Ferrari Driver's Family Sues Insurers

[Bic_cherry]

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

Given the choice, I will certainly subscribe to AXA insurance though btw, I'd EXPECT their insurance premiums to be lower than others in view of their conscious efforts to avoid liability where the 'accident' is due to the driver's "wilful act and/or wilful negligence of yourself or that of your Authorised driver.".

 

Ma Chi was obviously at fault for the intentional and incidentally fatal accident on 2 counts:

- speeding (almost 3x speed limit)

- beating a red light.

Even if AXA was basing its argument on a purely moral standpoint, it would still be justified because the 12May Rochor road accident was certainly an avoidable one.

 

 

(Page 7: SECTION 1 - INSURANCE FOR YOUR CAR) [pdf: view][alt link]

"2. What Is Excluded

Your Policy does not insure you against: ...;

(g) any wilful act and/or wilful negligence of yourself or that of your Authorised driver.

..."

 

My full/ detailed opinion:

See 'Ma Chi's family to AXA: illegal F1 street racing 'assailant' deserves full compensation.'[HWZ: 14Aug2012]

Edited August 14, 2012 by Bic_cherry

[Mustank]

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?

 

i think it is an issue of speed.....if axa can produce an expert witness to explain to the court how fast the ferrari was going based on video and other evidence and can come out with an insane number, say 200kph, it would be easier to convince the court that if anyone was doing 200 on a 50 road, it can be reasonabily infer that by doing so, a collision would occur.

 

then axa would say that it can only insure accidents which are unintended collisions, but when the driver is driving at such rediculous speed and that it is reasonable to infer that by doing so, a collision would occur, it can then be said that the collision is no longer an "unintended collission"

 

i suspect this could be strategy

 

[Fcw75]

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?

 

Upbringing anyone?

 

Go away la newbie.

[Fcw75]

is it because he is a foreigner?

 

Nothing to do with foreigner. It's his actions. Speeding at least 150km/h on normal road, cheong red light 7 secs after it turned red, killing innocent people such as the taxi driver and female passenger. Want to die, dun drag others down. He has no regards for the consequences of his action.

 

Even if it's a Singaporean, my opinion is still the same.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Fcw75

[Bic_cherry]

i think it is an issue of speed.....if axa can produce an expert witness to explain to the court how fast the ferrari was going based on video and other evidence and can come out with an insane number, say 200kph, it would be easier to convince the court that if anyone was doing 200 on a 50 road, it can be reasonabily infer that by doing so, a collision would occur.

 

then axa would say that it can only insure accidents which are unintended collisions, but when the driver is driving at such rediculous speed and that it is reasonable to infer that by doing so, a collision would occur, it can then be said that the collision is no longer an "unintended collission"

 

i suspect this could be strategy

I do hope that what U just said will become rightful outcome, Ma Chi's family has no excuse for his actions and the cost of compensating deceased cabby, his passenger (deceased) and their respective families shouldn't be on the other subscribers of motor insurance- as it is, the cost of car ownership is already very high, safe drivers shouldn't be subsidizing the lawless/ reckless ones.

 

If Ma Chi had indeed been interested in having his time out, he could have perhaps booked an F1 circuit somewhere in the world where it were available and even get the requisite insurance coverage for his excursion.

 

There are costs pertaining to Ma Chi's illicit excursion, and local 'comprehensive insurance', despite its name, shouldn't be responsible for bearing most of them.

 

In any case, those most important consequent of this incident are the innocent victims of the accident, I hope AXA insurance compensates them adequately, regardless of whether AXA is eventually able to reclaim this compensation from Ma Chi's estate eventually.

[Iisterry]

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.

 

The road rage example was given to provide perspective for cases which insurers should not indemnify the insured (TPI claims notwithstanding).

 

With regards to Mr Ma's case,

 

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.

 

Regardless to how it eventually turns out, I hope more people will stop treating insurance as a "Get Out of Jail Free!" card.

[Galantspeedz]

Nothing to do with foreigner. It's his actions. Speeding at least 150km/h on normal road, cheong red light 7 secs after it turned red, killing innocent people such as the taxi driver and female passenger. Want to die, dun drag others down. He has no regards for the consequences of his action.

 

Even if it's a Singaporean, my opinion is still the same.

 

i am inclined to have the same thought as you.

 

But when i think again, i ask myself...

 

he is young, he is rich, he has a child coming to this world, he has a ferrari (one of the cars that have no need to prove it's speed), he is not drunk

 

so why did he do it?

[Sabian]

i am inclined to have the same thought as you.

 

But when i think again, i ask myself...

 

he is young, he is rich, he has a child coming to this world, he has a ferrari (one of the cars that have no need to prove it's speed), he is not drunk

 

so why did he do it?

He went to 'bj heaven' eight seconds before the crash?

[Piyopico]

Axa Insurance will issue a press release tomorrow. The facts of the case and their position will be made known. Dun need to speculate anymore.

 

MIB will not let Axa get away on this. The reason insurer request the estate not to liquidate the assets very clear wat. Liquid assets very easy to shift. In other words, they are probably planning subrogation against the estate. ok thatz wat I would do. But family dun comply so they reject claim lor. Ah kong is still MIB though, they say you pay, you pay.

 

Thatz all folks.

 

 

 

[Happily1986]

Apparently the insurer don't want to pay since it is a "collision" and not an "accident"

 

If you put aside the anti-tiong sentiment for a while, what do you think of insurer's actions? If they get their way, will it set a unhealthy precedence for future accidents?

 

Or maybe they know the real reason why Ma Chi cheong the red light but cannot say.

 

what sort of claim is this? OD or third party claim?

 

[Galantspeedz]

He went to 'bj heaven' eight seconds before the crash?

 

maybe... maybe not

[Sga54g]

Whatever the outcome, I hope that the truth will surfaced & all the victims will be compensated!

[I-LOVE-CARS]

Seems like more and more stunts by insurers...

dun insure drunk driving is stupid... and now dun insure collision...

knn... might as well dun buy insurance in future then...

 

What is the use of buying insurance for car if insurance don insure collision BTW anyone know what is the co. that insured ma chi Ferrari? can post here? Must stay far far away from them :angry:

[Mustank]

Axa Insurance will issue a press release tomorrow. The facts of the case and their position will be made known. Dun need to speculate anymore.

 

MIB will not let Axa get away on this. The reason insurer request the estate not to liquidate the assets very clear wat. Liquid assets very easy to shift. In other words, they are probably planning subrogation against the estate. ok thatz wat I would do. But family dun comply so they reject claim lor. Ah kong is still MIB though, they say you pay, you pay.

 

Thatz all folks.

 

Go AXA Go!!! Cheong all the way!!! Go freeze that mcb money!!! [pirate]

[Drusid]

There are merits to AXA's stand. This is an incident; not just an accident. I support their determination to be the only insurer to have the balls to stand up against bad publicity. This will be a landmark case in Singapore. Eventually, it's up to the courts to decide on the matter.

 

With regard to the unfortunate third-parties, they can sue against MC's estate. In any case, I think that the third-parties will be fairly compensated by the court. Don't get me wrong, I want some form of compensation to go to all affected. However, with regard to the act, condoning it will have long-term repercussions for all of us as this may set a precedence for future 'langas'. It's ok for the insurers to pay ... sure they can, afterall, it's all about pricing future premiums ... but are you ok with paying 30-50% more premiums at your renewal? If you are not, then the answer is obvious.

[Galantspeedz]

There are merits to AXA's stand. This is an incident; not just an accident. I support their determination to be the only insurer to have the balls to stand up against bad publicity. This will be a landmark case in Singapore. Eventually, it's up to the courts to decide on the matter.

 

With regard to the unfortunate third-parties, they can sue against MC's estate. In any case, I think that the third-parties will be fairly compensated by the court. Don't get me wrong, I want some form of compensation to go to all affected. However, with regard to the act, condoning it will have long-term repercussions for all of us as this may set a precedence for future 'langas'. It's ok for the insurers to pay ... sure they can, afterall, it's all about pricing future premiums ... but are you ok with paying 30-50% more premiums at your renewal? If you are not, then the answer is obvious.

 

wah suddenly insurers start to fight for consumers..... so touched

 

at 50% ncd for very long but premiums still increase every year

 

then if fight lose how.... we pay the bill also so now premium increase 50% - 70%?

 

lppl lar... if they want battle for unnecessary payouts start with those small accidents and workshop first

 

so no the answer is not obvious at all

[Rainman]

Maybe we will find out what really caused Ma Chi to crash. If not drunk, then ......??????

 

Speeding loh.... tot can run the amber light if not red light.

 

Not bad sonata taxi also got turbo diesel.

 

 

[1fast1]

There are merits to AXA's stand. This is an incident; not just an accident. I support their determination to be the only insurer to have the balls to stand up against bad publicity. This will be a landmark case in Singapore. Eventually, it's up to the courts to decide on the matter.

 

With regard to the unfortunate third-parties, they can sue against MC's estate. In any case, I think that the third-parties will be fairly compensated by the court. Don't get me wrong, I want some form of compensation to go to all affected. However, with regard to the act, condoning it will have long-term repercussions for all of us as this may set a precedence for future 'langas'. It's ok for the insurers to pay ... sure they can, afterall, it's all about pricing future premiums ... but are you ok with paying 30-50% more premiums at your renewal? If you are not, then the answer is obvious.

 

I looked up your profile, and you don't strike me as a shill. Just badly misguided.

 

Here's why: this IS an "accident" insofar as Ma Chi most likely wasn't actually trying to crash the vehicle, let alone get himself killed. Yes, he was speeding. But performance car drivers are more likely to drive fast every now and again. This is factored into the higher premiums charged to owners of fast cars, regardless of their age/gender/maturity/experience/record. Ceteris paribus, the driver of a fast car will pay far more in premiums than the driver of a slow car.

 

Given that they're already tacitly acknowledging this fact, and collecting more in premiums, it's disingenuous of insurance companies to renege on their obligations to pay out when the worst happens and a high speed accident occurs. If insurers truly believe that speeding in this sort of vehicle is such an aberration (and only exceptional drivers are tempted to do it), then they shouldn't be loading the premiums of the drivers of fast cars. In fact, they should perhaps be collecting even less premiums (relatively speaking, after adjusting for the value of the car) because performance cars, when driven at the same slow speeds as bread and butter cars, actually stop shorter and handle more safely, and are therefore less likely to be involved in an accident. But they don't do this, do they?

 

This is just very typical of the insurance industry. While it's the customer doing the paying (of premiums), they're always pretending to smile, but when it comes time for them to payout, the fake smile is revealed for what it always was - the rabid baring of teeth.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Turboflat4