Ferrari Driver's Family Sues Insurers

[Iisterry]

So according to AXA, if I knowingly bang into someone's ka chng, the person cannot claim my insurance?

Does this mean, next time, lim peh just alight car and when the person ask me what the hell, I just say,

 

LIM PEH TIAO KANG ONE!

 

 

I believe all insurers will still pay but I opine that they should not. If you deliberately bang someone, it is definitely not an accident.

 

There is some misconception too. It is not that he cannot claim your insurance. Whenever an accident happens, the third party will make a claim against YOU and the insurer will then indemnify you from the damages.

 

So if you tell everyone that "LIM PEI TIAO KANG ONE!", you will end up just getting sued by everyone.

[Mustank]

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

 

 

Best Post!!!

 

AXA, i sarppork you!!! claim that mcb gao gao!!!!

[Iisterry]

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

cause i am sure it would be stated

 

Around 5k+ range, max ncd, mature, experienced driver. No valet parking. Named driver basis only. Generally this kind of terms.

[Fcw75]

Though I hate those insurance companies but I sakport AXA in this case. Fark MCB and his family! Hope they kenna jialat jialat.

[Galantspeedz]

Though I hate those insurance companies but I sakport AXA in this case. Fark MCB and his family! Hope they kenna jialat jialat.

 

is it because he is a foreigner?

[Calvin79]

Around 5k+ range, max ncd, mature, experienced driver. No valet parking. Named driver basis only. Generally this kind of terms.

 

Got any mention of coverage in case of death?

what is the amount payable maximum?

[Tom_kkh]

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

 

 

my OMV was 40k..... repair 3k plus..... did i miss something?

[KilluaX]

Though I hate those insurance companies but I sakport AXA in this case. Fark MCB and his family! Hope they kenna jialat jialat.

 

You need to wake up your idea! Why should his family suffer for what he did whether it is right or wrong?

 

If someone committed crime, do we jail him alone or jail his whole family?

[Quirky]

This is interesting. AXA's slogan is "Redefining Insurance".

[Iisterry]

Got any mention of coverage in case of death?

what is the amount payable maximum?

 

Injury and death are generally capped at 7 digit ranges, I can't remember exactly. So if a driver accidentally crashes and kills a few hundred person, the MIB will have to step in to pick up the rest of the tab.

 

 

The most important thing that people should be mindful of is that we are legally and socially liable for any and all acts we commit. Insurance will seek to indemnify them if they have acted in good faith and in accordance with policy's term and conditions.

 

It should not be treated as a "Get out of Jail Free" card.

[Zakkwylde]

hopefully they load only the sports cars and not poor pigkarps like mine

 

He's paying $46k premium for his insurance. Money is no matter to all this rich guys. Of course they want something bad after paying such an exorbitant amt

[Babyt]

he dashed red light, its not collision due to accident...so why sld insurance pays?

[Oblong]

i think axa really buay swee for this case.

Siam until like that, gives insurance company a bad name.

 

http://www.sgcarmart.com/news/writeup.php?AID=28

 

[Galantspeedz]

he dashed red light, its not collision due to accident...so why sld insurance pays?

 

there have been cases of people accidentally pressing the accelerator when they wanted to press the brake and resulted in accident.

 

what makes you think this is not a similar scenario.....

[Galantspeedz]

my OMV was 40k..... repair 3k plus..... did i miss something?

 

i guess so... but it's over... and i lazy explain to you...

[Carnoob]

there have been cases of people accidentally pressing the accelerator when they wanted to press the brake and resulted in accident.

 

what makes you think this is not a similar scenario.....

 

First, he was approaching the traffic light which means his foot should still be on the accelerator. It is not possible to 'accidentally' pressed on accelerator unless he was stationary and starting to move off.

 

Second, it was proven he was not drunk.

 

But I still dun support AXA decision to dishonor the insurance coverage. Beating red light is wrong, 'collision' by itself is an accident. Under RTA, even beating red light does not warrant an arrest, just a fine and demerit point. Causing death is charged under Penal Code, Rash & Negligence Act. So technically speaking, he committed a rash or neligence act neither suicide nor intentional. If AXA wins in this, next time we pay high premium just to cover accident define by them?

 

All the insurers have to say, "it's collision and motorists know it would cause DEATH or DAMAGE", then no claims for all? If that's the case, why state the excess?

[Carnoob]

Actually I don't think this will be a "loophole" that other drivers will deliberately abuse. Afterall, it led to the death of the driver so how is that a loophole? That AXA is trying to siam the claim is the actual loophole that needs to be plugged. Cos it could lead to an unfair outcome to the victims whoc after suffering the tragedy still have to and fight for what is rightfully theirs.

 

For me, the best is AXA to fulfil its compensation to the 3rd parties and then sue against MCB's estate to recover the loss which was due to MCB's recklessness. MCB was in breach of the contract so MCB should pay via his estate.

 

Yah I support. This is a better course of action else why do all motorists need to buy insurance?!!

[Tjkbeluga]

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

I beg to differ..... This case is not akin to road rage. In road rage, the intend is to purposely do damage to the car. In this case, yes, it is reckless but the intention is not to intentional harm. Still I think this is a case where both sides has it's merits.

 

Afer thinking again, I would say AXA should pay because the intention of the driver is not intentional cause harm. However, probably should reduce the payout.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Tjkbeluga