Ferrari Driver's Family Sues Insurers

[Galantspeedz]

any one got any idea how much the passenger and taxi driver entitled to?

 

i think v little nia right?

 

i dun rem there is an amount like travel insurance.... most likely open ended

[Kar_lover]

bulk of compensation due to scrapped ferrari....

 

think the ah tiongs will get more money than any of the victims

 

Not really....the compensation for the ferrari write off goes to the bank that loan the money to MCB.

 

MCB's family do not own the car so how to claim any compensation for it? MCB's family only trying to protect MCB's estate from being claimed by the victims (should the insurer succeed to siam the 3rd party claim) so that they can keep the millions of assets to themselves.

[Throttle2]

i think after 6 months or 1yr... it becomes valid for suicide...

 

yup but not immediate or within days.

if it can be proven that you bought the policy with intention of suicide to defraud the company , then insurer also wont pay just like that.

 

when you pay, insurer is very easygoing, when insurer pay, it is not the same.

thats why i say, if i am insurer in this case, i also wont pay the first party.

 

People insure you to drive the car not in a state of stupor and also not to illegally speed and chiong red light some more.

 

 

Edited August 14, 2012 by Throttle2

[Kar_lover]

any one got any idea how much the passenger and taxi driver entitled to?

 

i think v little nia right?

 

Not sure about the passenger but for taxi driver's surviving family they will claim loss of income. A simple example is say the taxi driver's salary is $40k per annum and he could potentially have worked another 20 yrs so will be $40k x 20yrs = $800k.

 

 

[Little_prince]

depends on the insurance terms...

especially puzzling since this is a Supercar and the insurance probably 30k?

 

if we 2k cover death at 50k...

then maybe cover death at 500k?

 

not likely so much...

 

i doubt that payout is proportional to premium paid....

[Asd78]

All accidents are the result of collisions. If there is no definite intention to cause a collision, it is an accident. If Ma Chi purposely drove into the taxi because he wanted to die, then the insurer should not pay. Otherwise, it must be an accident no matter how fast he was driving at.

 

 

He beat red light...that is deemed as an illegal action or wilful disregard of law....since he broke the law first, they dont want to cover him...same like drunk driving....break law by driving under influence of alcohol so not covered....I think...

[Little_prince]

Not sure about the passenger but for taxi driver's surviving family they will claim loss of income. A simple example is say the taxi driver's salary is $40k per annum and he could potentially have worked another 20 yrs so will be $40k x 20yrs = $800k.

 

does singapore law have a precedence for this for traffic accidents?

[Little_prince]

Not sure about the passenger but for taxi driver's surviving family they will claim loss of income. A simple example is say the taxi driver's salary is $40k per annum and he could potentially have worked another 20 yrs so will be $40k x 20yrs = $800k.

 

does singapore law have a precedence for this for traffic accidents?

[Calvin79]

not likely so much...

 

i doubt that payout is proportional to premium paid....

 

wonder any super car owners in MCF can highlight...

cause i am sure it would be stated

[Kar_lover]

does singapore law have a precedence for this for traffic accidents?

 

Erm, i don't think this need to be specified for traffic accidents. As long as a person is harmed by another, that harmed person has a right to claim for compensation for losses incurred. Although in this case it is not a direct harm. But i definitely heard before like when there is accident at work and a person loses his ability to work, he can claim for loss of income. In this case, the person that was directly harm was killed so the harm was transferred to the family especially if he was sole breadwinner.

[Galantspeedz]

Law society

 

Bereavement

 

When it is a fatal accident, the Civil Law Act [Cap 43] entitles those listed under Section 21(2) to claim for bereavement. This includes children, parents of the deceased and so forth. It is fixed at $15,000.00. It is not a claim of $15,000.00 per claimant. This is to be divided among the number of claimants notwithstanding how many there are.

 

MAS PARLIMENT REPLY 2009

 

Question

 

To ask the Senior Minister (a) whether the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) is satisfied with the current motor insurance compensation scheme set out in the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act; and (b) whether MAS will look into the feasibility of a no-fault motor insurance regime.

 

Mr Lim Hng Kiang, Minister for Trade and Industry and Deputy Chairman:

 

There is currently no statutory motor insurance compensation regime for motor accidents in Singapore. Instead, the claim of a motorist against another arising from a motor accident is founded in the tort of negligence. This means that a person who has suffered damage arising from the negligence of another may seek recourse from the negligent party for compensation. Any compensation paid out would be in proportion to the degree of negligence committed.

 

2. The Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act does not set out a compensation regime for motor accidents. However, it requires a motorist to purchase compulsory third-party insurance to cover his liability arising from the death or bodily injury of others caused by his use of a motor vehicle. While additional coverage beyond third-party bodily injury liability is not a legal requirement, most motorists choose to purchase comprehensive insurance policies that also cover the cost of repairing damage caused to third-parties

Edited August 14, 2012 by Galantspeedz

[Ahtong]

So that's 15k for cabby and Jap lady each or 15k shared by both?

 

What a joke either ways.

[Galantspeedz]

So that's 15k for cabby and Jap lady each or 15k shared by both?

 

What a joke either ways.

 

15k for each family i think but then again.. the 2009 parliment reply says there is no standard compensation framework

 

i also dunno what is what... wait for ruling lor

[Liping24cn]

The explanation is very clear, thank galant.

[Kar_lover]

 

If i remember my Tort correctly, compensation under Tort of Negligence is such that it should be "as if the damage (in this case the accident) did not happen at all".

[Tom_kkh]

its in today's ST. axa insurance.

 

 

i had an accident before, 8 years ago and the repair is about 3k plus.

 

AXA refused to pay for me as they say it is not "worth" compare to my car's market value during the accident.

 

My market value was about 40k..... so they gave me a choice. claim and they cancel my insurance or i pay myself.

 

in the end i LL pay myself.

 

after that no more axa for me.

 

btw what kind of accident is not a collision?

Edited August 14, 2012 by Tom_kkh

[Iisterry]

TPI claims will be honored as per rule of law. AXA will then seek to recover the claims incurred from his estate. It's the OD and property claims that was contested.

 

Frankly I support the stand that willfully malicious acts should not be indemnified by insurers. Insurance should indemnify the policyholders for accidental damages. For cases where the insured is shown to have deliberately created the "accident", the insured should be made to bear all possible losses (aside from injury claims).

 

It is akin to road rage cases where a driver deliberately rams into another vehicle out of spite. Should the insurer indemnify the aggressor? Is this accidental and in good faith? It is akin to taking up a life policy and then committing suicide or inciting someone to murder you.

 

Now all the property damages suffered by third parties can be recovered though own damage claims via their own insurers first. The insurers will then seek recovery from the deceased's estate.

 

As to whether this driver has deliberately acted in bad faith, that is up to the judges to decide. Should the courts rule in favor of the driver, it will set a precedent that people can just do whatever they want without fear of repercussions.

 

For the victims, they can rest assured that current rulings in place has already ensured that their claims will be taken care of.

 

-opinion stated solely on a personal basis

[Galantspeedz]

i had an accident before, 8 years ago and the repair is about 3k plus.

 

AXA refused to pay for me as they say it is not "worth" compare to my car's market value during the accident.

 

My market value was about 40k..... so they gave me a choice. claim and they cancel my insurance or i pay myself.

 

in the end i LL pay myself.

 

after that no more axa for me.

 

btw what kind of accident is not a collision?

 

possible... if paying for repair cost more than scraping the car... in this case, it is deem as total loss