Rochor Rd Ferrari crash payout rejection is test case by AXA

[Darthrevan]

AXA Insurance Singapore is making a test case out of its bid to reject any payout to the family of Chinese national Ma Chi, the Ferrari driver who died in a high-speed crash which left two others dead and two injured.

 

If it succeeds in its High Court move, there will be insurance implications for other motorists, especially owners of the growing number of high-performance sports cars here.

 

The insurer claims Mr Ma's recklessness meant that the May 12 tragedy was a "collision" and not an accident, and therefore it should not pay any compensation to his estate.

 

If the courts agree, the insurer will be allowed to claim from Mr Ma's estate all third-party compensation it pays to the other victims.

 

Source: http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/...se-axa-20120909

[Friendstar]

Hmmm I'm keen to know Mcf support which side.

 

I got a feeling high court will ask them to pay out 50%

[TVT]

Hmmm I'm keen to know Mcf support which side.

 

I got a feeling high court will ask them to pay out 50%

You could start a new thread with voting to see the majority of MCF bros support which side lor...

[Tigershark1976]

Well, like Ive mentioned, if AXA won the case, it would be a disaster for the consumer... Thats y I dont undestand why are there so many MCFers so supportive towards AXA action.

 

If 1 can ensure that they will make no mistake on the road. Then, he/she wont pay extra for comprehensive insurance package. A 3rd party insurance could save a lot more. Afterall, if comprehensive doesnt covers the driver and his car during an accident cause by his mistake, then, what is a comprehensive insurange package for??

[Felipe]

Well, like Ive mentioned, if AXA won the case, it would be a disaster for the consumer... Thats y I dont undestand why are there so many MCFers so supportive towards AXA action.

 

If 1 can ensure that they will make no mistake on the road. Then, he/she wont pay extra for comprehensive insurance package. A 3rd party insurance could save a lot more. Afterall, if comprehensive doesnt covers the driver and his car during an accident cause by his mistake, then, what is a comprehensive insurange package for??

I think in this case it was a clear cut high speed crash with disregard for the lights. Most other accidents would not happen the same way. As the article mentioned, it is high performance cars that are concerned more so than others.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Felipe

[Yewheng]

I think in this case it was a clear cut high speed crash with disregard for the lights. Most other accidents would not happen the same way. As the article mentioned, it is high performance cars that are concerned more so than others.

 

I think not only appliable to high performance cars la, even Bread and Butter cars that lies in wrong hand and drives dangerously which increase chances of unnesessary accident.

 

These are the one that should be taken off the road and insurance company should be 1st to start to send strong signal to those driver who wishes to drive dangerously to think twice as whey they met an accident, insurance may not cover.

 

 

[To_be_advised]

I think in this case it was a clear cut high speed crash with disregard for the lights. Most other accidents would not happen the same way. As the article mentioned, it is high performance cars that are concerned more so than others.

 

well what if its a bread and butter car going at 130? it does not fall in high performance car but most bread and butter car can also easily do 130.

[Caravan]

Don't be happy if AXA won, for next time if it happens to you and they can somehow make it seem like a 'collision' instead of accident, then you will be liable for huge damges even if you buy third party.

[Yewheng]

Don't be happy if AXA won, for next time if it happens to you and they can somehow make it seem like a 'collision' instead of accident, then you will be liable for huge damges even if you buy third party.

 

Than what you think should AXA do? I mean can't be just let Ma Chi accident get over with it.. and what signal does it send to other motorist?

 

The main problem is how to reduce the number of dangerous drivers on the road. Insurance does plays some part as in, if people will to pay damages from their own pocket if they drive racklessly and causes accident, do you think they will drive more careful as compared to pay only $500 excess for causing great accident that is because of drivers rackless action? Worst is kill people in the mist of the accident.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Yewheng

[AnimalFarm]

by cheonging red lights 7-8 secs after it turned red with HIGH speed is asking for trouble.

i support AXA in not paying out to the ma chi bai estate of his family member.

not sure why are some people worried about consumer rights?unless you are those who cheong red lights always after 7-8 sec it turns red?

 

having said that,it's still a norm to see people cheong red light after 1-2 secs max.

 

[Hulk]

nb all the other road accidents also due to reckless one what? so insurance dont pay? I think becos they expect that they will compensate huge amt of $ then come out this reason?

But that doesnt mean I am supporting ma chi too...

[inlinesix]

by cheonging red lights 7-8 secs after it turned red with HIGH speed is asking for trouble.

i support AXA in not paying out to the ma chi bai estate of his family member.

not sure why are some people worried about consumer rights?unless you are those who cheong red lights always after 7-8 sec it turns red?

 

having said that,it's still a norm to see people cheong red light after 1-2 secs max.

What if u make an illegal u-turn & bang motorcyclist to heaven? Think about it deep deep..........

[Wolfy3769]

i think if there is a common understanding on the judgement between collisions and accidents, then i think this is good case for AXA not to pay the Ma familiy...

 

 

[Xefera]

I think the key argument is that Ma Chi drove at a speed that is significantly higher than the speed limit on that road.

 

Anyone doing that kind of stunt is obviously driving dangerously and without regards for other human lives.

 

Should you drive at within the speed limit and kena an accident, I don't think it will be in the same argument.

[Relagsingh]

Hmmm I'm keen to know Mcf support which side.

 

I got a feeling high court will ask them to pay out 50%

 

On one hand, its still an accident. On the other hand, its blatant reckless driving on his part.

 

Then again, there were already many tree wrapping ricer cases that weren't caught in this scenario.

 

But I'm all for the ins companies so spell out special clauses for supercar owners.

 

 

[Xanavi]

I think the key argument is that Ma Chi drove at a speed that is significantly higher than the speed limit on that road.

 

Anyone doing that kind of stunt is obviously driving dangerously and without regards for other human lives.

 

Should you drive at within the speed limit and kena an accident, I don't think it will be in the same argument.

 

What is significantly higher?

 

Above 10-20km/h also significantly higher too. Also matter of life and death.

So does it means in policy document, they must put the exact speed u can travel. If never put, they are obligated no matter what.

[Silver_blade]

I have my reservation if this will a good thing for consumer and general public. Have to see what's AXA's argument and what the court think. I tot I read in ST that Ma Chi had been driving well above 60km/h on a 'congested' road. I would like to see how they define 'well above', 'congested', 'collision vs accident' etc... and if such terms can be used loosely.

[Blackyv]

I think in this case it was a clear cut high speed crash with disregard for the lights. Most other accidents would not happen the same way. As the article mentioned, it is high performance cars that are concerned more so than others.

 

 

Don't think it will only affect high performance car... if I want, my latio also can beat a red light at speed above 150kmh and I'm sure I will die the same way.... .. ...