How to deal with 3rd party insurance that discharge client

[Windwaver]

Example 100% win case but 3rd party insurance discharged their client based on some internal arrangement. In this case, cannot claim from 3rd party because they no longer cover the person that caused the accident.

 

How do you deal with this? Claim OD? Or engage a lawyer and bring the driver to court?

[Trafficwatch]

Head-down to GIA c/w all relevant info BUT MUST know the other party's Insurance firm or else have to do a search at LTA prior to head-down to GIA in town.

[Windwaver]

Head-down to GIA c/w all relevant info BUT MUST know the other party's Insurance firm or else have to do a search at LTA prior to head-down to GIA in town.

 

What can I do at GIA? I know the 3rd party insurance's firm.

[Windwaver]

Head-down to GIA c/w all relevant info BUT MUST know the other party's Insurance firm or else have to do a search at LTA prior to head-down to GIA in town.

 

What can GIA help me in?

[Windwaver]

Example 100% win case but 3rd party insurance discharged their client based on some internal arrangement. In this case, cannot claim from 3rd party because they no longer cover the person that caused the accident.

 

How do you deal with this? Claim OD? Or engage a lawyer and bring the driver to court?

 

Hi friends, just like to understand some stuff. In this case, there's nobody I can claim from and the 3rd party driver now has got no insurance coverage. Does it mean he has to quickly get 1 so that he can drive again? If yes, can I claim against that new insurance? If no, how do I go after the claim? Need to hire lawyer to sue his ass off?

 

Thank you!

[Happily1986]

What can GIA help me in?

 

i don't know the specific paperwork or procedure to do but my purpose at the GIA is to contest the insurance firm discharging liabilities in this case. In this case, GIA is the relevant body to serve as the arbitrator. This is a clearly a dispute between me and the insurance firm because i would otherwise claim from it had it not backed away.

 

If my bid to get the insurance firm to take responsibility fails, then i guess there is no other recourse but to file a civil suit to claim damages from the other party's estate.

[Happily1986]

Hi friends, just like to understand some stuff. In this case, there's nobody I can claim from and the 3rd party driver now has got no insurance coverage. Does it mean he has to quickly get 1 so that he can drive again? If yes, can I claim against that new insurance? If no, how do I go after the claim? Need to hire lawyer to sue his ass off?

 

Thank you!

 

if the other party manage to get cover, why would that make this new insurer liable? Every policy has an In Force date and clearly the In Force date of the "new" policy itself would already be way after that occurence of the incident.

[SimonTan]

Loop holes.

 

[Sky61]

today's straits times article mention that the insurance company covering the ferrari is legally bound by motor vehicle act(3rd party risk n compensation) to handle the claim whether or not the driver had breached the terms of the insurance policy. So even if he is drunk, the policy will still pay?? then why do we hear tales of motorist getting involved in accident with a drunk driver, and the insurance company discharge their responsbility, after which the motorist have to engage lawyer for civil claim direct to the drunk driver???

 

is this double standard becaz the ferrari case has death involved??

 

according to the article, a lawyer commented that 'even if the insuer repudiates liability,should mr MA be found to have breached any of the terms of the coverage (maybe drunk driving, or without license etc) it must pay out the claim first and then recover this cost from his estate later.'

[Happily1986]

today's straits times article mention that the insurance company covering the ferrari is legally bound by motor vehicle act(3rd party risk n compensation) to handle the claim whether or not the driver had breached the terms of the insurance policy. So even if he is drunk, the policy will still pay?? then why do we hear tales of motorist getting involved in accident with a drunk driver, and the insurance company discharge their responsbility, after which the motorist have to engage lawyer for civil claim direct to the drunk driver???

 

is this double standard becaz the ferrari case has death involved??

 

according to the article, a lawyer commented that 'even if the insuer repudiates liability,should mr MA be found to have breached any of the terms of the coverage (maybe drunk driving, or without license etc) it must pay out the claim first and then recover this cost from his estate later.'

 

Then, i guess the innocent driver of the GTR which was involved in a head on collision by the drunk VIOS driver was played out. I feel that this is a more reasonable approach. Hopefully this will also give a visible cue to a certain insurance company who thinks it can get away with claims just by refunding the insurance premium and absolve all claim liabilities.

[Sandra1]

bumb ubm!