Claiming against a Malaysian car in case of an accident

[Deeq]

Good info here for those who don't know.

 

 

http://www.sgcarmart.com/news/writeup.php?AID=286&PN=1

 

[Hwang79]

One more, for sharing.

 

[JoanHanniAishahLim]

 

Involved in accident and headache about adccident claims and repairs???

 

Look for irwan at 97971194 for professional consultation. No obligations

 

Selling/buying car, renewal of insurance also available for your convenience

 

See facebook page at:

https://m.facebook.com/kautogroup

[Boringchap]

Talking about Malaysian cars, I spotted this one on Singapore roads with blinking red stop lights.  Extremely distracting. I thought police car.

 

[youpapalite]

Talking about Malaysian cars, I spotted this one on Singapore roads with blinking red stop lights.  Extremely distracting. I thought police car.

 

"Obiang"

[Sci10213]

Please stay a good distance from Malaysian vehicles !!  

 

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/malaysian-cars-in-crashes-here-court-rules-on-liability

KL appeals court finds insurers of Malaysian vehicles not liable for passengers if no coverage

K.C. Vijayan

Senior Law Correspondent

 

 

Rachel Chia YT

 

Insurers of Malaysian cars involved in accidents in Singapore stand to be exempted from passenger liability after a key ruling was passed by a Malaysian appeals court.

It reversed a Kuala Lumpur High Court decision, in finding that a passenger who suffered serious head injuries here in a 2010 accident is not entitled to claim compensation from the insurer because the Malaysian-registered car had a policy which did not cover its passengers.

This was despite Singapore's Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act, which makes it compulsory for private vehicle owners to insure liability for passengers. Malaysia has no similar compulsory coverage provision.

Madam Zuraini Mohamed suffered severe head injuries when the car driven by her husband, Mr Iskandar Mohd Nuli, collided with a lorry on Mandai Road. She sued both her husband and lorry driver Ng Kar Sze in 2013, seeking damages in a Singapore High Court case due to start in May.

Meanwhile, the car's insurer, AmGeneral Insurance, sought a declaration of non-liability. But the KL High Court ruled AmGeneral was bound by a Singapore agreement to meet the passenger liability, despite the fact that the car owner did not pay premiums for the coverage.

 

 

AmGeneral, represented by Singapore lawyer Niru Pillai here and Malaysian counsel W. Davidson, appealed.

In that hearing, Mr Iskandar's lawyer, Mr Ariff Rozhan, pointed to the reciprocal arrangement between the Motor Insurers Bureau of Singapore(MIBS) and its Malaysian counterpart. This requires the MIBS to settle any judgment sum not paid by a driver of an uninsured Malaysian vehicle entering Singapore who is held liable for an accident here.

The appeals court acknowledged a 2013 Singapore High Court case which held a Malaysian insurer was obliged to settle despite the lack of insurance coverage. It was held that if the MIBS was obliged to pay under the agreement with its Malaysian counterpart, then it could claim from the insurer in the case.

But the Malaysian appeals court ruled that this was "not the issue in this appeal". The court made clear that the special agreement does not alter an insurer's rights under the policy and preserved AmGeneral's rights in Mr Iskandar's case.

Effectively, this means that even if AmGeneral pays the MIBS, it has the right to recover the sum from Mr Iskandar. The court added that Mr Iskandar's claim that he "had no knowledge of the policy's non-coverage" was immaterial, and that he must take the policy "with all its disadvantages from his point of view, together with its advantages, and he cannot claim the benefit of anything which the policy gives him without complying with its terms".

Mr Iskandar is currently seeking permission to appeal to the Malaysian Federal Court and a hearing is due next month.

• Mandatory cover

• In Singapore, it is compulsory for drivers to have motor insurance under the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act.

  This insurance is sold under a private car policy, which includes three types of coverage:

  COMPREHENSIVE COVER

  This is bought by about 90 per cent of car owners here. It covers:

  •Death or injury to other parties

  •Damage to others' property, including public property

  •Damage to own vehicle

  THIRD-PARTY COVER

  •Death or injury to other parties

  •Damage to others' property, including public property

  ACT COVER

  •Death or injury to other parties

  •Passenger liability is covered under all these options under "Death or injury to other parties".

  SOURCE: GENERAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION OF SINGAPORE (GIA)

It is understood that the Malaysian judgment means passengers or pillion riders injured on Malaysian-registered vehicles in Singapore will not be compensated for injuries by insurers if the vehicle is not covered for passenger liability.

It is understood that the Malaysian judgment means passengers or pillion riders injured on Malaysian-registered vehicles in Singapore will not be compensated for injuries by insurers if the vehicle is not covered for passenger liability.

Malaysian Judge of Appeal Vernon Ong, in the court's judgment grounds released in January, wrote: "The granting of the declaration will serve a useful purpose as it will be helpful to the parties and to the public."

 

A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Straits Times on March 03, 2016, with the headline 'Malaysian cars in crashes here: Court rules on liability'. Print Edition | Subscribe

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Si4dr]

 

Please stay a good distance from Malaysian vehicles !!  

 

http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/malaysian-cars-in-crashes-here-court-rules-on-liability

 

KL appeals court finds insurers of Malaysian vehicles not liable for passengers if no coverage

K.C. Vijayan

Senior Law Correspondent

 

 

Rachel Chia YT

 

Insurers of Malaysian cars involved in accidents in Singapore stand to be exempted from passenger liability after a key ruling was passed by a Malaysian appeals court.

It reversed a Kuala Lumpur High Court decision, in finding that a passenger who suffered serious head injuries here in a 2010 accident is not entitled to claim compensation from the insurer because the Malaysian-registered car had a policy which did not cover its passengers.

This was despite Singapore's Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act, which makes it compulsory for private vehicle owners to insure liability for passengers. Malaysia has no similar compulsory coverage provision.

Madam Zuraini Mohamed suffered severe head injuries when the car driven by her husband, Mr Iskandar Mohd Nuli, collided with a lorry on Mandai Road. She sued both her husband and lorry driver Ng Kar Sze in 2013, seeking damages in a Singapore High Court case due to start in May.

Meanwhile, the car's insurer, AmGeneral Insurance, sought a declaration of non-liability. But the KL High Court ruled AmGeneral was bound by a Singapore agreement to meet the passenger liability, despite the fact that the car owner did not pay premiums for the coverage.

 

 

AmGeneral, represented by Singapore lawyer Niru Pillai here and Malaysian counsel W. Davidson, appealed.

In that hearing, Mr Iskandar's lawyer, Mr Ariff Rozhan, pointed to the reciprocal arrangement between the Motor Insurers Bureau of Singapore(MIBS) and its Malaysian counterpart. This requires the MIBS to settle any judgment sum not paid by a driver of an uninsured Malaysian vehicle entering Singapore who is held liable for an accident here.

The appeals court acknowledged a 2013 Singapore High Court case which held a Malaysian insurer was obliged to settle despite the lack of insurance coverage. It was held that if the MIBS was obliged to pay under the agreement with its Malaysian counterpart, then it could claim from the insurer in the case.

But the Malaysian appeals court ruled that this was "not the issue in this appeal". The court made clear that the special agreement does not alter an insurer's rights under the policy and preserved AmGeneral's rights in Mr Iskandar's case.

Effectively, this means that even if AmGeneral pays the MIBS, it has the right to recover the sum from Mr Iskandar. The court added that Mr Iskandar's claim that he "had no knowledge of the policy's non-coverage" was immaterial, and that he must take the policy "with all its disadvantages from his point of view, together with its advantages, and he cannot claim the benefit of anything which the policy gives him without complying with its terms".

Mr Iskandar is currently seeking permission to appeal to the Malaysian Federal Court and a hearing is due next month.

• Mandatory cover

• In Singapore, it is compulsory for drivers to have motor insurance under the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act.

  This insurance is sold under a private car policy, which includes three types of coverage:

  COMPREHENSIVE COVER

  This is bought by about 90 per cent of car owners here. It covers:

  •Death or injury to other parties

  •Damage to others' property, including public property

  •Damage to own vehicle

  THIRD-PARTY COVER

  •Death or injury to other parties

  •Damage to others' property, including public property

  ACT COVER

  •Death or injury to other parties

  •Passenger liability is covered under all these options under "Death or injury to other parties".

  SOURCE: GENERAL INSURANCE ASSOCIATION OF SINGAPORE (GIA)

It is understood that the Malaysian judgment means passengers or pillion riders injured on Malaysian-registered vehicles in Singapore will not be compensated for injuries by insurers if the vehicle is not covered for passenger liability.

It is understood that the Malaysian judgment means passengers or pillion riders injured on Malaysian-registered vehicles in Singapore will not be compensated for injuries by insurers if the vehicle is not covered for passenger liability.

Malaysian Judge of Appeal Vernon Ong, in the court's judgment grounds released in January, wrote: "The granting of the declaration will serve a useful purpose as it will be helpful to the parties and to the public."

 

A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Straits Times on March 03, 2016, with the headline 'Malaysian cars in crashes here: Court rules on liability'. Print Edition | Subscribe

 

 

Wah sued her husband??

Got feud with husband? or try to get $ from insurance   

 

Ask MY registered car to buy extra insurance cover before entering SG?(don't think possible)

Edited March 4, 2016 by Si4dr

[Atrecord]

Whether the Malaysian insurance policies/companies cover the Malaysian passengers who are injured in Singapore accidents, is not as material as whether they will cover Singaporeans in Singapore vehicles that are involved in accidents with these M'sian cars here (if they are liable).

 

Since they don't even cover own vehicle's passenger(s), does that mean they definitely won't cover other vehicle's passengers too?

[Kusje]

Whether the Malaysian insurance policies/companies cover the Malaysian passengers who are injured in Singapore accidents, is not as material as whether they will cover Singaporeans in Singapore vehicles that are involved in accidents with these M'sian cars here (if they are liable).

 

Since they don't even cover own vehicle's passenger(s), does that mean they definitely won't cover other vehicle's passengers too?

 

This case is just for passengers in Malaysian cars. Wake me up when they start saying they don't cover SG cars or SG passengers.

[Leo72]

This case is just for passengers in Malaysian cars. Wake me up when they start saying they don't cover SG cars or SG passengers.

 

You know, it's very difficult to file insurance claim against Malaysian car in Singapore.

[Beehive3783]

I don't see why this is not possible.

 

Any foreign car entering Thailand also has to buy additional motor insurance for coverage in Thailand before entry.

 

 

 

Ask MY registered car to buy extra insurance cover before entering SG?(don't think possible)

 

[flashbang]

This case is just for passengers in Malaysian cars. Wake me up when they start saying they don't cover SG cars or SG passengers.

 

When I first read the article, I also got confused at what it was trying to say. After reading again, then I figured out they are simply saying Malaysian car insurance has an option not to cover their passengers. In this case, the guy didn't have this insurance, but his passenger is trying to claim from insurer. Hence the courts said they can't do that.

 

It's an uniquely Malaysia problem as in SG, passengers have to be covered by the car insurance, and they are, even for the lowest type of insurance which is third party only.

[Kezg1]

When I first read the article, I also got confused at what it was trying to say. After reading again, then I figured out they are simply saying Malaysian car insurance has an option not to cover their passengers. In this case, the guy didn't have this insurance, but his passenger is trying to claim from insurer. Hence the courts said they can't do that.

 

It's an uniquely Malaysia problem as in SG, passengers have to be covered by the car insurance, and they are, even for the lowest type of insurance which is third party only.

 

 

 

...can I to ask a noob question..so to say if my car is more than 10 years old(coe extend) and I am on 3rd party insurance...when I got into accident..only my vehicle n some passengers(injure)..my car passengers are allow to claim from my 3rd party insur.?  pls enlighten me ..thanks in advance.

[Kangadrool]

Of course can provided you are not using for hire and reward purpose. If you are using for official ubering and non-official "ubering", then you need commercial insurance. Failing which, you are fully solely responsible in case of claims.

 

...can I to ask a noob question..so to say if my car is more than 10 years old(coe extend) and I am on 3rd party insurance...when I got into accident..only my vehicle n some passengers(injure)..my car passengers are allow to claim from my 3rd party insur.?  pls enlighten me ..thanks in advance.

 

[flashbang]

...can I to ask a noob question..so to say if my car is more than 10 years old(coe extend) and I am on 3rd party insurance...when I got into accident..only my vehicle n some passengers(injure)..my car passengers are allow to claim from my 3rd party insur.?  pls enlighten me ..thanks in advance.

 

Yep, last time I was told 3rd party insurance means 3rd party relative to the driver. Hence, your passengers are considered as 3rd parties as well. 

[Ender]

Yep, last time I was told 3rd party insurance means 3rd party relative to the driver. Hence, your passengers are considered as 3rd parties as well. 

In that case the wife is claiming from her husband. The insurance who covers the husband will be paying 3rd party claimants, in this case his wife. She has no need to be covered her husband insurance since she is now the 3rd party.

Does this sound logical?

[flashbang]

In that case the wife is claiming from her husband. The insurance who covers the husband will be paying 3rd party claimants, in this case his wife. She has no need to be covered her husband insurance since she is now the 3rd party.

Does this sound logical?

 

Yes, that would be logical if this was a Singapore-registered car. However, this is a Malaysia-registered car and her husband did not buy insurance to cover passengers. In Malaysia that's allowed, in Singapore it's not. Yet she is trying to make the insurers pay for her injury as a passenger cos the accident happened in Singapore and supposedly in Singapore insurance should cover 3rd parties including passengers. I don't see why she should win, so I agree with the decision of the Malaysian appeals court.

[Sci10213]

This case is just for passengers in Malaysian cars. Wake me up when they start saying they don't cover SG cars or SG passengers.

 

You may want to know that the law on motor accident is on "several and joint liability" basis.  

 

So if the Malaysian insurer dun cover the passenger, it means the passenger will sue the Singapore car driver for 100% payment !!