Rochor Rd Ferrari crash payout rejection is test case by AXA

[Blackyv]

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.

 

I think the gauge should be more toward "common sense" kind of judgement speed. Example if I'm on sle take bke exit l, I can go at speed of around 60 ... if u go at 100, I better make sure I have the balls and skill and good shoes and judgement...

But if one gundoo take that exit at 180kmh, I'm quite sure he will crash... so, I think axa is biting on his recklessness cause beating red light on that road with that speed is as good as suicide..

[Cba6p]

if ma chi is a local n he drove a BnB Altis, will I see this thread today?

[Phluvcat]

My heart is worried about the precedent it would set should subsequent accidents be argued by insurers to be reckless and a "collision". But I also want to believe AXA wanted to eradicate the extremities and positively, it will also mitigate the rise in our car insurance FOR NO REASON (due to such irresponsible drivers).

 

AXA has got damning evidence of the way the Ferrari was being driven as well as the traffic condition at the point of accident. Perhaps AXA could determine way more precisely the velocity of the Ferrari around and at the point of impact, and the traffic light was red long enough one could read the whole story of Romeo and Juliet.

 

I recalled that I felt cold the way the red projectile hit the innocent taxi.

 

Now its a fine line between everything - mistake, recklessness, accident, collision, excessive, disregard and so on.

 

End of the day common sense and reasonableness must prevail and insurance being actually a business itself, must make profit and yet discharge its social responsibilities too. That's a tall order and a knife-edge to balance on, especially in this nature of business.

 

I foresee AXA need to pay, but not in full.

 

Yeah, other drivers should not bear the cost for the follies of others.

 

 

[Phluvcat]

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.... .. ...

 

If you can manage to accomplish that in your latio and die, same place and scenario, you totally overestimated your brakes. Its a no brainer if can claim or not liao...

 

[laugh]

 

I hope to believe AXA viewed it objectively considering specific circumstances involved.

 

[AnimalFarm]

if ma chi is a local n he drove a BnB Altis, will I see this thread today?

 

will you even see the high coverage news on the headline first?

[Kopites]

Same scenerio as if i go buy a life insurance and than jump off from a building. Should insurance be void.

 

I go with the AXA for this case.

[AnimalFarm]

Same scenerio as if i go buy a life insurance and than jump off from a building. Should insurance be void.

 

I go with the AXA for this case.

 

 

can,but you have to wait for 1 year later.the insurance will payout.

but before you jump,pls check for people walking downstair before you jump.

want to die,die ownself.pls don't drag other parties with you unless u are a mas selamat terrorist.

[Tigershark1976]

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.

 

Are you trying to tell me that you never drive above speed limit in your life?? not even a few km/hr?? And can you tell me that which accident doesnt involve a party that is at fault (againts traffic rules)?? If everyone follow the traffic regulation strictly, do you think there could be any accident at all??? And if there is no accident, why buy insurance??

 

In the eye of law, a precedent is a precedent. If this is the excuse AXA reject claims and they won the case, the next insurance company can use the same excuse if the driver drove above the speed limit, even if the person drive 10km/hr above speed limit.

 

 

 

[Xanavi]

I think the gauge should be more toward "common sense" kind of judgement speed. Example if I'm on sle take bke exit l, I can go at speed of around 60 ... if u go at 100, I better make sure I have the balls and skill and good shoes and judgement...

But if one gundoo take that exit at 180kmh, I'm quite sure he will crash... so, I think axa is biting on his recklessness cause beating red light on that road with that speed is as good as suicide..

To the insurer, not such thing as common sense. Only black and white.

Cause ultimately, they are the one who can afford to bend the words, turn grey area into their favor.

So, I would like to think consumer should protect themselves. I'm not against them not paying for reckless driving, just make sure the policy details specify, what is reckless, what is the threshold for speeding, and define collision and accident.

 

 

[Tcx607]

I would think the insurance co is making a case. Since the payout is so much (million of $$$), they've to make a case instead just pay out to the family.

The family sure to hire lawyer to defense the case.

 

My believe..... the car insurance co has to pay out finally.

 

Aside to this, if you purchase a life insurance within a year and commit suicide, there is T&Cs no pay out to you & family.

However, if you do it after 1 year due to whatsoever reason (bankrupt or debt), the insurance has to pay out according to ur policy.

 

Nevertheless, buying insurance is transfer of risk to other party at a cost.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Tcx607

[Hi_torq]

Are you trying to tell me that you never drive above speed limit in your life?? not even a few km/hr?? And can you tell me that which accident doesnt involve a party that is at fault (againts traffic rules)?? If everyone follow the traffic regulation strictly, do you think there could be any accident at all??? And if there is no accident, why buy insurance??

 

In the eye of law, a precedent is a precedent. If this is the excuse AXA reject claims and they won the case, the next insurance company can use the same excuse if the driver drove above the speed limit, even if the person drive 10km/hr above speed limit.

 

As in most high payouts cases, insurance company will fight back - right or wrong doesn't matter. It is business for them. Here ultimately, there will be some ratio, as generally happens. In this kind of cases, deliberation of the party at fault us checked. Just see the traffic laws - you jump red light, you lose 12 points, you park by double yellow line, you pay penalty, you drink and drive and even if are not involved in accident and still caught, you can imagine the rest.

 

In courts, they will count faults and then decide.

 

And even everybody is perfectly following rules, still accident can happen. So if bang another car while turning, it can be human error. But if you do that purposely to show your anger, it becomes a different case. This is how the AXA will try to prove - Ma Chi purposely jumped the red light.

 

My personal opinion is that AXA and Ma Chi estate has to share, how much will be decided by court after all evidence is put through.

[Silver_blade]

That man is dead...how to prove he beat red light on purpose or due to human error eg. distraction, etc...

 

Shall see how the case develop and waiting for more details on AXA's stand. I am standing by the fence at this moment.

Edited September 9, 2012 by Silver_blade

[Renegade777]

 

Accident means accident no matter what unless can prove suicide to make claims. Collect high premium readily but comes to payout find all sorts of reason. If it wins, I will neber buy insurance from them for you never know what reason they will give to prevent your claims.

 

Quite surprise some supported the insurance company. What if this is a normal car and normal driver that was involved. The tide should turn the other way.

 

 

[Hi_torq]

That man is dead...how to prove he beat red light on purpose or due to human error eg. distraction, etc...

 

Shall see how the case develop and waiting for more details on AXA's stand. I am standing by the fence at this moment.

 

They will collect witness, evidence using technical team. For them stakes are high. If the cost of collecting evidence and court charges were quite high, they would have quietly paid the money. Here the insurance company might try to use people's emotion to get the result on their side.

[Phluvcat]

How come surviving Ferrari lady passenger never got her statement published in the media. Did AXA know something we do not?

 

Dun understand the remaining hush hush surrounding this case.

[Mustank]

if ma chi is a local n he drove a BnB Altis, will I see this thread today?

 

Tell you how many times already! [mad] Go and read all the vois vs dhl truck, Reagan lee mx5 vs innocent sales girl, zhng car vs poor prc little girl in ponggol

[Silver_blade]

They will collect witness, evidence using technical team. For them stakes are high. If the cost of collecting evidence and court charges were quite high, they would have quietly paid the money. Here the insurance company might try to use people's emotion to get the result on their side.

Agree...especially they know Ma Chi's estate is worth a lot...more than capable for the payout. I am just curious and concern how they are going about in this case and how will it affect other accident claim.

 

Already as it is, some cars are deemed not worthy of repair as long as the car can fetch (after recovering parf value from LTA) more than the repair cost....which is not difficult for bread and butter car. I am ok if it is market value vs repair cost but not ' car body' (car value after deducting money from LTA) vs repair cost.

[Caravan]

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.

 

Who shall judge what is reckless or not? Suppose you make a small mistake. To you may be a small thing but if I'm the insurance company I can say you are reckless and it is a 'collision' and refuse payout. Then the insurance will sue your for all the 3rd party claim, and even if you engage lawyers, you may not win against their legal team. All in, you are going to be so much poorer for it.