- Joined
- Jan 5, 2010
- Messages
- 2,086
- Points
- 83
Singapore motor insurance scheme for drunk driving incidents is broken.
Because insurers only have to by law pay first ONLY for human injury or death. The insurer of the drunk driver will not by law have to pay first for the damage.
This means that ANY property damage by drunk driver will not be covered first by his insurance.
Which means that in case of accidents with drunk drivers, victims will NOT alert the police but be accomplice with drunk driver NOT to report his drunken state in the hope that his insurer will not be aware of his drunkenness and pay out everything including property damage.
What a shame about this blatant injustice in Singapore law which results in victims having to be accomplices to drunk driving accidents in order to gurantee a payout by insurer for property damage.
"Industry players say it is not unusual for victims to make large medical claims to offset the property damage caused by drink drivers."- what a shame it is that victims have to resort to 'corruption' and creative accounting just to achieve just restitution.
Insurer should pay first for ALL damages caused, property, injury or otherwise and then claim from the drunk. Otherwise, what is the purpose of compulsory insurance but a side (wayang) show or worse, a corrupt plan to help insurers make bountiful profits without heed for promoting drunk driving case reporting and the full and proper compensation to innocent victims.
Because insurers only have to by law pay first ONLY for human injury or death. The insurer of the drunk driver will not by law have to pay first for the damage.
This means that ANY property damage by drunk driver will not be covered first by his insurance.
Which means that in case of accidents with drunk drivers, victims will NOT alert the police but be accomplice with drunk driver NOT to report his drunken state in the hope that his insurer will not be aware of his drunkenness and pay out everything including property damage.
What a shame about this blatant injustice in Singapore law which results in victims having to be accomplices to drunk driving accidents in order to gurantee a payout by insurer for property damage.
"Industry players say it is not unusual for victims to make large medical claims to offset the property damage caused by drink drivers."- what a shame it is that victims have to resort to 'corruption' and creative accounting just to achieve just restitution.
Insurer should pay first for ALL damages caused, property, injury or otherwise and then claim from the drunk. Otherwise, what is the purpose of compulsory insurance but a side (wayang) show or worse, a corrupt plan to help insurers make bountiful profits without heed for promoting drunk driving case reporting and the full and proper compensation to innocent victims.
Tough for victims to make claims in drink driving cases
Source: Straits Times
Date Published: 19 Mar 2019
Author: Zaihan Mohamed Yusof
Drink driving is a common exclusion in motor policies here, say insurers, so they are not liable to provide cover.
Last November, Mr Jim Quah, 33, was driving his van along the Central Expressway when a luxury car hit his vehicle from behind, sending it swerving out of control.
While he and the other driver were checking on the vehicles, Mr Quah said he smelled alcohol on the other man's breath and called the police. The driver was arrested after failing a breathalyser test.
Four months later, Mr Quah's efforts to secure compensation for the damage to his van have reached a stalemate - largely due to his decision to call the police.
This is because drink driving is a common exclusion in motor insurance policies here, say insurers, which means victims like Mr Quah involved in similar accidents are not able to claim compensation from the drink drivers' insurance firms.
Insurer MSIG said drink driving is illegal and a common exclusion in policies. "Insurers are therefore not liable to provide insurance coverage in such instances," said a spokesman.
To make matters worse, Mr Quah said attempts to reach a private settlement with the driver have also been fruitless.
An authorised workshop of Mr Quah's insurer had assessed the damage at around $14,000, but the other driver was willing to pay only half. Since then, the driver has refused to answer Mr Quah's calls.
As a result, he plans to make a claim against his own insurer to pay for the damage to the van. This would likely lead to a spike in his motor insurance premiums.
Still, Mr Quah, who works in the healthcare industry, believes he did the right thing in calling the police, even though it has partly affected his bid to get compensation.
"I think my decision was morally right as I have seen the outcome of collisions involving drink drivers," Mr Quah added.
His plight is probably not uncommon, with the rise in drink driving accidents here. Official figures released last month show such cases have gone up from 150 in 2017 to 176 last year.
For some, reaching a private settlement with drink driving parties means having to cross several road bumps.
In 2015, IT executive Nor Haikel reached a private settlement with a drink driver after their cars were involved in an accident.
He said the driver, who claimed he had financial difficulties, offered him $11,000 as compensation for repairs estimated at over $20,000.
Mr Haikel did not want to make a damage claim against his own insurer as he feared his premiums would go up, so he accepted the driver's offer.
However, the $11,000 he got was not enough to cover the $26,000 worth of repairs for his car.
As a result, he eventually had to make a claim against his insurer to make up for the shortfall.
In return for what his insurer paid for the repairs, Mr Haikel had to pay back a $1,000 sum and 25 monthly instalments of $400, as well as an $800 excess fee, to his insurance firm. His renewal premium also shot up from $1,600 to $6,000 due to the claims.
Mr Jimmy Tan, technical director of the General Insurance Association of Singapore, said that for injuries or death arising from the accident, the drink driver's insurer will pay the victims under the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act and recover the payment from the insured driver.
"For property damage, third parties should sue the driver or vehicle owner," he said.
But a claims adviser with 20 years' experience, who gave his name as Anson, asked why insurers would not pay for property damage if they would pay for injury claims.
Industry players say it is not unusual for victims to make large medical claims to offset the property damage caused by drink drivers.
Lawyer Bachoo Mohan Singh said a drink driver can be sued but "whether you can claim back your full sum or not would depend on whether the person is able to pay".
Insurer MSIG said drink driving is illegal and a common exclusion in policies. "Insurers are therefore not liable to provide insurance coverage in such instances," said a spokesman.
DRIVER LIABLE
For property damage, third parties should sue the driver or vehicle owner.
MR JIMMY TAN, technical director of the General Insurance Association of Singapore, noting that for injuries or death arising from the accident, the drink driver's insurer will pay the victims under the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act and recover the payment from the insured driver.
176
Number of drink-driving accidents last year, up from 150 in 2017.
Source: Straits Times © Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Permission required for reproduction.
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/tough-for-victims-to-make-claims-in-drink-driving-cases
Source: Straits Times
Date Published: 19 Mar 2019
Author: Zaihan Mohamed Yusof
Drink driving is a common exclusion in motor policies here, say insurers, so they are not liable to provide cover.
Last November, Mr Jim Quah, 33, was driving his van along the Central Expressway when a luxury car hit his vehicle from behind, sending it swerving out of control.
While he and the other driver were checking on the vehicles, Mr Quah said he smelled alcohol on the other man's breath and called the police. The driver was arrested after failing a breathalyser test.
Four months later, Mr Quah's efforts to secure compensation for the damage to his van have reached a stalemate - largely due to his decision to call the police.
This is because drink driving is a common exclusion in motor insurance policies here, say insurers, which means victims like Mr Quah involved in similar accidents are not able to claim compensation from the drink drivers' insurance firms.
Insurer MSIG said drink driving is illegal and a common exclusion in policies. "Insurers are therefore not liable to provide insurance coverage in such instances," said a spokesman.
To make matters worse, Mr Quah said attempts to reach a private settlement with the driver have also been fruitless.
An authorised workshop of Mr Quah's insurer had assessed the damage at around $14,000, but the other driver was willing to pay only half. Since then, the driver has refused to answer Mr Quah's calls.
As a result, he plans to make a claim against his own insurer to pay for the damage to the van. This would likely lead to a spike in his motor insurance premiums.
Still, Mr Quah, who works in the healthcare industry, believes he did the right thing in calling the police, even though it has partly affected his bid to get compensation.
"I think my decision was morally right as I have seen the outcome of collisions involving drink drivers," Mr Quah added.
His plight is probably not uncommon, with the rise in drink driving accidents here. Official figures released last month show such cases have gone up from 150 in 2017 to 176 last year.
For some, reaching a private settlement with drink driving parties means having to cross several road bumps.
In 2015, IT executive Nor Haikel reached a private settlement with a drink driver after their cars were involved in an accident.
He said the driver, who claimed he had financial difficulties, offered him $11,000 as compensation for repairs estimated at over $20,000.
Mr Haikel did not want to make a damage claim against his own insurer as he feared his premiums would go up, so he accepted the driver's offer.
However, the $11,000 he got was not enough to cover the $26,000 worth of repairs for his car.
As a result, he eventually had to make a claim against his insurer to make up for the shortfall.
In return for what his insurer paid for the repairs, Mr Haikel had to pay back a $1,000 sum and 25 monthly instalments of $400, as well as an $800 excess fee, to his insurance firm. His renewal premium also shot up from $1,600 to $6,000 due to the claims.
Mr Jimmy Tan, technical director of the General Insurance Association of Singapore, said that for injuries or death arising from the accident, the drink driver's insurer will pay the victims under the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act and recover the payment from the insured driver.
"For property damage, third parties should sue the driver or vehicle owner," he said.
But a claims adviser with 20 years' experience, who gave his name as Anson, asked why insurers would not pay for property damage if they would pay for injury claims.
Industry players say it is not unusual for victims to make large medical claims to offset the property damage caused by drink drivers.
Lawyer Bachoo Mohan Singh said a drink driver can be sued but "whether you can claim back your full sum or not would depend on whether the person is able to pay".
Insurer MSIG said drink driving is illegal and a common exclusion in policies. "Insurers are therefore not liable to provide insurance coverage in such instances," said a spokesman.
DRIVER LIABLE
For property damage, third parties should sue the driver or vehicle owner.
MR JIMMY TAN, technical director of the General Insurance Association of Singapore, noting that for injuries or death arising from the accident, the drink driver's insurer will pay the victims under the Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act and recover the payment from the insured driver.
176
Number of drink-driving accidents last year, up from 150 in 2017.
Source: Straits Times © Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Permission required for reproduction.
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/tough-for-victims-to-make-claims-in-drink-driving-cases
Last edited: