http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC120905-0000039/Ferrari-crash-was-not-an-accident--AXA
According to this report in Today paper, the insurer of the Ferrari involved in the fatal crash at Bugis took the view that their policy covers "accidents" and not "collision".
I find this statement from AXA to be ridiculous. A motor insurance policy covers damages and losses arising from collision between the insured vehicle and another vehicle or other object. This is the primary cover provided by a motor insurance policy.
AXA Smart Drive policy clearly states its comprehensive cover to be as follows:
Under the "exclusion clause" of the policy, it is stated that the policy does not cover "any wilful act and/or wilful negligence" of the insured or an authorised driver.
"Wilful" is defined as "intent on having one's own way, headstrong or obstinate". AXA has to prove that the Ferrari driver intended to hit the taxi. While he may be driving recklessly, I cannot imagine that he had intended to hit the taxi or to take his own life.
According to this report in Today paper, the insurer of the Ferrari involved in the fatal crash at Bugis took the view that their policy covers "accidents" and not "collision".
I find this statement from AXA to be ridiculous. A motor insurance policy covers damages and losses arising from collision between the insured vehicle and another vehicle or other object. This is the primary cover provided by a motor insurance policy.
AXA Smart Drive policy clearly states its comprehensive cover to be as follows:
"If during the period of insurance, your Motorcar and its original accessories and spare parts are lost or stolen, or are accidentally damaged by the operation of the following perils:
(i) fire, lightning, thunderbolt, explosion, collision
(ii) convulsions of nature, including flood, earthquake, volcanic eruption, hurricane,cyclone,typhoon, windstorm
(iii) self-ignition
(iv) riot, strike and malicious damage.Collision is clearly stated to be a peril covered by the policy.
Under the "exclusion clause" of the policy, it is stated that the policy does not cover "any wilful act and/or wilful negligence" of the insured or an authorised driver.
"Wilful" is defined as "intent on having one's own way, headstrong or obstinate". AXA has to prove that the Ferrari driver intended to hit the taxi. While he may be driving recklessly, I cannot imagine that he had intended to hit the taxi or to take his own life.
9 comments:
I agree with the letter written by Abbas Vakharia
http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/forum-letters/story/fatal-ferrari-crash-insurers-stance-cause-consumer-concern-20120915
I agree also. But I also don't want Ma Chi's family to profit from his death.
If AXA wins, then all insurance companies in Singapore including all the Shield plans don't need to pay money even if you die from heart attack or cancer or get knock down by car. Why? Coz it's your stupid mistake what. Who ask you to eat so much char kuay teow, roti prata, rendang?? It's your stupid fault that you so freaking unfit cannot run 2.4km in 10 min. You want other people to pay you or your family money becoz of your stupid mistakes? And why you so stupid to walk on that spot so that the car will knock you down?? Your stupid fault and mistake again what!
Dear tanakow,
AXA refuses to pay for the loss of the Ferrari. They should pay for it in full, or at least negotiate to pay for half of the claim, on the grounds of reckless driving - which could be argued as "wilful negligence".
They also want to recover the third party claims from the family. This is not fair and should be withdrawn.
The purpose of an insurance policy is to provide security, and should not be so uncertain.
The public should not exercise "moral judgment" on this matter, .e.g. "don't want the family to benefit from the insurance".
The practice of insurance in Singapore, both in claims and underwriting, had deteriorated over the years.
It is time for the regulator to be more proactive in looking after the interest of the public.
Personally I do not trust insurance companies. They require you to pay premium in full and on time. When you make claim, they have all kind of reasons not to pay. Even they have no reason not to pay, they drag your claim forever. I had to behave like a thug in order to get my claim some years ago.
Authorities should look into corruptions in insurance companies proactively.
I'd grant that rejecting the insured's claims on grounds of cause being "collision" instead of "accident" is confusing.
But there is a valid reason for rejecting it - the driver was speeding excessively, violating traffic lights and did cause the damage to his car through his own recklessness.
I agree 101% with Solomon!
MAS shud withdraw AXA's license!
Post a Comment