Jump to content

Rochor Rd Ferrari crash payout rejection is test case by AXA

Darthrevan

By Darthrevan,
in General Car Discussion

 Share

Recommended Posts

Moredhel

Moredhel

2nd Gear

Ridiculous claims.

 

Whether 'accident', 'collision' or car end up in river, that's what I'm paying ever increasing insurance premiums for.

 

And I beg to differ on some opinions that this will be a one-off case. This will definitely set a precedent in the court of law in transfering x amount of

liability in cases where there is even a figment of 'recklessness' or 'carelessness' on the part of the driver.

 

What supporters of the insurers don't understand is that they are already paying so much for the small crumbs that might fall their way when they need it most, and now they are offering the insurance companies a plate for the insurers to catch the falling crumbs.

 

 

I support the angle of criminal action and investigation, which if proves that if the PRC guy was drink driving, then insurance should be withheld or re adjusted, but refusing payout on the basis of 'recklessness' or 'carelessness' or even perhaps 'negligence' in future affects all drivers and is a big shift in liabilities and responsibilities of the insurers.

↡ Advertisement
Link to post
Share on other sites
Moredhel

Moredhel

2nd Gear

of cos at the end of the day, whatever car beating red lights is wrong. but there is a logical reason why performance cars fall into a higher insurance category. the risk is higher and payout higher too.

 

i don't think AXA's actions sets any precedent for future accident claims. It's simply telling drivers u are reckless, we aren't going to pay. and the evidence largely supports the fact that the Ferrari was reckless.

 

The 'recklessness' portion is already factored into the performance cars category insurance premiums, so there's no reason for AXA not to pay in any and all circumstances with the exception of a proven criminal basis.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wt_know

Wt_know

Supersonic
(edited)

if ma chi asset is $800 $8000 or $80,000 ... i don't think axa will take this route

it's all about money ...

Edited by Wt_know
Link to post
Share on other sites
Tcx607

Tcx607

4th Gear

Better check your personnal insurace policy if you speed and killed, will you get your insured sum?

I think this is going to be biggest talking point in near future

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brendon1980

Brendon1980

Neutral Newbie

Think deep deep.

 

If u make an illegal u turn & bang a motorcyclist, u will be responsible for all liabilities related to motorcyclist. How are you gonna pay for it?

 

Of course, premium will go up as & when there are some bad claims experience. Our private car population is no bigger than 500k unit le.

 

I guess if you want to take the chance and do something illegal, you cannot justify that liabilities will be avoided. I think what is the issue here is that third party claims can proceed but not to own damage that you incurred due to the illegal actions.

Its like if I speed and got caught by the TP, I have to be responsible for it right?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
inlinesix

inlinesix

Hypersonic
(edited)

I guess if you want to take the chance and do something illegal, you cannot justify that liabilities will be avoided. I think what is the issue here is that third party claims can proceed but not to own damage that you incurred due to the illegal actions.

Its like if I speed and got caught by the TP, I have to be responsible for it right?

U still don't get it. Once the court upheld the rejection of own damage, AXA will GO after Ma Chi estate for the 3rd party liability compensation.

 

In my example, once you make illegal u-turn & bang motorcyclist, ur insurer has the right to reject the motorcyclist claims. The only recourse for the motorcyclist is to sue you. Can you afford to pay the motorcyclist? On the other hand, if you are the motorcyclist, can you afford the legal expenses to sue the driver?

 

Using your example, due to speeding, u buang & whacked a motorcyclist. Because of your speeding, your insurer denies your OD claims. In addition, you are responsible for the 3rd party liability from motorcyclist. Are you gonna being responsible for motorcyclist liabilities?

 

Think deep deep hor.

Edited by Davidtch
Link to post
Share on other sites
Renegade777

Renegade777

5th Gear
(edited)

if ma chi asset is $800 $8000 or $80,000 ... i don't think axa will take this route

it's all about money ...

 

And rightfully, the insurance company still have to pay to the victims no matter what. Now I find it funny, driver buy insurance by paying good annual premiums to cover damages but instead driver is being sued. Paid money to get sued.

 

What if there is little asset belonging to the driver, don't tell me the insurance company is not going to pay the victims. Gonna pay the victims only when they sued someone ? No meaning.

Edited by Renegade777
Link to post
Share on other sites
inlinesix

inlinesix

Hypersonic

And rightfully, the insurance company still have to pay to the victims no matter what. Now I find it funny, driver buy insurance by paying good annual premiums to cover damages but instead driver is being sued. Paid money to get sued.

 

What if there is little asset belonging to the driver, don't tell me the insurance company is not going to pay the victims. Gonna pay the victims only when they sued someone ? No meaning.

If AXA wins, it will be the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Brendon1980

Brendon1980

Neutral Newbie

U still don't get it. Once the court upheld the rejection of own damage, AXA will GO after Ma Chi estate for the 3rd party liability compensation.

 

In my example, once you make illegal u-turn & bang motorcyclist, ur insurer has the right to reject the motorcyclist claims. The only recourse for the motorcyclist is to sue you. Can you afford to pay the motorcyclist? On the other hand, if you are the motorcyclist, can you afford the legal expenses to sue the driver?

 

Using your example, due to speeding, u buang & whacked a motorcyclist. Because of your speeding, your insurer denies your OD claims. In addition, you are responsible for the 3rd party liability from motorcyclist. Are you gonna being responsible for motorcyclist liabilities?

 

Think deep deep hor.

 

 

But if I done something illegal, be it speeding or illegal u-turn, I have to accept that consequences that follows.

Of course I have to shoulder the liabilities, it is due to my action that resulted in this. So in the first place why did I take the risk?

 

However I think that insurance should pay out to the victims prior to going after liability accusation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fd60

Fd60

Neutral Newbie

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.

 

wat nonsense r u relating this too .

Link to post
Share on other sites
inlinesix

inlinesix

Hypersonic

But if I done something illegal, be it speeding or illegal u-turn, I have to accept that consequences that follows.

Of course I have to shoulder the liabilities, it is due to my action that resulted in this. So in the first place why did I take the risk?

 

However I think that insurance should pay out to the victims prior to going after liability accusation.

Do you understand how much u need to pay? In Sg, 3rd party bodily injury has no cap. U could looking at MILLIONS of dollars.

 

If AXA wins & it is low profile case, victim be prepare to sue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Wt_know

Wt_know

Supersonic
(edited)

whether ma chi got only $8 or $800, third party risk is 100% covered whether the driver cheong red light (collision), drunk or hanky panky with chiobu.

insurer must pay victim under third party risks and compensation act.

imagine a victim walk on the road and langar by a drunk driver only with $8 estate, the victim get $0 if the medical bill run up to $100K?

the biggest problem is drive without insurance ... then sue driver with $8 estate is hong gan liao

 

axa is testing the limit to

 

a. not to compensate ma chi for his insurance coverage (the $1.8M felali ... still got outstanding loan right?)

b. to recover all claims liable to pay to third party (estimated $2M?)

 

if i'm axa ... i also sue la ... $3.8M at stake leh ... is this the most expensive accident in spore history?

 

"AXA’s counterclaim also asked for the estate of Mr Ma to repay all that AXA is liable to pay under the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act to those killed or injured in the crash”.
Edited by Wt_know
Link to post
Share on other sites
Krado

Krado

Clutched

The best is B.M.W.

 

Yeah... I suppose I will drive a car with a steering wheel that has been fixed on with cable ties and feel safe about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Fourth

Fourth

2nd Gear

Do you understand how much u need to pay? In Sg, 3rd party bodily injury has no cap. U could looking at MILLIONS of dollars.

 

If AXA wins & it is low profile case, victim be prepare to sue.

 

If AXA win, then garmen please make insurance non-mandatory for car owners.

 

Also I want to join insurance company and buy their stocks. Will be like printing money.

↡ Advertisement
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...