No Claim - Especially if a TransCab taxi rear end you

[Cerano]

Sat, Mar 27, 2010

The New Paper

 

LoopHole!!! Cabby refuses to pay up for car accident :mad

 

http://motoring.asiaone.com/Motoring...25-206694.html

 

By LEDIATI TAN

 

THEIR car was hit by a taxi from the back.

 

But when they later tried to claim the $2,000 repair bill from the cabby's insurer, they were told that the cabby had signed a letter discharging them and the cab company from all claims relating to the accident.

 

This means that Mr Tan Teck Yiang and his wife will have to settle the matter with the cabby privately.

 

But so far, he has refused to pay up.

 

Said Mr Tan, 40, a regional business manager: "This accident has been a nightmare. Can companies be absolved of all responsibilities with a discharge letter from the driver?" The accident happened on Oct 15 last year.

 

Mr Tan's wife, Madam Seow Kwok Long, 39, a healthcare worker, was driving the couple's six-year-old Ford Laser Tierra when it was hit by a TransCab taxi at a junction along Ang Mo Kio Ave 3. She was alone at that time and had stopped at a red light.

 

She said: "It had just stopped raining and the road was a bit wet. The driver said that he couldn't stop in time."

 

Madam Seow noticed small dents on her car's bumper, while the taxi's right headlight was broken.

 

"I told him if the damage is not serious, I would not make a report. But if the damage is serious and repairs are needed, I would have to make a report," said Madam Seow.

 

On her father's advice, she reported the accident to the Independent Damage Assessment Centre at Sin Ming. She said that she did not inform the taxi driver as she thought that the insurance company would do so.

 

The total repair cost plus vehicle rentals came up to $1,968. The rear bumper and the reverse sensor had to be replaced.

 

In December, Mr Tan was informed by the workshop that the cabby had signed a letter discharging TransCab and its insurer at the time, Liberty Insurance, from all claims relating to the accident.

 

He then met up with the taxi driver, Mr Johnny Yow, 52, at the workshop on 29 Dec last year.

 

Mr Tan claimed that Mr Yow disagreed with the repair costs and refused to pay.

 

When contacted, the cabby disputed the extent of the damage caused to Mr Tan's car.

 

Said Mr Yow: "It was just a slight knock. There was no damage at all (to the other car). When it happened, she and I agreed that since the car had no damage (and no one was injured), the matter will be dropped."

 

A spokesman for TransCab said that as Mr Yow did not report the accident to them within 24 hours, he has to pay the full excess up to a maximum of $2,800.

 

She added that Mr Yow had signed the discharge letter because he wanted to settle the matter on his own, although the company does not encourage its drivers to do so.

 

Said the spokesman: "Once the driver signs the discharge letter, then it's hard for the company to handle the case. We cannot withdraw the discharge letter."

 

Mr Yow said he signed the discharge letter because he wanted to negotiate a private settlement with Mr Tan.

 

"I'm not willing to pay, but the accident did happen. It's my mistake," said the cabby.

 

"If they want to settle, I'm willing to pay $300, but will they accept it or not?"

 

Mr Tan said the amount was unacceptable. He has written to the Land Transport Authority (LTA) and the General Insurance Association of Singapore (GIA), expressing his concern over the use of the discharge letter which he felt was a loophole.

 

"Do we want a situation where taxi drivers can just go back and sign discharge letters after all accidents?" asked Mr Tan.

 

When contacted, an LTA spokesman said: "As the insurance contract is an agreement between the insurance companies and the owner of the vehicle, drivers are thus advised to seek GIA's assistance with regard to the claim."

 

However, Mr Derek Teo, president of GIA, said that it was "not GIA's authority or place to intervene in claims matters between an insurance company and its policyholders or third party claimants".

 

He added: "GIA has always encouraged our members to resolve claims disputes with their customers to reach a settlement quickly and amicably."

 

When contacted, Mr Roland Heng, assistant manager of claims at Liberty Insurance, said: "Our position is very clear. The driver failed to report the accident. He then signed a discharge letter so Liberty Insurance is unable to proceed with the claims."

 

The deadlock has left Mr Tan upset and frustrated.

 

Although Mr Tan is aware that he can take legal action to recover the money, he is reluctant to do so.

 

He said: "Even if the court rules in our favour, we could end up spending a lot of money on legal fees, without getting anything in return, if the taxi driver is incapable of paying up."

 

Cabbies should make accident report within 24 hours

 

TAXI drivers are required to make a report to the company within 24 hours or by the next working day of the accident, said two other taxi companies we spoke to.

 

ComfortDelGro cab drivers are also told to make a police report, said Ms Tammy Tan, ComfortDelGro's group corporate communications officer.

 

She added that if its driver is found to be at fault, he can be liable for up to $1,500 for third party excess.

 

An SMRT spokesman said that if its driver is at fault, he would have to pay a "contribution to repair cost" and the "excess" when the third party makes a claim.

 

She did not specify what the amount was.

 

She added that if drivers are found to be at fault, they have to pay a higher excess if they failed to report the accident within 24 hours and there is a third party claim against them.

 

This is to encourage drivers to report accidents as soon as possible, she said.

 

SMRT cab drivers are also allowed to sign a Letter of Undertaking in which the driver is personally and fully liable for all claims arising as a result of an accident.

 

But this is uncommon, she said, as the majority of drivers prefer to let the company handle the accident case on their behalf.

 

ComfortDelGro's Ms Tan added that under the Motor Vehicle Act, cabbies are not allowed to discharge the insurers from accident cases where injuries are involved.

 

This article was first published in The New Paper.

 

[Hermitage]

Yes yes, but $2,000 for minor damage to rear bumper?? Crazy! It'sust a Ford Laser, not a Bentley! Fair enough, the cab driver should have gone down to the workshop to discuss price before signing the discharge form, but then the claimant shouldn't have just gone ahead with the repairs without the cabbie's knowledge. Rent car summore! Haha!

 

Ya know what they said about counting ya chickens dontcha?!

[Pisces69]

Yes yes, but $2,000 for minor damage to rear bumper?? Crazy! It'sust a Ford Laser, not a Bentley! Fair enough, the cab driver should have gone down to the workshop to discuss price before signing the discharge form, but then the claimant shouldn't have just gone ahead with the repairs without the cabbie's knowledge. Rent car summore! Haha!

 

Ya know what they said about counting ya chickens dontcha?!

==============

 

Nowadays u get a small bump on the bumper & the AD wil try to get it changed cos they claim its for safety. I think its more for a bigger profit.

 

Also I wonder if they really change a new bumper or re-use the old 1 as it wil b very difficult to tell if its repaired properly.

 

Last time I hit the back of a Merc. Just a light 10 inch scratch on his rear bumper & he claimed >$3K from my ins co fro the repair.

 

I think there is a big racket going on among those pple involved & a lot of $ is going into some pples pockets.

 

The worst part is the motorist ends paying for this crime with increasing ins premiums.

 

I think the Commercial Crime dept sud start investigating these companies & if there is any wrongdoings, they sud b heavily penalised & published in the press to warn the others to better stop this practice.

[Pisces69]

Yes yes, but $2,000 for minor damage to rear bumper?? Crazy! It'sust a Ford Laser, not a Bentley! Fair enough, the cab driver should have gone down to the workshop to discuss price before signing the discharge form, but then the claimant shouldn't have just gone ahead with the repairs without the cabbie's knowledge. Rent car summore! Haha!

 

Ya know what they said about counting ya chickens dontcha?!

==================

 

Its the job & responsibility of the Insurance surveyor to access the damage & get it repaired at a reasonable price.

 

I now hear they r paid according to the total cost of the repairs. Like a commission.

 

So like that, isn't it more to their advantage if the repair bill is as high as possible so he earns more?

 

I think there is something really wrong with this practice.

[Pisces69]

Deleted- Double post.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Pisces69

[Atonchia]

Claim also never inform the taxi driver.

These people really no intergrity, made an agreement and want to dishonour it but did not want to inform the other

affected party.

 

I once also hit an old camry few years back. it was a merging lane at the start of the junction, this old camry just swerve left sharplybefore the merging.

Cause damage to my right headlight and itself suffered a very minor scratch on the left rear bumper. However I have noticed an existing damage on the right side of the bumper.

 

This driver immediately said just claim. When reveived letter from insurer, the claim amout is $3,800. I have nothing to say as no camera or witness, to indicate that this man purposely swerve to my lane at the traffic junction before merging lane. I have to admit it's my fault for not driving more defensively.

 

The extent of damage is really the issue. It must be a case of the workshop telling this man that if it's less than certain amount need to claim against own insurance, so have to check and change more in order to claim against other party insurance. Nabei, superficial damage just need a respray at most $350 for the old camry rear bumper.

 

[Hermitage]

==============

 

Nowadays u get a small bump on the bumper & the AD wil try to get it changed cos they claim its for safety. I think its more for a bigger profit.

 

Also I wonder if they really change a new bumper or re-use the old 1 as it wil b very difficult to tell if its repaired properly.

 

Last time I hit the back of a Merc. Just a light 10 inch scratch on his rear bumper & he claimed >$3K from my ins co fro the repair.

 

I think there is a big racket going on among those pple involved & a lot of $ is going into some pples pockets.

 

The worst part is the motorist ends paying for this crime with increasing ins premiums.

 

I think the Commercial Crime dept sud start investigating these companies & if there is any wrongdoings, they sud b heavily penalised & published in the press to warn the others to better stop this practice.

 

True true! Small little damage also claim like siao!! WTF man?! Think you're right, alot of money is going into someone's pockets...No wonder insurance premiums are through the roof!

[Cerano]

True true! Small little damage also claim like siao!! WTF man?! Think you're right, alot of money is going into someone's pockets...No wonder insurance premiums are through the roof!

 

okok la but you know merc bumpers cost >>2-3k per piece.

[Ixat]

In other threads recently there is mention of at fault drivers totally denying involved in any accident when approached by insurance coy and the ins coy can't do anything about it. That is ridiculous enough. Now we have this case where it is totally legal for the at fault driver's ins coy to not take up the liability.

 

We should move towards non-compulsory insurance since even with insurance coverage one can also sign a letter to discharge insurer of all liabilities. Or just have insurance coverage for self claim. :angry:

[Sabian]

This is going to set a bad precedent. In future, when you kenna langa big time from the rear, don't kpkb when the other insurance co tells your insurer they have agreed on a "get out of jail free" loophole with the idiot who rear-ended your ride.

 

Bec if they can apply it in this case, there is nothing to stop them from trying the same stunt when the damages are higher (but still not worth it to pursue a civil suit).

 

That's when they got you by the balls. Liberty Insurance's action (exploiting this loophole) reflects badly on them. Like how Toyota shirked its responsibility.

[tiffanydunk]

wah alot of pushing i can see.

[Asdfghjkl]

Since the taxi driver discharge the insurer, why don't get a lawyer to sue the taxi driver for the claim ? If he don't pay, get court order to sell his taxi or home properties to pay the claim.

[Pisces69]

True true! Small little damage also claim like siao!! WTF man?! Think you're right, alot of money is going into someone's pockets...No wonder insurance premiums are through the roof!

================

 

I wont b pissed if we were not made to pay for their nonsense but when they push the buck to the motorists, thats just too much.

 

It has been going on for so long and none of the industry leaders want to do anything cos they dont bear the extra costs. Its just a ploy to increase the cost of car insurance here.

 

If u really look at what they cover, I think we r already over-paying.

[Pisces69]

okok la but you know merc bumpers cost >>2-3k per piece.

=============

 

What Im saying is was it really necessary to change the whole bumper when it was only a small scratch.

 

I think there is a really bad smell coming from all these pple.

[Pisces69]

In other threads recently there is mention of at fault drivers totally denying involved in any accident when approached by insurance coy and the ins coy can't do anything about it. That is ridiculous enough. Now we have this case where it is totally legal for the at fault driver's ins coy to not take up the liability.

 

We should move towards non-compulsory insurance since even with insurance coverage one can also sign a letter to discharge insurer of all liabilities. Or just have insurance coverage for self claim. :angry:

=============

 

Exactly. What is the point of making ins cover compulsory when it is so easy to deny the injured party proper recourse to compensation then.

 

Its just the same as there was no ins cover in the 1st place.

 

If the injured party was to spend a large amt of money to sue, still there is no guarantee of getting any money if the other person is broke or a bankrupt.

 

It totally defeats the purpose of having compulsory insurance anymore.

[Pisces69]

Since the taxi driver discharge the insurer, why don't get a lawyer to sue the taxi driver for the claim ? If he don't pay, get court order to sell his taxi or home properties to pay the claim.

=============

 

You r going to spend a lot of money in lawyers fees & still no guarantee u wil get even one cent back cos what if the other party is a bankrupt or really has no money?

 

There r many pple out there who dont have any money to their name at all. The taxi might b rented. His flat is not in his name. His bank account is empty.

 

What u want to take. A pound of his flesh?

[Aboon]

Anyone know any insurance company that sell Act Libility Only Insurance (i.e. only provide cover for death and injury to 3rd parties, does not provide cover for damages to property and vehicle)?

 

This is the minimum insurance requirements for Singapore Vehicle.

 

So, if I rear ended someone, as long as no one is injuried, my insurance will not do anything, and the other party will have to sue me directly...

Edited April 2, 2010 by Aboon

[Cerano]

=============

 

You r going to spend a lot of money in lawyers fees & still no guarantee u wil get even one cent back cos what if the other party is a bankrupt or really has no money?

 

There r many pple out there who dont have any money to their name at all. The taxi might b rented. His flat is not in his name. His bank account is empty.

 

What u want to take. A pound of his flesh?

 

i thought a bro successfully won a case and the person had to pay a monthly installment till death or something