Not for love of money, but of Humanity. "Greater is he who works for the good of all, then he who works for the good of himself only" ~ Matthew 25:40: "The King will reply, 'I tell you the truth, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers of mine, you did for me.'"- (NIV). I live in Singapore where the Emperor must not be disturbed.

Wednesday, June 13, 2012

For all accidents, insurers in Singapore compensate 3rd party victims first, reclaim eventual financial liability later.

View Post ponpokku wrote:
Re Thread:[Ferrari accident] Should assets of Ma Chi be frozen immediately for (re-)compensation?
u r making a mountain out of a molehill.
and no, personal pocesssions shall not be trespassed. if we allowed the govt to do that to ma chi's properties, it would happen to us one day with some dumb reasons. i can never under-estimate how low the govt can go.

so, dun shoot urself in ur own foot. i find it funny cos u are against the govt eating slowly into ur share of income and properties (against tax raised and etc), yet u encourage the govt to whack the full amt of someone else's pocessions by freezing it.
u dun think it will come around and slap u in the face in the future?
and how is singapore insurers or hospital gonna pay for ma chi? this is already a non-existance scenario and u still wanna bug on it? his insurance automatically voided, insurer is not going to settle anything for him. the same insurance clauses would be quite similar to all insurers and ma chi probably lose his motor and life insurance in one go. no one is gonna pay for him, and his family is going to foot wadever incurring costs from this event.
just as i think NTUC cannot be so dumb, so are other insurers. u missed out the point in NTUC, and u still expect others to miss it out? hey, insurance business been ard before ur parents r born. ppl knows their stuff ok.
"personal pocesssions shall not be trespassed."
In a civil suit, there is no such thing as personal possessions (except for the bare essentials only)- thus people can be sued to bankruptcy. As previously, it is not so far that it is the 'govts action' as it is of the courts facilitating this action to which the insurers ought apply. If the insurer's claim for rebate is valid, such seized property (e.g. title deeds, bank accounts etc) shall be held for a limited period until such time that liability can be determined and debts fully re-paid.

In sense, it is not held by the government, just that it is PM Lee who elects the Chief Justice, under whose direction run the courts- the standards of Singapore court decisions thus reflect upon the quality of leadership (choice of CJ) by PM Lee- that's all.

"how is singapore insurers or hospital gonna pay for ma chi?"
By summarily labeling my comments as "boliao", "BS", comprehension has eclipsed you. I NEVER asked about Ma Chi's hospital expenses as I understand them to be non-existent. Its that of Ms Wu Wei Wei, his once mysterious female passenger [SBY, 15Jun2012] "the sole survivor of the direct crash, but walked away with serious injuries, including head injuries and a fractured right leg" who would predictably been transferred to a public hospital by the SCDF for which her injuries were treated- who is liable for this fee if she cannot afford it may I ask? Should medical practitioners and surgeons in our public hospitals be expected to work for free? Is Ms Wu a case for medifund assistance and should Ma Chi's estate escapes liability scot free?

"insurer is not going to settle anything for him."
Under the 'Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (CHAPTER 189)'> Duty of insurers to satisfy judgments against persons insured in respect of third-party risks:: "9.—(1) If after a certificate of insurance has been issued under section 4(9) to the person by whom a policy has been effected judgment in respect of any such liability as is required to be covered by a policy under section 4(1)(b) (being a liability covered by the terms of the policy) is obtained against any person insured by the policy then, notwithstanding that the insurer may be entitled to avoid or cancel or may have avoided or cancelled the policy, the insurer shall, subject to this section, pay to the Public Trustee as trustee for the persons entitled thereto —(a) any sum payable thereunder in respect of the liability including any amount payable in respect of costs; and (b) any sum payable in respect of interest on that sum by virtue of any written law relating to interest on judgments."
- thus regardless of the insurer's entitlement to cancel or invalidate the policy, the insurer is still obliged to 'compensate first' with a re-claim against the insured (culprit) being secondary always.

The reason why motor premiums are so high and compensation to victims so low is simply because insure do not do a proper job of counter claiming their compensatory expenses from those truly responsible for accidents. The Ma Chi Ferrari incident will set the standard for compensation and the manner in which insurance is managed and provided.

Insurance is for genuine accidents, not speeding related offences and other driving indiscretions which contravene traffic law.

Rgds B.C.
13Jun2012: [Ferrari accident] Should assets of Ma Chi be frozen immediately for (re-)compensation?

No comments:

Post a Comment