I met a senior person in AXA. He asked my views about AXA's rejection of the claims arising from the Ferrari crash. I said that the decision of AXA was wrong.
Read this letter in the Straits Times
http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/forum-letters/story/fatal-ferrari-crash-insurers-stance-cause-consumer-concern-20120915
Here are my reasons.
Motor insurance covers collision arising from an accident. The only way for AXA to reject the cover was if the driver had caused the accident intentionally. It would be difficult for AXA to prove this case. So, it is bad for AXA to reject the claim, on the grounds that the driver was reckless.
Read this letter in the Straits Times
http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/forum-letters/story/fatal-ferrari-crash-insurers-stance-cause-consumer-concern-20120915
Here are my reasons.
Motor insurance covers collision arising from an accident. The only way for AXA to reject the cover was if the driver had caused the accident intentionally. It would be difficult for AXA to prove this case. So, it is bad for AXA to reject the claim, on the grounds that the driver was reckless.
4 comments:
I guess it is more of a "legal" game.
A test case whether the Estate of a driver speeding with his own Ferrari and actually caused his own death has a claim against the Insurer? He had weaker grounds and the Insurer is probably after a split in responsibility ultimately... so they need not bear the full "bill". They will fight on the split of responsibility.
The results would have impact on other claimants's claims.
The other claimants against the Insurer have stronger grounds ... beacause the Ferrari driver caused their deaths / injuries.
There is a more active exchange of views on this topic in www.facebook.com/kinlian.
When it comes to claim the trouble starts.
Why should the insurer pay million of dollars when it can go to the CEO's pocket? or if the claim is paid it may be NO performance bonus for the CEO, right? because his bonus is crashed.
The next time high performance car insurance will come with lots of clauses beside the very high premium.
Eg, limiting the speed; beating traffic lights; driving in the city is not allowed;accident in the city is not accident but considered self infliction; drink drive(besides the police prohibition)cannot carry another passenger; only old drivers; etc
With so many 'deductibles' or prohibitions the premium should drop.
Agree.
Accidents arise from collision. It's like saying the egg comes first before the mother hen.
From experience, AXA is not ideal to insure your car, if you are at fault in an accident, and the other party claims against your insurer AXA, your next car premium will go up by 100%.
Post a Comment