Ferrari crash

[winchester]

verykiasu2010:

Why AXA withdrawing coverage for Ferrari crash



The document said: \"Ma Chi was doing an act which he knew or ought to have known was courting imminent danger to himself and others.\"


http://motoring.asiaone.com/Motoring/News/Story/A1Story20120905-369594.html

this is scary. so next time, once insurance can say that there is no safety distance or speeding, then they are not liable! but that is the purpose of insurance!

[Lilac66]

Nebbermind:

Ma's estate may have the money to fight. But let's say Ma is a poor guy and the insurance refuses to pay...what will happen to all the victim?

Whether rich or otherwise, what he did is unacceptable and morally wrong,(speeding and beating red lights) so why should he be paid for his own reckless actions ?

If fact I think this outcome will send the right msg to other reckless drivers that the consequences of this will be dire, and it also indirectly affects your own family members.



Nebbermind, sorry misinterpreted your question about the victims.. ok, I believe for a poor family living from hand to mouth , AXA will make some provisions to pay the victims. Perhaps this case, they think the Ma family is financially capable of doing that. (My guess only)

[Sun_2010]

verykiasu2010:

Nebbermind:

Guess every driver will be watching this. If cannot claim against the reckless party, which usually is the cause of road accidents, then who can other road users such as pedestrian claim against?

I think what the insurance company is trying to do is to distinguish this case of blatant speeding from those harder to prove cases. This Ma Chi case with the video evidence if paid out by AXA would set a precedent that EVERY speeding accident case will be payable and is morally wrong in the first place, and will cause insurance premium to spiral upward out of control

Just thinking aloud my doubts... :?
so the victims claim from the insurance and then the insurance claims from the driver??
Or is it the victims have to claim directly from the driver's family?

What if the driver is say bankrupt? Who can the victims claim from? Even if the driver's family is not bankrupt, is the onus on the victims/ their families to get into a legal battle with the driver's fAmily? :shock:

Surely the insurer has some responsibility ?..

[MrsSeah]

winchester:

verykiasu2010:

Why AXA withdrawing coverage for Ferrari crash



The document said: \"Ma Chi was doing an act which he knew or ought to have known was courting imminent danger to himself and others.\"


http://motoring.asiaone.com/Motoring/News/Story/A1Story20120905-369594.html

this is scary. so next time, once insurance can say that there is no safety distance or speeding, then they are not liable! but that is the purpose of insurance!

I feel unreasonable for the insurance company to say this.

Every accident, there is always a fault with one of the party. If not there wouldn't be accident. If all insurance company don't want to pay and push it to our FAULT!!. Than buy insurance for what?

[Sun_2010]

Lilac66:

Nebbermind:

Ma's estate may have the money to fight. But let's say Ma is a poor guy and the insurance refuses to pay...what will happen to all the victim?

Whether rich or otherwise, what he did is unacceptable and morally wrong,(speeding and beating red lights) so why should he be paid for his own reckless actions ?


If fact I think this outcome will send the right msg to other reckless drivers that the consequences of this will be dire, and it also indirectly affects your own family members.

Good message but at what cost to the victims?


Nebbermind, sorry misinterpreted your question about the victims.. ok, I believe for a poor family living from hand to mouth , AXA will make some provisions to pay the victims. Perhaps this case, they think the Ma family is financially capable of doing that. (My guess only)

Insurance for a car is not just to cover the driver but also the victims. After all it is necessary to have it otherwise the car cannot be on road. The insurer should be liable . to leave it to the \"goodwill'\" of the insurance co is not wise. Whatever loophole /legality the insurer wants to make they should do with the Driver.

Talking about morals , how does it make moral sense for the victim's family , who are already devasted by their loss, to have the strength to fight the driver or have the means to do it. Very wrong IMHO.

[Lilac66]

Sun_2010:

Lilac66:

[quote=\"Nebbermind\"]Ma's estate may have the money to fight. But let's say Ma is a poor guy and the insurance refuses to pay...what will happen to all the victim?

Whether rich or otherwise, what he did is unacceptable and morally wrong,(speeding and beating red lights) so why should he be paid for his own reckless actions ?


If fact I think this outcome will send the right msg to other reckless drivers that the consequences of this will be dire, and it also indirectly affects your own family members.

Good message but at what cost to the victims?


Nebbermind, sorry misinterpreted your question about the victims.. ok, I believe for a poor family living from hand to mouth , AXA will make some provisions to pay the victims. Perhaps this case, they think the Ma family is financially capable of doing that. (My guess only)

Insurance for a car is not just to cover the driver but also the victims. After all it is necessary to have it otherwise the car cannot be on road. The insurer should be liable . to leave it to the \"goodwill'\" of the insurance co is not wise. Whatever loophole /legality the insurer wants to make they should do with the Driver.

Talking about morals , how does it make moral sense for the victim's family , who are already devasted by their loss, to have the strength to fight the driver or have the means to do it. Very wrong IMHO.[/quote]

I think I may have misunderstood a few points of this insurance thingy. Firstly I had taken the \"victims\" to mean Ma's family as they'll not be paid any insurance from AXA.(So in a way \"victimised\" by AXA), but I feel it's a correct stand taken by AXA. As for the taxi driver's family, it would be very wrong if they're not able to get any compensation. The accident is no fault of theirs. I had thought without doubt they would be able to get the compensation from the Ma's estate. Probably I'm wrong here. Let me re-read the whole topic's posts. :oops:

May have :booboo:

[ponyo]

no, the victims’ family (the Japanese girl, taxi driver and the injured man) will be compensated (3rd party claim) but AXA will counterclaim against Ma’s estate to get back whatever it paid out to these victims.


See extract from CNA article :
"AXA Singapore said that it is prepared to pay compensation to third party victims even if no judgment has been entered against Ma’s Estate, "subject to Ma Chi’s Estate agreement or the Court’s direction."

But it added that it intends to recover the claims from Ma’s estate with its counterclaim."

The victims should not be dragged into suing Ma’s estate as the first measure.

JMHO…

[verykiasu2010]

winchester:

verykiasu2010:

Why AXA withdrawing coverage for Ferrari crash



The document said: \"Ma Chi was doing an act which he knew or ought to have known was courting imminent danger to himself and others.\"


http://motoring.asiaone.com/Motoring/News/Story/A1Story20120905-369594.html

this is scary. so next time, once insurance can say that there is no safety distance or speeding, then they are not liable! but that is the purpose of insurance!

the purpose of insurance is precisely not for driver to speed or fail to keep proper distance - it is for third party claims and own accident, not own collisions from beating red light

there is always partial liability for most traffic cases involving claims and counter claims

as long as you are a safe driver, no fear, and better still, install an in-car video recorder for evidence

[Lilac66]

ponyo:

no, the victims' family (the Japanese girl, taxi driver and the injured man) will be compensated (3rd party claim) but AXA will counterclaim against Ma's estate to get back whatever it paid out to these victims.


See extract from CNA article :
\"AXA Singapore said that it is prepared to pay compensation to third party victims even if no judgment has been entered against Ma's Estate, \"subject to Ma Chi's Estate agreement or the Court's direction.\"

But it added that it intends to recover the claims from Ma's estate with its counterclaim.\"

The victims should not be dragged into suing Ma's estate as the first measure.

JMHO...

Thanks for this. It's very clear now that the REAL victims will be compensated. But about the points in red, I concur.

[phtthp]

MrsSeah:

I feel unreasonable for the insurance company to say this.


Every accident, there is always a fault with one of the party. If not there wouldn't be accident. If all insurance company don't want to pay and push it to our FAULT!!. Then buy insurance for what ?

before you sign up buying insurance policy, did you read /check fine print carefully many times all over again ?

Under what Terms and condition stated in black & white clearly - then only they compensate the insured person ? did it specify accident or collision ?