AIG insurance - be very wary of the terms!

[Piyopico]

I'm not jumping on any bandwagon here. I'm merely clarifying the details of a contract that I'm bound by. Frankly, the fact that there are others here who are also seemingly perplexed by this language indicates that the questions I'm raising are perfectly legitimate.

 

I've asked Davidtch what "PA" means here - but you're welcome to answer as well. I don't see the use of that acronym "PA" anywhere in my contract. The section I cited (and provided an image of) was entitled "Motor Policy Endorsements", not "PA" or "Personal Accident" (if that's what PA is supposed to stand for).

 

The section I cited states at the outset that its clauses are applicable in the Policy Schedule - I assume that means these legal terms have force in the main policy and are not merely some "rider" on top of the main cover? Or am I wrong? Is my interpretation so unreasonable given the way the document is laid out?

 

In fact, the document is infuriatingly obscure in defining the insurer's liability. In Section II (Liability to Third Parties) - which never spells out "passengers" but I would now assume includes passengers since third party generally covers that - says that it will pay the amount I am legally liable to pay in compensation to others for death or bodily injury to any person.

 

Yet in Section III (Medical Expenses), under "What is covered", the document then states that the insurer will pay the reasonable medical expenses incurred by me, any authorised drivers or any passengers in my vehicle up to a maximum of $1000 per person.

 

Note the apparent contradiction there. The first clause seems to be unlimited in terms of third party payouts, but the second one limits medical expense payouts to $1000 (tell me, what sort of medical care can a thousand bucks buy one in Singapore nowadays?)

 

And then, finally, there's the whole Motor Policy Endorsements section which I've already highlighted.

 

To my decidedly non-lawyerish brain, these conditions seem to be mutually conflicting. I would be grateful for any clarification. If you can show me exactly, and unequivocally, how I'm totally wrong about all this, then I'll be glad to accept.

 

BTW, if you need me to photograph every page of the contract (excluding personal details), I'll be glad to do so.

I agree insurance contracts are mostly written in jargon and too legalistic.

 

 

To understand the contract, you need to look at general conditions that apply to all sections. If for example, it says terrorism is excluded, it will not be paid under any circumstances.

These will clarify many doubts.

 

 

Then there are the sub sections that arose mainly because nowadays motor policies have evolved and are bundled to include coverage extensions that are not mandated under the Act. The Act basically mandates you need to be insured against 3rd part liability.

 

So when a insurer throw in coverages like medical expenses, PA (personal accident), cash benefits, replacement car etc etc, these sections will always have qualifying conditions that apply and set out the coverage offered.

 

Medical expense in your example is not required by the Motor Act. So when an insurer offers say $1000 medical coverage for the driver or passengers, it is an extension and they will impose conditions laying out how and when they will pay. This is not the same as your third party liability to pay someone's medical costs.

[ins1dious]

Let's wait for AIG's reply on ST Forum page.

 

Bet their CEO is oso stunned by this obscure escape clause that could destroy their reputation the way Aviva sabo theirs a few years ago by enacting an unfair clause.

 

If AIG comes out and stand by it and tells us to suck it up, I'll be one of those who will cancel my policy w them.

 

This type legalese is made to deliberately confuse layman like us huh   I had to go through each sentence a couple of times to understand them.

 

Obfuscate the truth by confusion seems to be their motto.

[Nlatio]

This type legalese is made to deliberately confuse layman like us huh   I had to go through each sentence a couple of times to understand them.

 

Obfuscate the truth by confusion seems to be their motto.

 

nbzzz this one legal documents, aka cover backside one, sure must confuse people.... cannot be as simple and straight as ABC... 

[Wt_know]

fine print and more fine print

all insurance companies got their big ass lawyers to draft clauses

[inlinesix]

fine print and more fine print

all insurance companies got their big ass lawyers to draft clauses

 

Not necessary.

 

Underwriter also can draft cover clauses hor.

[1fast1]

Can you post this section. This is a similar title as my AXA policy which we discussed earlier.

 

I've decided to go one better. Here's the entire document (sans pages with my details) attached.

 

For further discussion (applies to all in thread), please reference the relevant page, section and subheadings in this attachment.

 

I agree insurance contracts are mostly written in jargon and too legalistic.

 

 

To understand the contract, you need to look at general conditions that apply to all sections. If for example, it says terrorism is excluded, it will not be paid under any circumstances.

These will clarify many doubts.

 

 

Then there are the sub sections that arose mainly because nowadays motor policies have evolved and are bundled to include coverage extensions that are not mandated under the Act. The Act basically mandates you need to be insured against 3rd part liability.

 

So when a insurer throw in coverages like medical expenses, PA (personal accident), cash benefits, replacement car etc etc, these sections will always have qualifying conditions that apply and set out the coverage offered.

 

Medical expense in your example is not required by the Motor Act. So when an insurer offers say $1000 medical coverage for the driver or passengers, it is an extension and they will impose conditions laying out how and when they will pay. This is not the same as your third party liability to pay someone's medical costs.

 

I've scanned and attached the entire document. I would be grateful if you could explain exactly how I'm misconstruing the relevant clauses. Thank you.

 

AIG document.compressed.pdf

[Piyopico]

Bro Turboflat4.

 

The contract is very clear in intent to me.

Third party liability is unlimited. So if your passenger elects to sue you then insurer will pay whatever the judge orders. Unlimited.

If your passenger decides to just take the medical receipt and submit to your insurer, the limit is $1000. In this case, 3rd party liability is not engaged cos the passenger never sue but is claiming under the policy as an extension/rider to the policy.

 

I really dunno how else to explain.

 

Thatz why I never go into teaching. My students will give up on me.

 

 

[Little_prince]

Wah lau. This type of 无良business must expose!

[inlinesix]

Wah lau. This type of 无良business must expose!

 

Read piyopico comment carefully.

[1fast1]

Bro Turboflat4.

 

The contract is very clear in intent to me.

Third party liability is unlimited. So if your passenger elects to sue you then insurer will pay whatever the judge orders. Unlimited.

If your passenger decides to just take the medical receipt and submit to your insurer, the limit is $1000. In this case, 3rd party liability is not engaged cos the passenger never sue but is claiming under the policy as an extension/rider to the policy.

 

I really dunno how else to explain.

 

Thatz why I never go into teaching. My students will give up on me.

 

 

Edited June 5, 2016 by Turboflat4

[1fast1]

Read piyopico comment carefully.

 

Read. Carefully. Still have questions. Feel free to answer them (my previous post). Thanks.

[inlinesix]

I'm not ready to give up on you just yet.

 

OK, to distill what you said - the amount an injured passenger can recover is only unlimited in the case of a civil lawsuit and a successful judgment in their favour? In the absence of that, they are limited to $1000?

 

What about the exclusionary clauses that started this whole thread? Do those exclusions of passengers outside the 16-65 age range and intoxicated passengers also apply here? Meaning that if a 70 year old stone cold sober passenger and a 20 year old drunk skunk passenger are both shit out of luck when it comes to claiming under my policy for injuries sustained in an accident? They won't even get that measly $1000? And if they want anything at all, they must sue me and win? If those exclusionary clauses are applicable to the preceding paragraph, why not reference them to avoid ambiguity? And if they aren't applicable to the preceding paragraphy, what the heck are they apropos of anyway?

 

Under your policy, there are 2 types of claims that your passenger can seek.

 

Civil Case - Passenger has to sue you to recover via 3rd party liability.

 

PA - Claims against PA rider which only requires submission of medical expense and report (I think).  Under this type of claims,

Q: Do those exclusions of passengers outside the 16-65 age range and intoxicated passengers also apply here?

A: Yes

 

Q: Meaning that if a 70 year old stone cold sober passenger and a 20 year old drunk skunk passenger are both shit out of luck when it comes to claiming under my policy for injuries sustained in an accident?

A: Yes

 

Q: They won't even get that measly $1000?

A: Yes

 

Q: And if they want anything at all, they must sue me and win?

A: Yes

[1fast1]

Under your policy, there are 2 types of claims that your passenger can seek.

 

Civil Case - Passenger has to sue you to recover via 3rd party liability.

 

PA - Claims against PA rider which only requires submission of medical expense and report (I think).  Under this type of claims,

Q: Do those exclusions of passengers outside the 16-65 age range and intoxicated passengers also apply here?

A: Yes

 

Q: Meaning that if a 70 year old stone cold sober passenger and a 20 year old drunk skunk passenger are both shit out of luck when it comes to claiming under my policy for injuries sustained in an accident?

A: Yes

 

Q: They won't even get that measly $1000?

A: Yes

 

Q: And if they want anything at all, they must sue me and win?

A: Yes

Very clearly put. Please see edit of my previous post with regard to my son and parents. Does that mean my parents won't be covered for injury unless they sue me? And what about my son? Does my wife have to sue me on his behalf or something?

 

Still stinks to high heaven to me.

[inlinesix]

Very clearly put. Please see edit of my previous post with regard to my son and parents. Does that mean my parents won't be covered for injury unless they sue me? And what about my son? Does my wife have to sue me on his behalf or something?

 

Still stinks to high heaven to me.

 

Yes to all your question.

 

Go & have a look at your motor policy from other insurer.  Do they provide PA for your passenger?

[1fast1]

Yes to all your question.

 

Go & have a look at your motor policy from other insurer.  Do they provide PA for your passenger?

A very good question. I'll definitely check on this.

 

But assuming you're right and this is industry-wide practice, then loved ones in the car have little choice except to draw on their own hospitalisation insurance/life insurance in the case of the worst happening?

[inlinesix]

A very good question. I'll definitely check on this.

 

But assuming you're right and this is industry-wide practice, then loved ones in the car have little choice except to draw on their own hospitalisation insurance/life insurance in the case of the worst happening?

 

Comprehensive motor insurance does not cover personal accident of both you and your passenger.

 

AIG policy = Comprehensive motor insurance (3rd party liability + own damage) + personal liability (driver + passenger)

 

Please take note that we in Singapore is lucky to have coverage including act of god.  In a lot of countries, this is a separate coverage.

[1fast1]

Comprehensive motor insurance does not cover personal accident of both you and your passenger.

 

AIG policy = Comprehensive motor insurance (3rd party liability + own damage) + personal liability (driver + passenger)

 

Please take note that we in Singapore is lucky to have coverage including act of god.  In a lot of countries, this is a separate coverage.

Yet my policy (page 5, 3.1c) seems to exclude Acts of God as a general exclusion. Or am I on the wrong track again?

[ins1dious]

I've decided to go one better. Here's the entire document (sans pages with my details) attached.

 

For further discussion (applies to all in thread), please reference the relevant page, section and subheadings in this attachment.

 

 

I've scanned and attached the entire document. I would be grateful if you could explain exactly how I'm misconstruing the relevant clauses. Thank you.

 

 

That section 7(a) under the Motor Policy Endorsements is damn shitty... points (d) and (e) are not there in my AXA policy. What's AIG's problem if I'm taking a mate home who is drunk... guess they think I'm going to be distracted driving with a drunk, a kid or a senior citizen.

 

Note to self... avoid AIG like a plague.

 

BTW, medical expense is only $500 per passenger in the AXA policy. And personal accident benefit is limited to $30k. But the policy itself is easier to understand than AIG's. They really should standardise these documents.