Drunk driving, can claim insurance?

[Guest 6.5rpm]

Hi, my friend got into an accident recently. He was going straight and the traffic was in his favour, this drunk driver was turning right. Upon reaching the junction, that driver make a move, my friend was unable to stop in time and hit head on with tis car. He suffer injuries but still get up quickly to check on his bike. The alcohol smell on the driver was quite strong, but he manage to pass the alcohol test upon TP arrival, the TP decide to bring him back for another test and interview. He pass the 2nd test after the TP brought him back to HQ but the TP said there are chances that they still might charge him for drink driving even tought he have passed the test.

 

My friend heard that if the driver were to be charge for drink driving his insurance won't cover him so he can't claim from the insurance. He know that he can civil sue that guy and claim directly from him but his afraid that the guy won't be able to pay him money as the repair for the bike, injuires, MC etc will be a huge amount. He really need money for the repairs. Please advise. Thanks.

[jamesgoh13]

Similar case as mine which is still fighting nw in courts. TP told me the same thing, so therefore he say will charge him under reckless driving 1st. Mostly ur fren might win the case in this situation, therefore able to claim frm other party insurance.

 

But if any witness involves & side the other party up, which will cause ur fren to lose this case, den i can only say go all out to sue him drink driving. Win this case is more importantly.

[Wildswans]

But such cases can take a couple of yrs... Hope your fren gets better and will be able to wait it out.

 

All the best

[shaunz]

maybe can sue and make that fella pay back by monthly installment?

[Guest 6.5rpm]

My friend suffer fractured right hand and lots of abrasion all over his body esp his back as he landed hard on his back. Lucky his strong enough to take the impact. He got 2months MC and now resting at home, but he can't work, ride etc meanawhile. I feel sad for him.

 

If anybody out there happen to be at the scene when the accident happen and are willing to be his witness please drop me a PM.

 

It happen on the 2nd of Aug, ard 11.20pm to 11.30pm. My friend was travelling along Woodlands Ave 1, the accident happen at the cross junction of Woodlands Ave 2 which is just infront of Innova JC. He is riding a grey R1.

 

Please help guys =(

[prego08220]

If i'm not wrong, ur friend can only file a civil court against him.. His insurance compny wont compensate u due to drink driving.. hope this helps..

[hafiezismail]

My friend suffer fractured right hand and lots of abrasion all over his body esp his back as he landed hard on his back. Lucky his strong enough to take the impact. He got 2months MC and now resting at home, but he can't work, ride etc meanawhile. I feel sad for him.

 

If anybody out there happen to be at the scene when the accident happen and are willing to be his witness please drop me a PM.

 

It happen on the 2nd of Aug, ard 11.20pm to 11.30pm. My friend was travelling along Woodlands Ave 1, the accident happen at the cross junction of Woodlands Ave 2 which is just infront of Innova JC. He is riding a grey R1.

 

Please help guys =(

 

brother.. my advise.. Since u said the incident just happened right in front of Innova JC, there are very high chance that your fren are able to win this case wanna knw y? Go to the management of the Innova JC and as well of the management of the condominium which is right in front of the Innova JC and tell them that you need the buildings' security camera and videos as a reference to battle for ur fren's case..

 

Say u are undergoing a civil suit against the stupid drink driver.. den frm there things will prove that ur fren is innocent.. Not only dat - what TP said are always liek dat.. they tend to charge people without precise investigation.. with this, I guess TP will take this points into consideration..

 

Also, hope ur fren are doing better now.. Dun forget to convey our regards from the Sgforum to him and all the best wishes for him in this trautamising case.. all the best to u and ur fren:thumb:

[Strong Eagle]

Help me understand something here. From what I read I understand that if I have insurance and I have a wreck while drunk, then my insurance will not compensate the person I injured?

 

This makes no sense at all. It penalizes the injured party, not the drunk driver. His insurance should/must pay out no matter how the wreck was caused. At least this is how it works in the US and it makes a lot more sense.

[hafiezismail]

Help me understand something here. From what I read I understand that if I have insurance and I have a wreck while drunk, then my insurance will not compensate the person I injured?

 

This makes no sense at all. It penalizes the injured party, not the drunk driver. His insurance should/must pay out no matter how the wreck was caused. At least this is how it works in the US and it makes a lot more sense.

 

realised what u said does indeed does make sense.. maybe the insurance should paid the victim of the drink drink driving and rate the culprit way off higher for his insurance renewal cost during the next year.. dat sld be the way :thumb:

[BrOkEn]

Help me understand something here. From what I read I understand that if I have insurance and I have a wreck while drunk, then my insurance will not compensate the person I injured?

 

This makes no sense at all. It penalizes the injured party, not the drunk driver. His insurance should/must pay out no matter how the wreck was caused. At least this is how it works in the US and it makes a lot more sense.

 

hey Strong Eagle, yup. it's true that the insurance companies do not compensate for anything if the insured party is charged with driving under the influence of alcohol.

 

That is why for the third party, he/she will have to file a civil suit to make a claim, but i'm not so sure of how it works.

 

here's a excerpt from NTUC Income's motorcycle insurance policy that states this. For the whole document, you can visit http://www.income.com.sg/forms/insDocument/Motor-Bike.pdf

[prego08220]

Help me understand something here. From what I read I understand that if I have insurance and I have a wreck while drunk, then my insurance will not compensate the person I injured?

 

This makes no sense at all. It penalizes the injured party, not the drunk driver. His insurance should/must pay out no matter how the wreck was caused. At least this is how it works in the US and it makes a lot more sense.

 

Do u know why insurance company don't compensate if driver is charged with drink driving? Cause in singapore, There are too many case of drink driving.. And if they compensate everybody for that, they'll be bankrupt soon.. Just like u commited a offence and u want ur close one to bear the blame for u? Cant be right.. The reason is the same pal... Different country has different law management.. So basically, u shdnt compare US with Singapore.. We never know how much a injured person can claim from civil suit.. Might be more or might be lesser than insurance claim..

[WildCard]

Help me understand something here. From what I read I understand that if I have insurance and I have a wreck while drunk, then my insurance will not compensate the person I injured?

 

This makes no sense at all. It penalizes the injured party, not the drunk driver. His insurance should/must pay out no matter how the wreck was caused. At least this is how it works in the US and it makes a lot more sense.

 

It makes no sense, I agree.

Unfortunately, its a clause that's already in the insurance agreement form when we signed it. So we're stuck with it.

[Strong Eagle]

Do u know why insurance company don't compensate if driver is charged with drink driving? Cause in singapore, There are too many case of drink driving.. And if they compensate everybody for that, they'll be bankrupt soon.. Just like u commited a offence and u want ur close one to bear the blame for u? Cant be right.. The reason is the same pal... Different country has different law management.. So basically, u shdnt compare US with Singapore.. We never know how much a injured person can claim from civil suit.. Might be more or might be lesser than insurance claim..

 

But the point is this: A non drunk driver smashes into you, puts you in the hospital and totals your bike. His insurance pays for your medical and a new bike.

 

Now, a drunk driver does the same thing. Only now you have to pay for your hospital bill and you have to buy your own new bike because you have received no money. Then, if you are lucky, you can sue the drunk driver and after a lengthy period of time you might get money. Unless of of course, the man that hit you doesn't have $10 in his pocket in which case it is you that are out of luck.

 

No, I think the victim should be compensated, then the insurance company should go after the drunk driver.

[Demon]

No, I think the victim should be compensated, then the insurance company should go after the drunk driver.

 

But it's not right for the insurer to go after it's own client, so the next best thing is to exonerate themselves.

 

If the victim has insurance, then the victim's insurer will go after the drunk driver, otherwise there will not be a shortage of lawyers taking up such cases. Then the victim's insurance will go after the drunk driver. Once the TP has ruled against the drunk driver, it's like helping yourself to the kitty, you are only constraint by what's in the kitty.

[prego08220]

But the point is this: A non drunk driver smashes into you, puts you in the hospital and totals your bike. His insurance pays for your medical and a new bike.

 

Now, a drunk driver does the same thing. Only now you have to pay for your hospital bill and you have to buy your own new bike because you have received no money. Then, if you are lucky, you can sue the drunk driver and after a lengthy period of time you might get money. Unless of of course, the man that hit you doesn't have $10 in his pocket in which case it is you that are out of luck.

 

No, I think the victim should be compensated, then the insurance company should go after the drunk driver.

 

Since u got so much problem on this issue, Why not you e-mail to all the insurance company and state what you have just said? Cuz i dun see any point from ur post is helping the thread starter.. All you've been saying is just a pcs from ur mind.. And u shd know that all this is drink driving issue is stated in the insurance policy..

 

Now my point to you is: A person who drink and drive knows that its a offence to drive after drinkin yet he still does it, So insurance has the right to stop any insurance claim to protect their own company right.. And also the driver himself is not in a right state of mind to drive..

 

FYI, Lawyer can take up the case and u need not pay for the hospital bill/bike claim even its a drink driving case..

[contrarian]

But the point is this: A non drunk driver smashes into you, puts you in the hospital and totals your bike. His insurance pays for your medical and a new bike.

 

Now, a drunk driver does the same thing. Only now you have to pay for your hospital bill and you have to buy your own new bike because you have received no money. Then, if you are lucky, you can sue the drunk driver and after a lengthy period of time you might get money. Unless of of course, the man that hit you doesn't have $10 in his pocket in which case it is you that are out of luck.

 

No, I think the victim should be compensated, then the insurance company should go after the drunk driver.

 

Strong Eagle is partly right and most of the posters here are wrong.

 

It is compulsory by law for all motor vehicles registered for use on public roads to have insurance in force covering third-party liability for death and bodily injury arising from the use of the vehicle.

 

That the driver is in breach of a policy exclusion will not excuse the insurer from its statutory obligation to compensate the third party for such death and bodily injury.

 

In other words, in a case where a person sustains bodily injury or dies due to an accident for which an intoxicated driver is responsible, insurance companies will first indemnify the victim and will then seek indemnity from their insured, the intoxicated driver.

 

In a situation when there is only property damage, the insurance company of the intoxicated driver will not pay to its own insured or to any third party.

[hafiezismail]

Strong Eagle is partly right and most of the posters here are wrong.

 

It is compulsory by law for all motor vehicles registered for use on public roads to have insurance in force covering third-party liability for death and bodily injury arising from the use of the vehicle.

 

That the driver is in breach of a policy exclusion will not excuse the insurer from its statutory obligation to compensate the third party for such death and bodily injury.

 

In other words, in a case where a person sustains bodily injury or dies due to an accident for which an intoxicated driver is responsible, insurance companies will first indemnify the victim and will then seek indemnity from their insured, the intoxicated driver.

 

In a situation when there is only property damage, the insurance company of the intoxicated driver will not pay to its own insured or to any third party.

 

 

nice one thanks for sharing.. anyone got anything else to say abt dis insurance things? I wanna learn more abt dis kind of things which many pple nt sure of..

[merlino]

Strong Eagle is partly right and most of the posters here are wrong.

 

It is compulsory by law for all motor vehicles registered for use on public roads to have insurance in force covering third-party liability for death and bodily injury arising from the use of the vehicle.

 

That the driver is in breach of a policy exclusion will not excuse the insurer from its statutory obligation to compensate the third party for such death and bodily injury.

 

In other words, in a case where a person sustains bodily injury or dies due to an accident for which an intoxicated driver is responsible, insurance companies will first indemnify the victim and will then seek indemnity from their insured, the intoxicated driver.

 

In a situation when there is only property damage, the insurance company of the intoxicated driver will not pay to its own insured or to any third party.

 

Property damage is as traumatic as bodily harm, I don't see why the insurer should not compensate the victim for property damage.

[contrarian]

Property damage is as traumatic as bodily harm, I don't see why the insurer should not compensate the victim for property damage.

 

That's because the legal obligation to insure in Singapore is only for bodily injury or death to third parties.

There is no obligation to insure property damage to others.

 

Similarly, for an accident involving a hit-and-run or a uninsured driver, victims still have recourse through the Motor Insurers' Bureau. MIB will pay claims for bodily injury and death only, and not any property damage.

[hafiezismail]

That's because the legal obligation to insure in Singapore is only for bodily injury or death to third parties.

There is no obligation to insure property damage to others.

 

Similarly, for an accident involving a hit-and-run or a uninsured driver, victims still have recourse through the Motor Insurance Bureau. MIB will pay claims for bodily injury and death only, and not any property damage.

 

 

I agree if u brother:thumb: anyway, I think I knw y insurance doesnt care abt paying money of damaged property to victims.. like that for example - if u have fire insurance coverage for ur hse den suai suai u no money and nearly bankrupt, den many pple will burnt down their own house liao.. some people will confirm do like this in times of desperation.. Some cases had existed already in Singapore.. den like dis hor - I guess Singapore everyday NDP! yeay..

[snowparang]

I guess most of us assumed wrongly that insurance is used to protect our valuables.

 

The idea behind motor vehicle insurance is to protect OTHER road users from you. That's the the minimum you can buy is third party. And by protection, it means your safety. Not your belongings though, as this is not travel insurance.

 

Compensation for vehicle damage is something 'extra' provided by the insurance company. Which unfortunately is what most car owners are familiar with (esp in Signapore....sigh...) and bike owners seldom enjoy.

 

Me? I'm just glad to walk away safely from an accident. Who cares whose fault it was?

[the_scientist85]

Help me understand something here. From what I read I understand that if I have insurance and I have a wreck while drunk, then my insurance will not compensate the person I injured?

 

This makes no sense at all. It penalizes the injured party, not the drunk driver. His insurance should/must pay out no matter how the wreck was caused. At least this is how it works in the US and it makes a lot more sense.

 

dats in the US. this is Singapore.

[Strong Eagle]

Since u got so much problem on this issue, Why not you e-mail to all the insurance company and state what you have just said? Cuz i dun see any point from ur post is helping the thread starter.. All you've been saying is just a pcs from ur mind.. And u shd know that all this is drink driving issue is stated in the insurance policy..

 

Now my point to you is: A person who drink and drive knows that its a offence to drive after drinkin yet he still does it, So insurance has the right to stop any insurance claim to protect their own company right.. And also the driver himself is not in a right state of mind to drive..

 

FYI, Lawyer can take up the case and u need not pay for the hospital bill/bike claim even its a drink driving case..

 

The point is this: Who takes the risk of a drunk driver? Right now, it is the person who is hit by the drunk driver. The insurance company has no risk even though they take your premiums every month. It is a very pretty set up for the insurance companies... they have nothing at risk in the case of drunk driving.

 

And my question to you is: Why should the injured party have to absorb all the risk and the insurance company have nothing at risk?

 

And yes, you are correct... this issue is worth bringing up to get some attention.

 

I do have one question. Will my own insurance pay for repairs to my bike in the event that I am hit by a drunk driver and his insurance will not pay?

[prego08220]

The point is this: Who takes the risk of a drunk driver? Right now, it is the person who is hit by the drunk driver. The insurance company has no risk even though they take your premiums every month. It is a very pretty set up for the insurance companies... they have nothing at risk in the case of drunk driving.

 

And my question to you is: Why should the injured party have to absorb all the risk and the insurance company have nothing at risk?

 

And yes, you are correct... this issue is worth bringing up to get some attention.

 

I do have one question. Will my own insurance pay for repairs to my bike in the event that I am hit by a drunk driver and his insurance will not pay?

 

I have friends who got involve in such accident, And I'm pretty sure that Insurance comapny wont pay for drink driving accident, And also, their hospital/bike repair bill they didnt pay a single cent..

[contrarian]

I have friends who got involve in such accident, And I'm pretty sure that Insurance comapny wont pay for drink driving accident, And also, their hospital/bike repair bill they didnt pay a single cent..

 

Don't be so confident and continue to purport what is clearly wrong at law.

 

Your friends must either have been wrongly or poorly advised, or have not suffered injury caused by the other party.

 

 

Check for yourself:

1. MOTOR VEHICLES (THIRD-PARTY RISKS AND COMPENSATION) ACT

2. with General Insurance Association

3. with any insurer

4. with any lawyer

 

Certain conditions in policies or securities to be of no effect

7. —(1) Any condition in a policy or security issued or given for the purposes of this Act providing that no liability shall arise under the policy or security or that any liability so arising shall cease in the event of some specified thing being done or omitted to be done after the happening of the event giving rise to a claim under the policy or security shall be of no effect in connection with such claims as are mentioned in section 4 (1) (b).

 

 

The motor liability framework set up in Singapore gives any victim injured or killed in a road accident reasonable expectation of recourse, including against drink drivers, unlicensed drivers, uninsured drivers and hit-and-run drivers.