Road safety and correct driver behavior

[winchester]

pirate:

Not to mention that the car's authorised agent is not even on the list of approved workshops. :razz:

can send to ad for repair, but pay premium for it.

[Harlequin]

concern2:

pirate:

All these insurance nonsense about excess and claiming against my own policy made me think what's the point of taking up comprehensive insurance? I make do with 3rd party, fire and theft and save a bunch on insurance premiums.

Ya boy! DH is considering to stop the renewal of his insurance - since if there is a claim, you end up paying higher premiums - so what is the point, really? Worse, if the other party does not have insurance, and you can't claim against his insurance, he refuses to pay and the amount is too small to file him a legal letter, then what?

Are we talking about car insurance? :?

Motor insurance is mandatory, not optional.

It's illegal to own a vehicle that's without insurance, the vehicle's owner can't even renew the road tax without a valid insurance coverage.

[Harlequin]

cmm:

atrecord:

a lot of workshops conspired with lawyers and doctors to make hugely inflated claims for minor accidents. There were some reports of such acts and there were a few persons jailed already. I'm not sure they can clamp down on them all though, as i think it is very rampant.

This is a very common practice for sure... It translates into the inflated premiums we pay for motor insurance :razz:

Inflated premium is across the motor insurance industry, affecting all vehicle owners.

What directly affects a driver is when we make a claim or some 3rd party claim against us, we stand to lose all the accumulated NCB :slapshead:

[atrecord]

Harlequin:

concern2:

[quote=\"pirate\"]All these insurance nonsense about excess and claiming against my own policy made me think what's the point of taking up comprehensive insurance? I make do with 3rd party, fire and theft and save a bunch on insurance premiums.

Ya boy! DH is considering to stop the renewal of his insurance - since if there is a claim, you end up paying higher premiums - so what is the point, really? Worse, if the other party does not have insurance, and you can't claim against his insurance, he refuses to pay and the amount is too small to file him a legal letter, then what?

Are we talking about car insurance? :?

Motor insurance is mandatory, not optional.

It's illegal to own a vehicle that's without insurance, the vehicle's owner can't even renew the road tax without a valid insurance coverage.[/quote]Yup. Cannot renew road tax -- means cannot drive -- if do not have car insurance coverage.

There was a case a few years ago when one woman was forced to transfer her car to her son, cos her road tax + insurance was due for renewal, but because she was at fault for 2 major accidents incurring big claims in the year, her insurance company refused to renew her coverage. Since she could not find one insurer willing to insure her, she would have no use for the car under her name. So she paid transfer fee to transfer to her son, who doesn't have bad claim record...

[atrecord]

pirate:

cmm:

[quote=\"atrecord\"]a lot of workshops conspired with lawyers and doctors to make hugely inflated claims for minor accidents. There were some reports of such acts and there were a few persons jailed already. I'm not sure they can clamp down on them all though, as i think it is very rampant.

This is a very common practice for sure... It translates into the inflated premiums we pay for motor insurance :razz:

What to do when insurance companies are too cheapskate to employ people who actually know how to assess claims?[/quote]
I guess it's because:
1) There are so many cases to handle everyday
2) insurers must be too trusting of the experts (workshop mechanics, doctors, etc.), thinking that these experts must be honest/correct in their assessments.

[cmm]

atrecord:

There was a case a few years ago when one woman was forced to transfer her car to her son, cos her road tax + insurance was due for renewal, but because she was at fault for 2 major accidents incurring big claims in the year, her insurance company refused to renew her coverage. Since she could not find one insurer willing to insure her, she would have no use for the car under her name. So she paid transfer fee to transfer to her son, who doesn't have bad claim record...

But she can still drive her son's car, no? :scratchhead:

[atrecord]

cmm:

atrecord:

There was a case a few years ago when one woman was forced to transfer her car to her son, cos her road tax + insurance was due for renewal, but because she was at fault for 2 major accidents incurring big claims in the year, her insurance company refused to renew her coverage. Since she could not find one insurer willing to insure her, she would have no use for the car under her name. So she paid transfer fee to transfer to her son, who doesn't have bad claim record...

But she can still drive her son's car, no? :scratchhead:

I think can. But there's implications: if the car is valuable (which might not be the case since it was involved in major accidents), the son can sell the car and keep the money since it's in his name.

And also, if she drives it, and gets into more accidents, insurers will scrutinise the policy/situation: Is she covered by her son's policy (comprehensive or third party, etc.)? I doubt she can be a named driver in the first place (since it's certain that she was blacklisted), so the excess will be high to start with. And if there is any claim, when her son renews the policy, it's going to be very expensive. And if they bite bullet and renew, and again got into accidents, sooner rather than later her son will also not be able to renew insurance and they will have to sell/scrap the car.

[Harlequin]

atrecord:

cmm:

[quote=\"atrecord\"]

There was a case a few years ago when one woman was forced to transfer her car to her son, cos her road tax + insurance was due for renewal, but because she was at fault for 2 major accidents incurring big claims in the year, her insurance company refused to renew her coverage. Since she could not find one insurer willing to insure her, she would have no use for the car under her name. So she paid transfer fee to transfer to her son, who doesn't have bad claim record...

But she can still drive her son's car, no? :scratchhead:

I think can. But there's implications: if the car is valuable (which might not be the case since it was involved in major accidents), the son can sell the car and keep the money since it's in his name.

And also, if she drives it, and gets into more accidents, insurers will scrutinise the policy/situation: Is she covered by her son's policy (comprehensive or third party, etc.)? I doubt she can be a named driver in the first place (since it's certain that she was blacklisted), so the excess will be high to start with. And if there is any claim, when her son renews the policy, it's going to be very expensive. And if they bite bullet and renew, and again got into accidents, sooner rather than later her son will also not be able to renew insurance and they will have to sell/scrap the car.[/quote]Just curious, in the above case, other than rejecting her being a 2nd named driver, can the motor insurer add in clauses to exclude her from the coverage, should she decide to drive the said car even she isn't a named driver? And if she drives this car and met with accident, can the insurer dispute the claim?

Asked cos i am negotiating with Liberty Insurance regarding my new car's 3rd named driver... (Me as owner/1st named driver, DH is the 2nd named driver) Both of us are accident free.
Liberty insurance quoted premium of $14,700; excess for 1st and 2nd driver is $20,000 and $$30,000 respectively.
Now the crux is that they refused to insured the 3rd driver (age 65) unless the premium hike to approx $18,000, and the 3rd driver's excess is $40,000! And the 3rd driver is not insurable if driving outside SG.

I have tried other insurers, but due the type of the car, there are no other motor insurer in SG want my business, lol.

What are my options? Can I let the 65yo driver drives if he is not the named 3rd driver? The lady agent told me in such case Liberty will only pay 3rd party damage but not my car, is it the standard industry practice?

Appreciate your help, need to register the car next week.

:thankyou:


Edit to add: Liberty Insurance is the authorized car dealer's appointed insurer.

[Nebbermind]

wow! Some exotic car, siah!

[Harlequin]

Nebbermind:

wow! Some exotic car, siah!

Ya boi... a stressed Harley Quinn needs a 6 litre twin-turbocharged GT Speed to destress... :evil:

But, don't get me wrong hor... I only vroom in my car porch to hear the engine roar, :rotflmao: , or take it to Malaysia NS Highway to floor the accelerator... but never in SG :imanangel: