Saturday, September 22, 2012

Ferrari Crash - two views


FATAL FERRARI CRASH
 
Insurer right to refuse claim...
Michael Ng
 
I DISAGREE with Mr Tan Kin Lian's observations and conclusions
("Ferrari crash: Regulator should step in"; Tuesday).
 
While consumer protection is a laudable goal that should be rigorously pursued,
there is a line between vigilant protection of consumers
and indiscriminately criticising finance-related companies.
 
 
 
... If that is so, why charge higher premiums?
G. Krishnamurthi
 
I HOPE the Insurance Commissioner addresses the point
raised by Mr Tan Kin Lian on Tuesday
("Ferrari crash: Regulator should step in").
 
Aren't higher premiums meant to cover the insurers,
partly against the higher risk of exactly such claims of negligence
expected from such drivers?
 
at

4 comments:

  1. UnknownSeptember 22, 2012 9:10 AM

    All I can see is insurance company is finding excuses not to pay the insurance claim.

    How do you define reckless?

    Isn't this factor (reclessness) already been embeded into insurance statistics?

    I believe they better spend time and resources on cleaning up internal operations than making life difficult for genuine claimants.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tan Kin LianSeptember 23, 2012 5:08 PM

    It is not correct for Michael Ng to describe my view as "indiscriminately criticizing finance-related companies. He may have a different view on this matter - that is up to him. Many people share my concern. I can label his comment as "ridiculous" and "baised".

    ReplyDelete
  3. Tan Kin LianSeptember 23, 2012 5:10 PM

    It is correct that insurance company has already factored in the higher claim rate from high performance cars and have loaded the premium rate for not only more claims, but also for the higher cost of claims. They only need to exclude "wilful acts". It is not clear what is "wilful negligence". This has to be decided by the court. While the driver was "reckless", I do not consider his action as "wilful".

    ReplyDelete
  4. Tan Kin LianSeptember 24, 2012 8:25 AM

    I asked the views of the public if they support the AXA's action to reject the claim.

    Based on 10, 20 and 30 replies, the outcome is split 60%, 50%, just like the US election.

    The majority said that AXA should stick to its contractual liability and not reject the claim out of "public policy" but they probably feel that the Ferrari driver the collision could be classied as "wilful act or wilful negligence".

    ReplyDelete