Ferrari Driver's Family Sues Insurers

[Kar_lover]

i heard racing also cannot claim

 

I think one of the clauses in the policy is (to the effect that) the car only be used for the purpose it was made for. So if go racing with non-racing car on a non-racing road then i guess that clause will kick in. Which would be fair. We don't want those illegal street racers to cause our premiums to shoot up.

 

 

 

 

[Mustank]

Very dangerous precedent could be set. If insurer wins, then next time when other accidents - oops "collisions" - happen, say in any rear ending accident, the rear ender's insurer can also say that the rear ender was driving too close to the driver in front which is why he could not stop in time. Since he drove in such a manner that was unsafe, then insurer will repudiate the policy.

 

In all vehicular accidents, at least one driver (in a chain accident would be more than 1 driver) must have been driving in an unsafe manner (and would have known that he could cause an accident) be it tailgating, swerving in and out (like that Cerato Forte guy), etc. Therefore in almost all accidents, this insurer's rationale to exclude themselves would apply. This can also include a driver who was not driving dangerously per se but was talking on his mobile phone, quarreling with wife in the car, talking to his kids or any other form of distraction that caused his attention to the road to decrease. These can also easily fall into the same cateogry that the driver would have known that his being distracted could cause an accident.

 

I think AXA is worried about multi million dollar payout but this is very bad publicity for them....and insurance premiums for sportscars will shoot up.....

 

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

[Simonsoh]

aiyo... dun be so quick to jump the gun lah.. the news report is so one-sided. all the china family talky talky... dun have AXA's side of story... what if ktv gal relate this to AXA, i told him "da ge... drive slowly, you will cause accident..." but driver replied "limpeh got money cause accident so what? let me crash a taxi for you to see" maybe AXA got this down on record? who knows rite? dun be so quick to condemn AXA lah... havent even hear a word from them yet... what someone say may be correct... AXA knows something that will only be revealed at a correct time. If their bullets and case not strong enough, they not so stupid to play punk on such a high profile case lah.

[Christan]

There was another case of one local who got into accident 1 week later after Ma Chi case, same location. So the insurer (if not AXA) will be interested in the outcome of this case as well.

 

It seems the verdict has not been passed down for this clown. Hope this case don't get drag too long

[Cars08]

i hv dealings with this insurer before and a very unpleasant one...i can only say..I wont buy any of my policy from them....

[Kar_lover]

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

 

No lah, unlikely to be across all cars. Insurance categorises by type of car (among others). The premium for 2 door koup was a few hundred dollars more than 4 door forte. So although the 2 cars are almost identical (chasis, engine and performance) and the difference is merely aesthetic, still by being 2 doors already attracted additional premium.

[Calvin79]

beating red light is accident due to carelessness plus the area where it happen. already multiple report that something wrong with the setting which make it more unsafe.

 

so frankly speaking, i see no reason no to pay.

 

Base on my understanding from what you wrote, means we all better dun buy insurance from now on...

because everyone will drive safely now...

 

come on... even u kanna bang from the back is due to careless driving...

every accident can be deemed careless driving...

next time insurance only cover natural disaster...

in Singapore we only have flood so our premium should be damn low...

[Donut]

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.

 

I think what they mean is "Reckless driving". Some insurance, if not all, don't cover excessive reckless driving. AXA can use this clause against the claim.

[Joseph22]

Base on my understanding from what you wrote, means we all better dun buy insurance from now on...

because everyone will drive safely now...

 

come on... even u kanna bang from the back is due to careless driving...

every accident can be deemed careless driving...

next time insurance only cover natural disaster...

in Singapore we only have flood so our premium should be damn low...

err.. what i mean is.. that is an accident.. insurer should just pay.

 

so this is where you start huh??

[Yaloryalor]

everyone knows drunk cannot claim.. because it is illegal to drive when drunk

 

Ya so sway even if you are a careful driver. If a drunk driver hit you, you also LL cannot get claim.

[Chongster]

firstly, AXA confirm have to pay the victims. They cannot disclaim liability for the third parties.

 

second, i dont think this will amount to every case they also claim is an accident not a collision. The guy peo at 200kmh across a red traffic light, i dont think it is fair for insurer to pay.

 

there is always black cases, white cases and grey cases. This case is a black and white case.

[Sp4wn]

Yalor, exclude this and that, buy insurance for wat??

 

My fren father van got hit by a drunk driver. The the drunk dirver insureance dun wan to compensate. So Van in the workshop waiting who should pay.

 

frm personal experience .. no need to waste time liao, insurance co wont pay you. they will literally tell you to go figure it out yourself ...

[Mustank]

firstly, AXA confirm have to pay the victims. They cannot disclaim liability for the third parties.

 

second, i dont think this will amount to every case they also claim is an accident not a collision. The guy peo at 200kmh across a red traffic light, i dont think it is fair for insurer to pay.

 

there is always black cases, white cases and grey cases. This case is a black and white case.

 

if AXA do what you say, pay the victims, dont pay mcb because he cheong red light at 200 and claim mcb's assets, then

[Calvin79]

err.. what i mean is.. that is an accident.. insurer should just pay.

 

so this is where you start huh??

 

ok my bad... never understand...

hahahaha

[Donut]

if AXA do what you say, pay the victims, dont pay mcb because he cheong red light at 200 and claim mcb's assets, then

 

Yeah, this is what it means by "reckless driving". No normal driver will drive 200km/hr in SG.

 

I support AXA's stand. If we say AXA must pay, then it will be another loophole for abuse by other drivers. Everyone will have the screwed mindset that, they can do anything they want, insurers will pay everything.

 

Every driver must drive with reasonable care towards other drivers and pesdestrians' safety.

 

Driving at 200km/hr in SG is not driving with reasonable care

[Joseph22]

ok my bad... never understand...

hahahaha

its okay lah.. i think my sentence structure not very good.

[Kar_lover]

firstly, AXA confirm have to pay the victims. They cannot disclaim liability for the third parties.

 

second, i dont think this will amount to every case they also claim is an accident not a collision. The guy peo at 200kmh across a red traffic light, i dont think it is fair for insurer to pay.

 

there is always black cases, white cases and grey cases. This case is a black and white case.

 

If i am not wrong, the article says that AXA repudiated (i.e. voided) the policy which means the WHOLE policy is cancelled. Don't forget the insurance policy is a contract between the vehicle owner (the insured) and itself (the insurer). The "third party" (which is the public) is not party to the insurance contract. When a third party makes a claim, they are actually claiming against the insured (who is then covered by the policy provided by the insurer). The injured is not claiming directly from the insurer. Hence if the insurer is now repudiating its insurance policy, then the third party(ies) will have to claim against the insured directly (probably in the courts unless can come to a settlement) hence AXA advised the insured's family not to sell of MC's assets and they may need it to pay third party claims later on. Other than the victim's family, another 3rd party is the bank who provided the car loan (if there was one) and also the government for damages to public property. If the insurer's attempt to void the policy fails, then they would have to compensate all third parties and MC's assets will remain with his surviving family.

 

Please correct me if i am wrong.

[Mustank]

If i am not wrong, the article says that AXA repudiated (i.e. voided) the policy which means the WHOLE policy is cancelled. Don't forget the insurance policy is a contract between the vehicle owner (the insured) and itself (the insurer). The "third party" (which is the public) is not party to the insurance contract. When a third party makes a claim, they are actually claiming against the insured (who is then covered by the policy provided by the insurer). The injured is not claiming directly from the insurer. Hence if the insurer is now repudiating its insurance policy, then the third party(ies) will have to claim against the insured directly (probably in the courts unless can come to a settlement) hence AXA advised the insured's family not to sell of MC's assets and they may need it to pay third party claims later on. Other than the victim's family, another 3rd party is the bank who provided the car loan (if there was one) and also the government for damages to public property. If the insurer's attempt to void the policy fails, then they would have to compensate all third parties and MC's assets will remain with his surviving family.

 

Please correct me if i am wrong.

 

no leh, in the old thead someone stated the victims can 100% bao claim AXA, then AXA will have to claim mcb now, donno what is what