Tan Kin Lian's Blog: Compensation for injury

Wednesday, October 03, 2007

Compensation for injury

There is a report in the newspaper today about the foreman who died during the collapse of Nicoll Highway. The widow had to sue the employer, who agreed to pay $410,000. The incident occurred 3 years ago.

Victims of traffic accidents face a similar problem in Singapore. They have to engage a lawyer to claim compensation for the injury. This can take a few years, and result in high legal cost, which can take away about one third of the award.

In some countries, there is a faster way to assess compensation for injuries and death.

It is based on a no-fault system and awards compensation based on the actual expenses and loss of earnings. It applies to accidents at the workplace and on the road.

The award is given quite quickly and the amount is generally fair.

It is useful to have a similar system in Singapore. Actually, the workman compensation system in Singapore is based on this approach. We can extend its operations to cover a larger scope and also to pay higher compensation.

7 comments:

Anonymous said...: Jonathan won his case before the court of appeal. There is no need to be obligated to Income and there is no need to pay his lawyer.
NTUC Income knew what was coming and offered the money supposedly to alleviate Jonathan's plight but at the back of its mind there was something that loomed even bigger but not disclosed to Jonathan that he would win the case. Income knew its chances if the case went to court and preempted by offering $70k in the hope to control damage done and to pull a publicity stunt.Trying to kill 2 birds with one stone became a fiasco.The damaged hole is bigger and tongues will be wagging whether Income's offer of help was sincere or it was to save its own skin. The verdict is obvious and the damage control PR didn't work but instead will lead to more backlash. There will be more shows to watch and let's see the ending.; October 03, 2007 7:51 PM
Anonymous said...: There was also the case of Jonathan Lock where a minor traffic accident became blown-up all the way to Court of Appeal. I am glad that he finally win his case against NTUC INCOME, of all companies.; October 03, 2007 8:38 PM
Anonymous said...: There is something that we can learn from this case. An offer of goodwill may appear generous but may be loaded against you. True it was.Why pay good money belonging
to policyholders to quash a case when it was the giver who started this long running legal battle. It is puzzling.But it was fortunate that Jonathan received good solid advice to proceed and did not yield to the tempting offer otherwise today he will be still left with a hefty $80K bill to settle. The lesson learned is never let an unqualified adviser and whose interest is to make as much money out of you, to lead you by your nose round and round until you become an unwitting victim of somebody's cunning scheme.; October 03, 2007 11:02 PM
Anonymous said...: I think Income was trying to play two roles like a Hokkien expression "lung asi li, qui asi li" It is confusing.
Is it some kind of rebranding strategy? But in this case it backfired, isn't it. It's a tragedy now. It will take some time to repair
the damage done. What is going on? Since the new management there has been a lot of these weird events.; October 03, 2007 11:22 PM
Anonymous said...: Just wondering if insurer is still going ahead with the $40,000 "goodwill" gesture to Mr. Lock.

After, as a cooperative, this is supposed to be policyholder's money and is it fair to keep adding "goodwill" in cash terms?

i think that since court of appeal already found that insurer is wrong, it should just admit it made an honest mistake and move on ...

now it seemed like PR bootlicking and bribing the other party to shutup.

I don't know much about whether it has a hidden agenda when it offered all these goodwills. Just wondering who is going to foot all the bills: $120,000 (legal bills) + $40,000 (goodwill freebie)....

seemed to me, the insurer quite money-oriented ... going after a hapless primary school teacher who's main transportation is a bike and only earns $1800/mth.

Perhaps he should have used public transport and avoid all these headaches.; October 04, 2007 1:56 AM
Anonymous said...: The trouble maker was Income. It started it all and with the instigation of their lawyers who wanted to make money. Both parties conspired against Jonathan Lock. Both have different agendas. One is money, the other to turn it into wayang so it can appear as chillvary knight to rescue Jonathan. Lucky, Jonathan was quick to regain his sense from all the manipulations and fought a good fight. He was rewarded for his unrelenting belief in the administration of justice.The rule of law must prevail.; October 04, 2007 9:31 AM
Anonymous said...: The new management of Income is going backwards. While other companies are training their agents to use need based selling Income is focusing on products.Look at the way it is splurging money on Revosave product.I have not seen an insurance product being branded as Revosave. I wonder how much has being spent on it. With high commission for agents and huge promotion expense can the sales volume justify the cost.It is going to be the costliest product in town.Of course, if it succeeds the cost is paid by customers.
This new management is spending money like water, with a lot of freebies. Christmas isn't here yet, but Income is playing Santa Clause.
How many court cases it has lost recently.On top of it all, it was trying to gift to Jonathan a big ang pow . I wonder this spending is from his own pocket or from the policyholders' life fund. Policyholders must query him before he spends the yearly bonuses.; October 04, 2007 11:24 AM