Drunk driving, can claim insurance?

[hafiezismail]

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.

 

thumbs up:thumb: see! this guy has brought up a good and well understood evidence.. where gt such thing dat if I kena killed or get injured on the road, den the insurance company will COMPENSATE one? even learning at any driving licence center has insurance coverage against injury? correct rite?

 

thumbs up for ur informative research bro.. thumbs UPZZ!!

[Pplater]

Eh... Pardon me, but i find the lawyerly language Contratrian quoted to be rather... difficult to understand.

 

I trust that its well informed though, by the manner which he says it

I fully agree with Strong Eagle that its a shame Singapore's law and insurance set up indemnifies drunk drivers' insurance companies. In this senario, the biggest losers are us, bikers, with the highest stakes and worst odds each time one of us involved in an accident due to some moron's drink driving and screwing up.,

 

My solution is to purchase my own personal accident insurance plan to cover for my own medical expenses or death in the worse case senario, without having to go through more troublesome legal recourse. It still leaves my bike vulnerable though, but I guess I can only hope for the best...

[mechwira]

 

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.

 

this is how it works in UK an US. the insurance company has a legal obligation to payout the victim first, after which the company is the one who will proceed to sue its guilty client.

 

however, in local context, there have been several cases in the papers in recent years where the insurer outright refused to payout to the victim, demanding instead that the victim proceed with a civil suit against the offending party himself. there have been several cases where not much was claimed as the offending party was incapable of paying out tens of thousands of dollars in hospital bills owed to the victim. the offending party could be declared a bankrupt, but end of the day, it still wouldn offer the victim a proper recourse in monetary sense.

 

unless anyone here personally knows of a victim who has successfully received compensation from an insurance company from drunk driving incident, we can all take it that the insurance company will "tai-chi" the legal proceedings to the victim rather than carry it out itself as would be the case in US and UK.

 

dun bother telling me its stupid, i already know it is, but thats how it is, unless our laws decide to make it a legal obligation of the insurance company. hasn happened despite ppl voicing out.

[RESPECT]

so we should take up not only motor but personal insurance? is it advisable?

[Pplater]

so we should take up not only motor but personal insurance? is it advisable?

 

Its personal. Some will tell you yes, some will say no. Ask me? Yes. Its peace of mind. And to me its rather weird that people spend so much insuring their bike with first party insurance but so not insure their bodies from injuries. Those medical expenses... it can be astromical. Friend of mine had torn knee ligament... cost around 5k. Fractures easily 10k. Multiple fractures even more. ICU lagi worst. Much much more than bike damages... And the trauma and lost of income? Pffff... Get a decent accident insurance plan. As low as a hundred or two a year, and the costs covered can be high enough for almost any senario, almost...

[kennethy]

my understanding is that unless you yourself have a comprehensive insurance, then you would be able to make all the claims to your own policy first to cover the necessary.

 

subsequently, the legal proceedings (civil sue) may/can help you to recover the amount.

 

still, i agree that it is stupid to tranfer the liability to the victim and not the offender (drank driver).

 

most unfortately, this is how the legal system works in Singapore...

 

anyway, in Singapore, a woman cannot cry rape from her legally married husband. silly to the American it may sound, but just to illustrate the difference in law between Singapore and US.

[Demon]

anyway, in Singapore, a woman cannot cry rape from her legally married husband. silly to the American it may sound, but just to illustrate the difference in law between Singapore and US.

 

Not anymore. This has been amended recently.

[Demon]

my understanding is that unless you yourself have a comprehensive insurance, then you would be able to make all the claims to your own policy first to cover the necessary.

 

Of course, if you have comprehensive, you are entitled to do that but that would also mean that your NCD and subsequent premium will be affected.

 

From my experience, the insurer will suggest that you pay for the repair out of your pocket, and meantime they (your insurer) will take up your claim against the other insurer under third party claim. And there is no guarantee that you will get the full amount back. This may take sometime as the insurer can only act after the TP's investigation and court's verdict.

 

And this will turn into a nightmare when the insurer offer compensation based on totalled vehicle. You could end up with no car and an outstanding loan if you had bought your car when COE is high, and with a full 10 year loan.

[maniahk]

Look at it from another point of view, what is happening now is that the drunk driver has to assume full responsibility, although it has to go through a lengthier process. You can still sue him for damages and compensation, and if he was really in the wrong, you should expect due compensation. Now, all the money will be coming out from his own pocket eh?

[h_LoNg]

Look at it from another point of view, what is happening now is that the drunk driver has to assume full responsibility, although it has to go through a lengthier process. You can still sue him for damages and compensation, and if he was really in the wrong, you should expect due compensation. Now, all the money will be coming out from his own pocket eh?

 

The thing is, if the drunk drinker was to declare bankrupt after the being sued for compensation, the other party will not be able to get compensation that he deserved. Suck Thumb

[Guest tangolima]

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?

 

how unfortunate in singapore... the moment the driver has no license, DUI or stolen vehicle and hit anyone. The insurance will be deem invalid. No coverage at all.....

 

Why because this is the grey areas in the insurance coverage. They are not willing to have risk on this. As a drink driver can cause a huge amount of damage and payout. They make it a clause on automatically to free themselve from such claims if it does happen to thier coverage.

 

True but a sad fact...

 

If you are a insurance company... i think you wouldnt want to have a coverage for someone who clearly broke the law and then expected not to pay a single cent for damages to the injured party.

 

If suing the guy you cant much from him the worst case a brankrupt..what makes you believe that by having insurance you can claim anything from the drunk driver? Insurance companies will go bust in no time.

 

The only not so wise way.. is to NOT to call police if you get involved with a drink driver provided there is not much serious injuries. Settle with each other own insurance company. Let them do the work.

 

Or get TP to downgrade the case from drink driving to dangerous driving etc.

 

Again do not quote me this is the correct way to have the things resolved. but this is a few ways to work round the system.

 

To charge someone drink driving is nothing much the worst case he can get for, is jail or suspended for 1 yr min and a fine..

[kennethy]

Not anymore. This has been amended recently.

 

amended already meh?

 

i just checked online... still the same leh...

 

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_getdata.pl?actno=1872-REVED-224&doctitle=PENAL%20CODE%0a&date=latest&method=part&segid=888373002-001939#888373002-002542 (refer to the exception clause)

[contrarian]

how unfortunate in singapore... the moment the driver has no license, DUI or stolen vehicle and hit anyone. The insurance will be deem invalid. No coverage at all.....

 

Why because this is the grey areas in the insurance coverage. They are not willing to have risk on this. As a drink driver can cause a huge amount of damage and payout. They make it a clause on automatically to free themselve from such claims if it does happen to thier coverage.

 

True but a sad fact...

 

If you are a insurance company... i think you wouldnt want to have a coverage for someone who clearly broke the law and then expected not to pay a single cent for damages to the injured party.

 

If suing the guy you cant much from him the worst case a brankrupt..what makes you believe that by having insurance you can claim anything from the drunk driver? Insurance companies will go bust in no time.

 

As this is a serious matter, misconceptions must be cleared before more readers get misinformed.

 

You don't seem to have worked for a general insurer; perhaps you might do well to listen to someone who has.

 

You can do a bit of legwork to check the legal position on what is written as follows:

 

There are still many people like you who are confusing claims for:

1. bodily injury or death,

and

2. property damage

 

These are two separate matters. The reason is that insurance for (1) is compulsory by law.

 

This law, the MOTOR VEHICLES (THIRD-PARTY RISKS AND COMPENSATION) ACT, requires insurance cover of a specific type.

 

It further specifies what insurers cannot do to exclude cover to third party claimants for bodily injury.

 

It is very clear from this law that insurers cannot exclude such statutory motor liability for third party bodily injury for anything done by the insured.

 

Thus, no insurer can avoid liability to a third party for bodily injury because the driver is drunk.

 

Even if the insurance is invalid or that the claim is excluded under the policy, it does not relieve the insurer of the obligation to pay a third party claimant for bodily injury. In such a case, the insurer will then claim the amount paid for bodily injury from the insured.

 

It is not a matter of insurers being willing or not. It is the law that covers all motor liability policies issued by all insurers in Singapore.

 

However, as the law does not require insurance for third party property damage, the insurer can and will apply the exclusion for property damage.

 

For property damage claims, the recourse that the third party has is to sue the defendant personally.

 

Why? Because the law does not require insurance for third party property damage. That means it is perfectly legal to drive around with just insurance for third party bodily injury. If you do that, and you damage someone's property, he has no recourse except to sue you personally as well.

 

If you separate the two, it will become clear.

[Demon]

amended already meh?

 

i just checked online... still the same leh...

 

http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_getdata.pl?actno=1872-REVED-224&doctitle=PENAL%20CODE%0a&date=latest&method=part&segid=888373002-001939#888373002-002542 (refer to the exception clause)

 

 

My mistake, still not change yet but they are working on it since 2006.

 

http://www.agc.gov.sg/publications/docs/Penal_Code_Amendment_Bill_Consultation_Paper.pdf

[kennethy]

As this is a serious matter, misconceptions must be cleared before more readers get misinformed.

 

You don't seem to have worked for a general insurer; perhaps you might do well to listen to someone who has.

 

You can do a bit of legwork to check the legal position on what is written as follows:

 

There are still many people like you who are confusing claims for:

1. bodily injury or death,

and

2. property damage

 

These are two separate matters. The reason is that insurance for (1) is compulsory by law.

 

This law, the MOTOR VEHICLES (THIRD-PARTY RISKS AND COMPENSATION) ACT, requires insurance cover of a specific type.

 

It further specifies what insurers cannot do to exclude cover to third party claimants for bodily injury.

 

It is very clear from this law that insurers cannot exclude such statutory motor liability for third party bodily injury for anything done by the insured.

 

Thus, no insurer can avoid liability to a third party for bodily injury because the driver is drunk.

 

Even if the insurance is invalid or that the claim is excluded under the policy, it does not relieve the insurer of the obligation to pay a third party claimant for bodily injury. In such a case, the insurer will then claim the amount paid for bodily injury from the insured.

 

It is not a matter of insurers being willing or not. It is the law that covers all motor liability policies issued by all insurers in Singapore.

 

However, as the law does not require insurance for third party property damage, the insurer can and will apply the exclusion for property damage.

 

For property damage claims, the recourse that the third party has is to sue the defendant personally.

 

Why? Because the law does not require insurance for third party property damage. That means it is perfectly legal to drive around with just insurance for third party bodily injury. If you do that, and you damage someone's property, he has no recourse except to sue you personally as well.

 

If you separate the two, it will become clear.

 

good info... just to further clarify, the bodily injury covers only ones medical expenses i believe... does it covers conpensation as a result of the bodily injury (such as lost of income)?

[kennethy]

My mistake, still not change yet but they are working on it since 2006.

 

http://www.agc.gov.sg/publications/docs/Penal_Code_Amendment_Bill_Consultation_Paper.pdf

 

nevermind, in fact it is good that you mentioned. cos i also not aware that they are going to amend it (not forgetting your additional pdf with other additional info) thanks!

[Guest tangolima]

As this is a serious matter, misconceptions must be cleared before more readers get misinformed.

 

You don't seem to have worked for a general insurer; perhaps you might do well to listen to someone who has.

 

You can do a bit of legwork to check the legal position on what is written as follows:

 

There are still many people like you who are confusing claims for:

1. bodily injury or death,

and

2. property damage

 

These are two separate matters. The reason is that insurance for (1) is compulsory by law.

 

This law, the MOTOR VEHICLES (THIRD-PARTY RISKS AND COMPENSATION) ACT, requires insurance cover of a specific type.

 

It further specifies what insurers cannot do to exclude cover to third party claimants for bodily injury.

 

It is very clear from this law that insurers cannot exclude such statutory motor liability for third party bodily injury for anything done by the insured.

 

Thus, no insurer can avoid liability to a third party for bodily injury because the driver is drunk.

 

Even if the insurance is invalid or that the claim is excluded under the policy, it does not relieve the insurer of the obligation to pay a third party claimant for bodily injury. In such a case, the insurer will then claim the amount paid for bodily injury from the insured.

 

It is not a matter of insurers being willing or not. It is the law that covers all motor liability policies issued by all insurers in Singapore.

 

However, as the law does not require insurance for third party property damage, the insurer can and will apply the exclusion for property damage.

 

For property damage claims, the recourse that the third party has is to sue the defendant personally.

 

Why? Because the law does not require insurance for third party property damage. That means it is perfectly legal to drive around with just insurance for third party bodily injury. If you do that, and you damage someone's property, he has no recourse except to sue you personally as well.

 

If you separate the two, it will become clear.

 

 

do remember insurance company have every right to reject any claim even if they have mention any part of the clause is covered.

 

anyway bro if you need to make your point clear dont need to make the fonts bigger.. i aint growing old yet.

[contrarian]

Here is a letter to the press in 2006, from the then-Executive Director of the General Insurance Association, stating the position at law:

 

http://www.gia.org.sg/newsarticle/GIA%20for%20insurers%20obtaining%20court%20order,%20Tuesday%2025%20Apr%202006.pdf

[contrarian]

just to further clarify, the bodily injury covers only ones medical expenses i believe... does it covers conpensation as a result of the bodily injury (such as lost of income)?

 

A claim for bodily injury can have many items that are resulting from that injury.

 

For example, loss of income, loss of future income, loss of amenity, medical expenses, future medical expenses, pain and suffering, etc...

[contrarian]

This is an article about a recent case about an allegedly drunk driver and the claims against his insurer for death.

 

The insurer admitted liability for the third party death claim, which means that there was no dispute that it would pay, but disputed the amount of the claim, which meant there was a dispute on how much to pay.

The claim went to trial to assess the amount of compensation payable.

 

The claimants had asked for compensation for:

(1) Bereavement,

(2) Funeral Expenses,

(3) Loss of dependency,

(4) Post-traumatic shock and depression as a result of the loss of plaintiffs’ only two children, and the consequential transport expenses incurred for attending medical appointments at Changi General hospital; and

(5) Cost of fertility treatments undertaken by the mother.

 

At this time, the claimants succeeded in claims for items 1, 2 & 3 and failed in item 4 & 5.

The article refers to the dispute about item 5.

 

http://www.gia.org.sg/newsarticle/High%20court%20rejects%20couple's%20insurance%20claim%20to%20pay%20for%20IVF_Monday%2023%20July%202007.pdf

[kennethy]

This is an article about a recent case about an allegedly drunk driver and the claims against his insurer for death.

 

The insurer admitted liability for the third party death claim, but disputed the amount of the claim.

The claim went to trial to assess the amount of compensation payable.

 

The claimants had asked for compensation for:

(1) Bereavement,

(2) Funeral Expenses,

(3) Loss of dependency,

(4) Post-traumatic shock and depression as a result of the loss of plaintiffs’ only two children, and the consequential transport expenses incurred for attending medical appointments at Changi General hospital; and

(5) Cost of fertility treatments undertaken by the mother.

 

At this time, the claimants succeeded in claims for items 1, 2 & 3 and failed in item 4 & 5.

The article refers to the dispute about item 5.

 

http://www.gia.org.sg/newsarticle/High%20court%20rejects%20couple's%20insurance%20claim%20to%20pay%20for%20IVF_Monday%2023%20July%202007.pdf

 

from this article, it is clear that the insurer can be taken to court for liabilities. i guess it also clarified the fact that it is not true the insurer will not pay a single cent if it is a drunk driving case...

 

i am sure there would be no further dispute on the matter as hard facts had been produced...

[Demon]

After reading the two articles posted by Contrarian, I am convinced there is some truth that insurers do not compensate when it's policy holders were involved in accident while intoxicated by alcohol.

 

That insurers will only compensated for third-party claims when being successfully sued, to be decided by high court, by the family of the victims. That's hardly can be considered as principle of third party claims.

[299]

Best part of all,whenever do considered a insurance for urself or watsoever kind, do make an effort to read the fine prints on the contract when signed.

 

Do ask when in doubt.

[coolcat]

That insurers will only compensated for third-party claims when being successfully sued, to be decided by high court, by the family of the victims. That's hardly can be considered as principle of third party claims.

 

Not really true .. many claims settled when insurers pay up upon claim being made, not necessarily only when matter is brought in court, although many cases do get settled even after brought in court. Insurers generally try to settle claims early to save their own legal cost.

 

Cheers

 

Cat

[contrarian]

Not really true .. many claims settled when insurers pay up upon claim being made, not necessarily only when matter is brought in court, although many cases do get settled even after brought in court. Insurers generally try to settle claims early to save their own legal cost.

 

Cheers

 

Cat

 

 

Yup. Fewer than one in ten cases will ever go to trial because only the most contentious ones should go to trial.

The vast majority of cases are settled - and the media won't be publishing these.