Horrible From D*r*ct *sia insurance.

[S2077s]

I think..... maybe one day we need to find our own lawyer just to buy car insurance. Seems like getting a mandatory cover is so difficult. Kindda like if you don't grow to the specific weight and height you might be void of your Singaporean citizenship....

 

And, by the way, I really cannot understand why Direct Asia is allowed to even advertise on the pamplet which i just received from LTA to renew my roadtax. When i went to their website just out of interest to check insruance for my car..... they say my car model is "NOT COVERED".

 

Seems to me that the insurers are all Cherry Picking out there. A car is a car, if regulations make insurance mandatory, perhaps they should also make insurers' scope of coverage to be full and mandatory and transparent.

 

IF ANY INSURER CAN'T TAKE THE HEAT, THEY SHOULD JUST GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN.

 

 

[inlinesix]

Question...

 

If I bought the car under my name...I am the so call main driver as the insurance is under my name.

If say now my wife drives more often than me...can the policy be named under her as the main driver ? I dun think this is allowed right ?

Based what was said by DA, why not? It is call material change.

[inlinesix]

I think..... maybe one day we need to find our own lawyer just to buy car insurance. Seems like getting a mandatory cover is so difficult. Kindda like if you don't grow to the specific weight and height you might be void of your Singaporean citizenship....

 

And, by the way, I really cannot understand why Direct Asia is allowed to even advertise on the pamplet which i just received from LTA to renew my roadtax. When i went to their website just out of interest to check insruance for my car..... they say my car model is "NOT COVERED".

 

Seems to me that the insurers are all Cherry Picking out there. A car is a car, if regulations make insurance mandatory, perhaps they should also make insurers' scope of coverage to be full and mandatory and transparent.

 

IF ANY INSURER CAN'T TAKE THE HEAT, THEY SHOULD JUST GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN.

For niche player who intends to underwrite profitably, why can't they cherry pick? Insurance co is not charitable organization. 1 2 blame, blame MAS loh. Write MAS & KPKB.

[Neutralsg]

Based on this topic, I had cautioned a friend whom I recommended to try DA a year ago, to start looking for a more reliable insurer since he would be caught fronting although he may not be aware that he had inadvertently declared incorrectly insofar as main driver is concerned.

I believe many policy holders would have had the notion that the main driver is the owner and/or policy holder of the vehicle because this term is apparently absent from some insurers proposal form. Having driven more than 30 years, I remained ignorant regarding this until this topic appears.

This issue is apparently controversial since there could situation whereby the actual main driver (especially between spouses) may well be a more experienced driver than the declared main driver who may not often drive but owns the vehicle.

Therefore, to me, the issue of the main driver as well as commuting to work although for private transport as in the case of DA becomes a fine print because usually one would normally deem the main driver to be the policy holder and commuting to work to use it to commute for work as in outdoor occupation rather than to commute to to work as in private transportation for an office occupation.

Hence, although DA offered to renew the policy, I chose another which provides me a better peace of mind with better coverage and less sticky policy than DA who 'fortunately' chose to increase the renewal premium despite the policy with them was claims free during the policy year.

Let's hope this topic serves a good lesson to all of us and to enable us to inform those who may be unaware of such issues pertaining to vehicle insurance.

Have a great weekend ahead and drive safe!

Edited November 24, 2011 by Neutralsg

[King]

got call poilce?

[S2077s]

For niche player who intends to underwrite profitably, why can't they cherry pick? Insurance co is not charitable organization. 1 2 blame, blame MAS loh. Write MAS & KPKB.

 

Well.... the thing is that if you are a farm owner, you cherry pick the best produce for sale, but you still gotta clear the s--t for the rest of the crop. But apprently, this is not the case of the some of the players in auto insurance industry.

 

All we want is no fuss proper coverage, and not everyone is into fine prints. Some of these contracts which costs hundreds to thousands of dollars..... but most times you pay before even knowing the details and you wont know whats wrong until s--t happens.

[Ghostrider]

Aiyah....DA calls it Fronting...

 

I see it as entrapment.

 

Win Win for them...

 

You did not report on purpose/by mistake on the driving habit of the main and naned driver...you get a lower premium because of this...insurance company knows and wants the business....so they take in.

 

In the course of the policy period, no claim good for both parties.

 

If got claim I reject and void policy...insurance company do not lose a single cent while policy holder kenna pluck.

 

Win win situation.

[Redknappj]

Professional!

It is always good to see them coming out to clarify things.

I am insured with Direct Asia too.

Edited November 25, 2011 by Redknappj

[1fast1]

Aiyah....DA calls it Fronting...

 

I see it as entrapment.

 

Win Win for them...

 

You did not report on purpose/by mistake on the driving habit of the main and naned driver...you get a lower premium because of this...insurance company knows and wants the business....so they take in.

 

In the course of the policy period, no claim good for both parties.

 

If got claim I reject and void policy...insurance company do not lose a single cent while policy holder kenna pluck.

 

Win win situation.

 

Small correction: no claim = good for both parties, but BETTER for the insurance company. Because they collected $$$ for nothing and the policyholder paid $$$ for nothing.

 

(Why do I say "nothing" when the insurance company is supposed to be bearing risk? Well, if they already "know" the policy is readily voidable, what risk are they really bearing? They're just making hay while the sun shines.)

 

It's really win-win for a company with such "ethics".

Edited November 25, 2011 by Turboflat4

[Darryn]

This thread has taught me a number of things

1. There are a portion of Singaporeans that can neither read nor comprehend normal, everyday english

2. To some people, asking a simple and straightforward question like "do you drive to work" is somehow unethical and a trick question

3. Some people can wrap logic like a pretzel to get to the conclusion they want

4. Even when a company comes in and provides a straightforward, logical and reasoned explanation for their actions, they will still be slammed left right and centre by the aforementioned pretzel logic folk

5. Some people don't like options, and they don't want to think about how they use their car.

6. Given that some people will believe what they want to believe, in defiance of all logic and reasonable reading of english it is not surprising that organisations in Singapore are so Kiasu and Kiasi about social media and are so unwilling to engage - throwing up a wall of opacity instead so that the pretzel logic folk don't have any ammunition to whack - no matter how soured and illogical their logic may be.

7. Some people in this thread are better laughed at than listened to - some replies should be reported to a "teach them english" hotline.

[Calvin79]

Just my 2 cents.

 

It is just like the MBS jackpot issue.

Sure, it would be totally legal for them not to pay the lady.

But what kind of damage would this do to their reputation?

Very hard to quantify.

DA might be legally right here, and we'll have to respect that.

But they'll have to think about the message that they are sending to consumers.

 

Actually its different because that news made it to the newspapers...

this issue even on newspapers would only interest the car owners who probably after reading it forget after a few days...

[Neutralsg]

Small correction: no claim = good for both parties, but BETTER for the insurance company. Because they collected $$$ for nothing and the policyholder paid $$$ for nothing.

 

(Why do I say "nothing" when the insurance company is supposed to be bearing risk? Well, if they already "know" the policy is readily voidable, what risk are they really bearing? They're just making hay while the sun shines.)

 

It's really win-win for a company with such "ethics".

It's more like wanting to have the cake and eat it at the expense of ignorant motorists.

Hence, motor insurance matters become a bane than a boon. It increases the stress owning a vehicle today.

Perhaps, it may be a necessary evil to compel vehicle owners to contribute more through safer driving/riding habits to reduce accidents and claims?

Have a great weekend!

[Xers007]

buying car insurance nowadays is such a challenge... as one bro mentioned here... really need to engage a lawyer to go thru each and every clause b4 putting the pen on the paper...

[Jim]

Aiyah....DA calls it Fronting...

 

I see it as entrapment.

 

Win Win for them...

 

You did not report on purpose/by mistake on the driving habit of the main and naned driver...you get a lower premium because of this...insurance company knows and wants the business....so they take in.

 

In the course of the policy period, no claim good for both parties.

 

If got claim I reject and void policy...insurance company do not lose a single cent while policy holder kenna pluck.

 

Win win situation.

 

This is not a fair accusation. I called on behalf of my wife for renewal quote and I was immediately asked who is the main driver. I found that irritating but DA made their position clear. Furthermore, they insist the policyholder must be the car owner.

 

This is not the case with other insurers, obviously. It is unfair to judge DA using the practices of other insurers. DA is already upfront ngeow with the customer, and to date, I have not heard of any DA insurance getting voided without some degree of dishonesty on the customer's part. Since this thread was started, I counted at least 3 accounts of DA insurance being voided, but all three are clear cut fronting, where the policyholder was never the main driver from Day 1.

 

If anybody wants to prove me wrong, please share. I'm up for renewal and still can jump ship.

[Galantspeedz]

This is not a fair accusation. I called on behalf of my wife for renewal quote and I was immediately asked who is the main driver. I found that irritating but DA made their position clear. Furthermore, they insist the policyholder must be the car owner.

This is not the case with other insurers, obviously. It is unfair to judge DA using the practices of other insurers. DA is already upfront ngeow with the customer, and to date, I have not heard of any DA insurance getting voided without some degree of dishonesty on the customer's part. Since this thread was started, I counted at least 3 accounts of DA insurance being voided, but all three are clear cut fronting, where the policyholder was never the main driver from Day 1.

 

If anybody wants to prove me wrong, please share. I'm up for renewal and still can jump ship.

 

so it means that only can have owner of car which is main driver as policyholder... any others they reject?

[Jonjees]

In all my years of driving and communication with drivers, I have not heard of void insurance.

Until these direct insurers came.

It used to be simple, buy an insurance, anything wrong the next year just get loading.

 

Supporting these direct insurers is akin to supporting their practice to void insurance.

So why buy insurance that isnt even assuring or insuring?

 

I rather stick with the big players for piece of mind, the price difference isnt really worth the hassle and risk.

[inlinesix]

Well.... the thing is that if you are a farm owner, you cherry pick the best produce for sale, but you still gotta clear the s--t for the rest of the crop. But apprently, this is not the case of the some of the players in auto insurance industry.

 

All we want is no fuss proper coverage, and not everyone is into fine prints. Some of these contracts which costs hundreds to thousands of dollars..... but most times you pay before even knowing the details and you wont know whats wrong until s--t happens.

As a niche player, u only underwrite policies that will make $$$ from day 1. DA is not out to grab market share. There are out there to make sure the customer they underwrite don't make any claims.

 

They don't underwrite s--t.

[Ghostrider]

Furthermore, they insist the policyholder must be the car owner.

 

So I am right...policy owner must be driver....

 

So if in your case, eg your wife is gonna do more driving than you...DA will not take your policy ?

 

Did they state how many % will determine is considered as main driver ?

 

Not accusing any particular insurance company....but any insurance company that accepts the policy and voids policy at the first sign of trouble. To me is what chinses say....nik picking stones from inside a egg.

 

If this fronting can use to cover insurance company...they should have made it clear to everyone. (You see so many Evo/WRX now on the road...so many use father or mother name to buy to qualify for cheaper insurance). I dare say at least 50% of Ah Pek is buy for son (well maybe the son is paying for installments etc...). When I bought my Rex...the SA told me that under 35yrs old...many and almost no insurance will wanna take in. Even if they take in, premium and excess will be super high. A friend @ 34yr old got quoted 7K (have not less NCB) and 3K excess for a STi-A.

 

If at my profile (39 then) I would have attracted a premium of 1.7K (after 50% NCB) 1K excess only....so many young Rex/Evo druvers have been known to put the car under their parents name to qualify for lower premium...you think insurance compnay do not know this ? They know...but keep quiet nia...like I say...got biz why dun wan...they take in the policy at face value...its your fault that you do not declare truthfully...giving them the chance to void your policy.

 

If insurance company spells out every restrictions clearly...I am sure a lot of people will cow peh cow bu....