Drunk driving, can claim insurance?

[contrarian]

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.

 

Correct. The policyholder does not have the benefit of the insurance.

 

That's because the law was enacted to protect the rights of third parties who have been injured. The third party who has suffered bodily injury is the one whom the law protects, not the policyholder.

 

The third party claimant is the one who has the benefit of the insurance.

 

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.

 

People go to trial for many reasons. Read the case judgement and see for yourself.

 

The trial was never about liability. All parties already agreed that the insurer was liable to compensate.

 

You'll see that the insurer of this claim admitted liability as early as October 2004. It is not a case of the insurer refusing to compensate.

 

The court trial was about the amount of compensation, which was in dispute. The claimants did not agree to settle and decided to sue for the additional items (mainly item 5).

[gorgonitz82]

yes ... no insurance payouts from accidents resulting from drunk driving ... so nex time u see an accident involving suspected drunk drivers .. dun be too quick to call mata.... access the situation first ... if got very serious injuries then cfm must call police bobian ... but if some scratches here and there .. try to private settle ... can leverage on drunk driving... if nt then at least u can claim from his insurance coy .... of course all this with proper agreements in black and white lah ...

[ben1112]

People do pay alot for insurance in sgp dont they? And what for again? And What? Its compulsory? And What? Only full comprehensive pays for you? The rest pays for other people?

 

So it means i pay alot of money compulsorily + it doesnt pay out to me but other people?

[Guest 6.5rpm]

guyss.. after investgation from TP, they decide to charge the driver for Inconsiderate Driving for failing to give way - $200 + 9points and not charge him from drink driving.

 

That means my friend can claim that guy but can my friend still go for civil suit since he is claim his insurance?

[Wen gege]

huh?wat??? wat r all e Tp doin sia? drunk n drive n hit on ur fren n Tp only charge him only $200? r they A O K? best if u can continue to go on with dis case.

[Demon]

huh?wat??? wat r all e Tp doin sia? drunk n drive n hit on ur fren n Tp only charge him only $200? r they A O K? best if u can continue to go on with dis case.

 

In order to be charged for drink driving, first you must fail the on-scene breath analyzer test, then you are required to take another test at the hospital, which you must also fail.

 

If you pass the second test, then drink drinking charge will not stick. So TP will charge you on other thing. Inconsiderate Driving is more already more serious than Careless Driving.

 

[Wen gege]

seriously i got no idea wat they all doin. e punishment is so light for e driver. da means we can stil drive or ride even if we drink? wat nonsense is da. may ur fren recover soon.

 

i think ur fren can stil claim for his insurance sincee e driver is not ccought for drink n drive.

[Edwards]

hi, sorry, but i'm still quite unclear about the issue regarding claiming of insurance,

even though in this case, the driver was ultimately convicted of inconsiderate driving instead of drink-driving since he has passed the breath test, presumably because he has not exceeded the legal alcoholic content limit, does this mean that his insurer is liable for claims for bodily injury as well as property damage?

 

cos i've read somewhere in some motor insurance policy that as long as the driver consumed alcohol, irregardless of whether he has exceeded the legal limit, the insurance company will not be liable,

 

correct me if i'm wrong.

[kennethy]

i think you will have to take the trouble to read thru the histories of the thread... cos there are some strong points raised with regards to insurer's liabilities in a drank driving situation...

[coolcat]

hi, sorry, but i'm still quite unclear about the issue regarding claiming of insurance,

even though in this case, the driver was ultimately convicted of inconsiderate driving instead of drink-driving since he has passed the breath test, presumably because he has not exceeded the legal alcoholic content limit, does this mean that his insurer is liable for claims for bodily injury as well as property damage?

 

cos i've read somewhere in some motor insurance policy that as long as the driver consumed alcohol, irregardless of whether he has exceeded the legal limit, the insurance company will not be liable,

 

correct me if i'm wrong.

 

To your first question: yes, insurance will still pay out to people whose properties were damaged or injured even if the insured driver was drunk.

 

Therefore, to your second question: No, the insurers will still be liable, just that they may claim what they pay out to the victims from the driver if he had breached any of the policy terms.

 

Bottomline: Innocent victims still have recourse against the errant driver.

 

Cheers

 

Cat

[Demon]

To your first question: yes, insurance will still pay out to people whose properties were damaged or injured even if the insured driver was drunk.

 

Therefore, to your second question: No, the insurers will still be liable, just that they may claim what they pay out to the victims from the driver if he had breached any of the policy terms.

 

Bottomline: Innocent victims still have recourse against the errant driver.

 

Cheers

 

Cat

 

I can speak from experience, you are on your own when an accident involves drink driving.

 

[Guest limpeiwah]

nope must sue the drunk driver. best is to disembowel him to get payment. with his intestines lying on the floor he will hand u his atm card then u pay a bangla to withdraw and f!#$ off back to dhaka.

[flykite]

People do pay alot for insurance in sgp dont they? And what for again? And What? Its compulsory? And What? Only full comprehensive pays for you? The rest pays for other people?

 

So it means i pay alot of money compulsorily + it doesnt pay out to me but other people?

 

well touch wood but you can always hope to be a victim of a RTA and then you can have a chance to get paid from other pple's insurance..

 

and limpeiwah is not being helpful here. this is a serious thread, we want to get critical information from helpful people here, and not waste time reading the rubbish you write.

[Edwards]

To your first question: yes, insurance will still pay out to people whose properties were damaged or injured even if the insured driver was drunk.

 

Therefore, to your second question: No, the insurers will still be liable, just that they may claim what they pay out to the victims from the driver if he had breached any of the policy terms.

 

Bottomline: Innocent victims still have recourse against the errant driver.

 

Cheers

 

Cat

 

Taken from some insurance policy

 

We shall not be liable in respect of

 

....

 

1. Any accident, loss, damage or liability cost sustained or incurred

(b)(iii)

 

being driven by the Insured or by any person on the order of or with permission of the Insured whilst under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs.

 

Provided that conviction against the driver for an offence under Sections 67 to 71A of the Road Traffic Act (1997 Revised Edition) or any statutory law prohibiting the abuse of drugs shall be conclusive evidence for Exception (b)(iii) to apply where the offence was commited at the time of an accident or event giving rise to a claim under this policy

 

1 thing i'd like to clarify is, even if utimately the charge from TP is not drink driving but careless/inconsiderate driving, is it considered still a breach of their policy???

 

It puzzles me when most insurance companies deem it a breach of their policy if the insured driver consume alchohol, but ultimately they are not convicted of drink driving charge since their alcoholic content is below the legal limit

[contrarian]

1 thing i'd like to clarify is, if the charge from TP is careless/inconsiderate driving, is it considered still a breach of their policy???

 

Taking away the drunk driving element, and focusing purely on bad driving:

 

In many accidents, one of the parties would have committed an offence, say inconsiderate, rash, negligent or dangerous act.

 

In the civil claim that follows from these cases, you can see that the insurers pay for most of these claims against the insured driver, even if they have contributed to or caused the accident through some act that was an offence under the law.

[Edwards]

Taking away the drunk driving element, and focusing purely on bad driving:

 

In many accidents, one of the parties would have committed an offence, say inconsiderate, rash, negligent or dangerous act.

 

In the civil claim that follows from these cases, you can see that the insurers pay for most of these claims against the insured driver, even if they have contributed to or caused the accident through some act that was an offence under the law.

 

and ultimately they still seek compensation from their insured for breaching their policy against alcohol consumption

 

i've heard of cases where insurance company would try all means, through a loss adjuster or investigator to find evidence of alcohol consumption, so that they can repudiate liability

 

will they really cast aside the drink-driving element as u have mentioned?

[josephsbs]

an insurance company is not a charity but a profit oriented business entity. every claim made against their policies is a loss to their profitability. if damage caused is due to insurer driving/riding under influence of alcohol, it can cite the policy's exclusion clause and thus not bear liability. if you are running the insurance business, wouldn't you choose not to pay and preserve company's profitability?

sounds cruel but this is the world of business http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb108.gif... big fish eats small fish. motorists (especially bikers) are facing increasing insurance cost but LL still gotta pay, no insurance = no road tax renewal

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb122.gif

[Edwards]

an insurance company is not a charity but a profit oriented business entity. every claim made against their policies is a loss to their profitability. if damage caused is due to insurer driving/riding under influence of alcohol, it can cite the policy's exclusion clause and thus not bear liability. if you are running the insurance business, wouldn't you choose not to pay and preserve company's profitability?

sounds cruel but this is the world of business http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb108.gif... big fish eats small fish. motorists (especially bikers) are facing increasing insurance cost but LL still gotta pay, no insurance = no road tax renewal

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb122.gif

 

yes, wholeheartedly agreed with what u said, that is without any doubt

 

but my question now, is what if there is an accident caused by someone's careless act, who is eventually convicted of careless/inconsiderate driving, however the insurance company knows that he has consumed a little bit of alcohol which is far below the legal limit

 

in this case can the insurance company cite its policy exclusion clause and claim that he is driving under the influence of intoxicating alcohol??, thus refusing to bear liability?

[Skull_Angel]

sue tat driver luh..

aiiyo..

iie hate drunk driver -.-

[Guest Bic_Cherry]

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..

 

Seems to be lots and lots of misunderstanding out there on this and other sites, ...

 

Any how, hope that the following excerpt(s) clarify this concept of 'insurer liability' from now on: drunks will eventually have to pay compensate the insure as what they had caused was not an 'unpreventable accident'.

 

Victim wins civil suit against Ionescu

http://www.asiaone.com/A1MEDIA/news/08Aug10/images/20100820.181605_ionescu_rotator.jpg

Mr Bong has sought more than $630k in damages. The default judgment was given to Ionescu, but the amount of damages to be paid will be decided later. -TNP

Sat, Aug 21, 2010; The New Paper

...

Exclusion clause

If a driver is convicted or pleads guilty to drink driving, the insurer's exclusion clause kicks in and the insurer can disclaim liability, he said.

But as laid out in the affidavit, even though NTUC Income is "no longer contractually bound to indemnify" Ionescu, the insurer is still required by law to pay Mr Bong first.

It will then recover the amount from Ionescu.

This is also a standard procedure in road accidents where the driver is intoxicated, said Mr K Anparasan, 42, partner at law firm KhattarWong.

He explained: "Even if the driver is under the influence of drugs or alcohol, the insurer is required to pay the victim of the accident.

"The whole idea is to make sure the victim is not left uncompensated. The insurer reserves the right to go after the driver to recover that amount."

Mr Ken Loh, 43, managing director of insurance agency M Plus Consultancy, added: "The law is made to protect the innocent, so that the accident victims do not suffer loss without redress. If no one pays their bills, then public interest is hurt."

Victim wins civil suit against Ionescu

 

===========

 

The necessary jurisdiction is also viewable as follows:

 

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."

 

========

Def:

"Accidents are events that cannot be avoided" [source: http://www.motorinsurancesingapore.com/articles/tag/bodily-injuries/ ]

[Guest Bic_Cherry]

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.

 

http://www.jeffbullas.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/How-To-Facebook-Like-Your-Google-Search.jpg["Awesome" pict source]

Edited June 13, 2012 by Bic_Cherry