pay you twice the difference if you insure with us. I know that's not much help to you now, for which I apologise, but might be good to know in the future?

 

thanks, and take care ....

 

I believe u have seen my earlier post of I just renew with AIG at $1160, I did get a quote from your web but it seem your isn't cheap for mine.

Edited July 1, 2013 by Directasia

[Directasia]

Hi there - hope you have a great year driving :-)

 

Sure and next year I will run your quote again.

Hopefully I won't be disappointed.

 

[Directasia]

Hi Voodooman, thanks for this. We are always very transparent and upfront about these things, so hope I can answer.

 

Of the 9,749 motor claims we have received so far, we have turned away 20 cases for illegal aftermarket modifications like HID/LED lights, exhaust systems as well as modifications to the engine system. In all the 20 cases, the customers did not have the necessary LTA inspection papers to prove that their modification conforms to LTA’s requirements, as listed in LTA’s modification guide. These 20 rejections form only 0.2% of the claims we have received in three years.

 

To answer your direct question, none of the 20 cases involves a mere change of sports rims, either in its size or design. For clarity, we also do not void a policy or reject a claim just because you have a big body-kit fitted on your car. However, please do remember that in the unfortunate event of an accident, we will only pay for the price of the standard manufacturer rim or bumper, and not your upgraded expensive one. Your insurance cover isn't invalidated, but we only pay for the standard parts, not the mods.

 

I really hope that's helpful?

 

It makes sense to ensure all risks are properly assessed and the correct premium is charged but in this business, it is usual for the prudent to subsidize the reckless.

 

I have heard DA is very strict with mods, even when it relates to upgrade of sports rim, any truth to it? Since DA is all about fair representation, how many claims have been turned away because of this?

Edited July 2, 2013 by Directasia

[Soya]

Juz curious, how does HID/LED light render a claim void?

 

Yes, strictly speaking it may not be LTA-approved but if the HID/LED lights did not contribute to the claim/accident, i.e. being side-swiped, rear-ended, vandalised or theft, hit & run, windscreen breakage due to stone, etc, does DA rely on this escape clause to reject the claim?

 

[Soya]

Would DA like to clarify/respond to my query above for the benefit of MCFers since it says it believes in being transparent?

 

[Voodooman]

Hi Voodooman, thanks for this. We are always very transparent and upfront about these things, so hope I can answer.

 

Of the 9,749 motor claims we have received so far, we have turned away 20 cases for illegal aftermarket modifications like HID/LED lights, exhaust systems as well as modifications to the engine system. In all the 20 cases, the customers did not have the necessary LTA inspection papers to prove that their modification conforms to LTA

[Galantspeedz]

Juz curious, how does HID/LED light render a claim void?

 

Yes, strictly speaking it may not be LTA-approved but if the HID/LED lights did not contribute to the claim/accident, i.e. being side-swiped, rear-ended, vandalised or theft, hit & run, windscreen breakage due to stone, etc, does DA rely on this escape clause to reject the claim?

 

support Soya on this.....

 

why is insurance void if the modifications (illegal or not) does not contribute to the accident

[Soya]

support Soya on this.....

 

why is insurance void if the modifications (illegal or not) does not contribute to the accident

 

 

Yeah, it's important for DA to be "transparent" on this. But so far, boh sia leh.......

 

[Directasia]

Thanks Soya, and apologies for the delay in responding.

 

As I mentioned above, our intention is to be able to pay on all legitimate claims, and we have no interest in escape clauses. Insurance cover is a two way contract between us and the person(s) who bought the policy. There are obligations on both sides in order to complete that contract. On our side we commit to paying compensation if the unfortunate happens, and you need to make a claim. On the buyers side you commit to truthfully declaring your car and circumstances so that we can make an honest assessment of risk and price the premium accordingly. If the policy is bought having given honest and accurate information, then you have valid insurance cover. However, if this isn't the case then you don't have valid insurance.

 

So there's no issue of looking for escape clauses here. If you have valid insurance cover then you are covered. If it isn't valid - you have no insurance in place. It's like my medical insurance I have with another insurer. They don't cover previously existing medical conditions. That is made clear when I bought the policy, in the same way that any modifications need to be LTA compliant when you want to buy our car insurance policy. If I then try to make a claim for a previously existing medical condition, and they don't pay my claim, I can hardly claim that is because they are having an escape clause! It's simply the conditions under which I knowingly bought the insurance cover. The same applies here.

 

If the car has modifications which the LTA do not consider to be safe on the roads, or are illegal, then we can't offer you insurance cover. It has nothing to do with causes of any accident you may unfortunately have had. We wouldn't sell our insurance cover to you in the first place if we knew you had illegal or non-complaint mods. And on our website it clearly states that you won't have valid insurance cover in place if you are in that circumstance.

 

As always we're being very transparent, and I hope this helps to understand our position. We can't offer valid insurance for cars that are illegal or non-LTA compliant.

 

take care ......

 

Juz curious, how does HID/LED light render a claim void?

 

Yes, strictly speaking it may not be LTA-approved but if the HID/LED lights did not contribute to the claim/accident, i.e. being side-swiped, rear-ended, vandalised or theft, hit & run, windscreen breakage due to stone, etc, does DA rely on this escape clause to reject the claim?

 

[Directasia]

Hi Galantspeedz, please see my response just above. It's not for us to pass judgement on those who choose to break the laws on our roads. However, as a company in the financial services industry, and regulated by MAS, we aren't in the position to insure cars that are breaking the law. If any mods are not LTA compliant then you are effectively driving without insurance cover in place.

 

Having said that, this very rarely arises with our customers, as you'll have seen from the figures I quoted earlier about numbers of claims and the small percentage rejected.

 

take care, and hope that helps .....

 

support Soya on this.....

 

why is insurance void if the modifications (illegal or not) does not contribute to the accident

 

[Car_accessories]

Da, was the figures audited by any audit firm? If yes, which audit firm audited it?

 

To me I will still stick with axa... Reliable in claims process.