Compensation by Motor Insurer to 3rd party victims? The answer in Singapore is clear.

[bic_cherry]

Compensation by Motor Insurer to 3rd party victims? The answer from Singapore is clea

Fr another forum but also relevant here.
===
Compensation by Motor Insurer to 3rd party victims? The answer from Singapore is clear.

Re thread: [Ferrari accident] Should assets of Ma Chi be frozen immediately for (re-)compensation?
obviously u dun drive and u dun read and u dun think, after i point out that insurance clauses to u. =:p=:p
what u said only applies to those that are WITHIN the insurance policies.
in cases of accidents where the insured was found to be non-compliance with the insurance conditions, the insurance company can void his policy on the spot and return him the premiums (usually much later on). meaning 'i dun do ur business and here's ur money, now fark-off'. end of story. u cant read the part that says 'will not pay'? now go ask ard drivers how many of them kena such things from insurance companies. u think or u try to portray insurance companies as dumb suckers that will pay out every single cent at the very first hour? ppl are in the business longer than ur father mother lived and they are famous for being cunning business. they know what to do, plz. :s13:
standard cases like failure of disclosure (didnt tell the insurance company the truth), frauds, underage drivers on the wheels, drunk driving, breaking laws etc, all can kena void on the spot. u call them up they serve u a letter a wk later, game over. that would leave the driver ma chi being without insurance. and the victims can only make the faulty party pay thru a lawyer.
seriously, u dunno anything want to kpkb... post so much rubbish some more... if insurance company so gullible then hoseh liao.

Firstly, even if U want to accuse me of "BS", pls include the title of that particular post (in bold) so I know which U are referring to as it's getting troublesome responding to you.

Just to confirm your point, you are saying that insurer of the Ferrari can simply find some excuse (or exclusion clause) such as 'driving under influence'- then say since = exclusion clause and so they don't have to pay the 3rd party victims such as families of deceased Mr Cheng Teck Hock [AsiaOne, 15May2012] and Ms Shigemi Ito [AsiaOne,15May2012]?

If that is really so, then what do we elect our MPs who write and review legislature for?

Like your attention to the text I've written, you seem to have scant comprehension of Singapore law (in this case at least) as it is in my last post you ignored that I had appended section 9 of 'Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (CHAPTER 189)', re-appended in quotations as follows:

Under the 'Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (CHAPTER 189)'> Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments against persons insured in respect of third-party risks:: "9.—(1) If after a certificate of insurance has been issued under section 4(9) to the person by whom a policy has been effected judgment in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under section 4(1)(b) (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) is obtained against any person insured by the policy then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to this section, pay to the Public Trustee as trustee for the persons entitled thereto —(a) any sum payable thereunder in respect of the liability including any amount payable in respect of costs; and (b) any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any written law relating to interest on judgments."

The portions of the section, coloured red, highlight the fact that no insurance exclusion/ avoidance clause exempts the insurer of the offending vehicle from compensating 3rd party losses. The issue of whether the insurer is able to recoup such payments from the offender is of a secondary and junior consideration where the 'Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (CHAPTER 189)' is concerned; and for that, I have our MP legislators (now and of old) to thank.

Singapore, at inception is a lawful country with laws to protect the common man in the streets and at home and many existing laws remain important to the peace and security of every Singaporean I know.

In this case, the weight of liability of motor vehicle insurance companies in Singapore is high and so is it on all motorist who suffer premiums increase (motor insurance is compulsory here)- insofar as motor insurance companies fail to recoup their losses from offending motorist whose driving methods contravene the law (speeding, tailgating, reckless driving, disobedience of traffic lights/ directional signs etc).

Dear ponpokku, whilst your anecdotal experience is appreciated, please do not attempt to re-write the law.

Rgds
C6.

 

[cunnilaubu]

Re: Compensation by Motor Insurer to 3rd party victims? The answer in Singapore is cl

The portions of the section, coloured red, highlight the fact that no insurance exclusion/ avoidance clause exempts the insurer of the offending vehicle from compensating 3rd party losses. The issue of whether the insurer is able to recoup such payments from the offender is of a secondary and junior consideration where the 'Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (CHAPTER 189)' is concerned....

Ehhh... is this for info only or are you bring your quarrel from HWZ to SBF?


Your interpretation with regards to 3rd party claims is correct though....

 

[bic_cherry]

Re: Compensation by Motor Insurer to 3rd party victims? The answer in Singapore is cl

Ehhh... is this for info only or are you bring your quarrel from HWZ to SBF?

Your interpretation with regards to 3rd party claims is correct though....

Hi, thanks for reading,
Nope, just using the old post out of convenience as an example for others to learn from- both for the potential perpetrator and for the aggrieved.

Feel sorry for the deceased's families too and hope that my essays can help, especially recompense from the estate of Ma Chi where funds do not lack (freezing is a must).
(Mr Cheng Teck Hock's family should also get >$1700 p.m. (cabby's salary)- a father is worth much more than that)- perhaps a counselor and access to legal aid will help, ditto medical insurance coverage for Mrs Cheng, whose husband's life Ma Chi took away with him.

Anyhow, I dug this up from the internet, again replicated as follows for record purposes, to warn others that 'insurance' is no license to kill:

Victim wins civil suit against Ionescu
Mr Bong has sought more than $630k in damages. The default judgment was given to Ionescu, but the amount of damages to be paid will be decided later. -TNP
Sat, Aug 21, 2010; The New Paper
..
Exclusion clause
If a driver is convicted or pleads guilty to drink driving, the insurer's exclusion clause kicks in and the insurer can disclaim liability, he said.
But as laid out in the affidavit, even though NTUC Income is "no longer contractually bound to indemnify" Ionescu, the insurer is still required by law to pay Mr Bong first.
It will then recover the amount from Ionescu.
This is also a standard procedure in road accidents where the driver is intoxicated, said Mr K Anparasan, 42, partner at law firm KhattarWong.
He explained: "Even if the driver is under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the insurer is required to pay the victim of the accident.
"The whole idea is to make sure the victim is not left uncompensated. The insurer reserves the right to go after the driver to recover that amount."
Mr Ken Loh, 43, managing director of insurance agency M Plus Consultancy, added: "The law is made to protect the innocent, so that the accident victims do not suffer loss without redress. If no one pays their bills, then public interest is hurt."

Victim wins civil suit against Ionescu

--
Rgds
B.C.