Search the Community

Source: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/transport/motor-insurer-aig-stops-insuring-mclarens-driven-to-malaysia SINGAPORE – In a rare move, motor insurer AIG has decided not to insure McLaren sports cars when they are driven across the Causeway. The move comes after a recent crash in Johor involving three McLarens when a group of the British sports cars was heading south towards Kluang on Oct 29, 2023. No one was injured in the incident. In a correspondence to an insurance broker, AIG said its decision came on the back of “an exceptional increase in frequency of severe accidents involving McLaren vehicles in Malaysia”. From April 1, 2024, the insurer said it will not be liable for losses arising from accidents occurring outside Singapore. AIG declined to comment when contacted by The Straits Times. The move came as a shock to McLaren owners. Mr Marcus Luah, who was among the trio involved in the Johor crash, said: “I don’t understand why McLaren is being singled out. There have been many past crashes in Malaysia involving other brands. So I’m a bit puzzled.” Mr Luah, 32, a property agent, said AIG has quoted him a premium that is “five times” that of his current one for policy renewal. “Obviously, I am not going to go back to them. I can understand if it is two times, but five times!” Insurance broker Eazy, which specialises in insurance for high-end cars, indicated that the stand by AIG was rare but not unheard of. “It’s not uncommon for cars which cost more than $3 million,” said Eazy chief executive Douglas Chia. “But it’s less common for cars below that price range.” Prices for the latest McLaren model – the 750S – range between $1.5 million and $1.6 million with certificate of entitlement. Mr Chia said the annual premium for a car like the McLaren Artura ranges between $6,000 and $10,000 for a regular driver with a 50 per cent no-claim discount. “We’re sourcing for alternatives for our customers,” he added. Mr Chong Kah Wei, managing director for McLaren at multi-brand dealership Eurokars, said: “This is a hard call by AIG. They are doing this for their own interest. But we have other insurance partners like Liberty. “We are working to transition some customers over to Liberty, so that they are taken care of. Meanwhile, we are in talks with AIG to see how we can lessen the impact on existing customers.” When approached, the General Insurance Association of Singapore (GIA) said it does not comment on the practices of individual members. “This is a matter of each insurer’s risk acceptance,” said GIA chief executive Ho Kai Weng. Lawyer Chia Boon Teck, a co-managing partner at law firm Chia Wong, said: “When the insurance policy is up for renewal, the insurer is entitled not to cover Malaysian drives. But I don’t think the insurer can unilaterally do this midstream of the insurance policy – unless the policy allows the insurer to do so.” Not all spectacular crashes involving McLarens take place in Malaysia. On May 21, 2023, the driver of a McLaren was arrested after his vehicle crashed in Keppel Road. The police said the 43-year-old male driver was arrested for failing to render assistance. His passenger, a 28-year-old woman, was left alone in the wreck at the scene. According to Land Transport Authority statistics, there are around 200 McLarens in Singapore.

I wonder if such a thing would happen to car insurance. Insurer cancelling your policy to avoid paying. Insurer told to pay $600,000 deposit to defend suit By K. C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent 1 July 2011 AN INSURER, which cancelled a policy taken up by a jeweller after the shop suffered an $857,000 loss in an armed robbery, was ordered to pay 70 per cent of the sum, about $600,000, as a deposit with the court - if it wanted to defend the suit. Liberty Insurance has until July 8 to pay the deposit, or judgment would be given to Yong Sheng Goldsmith, said High Court Assistant Registrar Fong Mian Yi in a judgment released yesterday. The jeweller in New Upper Changi Road had sued Liberty for $857,000 - the value of gold jewellery items lost when three armed men staged a lightning grab-and-go raid in April last year. Yong Sheng, which sells gold and diamond jewellery and precious stones and also makes jewellery, had paid about $15,000 a year in premiums to cover all stock and merchandise used in the business. Under the policy, first taken up in 2003, the insurer was to indemnify the jeweller for losses suffered as a result of a hold-up or armed robbery, up to a policy limit of $3 million. The insurer's loss adjusters assessed the market value of the gold seized at $857,441. Yong Sheng notified the insurer's agent, Mr Johnny Tan, of its claim for reimbursement, but was told, some seven months later, that the policy had been cancelled. Liberty claimed Yong Sheng had failed to inform the insurer that its business had been disrupted by loan sharks on five occasions, between October 2009 and March last year, before the commencement of the policy. Liberty returned the $14,996 annual premiums paid. Yong Sheng, represented by lawyers Charles Phua and Stephen Cheong from Tan Kok Quan Partnership, refused to bank in the cheque and pointed out that the loan-shark incidents occurred after the policy was signed. The jeweller's director, Mr Lim Chow Kiat, also informed Mr Tan when the loan-shark harassments occurred. The police officer investigating the case also told Yong Sheng that the harassments were not linked to the armed robbery. The insurer, defended by lawyer N.K. Rajarh, argued that the last page of the proposal form carried two dates - Oct 13, 2009 and Nov 16, 2009 - and by the latter date, Yong Sheng would have known it had been subject to loan-shark harassments. However, Yong Sheng's copy of the form showed only one date - Oct 13, 2009. The jeweller was perplexed by the two dates on the insurer's copy, pointing out this issue had not been brought to its attention until the hearing day. Assistant Registrar Fong said the inclusion of the later date - Nov 16, 2009 - on the defendant's copy 'appears extremely shady and looks like an afterthought'. 'This is especially so given the very narrow space into which the date was squeezed. It is also illogical the proposal form should bear two dates.' She called this defence 'exceptionally dubious'. However, as neither side could explain the discrepancy or the circumstances surrounding the two dates at this stage of the hearing, a summary judgment against the insurer was not possible without a proper probe into the facts. The Assistant Registrar also found that as Mr Tan was an agent of the insurer, his knowledge of the harassment incidents was taken to mean the insurer also knew.

I was involved in a minor accident recently. Hit the back of another car resulting in his rear bumper coming loose (did not drop off). My car only sustained some scratches. The other party did not report the incident to his insurer. Instead, he repaired his car at his own choice of workshop, who subsequently filed a 3rd party claim against my policy thru a lawyer. Is this an accepted practice? I always thought everyone must report all accidents to their insurers, regardless of who's at fault.

Hi all, Anyone insured with them? Good?bad? Pls advise. TIA

http://www.relax.com.sg/relax/news/589260/...r_for_loss.html

I have a question here seeking the experience fellow forumers here: A car collided into my car. I claimed from my insurance first before my workshop helped me to claim my Excess and Lost of Use from the other insurance company. After half a year. I was inform by my insurance company that the other party's insurer had fully (100%) re-imbursed my insurance company. Later my workshop informed me that the 3rd party insurance company is only willing to pay me 50% of the total Excess plus Lost of Use claim. Is that normal practice of the insurance company? Or is the workshop trying to take 50% of my claim? Please advise. Many thanks in advance.

60 accidents a day involving taxis Insurance premiums for taxis have also soared in last few years By Christopher Tan, Senior Correspondent TAXI drivers are either the most dangerous or hard-luck drivers on the road. They are behind the wheel of 3 per cent of Singapore's vehicle population but are involved in 14 per cent of the accidents. Things seem to be getting worse, with taxi companies seeing their premiums soar over the last few years, and one insurer which used to focus on cab insurance dropping out altogether. Between 2007 and last year, there were about 22,000 accidents each year involving taxis, or an average of 60 a day. It also works out to nearly one accident for every cab on the road. On average, there were 162,000 motor accidents a year over the same period, or one in every six vehicles. Taxi insurers were not available to comment, but a senior executive at leading motor insurer Chartis said: 'We do see a rising trend from accidents involving taxis.' According to the Land Transport Authority, taxis make up less than 3 per cent of the total vehicle population of 933,000. The accident situation is not unique to Singapore. A 2008 state study in Connecticut found that the taxi accident rate there was more than quadruple that of the passenger vehicle rate. Some note that taxi drivers have far greater odds of getting into collisions given the long hours they spend on the roads. And the situation may be worsening. ComfortDelGro, the largest player with around 15,500 cabs, has seen its insurance expenses rising by millions over the last few years. Last year, its taxi premiums totalled $71 million - $5 million more than in 2008, and more than double its 2004 bill of $32.4 million. In the meantime, its fleet size has hardly changed. The smaller players are seeing it too. Smart Taxis managing director Johnny Harjantho said the trend of rising premiums is 'worrying'. Owner-operators seem to be hit the hardest. One of them, 62-year-old Goh Seow Chai, has been a cabby for 40 years. 'Just three years ago, third-party coverage cost as little as $1,500,' he said. 'Now, it's around $4,000 - if you have been accident-free. If you had accidents, it can be as much as $10,000 to $13,000. 'I know drivers who had to borrow from relatives. They have no choice, they need to drive to make a living.' Third-party injury liability cover is mandatory for road users in Singapore. On average, motor premiums for other vehicles have risen by a less drastic 30 per cent since 2004. Some observers point to an explosion in the number of taxis as having created a situation of supply outstripping demand. Since the market was liberalised in 2003, the taxi population has soared by 30 per cent to around 25,000 now. Taxi ridership, on the other hand, has grown by a more modest 9 per cent. Until a recent fare increase bolstered their take-home pay, cabbies were clocking longer hours and literally racing one another for fares, observers said. 'Some drivers tend to be reckless, and stop or swerve suddenly to pick up fares,' said General Insurance Association (GIA) president Derek Teo. 'I have personally encountered this.' So have other motorists. In January, lawyer Ye Su Jin, 37, was driving on the Pan-Island Expressway to work one morning when a cab 'cut into my lane, almost hitting me'. Then he 'jammed (on the) brakes suddenly'; and Ms Ye's car rear-ended the cab. After the incident, she did some checks and found that the cabby had been involved in five accidents in the past two years. In April, her insurer received a letter from a law firm acting for the cabby claiming for more than $8,000 in damages, including medical expenses. The case is pending. Company director Guo Yanhuai, 46, recalled making a turn at a yellow box junction some time in 2006, when a taxi collided with his car at fairly high speed. Last year, the cabby sued, and Mr Guo's insurer paid out nearly $35,000. It paid another $11,000 for Mr Guo's damages. Mr Guo's car insurance premium has not soared, a sign that the insurer did not deem him to be more than 20 per cent at fault. Mr Teo of the GIA said cabbies could actually be competent drivers given their vast experience on the road. 'It all boils down to education to inculcate good driving habits and road safety, plus practising road courtesy and consideration for other road users,' he said. [email protected]

My car's insurace will be expired early next month but so far I've not received the motor insurance renew notice. I'm with MSIG - maybe they dont want my business! If you're also using them, when you nomrally receive the renew notice? How about other insurers? Can bros here share when you normally recevied yours? P.S. agents don't bother to contact me as I already have a few agent friends.

going to renew my motor insurance. i'm wondering if AD workshop is not in Insurer's authorized workshop list, does it mean that i will not be able to go to AD workshop in case something happen. will the repair at non-AD workshop void the car's warranty? thanks

By Juan Lagorio and Bill Rigby NEW YORK (Reuters) - Prudential Financial Inc is the latest major insurer to warn its quarterly profits would miss forecasts, as the shares of rivals were pummeled on concern they would need to raise capital. The second-largest U.S. life insurer said on Thursday that third-quarter profit would be cut sharply by losses on poorly performing annuity and investment products and a charge for a legal settlement. That followed recent profit warnings at U.S. life and property insurer Hartford Financial Services Group Inc and MetLife Inc, the largest life insurer in the United States. The latter sold new shares at a discount on Wednesday to bolster its capital, raising $2 billion, while Hartford earlier this week received a $2.5 billion capital injection from Allianz SE, Europe's biggest insurer. "Insurers made big investments in mortgage-related securities and are also big holders of stocks and bonds in financial firms that have been wiped out or badly damaged by the credit crisis, such as Lehman Brothers and Washington Mutual, said Alan Rambaldini, a life insurance analyst at investment research firm Morningstar. "On top of that, bigger life insurers like Prudential get fees on the size of stock investments behind annuity products they sell to customers, which will drop sharply as the broader market plummets," he said. 'TRADING ON FEAR' Among other life insurers, Lincoln National Corp, fell 35 percent to $18.31, Principal Financial Group Inc lost 27 percent to $15.79 a share and Unum Group fell 30 percent to $14.77. Life insurance, as measured by the sectoral S&P Life & Health Insurance index, was down 17 percent, making it the second-worst performing sector after automakers. Even beyond life, XL Capital Inc, a large Bermuda-based reinsurer, fell 54 percent to $4.01. "The group (insurers) are trading on fear right now," said Bret Howlett, Standard & Poor's life insurance analyst. "A lot of investors are worried about capital positions in this unfavorable operating environment. "People are worried about whether these companies are going to need to raise additional capital. In this environment, it's going to be difficult to raise that capital." American International Group Inc shares fell 25 percent to $2.39, one day after the company said it would get more liquidity from the government. AIG, once the world's largest insurer, got an $85 billion loan from the government three weeks ago when it was on the brink of collapse. Under the new plan, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York will take up to $37.8 billion in investment-grade, fixed-income securities from AIG in exchange for cash. "The government has effectively provided them support for $110 billion. I think they have exhausted that avenue and so I think as they move forward their options have diminished," said Keith Wirtz, president and chief investment officer of Fifth Third Asset Management. UNDER PRESSURE Citing market volatility and extraordinary events affecting financial markets, Prudential has suspended all purchases of its own stock. It said it has liquidity to meet requirements at the parent company and at all operating subsidiaries and, unless it enters into any strategic deals, its need to access the capital markets before the end of the year would be modest. "We are comfortable with our risk profile and believe that we are in a strong position to manage through the current environment," said Prudential Chief Executive John Strangfeld, in a statement. Prudential did not say when it would report third-quarter earnings. Insurers have been under pressure to keep solid capital positions to maintain their ratings after their investments lost value as financial markets sank in recent weeks. Keeping high ratings is essential for insurers because lower ratings can mean higher costs and, in some cases, even a loss of business. (Editing by Toni Reinhold and Andre Grenon)

HE USED to be NTUC Income's chief executive officer but now, as a customer, he is one of its toughest critics. Mr Tan Kin Lian, 60, is mounting an online protest over a move by the insurer to restructure bonus payouts for life policies sold after 1993. He stepped down from the top job in February last year after a 30-year career - but he has not left quietly. The former head honcho is livid over the planned changes, which affect two Income policies that he owns, along with those of an estimated 310,000 other policyholders. In a nutshell, Income plans to cut its annual bonus payouts on these policies from 2.3 per cent to 1.3 per cent of the sum assured. Instead, it will assign more as special bonuses that are paid only at the time of death or when the policy is cashed out. Mr Tan summed up his feelings in a letter posted on his blog: 'We believe that this unilateral change by Income is to the detriment of the policyholders. It contravenes the 'reasonable expectation' of the policyholders.' Yesterday, he told The Straits Times that he would like Income to offer policyholders the option to stay on the old bonus structure if they do not accept the change. He aims to gather the signatures of other unhappy policyholders and present the letter of protest at Income's annual general meeting on May 30. His blog is at www.tankinlian.blogspot.com Income plans to raise the special bonus from 25 per cent of accumulated bonuses to anywhere between 30 per cent and 120 per cent. It says policyholder benefits are not affected by the revamp, as the combination of annual and special bonuses will give a return equal to what was intended in the past. When contacted yesterday, Income's chief actuary, Mr Ken Ng, said: 'Any decrease in our annual bonus will be offset by the increase in special bonus to achieve the same yield.' Income says that once annual bonuses are declared, they become guaranteed. To support this guarantee, Income needs to set aside reserves and invest in low-yield instruments such as bonds. This cuts Income's investment flexibility and the potential to invest in assets such as equities that could earn a higher return in the longer term. Mr Ng said: 'While we aim to keep our yields in line with our past practice, we do not wish to build in annual bonuses which prevent flexibility. This strengthens the position of the life fund for the benefit of all.' But Mr Tan and several other affected policyholders prefer to stay with the old bonus structure, as it is 'more transparent', and a higher proportion of the bonus will be vested each year. The regulator, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), said bonus declarations and bonus restructuring are commercial decisions approved by the insurers' boards based on recommendations by their actuary. However, insurers should satisfy themselves that the bonuses declared, including any bonus restructuring, are fair and equitable and that these are clearly communicated to policyholders, the MAS said.

March 27, 2008 In a car crash? New one-stop service will mean insurer does all paperwork and even gets tow truck for you By Christopher Tan NO MORE forms to fill at the roadside. No more queueing at inspection centres. And no more hunting for workshops which are willing to make third-party claims for you. All you need to do the next time you are in a motor accident is to call your insurer. It will do the rest for you, including sending a surveyor and, if needed, a tow truck - plus supplying a replacement vehicle where feasible. The General Insurance Association (GIA) said yesterday that its 29 member companies expect to launch the 'one-stop' service in May. The move is being introduced in another bid by the association to control motor insurance losses, which hit a five-year high of $103.2 million last year - a big jump over the $625,000 in 2006. Previous efforts included setting up independent damage assessment centres and requiring motorists to fill accident statements at the site of accidents. GIA president Derek Teo said yesterday that the losses can be attributed partly to motorists sending their accident-damaged vehicles straight to workshops - a practice that has often made it difficult for insurers to survey the damage until much later. This, said Mr Teo, has led to contentious claims and litigation which drive costs up unnecessarily. To prevent this, motorists will be required to inform their insurers of an accident within 24 hours in order to enjoy the one-stop service. 'If they do not, they will be in breach of an agreement and risk not being covered,' Mr Teo said at the association's 41st annual general meeting luncheon. He added that 'the new scheme is intended to be less painful for everyone'. He also said that insurers would have little or no reason to raise premiums if the scheme was successful in containing costs. It gives motorists several incentives to comply with the 24-hour notification rule. For starters, drivers need no longer struggle to complete the lengthy Singapore Accident Statement at the accident site. The form was introduced in 2004 as an attempt to establish unbiased facts of an accident. However, many motorists find the four-page document unwieldy, and fewer than 10 per cent of those in crashes were found to have completed it. Motorists also need not send their cars to an Independent Damage Assessment Centre (Idac), thus shortening the process of filing a claim and getting their cars repaired. Although the GIA did not say so, the new initiative is likely to result in the dismantling of the six-year-old Idac scheme, and would remove another cost layer. NTUC Income, Idac's strongest supporter - it once said it would carry on with the plan alone if it had to - could not be reached for comment yesterday. The GIA also said yesterday that it would look into why the number of accident reports had risen to 151,583 last year - the highest in five years. But it reckoned that the greater use of commercial vehicles on the back of the economic boom, a larger number of foreigners who are unfamiliar with Singapore roads and worsening traffic congestion were 'logical reasons' for the trend. Motorists welcomed the one-stop move. Housewife Beverly Wong, 38, said: 'It sounds pretty cool. It will save a lot of hassle. I remember going to Idac once and had to queue for a long time.' Shouldn't extra loading be applied for the above two cases rather than across the board???

Teacher wins appeal against insurer over legal costs By Wong Mun Wai, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 03 October 2007 1351 hrs SINGAPORE: Primary school teacher Jonathan Lock won his legal battle on Wednesday when the Court of Appeal ruled that he does not have to pay legal bills amounting to S$120,000. The Appeal Judges, including Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, ruled in favour of 35-year-old Mr Lock and ended the legal tussle that spanned over 18 months. CJ Chan described Mr Lock's case as "incredible" and said judges have not seen one "like it in all their years in law". Mr Lock's ordeal started with a motor insurance claim to his insurers, NTUC Income. Last year, the Primary Dispute Resolution Centre (PDRC) at the Subordinate Courts awarded him S$188 and ordered the other vehicle owner to pay S$1,200 in costs. But NTUC Income, which is also the insurer for the other vehicle, appealed and brought the case to the High Court. It claimed the Centre was not a court and its judges did not have the power to issue court orders. In May, a High Court ruling agreed with NTUC Income. Mr Lock appealed and was eventually pulled into a legal tussle. NTUC Income offered to waive the S$45,000 legal bill and even offered S$25,000 as a goodwill gesture on condition that Mr Lock drops his appeal