Ferrari Driver's Family Sues Insurers

[Gizmore]

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.

 

 

Exactly. Already charging higher premium to bear more risk and now turn around and say this is collision and not an accident.

 

Now unless the insurer has concrete evidence to substantial that there is a deliberate intent by Ma to speed and beat the red light and thereby committing a traffic offense, I don't see how the hell the insurer can spin this.

[Kar_lover]

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.

 

+1

Hear hear....Couldn't have said it better myself!

[RadX]

As they say abt banks too

 

'give u an umbrella when it's sunny, and take it away when it rains'.....same for ins cos

[Happily1986]

As they say abt banks too

 

'give u an umbrella when it's sunny, and take it away when it rains'.....same for ins cos

 

describes one of those sad silent films.

[RadX]

describes one of those sad silent films.

 

 

'one flew over the cuckoo's nest?' [:p] MO the main actor there

[Zniper]

ask them go fly kite... AXA insurance going to lose a huge bunch of customer...

[Dark]

I wonder why it seems to be so easy for insurance co to exclude themselves from liabilities through obscure T&Cs or even refuse to provide coverage in certain cases, when car insurance is made compulsory in sg.

 

There were even absurd cases where taxi drivers are able to "discharge" their insurance co when they get into accidents.

 

More effort should be put into tackling fraudulent and inflated claims than to exploit ways to shed responsibility in real accident cases like this.

 

The government should take a hard look at this industry for a major revamp to ensure rules are fair to consumers.

[Sgg687z]

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.

 

 

 

respect your thoughts

[Vhtfhwlego]

Accident to collisions & next time would be incidents.

[Turbonetics]

racing hard to prove unless it is an organised one....

 

racing and driving fast got difference?

 

 

racing with myself can?

[Iisterry]

We might need to remove certain elements to eliminate bias in our reasoning.

 

Would it have mattered if it was a 40 year old married aunty holding a job in a respectable profession? If she had been driving a Chery QQ at 200km/h along an urban road cutting right through the city in the middle of the night with traffic lights at 200m intervals? What would have been going through her mind? It could hardly be described as the best of intentions.

 

Should the insurer indemnify her of her own claims should she get into an accident? We must remember that it is a court of law. It could care less if she was a pauper or a billionaire, whether she is driving a Ferrari or a QQ.

[Happily1986]

racing with myself can?

 

Nbz, you try explain to TP lor. That like Takumi in Initial D, you were trying to beat your ghost to best your personal record siboh?

[Yewheng]

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.

 

Ya I also feel insurer should not pay as it is clear cut of rackless driving that causes such major accident.

 

Should really discourage people because of their own rackless action and still can and think " ai ya accident, accident lor, just claim insurance can already mindset "

 

Very unfair to those who just normal road users who drive safely and bo dai bo ji everytime increase premium because of all those rackless driver.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Yewheng

[Xanavi]

For those who support that the insurer don't pay... better pray you are not the victim of such "collision".. because then I really don't know how you or your family will feel..

 

Pray..Pray hard..

[Littleknown]

If insurer pay, ultimately we are the ones paying.

 

None of us is likely to be in a outrageous collision like ma Chee.

 

So I say let's f the family.

[Yewheng]

For those who support that the insurer don't pay... better pray you are not the victim of such "collision".. because then I really don't know how you or your family will feel..

 

Pray..Pray hard..

 

Ok think of it this way.. why people get so bold to drive so racklessly ??

 

In fact I knew many would think, accident claim insurance lor.. ( That is not the correct mindset it should be )

 

Because of all those who always think can just claim insurance and carry on with life, that's one of the reason people driving become so bold.

 

So to remove those people mindset of "accident just claim insurance lor" so that people will think twice before they do any rackless action as they may have chances of not being able to claim insurance due to their own rackless action.

 

Than naturally insurance premium will decrease because of less of such nonsense and those claim insurance are genuine case of pure unlucky like suddenly tree fell down and block off road and driver jam brake and behind car unable to brake in time and cause chain collasion and not because of pure intention of wanting to cause accident and get away lightly.

[Xanavi]

Ok think of it this way.. why people get so bold to drive so racklessly ??

 

In fact I knew many would think, accident claim insurance lor.. ( That is not the correct mindset it should be )

 

Because of all those who always think can just claim insurance and carry on with life, that's one of the reason people driving become so bold.

 

So to remove those people mindset of "accident just claim insurance lor" so that people will think twice before they do any rackless action as they may have chances of not being able to claim insurance due to their own rackless action.

 

Than naturally insurance premium will decrease because of less of such nonsense and those claim insurance are genuine case of pure unlucky like suddenly tree fell down and block off road and driver jam brake and behind car unable to brake in time and cause chain collasion and not because of pure intention of wanting to cause accident and get away lightly.

 

I beg to differ... a lot of us would rather not claim unless the damage is too great and require huge sum of money. Most of the drivers would rather pay out of own pockets and not affect their NCD. Even reckless driver will still have some sense and not go all out like Ma Chi. If it's really like what you say, you'll be seeing more such "collisions" everyday.

People think twice about being reckless on the road because they don't want to create accidents and hurt themselves and others, not because insurance don't pay. That's the wrong mindset.

Edited August 14, 2012 by Xanavi

[Yewheng]

I beg to differ... a lot of us would rather not claim unless the damage is too great and require huge sum of money. Most of the drivers would rather pay out of own pockets and not affect their NCD. Even reckless driver will still have some sense and not go all out like Ma Chi. If it's really like what you say, you'll be seeing more such "collisions" everyday.

 

Ok that Ma Chi accident is just too extreme, but let's be less extreme and think back, how many of you guys actually got this mindset, accident just claim insurance lor, than sometimes neglect to drive defensively and always want right of way as the quote " accident just claim insurance lor "

 

Actually what matter most is not claim insurance, but more of how to prevent accident in the 1st place. So to prevent it is really to have the habit not to think " accident just claim insurance " but to think ok even I have right of way, but the other driver too fierce already and give way to him if not accident and may not be able to claim insurance due to the other person rackless action. So end up both actually no collision as compared to " you so fierce, but I have right of way so I don't care and just claim insurance when accident happen "

Edited August 14, 2012 by Yewheng