Friday, October 05, 2012

Income's rejection draconian,


 
Denis Distant
MR TAN Yau Cher,
the owner of the car driven by his daughter involved in an accident,
is penalised by NTUC Income
(Income's reply "No insurance renewal for dangerous driving..." on Wednesday
 to Mr Tan's letter "Don't let insurers leave car owners in renewal fix" last Saturday)
when it refused to renew his policy,
notwithstanding the 50 per cent no-claim discount earned after years of accident-free driving.
 
How about the younger daughter
if she buys a car and asks Income to insure it?
 
How about Mr Tan,
should he buy another car -
would Income refuse to insure it as well?
 
And if Mrs Tan or any of her children bought cars,
would they also be denied insurance?
 
What would Income do
had the daughter been driving a rental car?
Refuse to insure cars owned by the rental agency
because it rented her the car?
 
The action of Income seems draconian,
not just unfair.
 

1 comment:

sgcynic said...

I cannot follow logic in Income's reply:

Mr Tan's older daughter (who is the accident policy owner) can continue her insurance with NTUC Inome but the younger daughter (who caused the accident from her reckless driving) would be excluded from the coverage. Nevertheless, premiums will carry significant loading to deter family units with bad driving behaviour from insuring with Income.

1) Income adopts the policy that a person is incapable of change. It does not believe in the Yellow Ribbon Project.

2) Despite supposedly having surgically removed the lesion, the body must still be punished to send a signal to others the importance for healthy living.

Draconian indeed.

Blog Archive