THE TEMASEK TIMES

News and views from an unique perspective

AXA Singapore withdraws insurance coverage of PRC Ferrari driver Ma Chi

Posted by temasektimes on September 5, 2012

Insurer AXA Singapore has withdrawn insurance coverage of PRC Ferrari driver Ma Chi and rejected all liabilities, claiming that the crash was a ‘collision’ and not an accident.

Ma Chi caused a fatal accident at Bugis in May this year when his Ferrari beat the red light and crashed into a taxi, killing the driver Cheng Teck Hock and the passenger Shigemi Ito.

AXA first informed the Ma family of its decision to reject liability earlier this year, prompting the family to file a lawsuit against it.

In a counter-claim filed by AXA, its lawyers xplained that the collision was not considered an “accident” under its insurance policy as  Ma had driven the car “at an extremely excessive speed, far above the road speed limit of 60km/h.”

They also noted that Ma failed to stop at the junction despite the lights showing red, failed to stop or slow down to avoid the collision, and collided into the taxi resulting in the taxi hitting a motorcycle.

“Ma’s conduct was so clearly reckless and dangerous that it was not a risk intended to be covered under the insurance policy…He was doing an act which he knew or ought to have known was courting imminent death to himself and others.”

According to AXA Singapore, this means that any deaths or injuries in the collision was not due to “an accidental means” under its policy. 

103 Responses to “AXA Singapore withdraws insurance coverage of PRC Ferrari driver Ma Chi”

  1. Sinkaypoh said

    Maaa Chiiii B***** I guess he will roll over in the grave

    So no payment to victims? Or to his family?

    • Forensics said

      Consider the facts:

      – The vehicle was travelling at approx 140 km/h based on estimations derived from video frame speed.
      – The driver was proven sober and not under influence of drugs.
      – The vehicle obeyed lane markings before the junction -> highly unlikely that the driver’s did not have his attention at the wheel
      – Average horizontal visual field of 120 degrees
      – Average adult human reaction time between 0.15 – 0.5 sec

      Despite the high speed at which the Ferrari was travelling, there was a good number of seconds between the time the cab entered the driver’s field of vision and the ensuing collision.

      Under all normal circumstances, reflexes would have been triggered to swerve or to brake. These would have been involuntary ie. even if the driver is suicidal, he can at most partially but never completely suppress such reflexes.

      Yet, when one scrutinizes the video over and over again, there was not even a feeble hint of a brake or a swerve.

      The driver could have well lost all control of the vehicle.

    • See-Buay-Song said

      They can sue the Ma family lor! It looks like the Ma family are loaded enough and Ma Chi …… Was definitely in the wrong leh.

    • Goh Tong Seng said

      What it means is, that the Mas will not be reimbursed for the destroyed car, because it is effectively de-insured. The Mas are also personally liable for damages and loss of lives caused, meaning they pay out of their pockets. Nothing else is affected.

  2. Walls have ears said

    AXA Singapore
    Time for you to close shop

    Stay A
    way

  3. richard wong said

    The insurance company should not succeed in repudiate their liability of insurance as otherwise in future they will take every opportunity to repudiate all their liability. As of now we are paying a hugh amount for our insurance premium and whenever you have an accident, they increase your premium !!!

  4. Jaded said

    load of bull… so next time do all insurers need to specify the speeds that each car is insured for?

    • speechless said

      use brain la. if u are the boss of a Insurance company, will u be willing to insurer a car that drive 140km/h? which road in sg can drive at this speed?

      • Kris said

        I believe a lot of people think mainly from a very consumer point of view. Insurance companies are after all a profit-making organization. There are high financial risks undertaken by the company to insure its policy holders. A matter of good faith is necessary to make sure that the trust is not abused. High claims also mean high cost of insurance. There are ripple effects. People generally think from a very myopic point of view. Think of the repercussions should the claim be allowed to pass. Instead, I believe that the driver’s family should compensate the victims involved in the accident. Then again, one would debate if the family should be held responsible for reckless acts committed by their family member who has passed away?

  5. Insurance companies shd be wholly transparent on their coverages which shd b made known 2 their clients who shd acknowledge in writing that they hv bn briefed on the conditions of coverage. The regulatory authority shd ensure that the insurance terms are fair and equitable to anyone taking insurance cover, for disputes if any to arise only in exceptional circumstances. This case shd be a lead for MAS 2 follow up on its overview of the insurance industry to tie up any loose ends to the disadvantage of the insured party in the existing market.

  6. To Be Fair said

    Insurance companies cannot deny payouts as they would have assessed an individual’s driving record before deciding on the premium. When they insure a ruthless driver or a speedy sports car, they charge a high price and should be prepared to pay. No sure win business. That is, no such thing that an accident caused by a rowdy driver is not an accident!

  7. lyv2dy said

    AXA position is correct as no insurers will insured for street racing and other illegal uses. Even if they do the premium will be astronomical otherwise all our ‘normal’car insurance premiums will be averaged up substantially to cover the extremely high risks of a few IDIOTs.

    • singaporean said

      If AXA gets away with this, the government must revoke the need to have compulsory insurance for all cars. Else if you get hit by an errant driver who is financially challenged, it’ll just be too bad for you coz the driver can’t pay you and the insurance companies won’t cover too.

      So what’s the point of compulsory insurance?

      • singapore auntie said

        agreed here. That’s why we take car insurance and this could set the precedence for insurance to hide behind. At the very least, no insurance company should deny the third party’s claim once they have accepted the policy. Whether the insured can get his claim is another matter and it is for the insurance company to prove that it is deliberate or premeditated. If it was an accident, the insurance company should still pay otherwise it defeats the purpose of insurance.

        But for the insurance to claim from a person’s estate? That may be going too far. Soon we too will be a litigious society and insurance companies will be suing our families for medical claims it pays out because the person did not take care of his health by eating unhealthily or exposing himself to radiation by watching TV or using the handphone. There will be no end.

        Perhaps in future insurance company can specify the maximum speed limit for which it is liable.

  8. insured said

    To the above posted comments

    What boneless Sillyporeans you are…first you slam the PRC for driving at excessively high speeds and then crashing and killing 2 innocent victims, all the while having a cheap prostitute by his side…

    It’s like saying Silllyporeans want to have their cake and eat it….go driving at excessively high speeds down Orchard road and then killing several people standing by the road, with some sweet young thing caressing your thighs beside you.

    Are you all saying that you are allowed to break every rule in the highway code and then demand that insurers pay for your stupidy and molly coddle you..

    You people are so wrong and stupid

    I say this…good for Muah Chee’s family to now suffer the consequences of his actions….I say good that his family will now have to compensate that poor taxi drive and his passenger…Good riddance to bad rubbish….and Muah Chee is an example of bad FT rubbish…because FTs like him come here to kill people

    This is why Sillyporeans cannot make it big on the world stage….they have been molly coddled for too long and they want to have their cake and eat it…they cannot rationalize that bad actions simply cannot be insured. This was no accident. This was a disregard for human life

    • Sinkaypoh said

      It IS possible that said “sweet young thing” not only had his “carrot” but was also eating it…

    • Arjun said

      Well said mate.

    • Smiley said

      Those disproving AXA rejection to the claim only think for their own interest. They worry that once the law approved of AXA claim in this case, will open up the precedent for future, and will be disadvantage to them if it happened to them. They don’t have any sense of rightness and moral. The only thing that they care about is only ‘I, I, I and Me, Me, Me’.

      • osiris8989 said

        Took the words right outta my mouth mate.

      • Lucinda Goh said

        Agree with u Smiley. Actually, people need not worry as in this case, as should be in all cases, all victims will be covered under third party claims. Whether or not the insured is rich and able to pay is not our business. That is between the insured and his agent. On the other hand, for those who fear being in the same situation as Ma Chi, but not as rich to pay out, then you can only blame yourself for being so reckless with no regard for the lives of others.

      • singaporean said

        Do you think AXA is doing this for sense of ‘righteousness or for $$$?

    • Well said, Sir. Kudos.

    • AXA Boleh! said

      Couldn’t agree more.

      AXA absolutely did the right thing. Yet, there are still people slamming them. I’m sure if AXA compensated the family, they’d still get slammed for doing so. Why compensate his family after such senseless actions from him?

    • sfghfgh said

      MaChi accidentally increased speed, accidentally hit redlight,

  9. lyv2dy said

    I should also add that the families of the victims should seek the services of good lawyers to sue the ESTATE of the late MA CHI for full compensation for their losses.

  10. ZR said

    i will never never buy any insurance product from this company !

    • Hopeful said

      What’s wrong with AXA???! Come on, I feel that they are right in this case.

    • russell said

      i don’t find the insurance company at fault… it u goes speeding over the speed limit, did not stop at a red light and consequently hit a taxi… how can you say its an accident?…. the taxi driver is the real accident victim. watch the video on youtube and judge for yourself….

      • Don't Know said

        you said it cannot be considered an accident, and then you said the taxi driver is an accident victim…

        accident or not accident, make up your mind leh..

        if it is not an accident, then is it manslaughter?

    • insured said

      That’s because you ZR are a loser…you are just like that Muah Chee…go around killing people and then wanting to be insured against it?

      Insurers only insure and pay compensation to genuine cases…in your case, you just want to break the rules and get paid for it…that is why Sillypore has to get rid of bad spineless rubbish like yourself

    • sgstyle said

      Before you start to on your conclusion, please do look into details of stuff. This is definitely appropriate cause this PRC is definitely going over the limit by speeding across the red light.

    • speechless said

      then you should never drive. it seems to me that u are one of the idiots driving more than 140km/h…

  11. Hdbyer said

    Way to go AXA, I totally support!! This is not a case of high premiums but involves innocent human lives. In future foreigners or sinkies alike better think twice before doing stupid stunts behind the wheel.

  12. Singapuraboi said

    This is PRCs for u. No respect for contracts, laws and regulations. In such a clear defining case, they still sue. They think it is china that once this case goes to court that can grease the palm of the judge or some minister.

  13. @ Insured and Lyv2dy abv: While reckless drivers like MA CHI driving Ferraris and other sports cars pay higher insurance premiums and Ma Chi’s accident r 2 b blamed 4 their due share of claims, when an insurance commpany has accepted a policy b4 the fact of the actual accident, they shd honour it to pay up any claims accordingly.
    MAS shd close the floodgate for wilfull avoidance of claims by insurance companies testing loopholes in the law and to review existing regulations for greater transparency and accountability in insurance policies, in fairness to the insured parties concerned.

    • Jimmy Ho said

      Well said.

    • lyv2dy said

      Ma Chi’s estate is unlikely to be able to claim successfully against AXA. Besides all the fine print, there is the principle in jurisprudence that no one should be allow to benefit from his own wrong-doings. However, the victims’ families are likely to be able to claim against AXA under the third party injury/death coverage since they are the innocent parties and AXA has not denied such liability.

    • Maximus said

      Yes. The Insurance Company should only reject the application of the insured or impose premium loading or conditions of its acceptance. It will have to tighten its Underwriting acceptance during insurance application and renewal. To allow insurance companies to opt out of an insured risk will just take away the certainty of a payout – at the insured expense – unless such right of the insurance company is already embedded in its policy and has been highlighted to the insured (and not hiding among the fine prints).

      • P Koh said

        In insurance laws there is the principle of ‘Utmost Good Faith’ and is definitely applicable in this instance. This principle is not embedded in the Motor insurance policy as besides the common law application, there are many precedent court cases which addressed the breaches and the resultant consequences of such breaches and insurance companies are bound by them unless new evidence allow them to act otherwise.

  14. VH2006 said

    I wonder how the traditional media and SOME will say about this. Still going to blame on everything (victim, traffic light, etc) but Muah Chee?

    • P Koh said

      How to blame Muah Chee as he is already gone? He probably cannot hear the complaints or could’nt care less where he is now residing where the earthly laws cannot touch him

  15. WanAhLun said

    I dun understand why there are people speaking against the actions taken by AXA. Do these people support the notion that as long as they take out an automotive insurance policy, crash their vehicles with blatant disregard of traffic rules and causing harm to other innocent parties, they should expect an insurance payout?

    If so, any other TDH can take a policy and suicide at a major cross junction to benefit their families or beneficiaries.

  16. Tekko said

    Under the law, the insurance company is still liable for 3rd party. So they will have to pay compensation to the victims in this case. What they are disputing is the payment to the Ferrari driver (for loss of the vehicle and his life). If you guys read the ST report closely, you will notice it is mentioned in the last paragraph that “AXA’s counterclaim also asked for the estate of Mr Ma to repay all that AXA is liable to pay under the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks and Compensation) Act to those killed or injured in the crash”.

    What this means is that not only is AXA not going to pay Ma’s estate, they are also suing the estate for recovery of the money payable to the taxi driver’s estate and the other victims.

    • coffeebreak said

      on that point, if axa is paying out to third party victims (cuz MC paid insurance premuim covering third party claims); why should / how could axa still go after MC’s estate to recover the amount that axa paid out to third party victims??? if that’s the case, why bother buying third party insurance???

  17. Ma Chi is not justified to have the claim said

    good, Ma Chi is not justified to have the claim

  18. Realist said

    It was an accident and no collision.
    The problem is there is no clause to cover “throes of ecstasy during blow-job”.

  19. ahboy said

    Clap clap to AXA

    The green light shown on the Taxi point before proceeding is at least 4secs
    And that means, Ferrari direction is red light for at least 3-4secs already, beating the red lights, causing a collision with death to 3rd party and yet, still have the face to claim insurance..

    This shows the standards of PRC

  20. Free Trolley said

    you can never claim anything from an insurance company.

  21. Uniquely Singapore said

    Thumbs up to AXA. Much better than those bullshit AIA olympic posters.
    They will get my business from now on.

  22. Clara said

    Actually such clauses already exist and in practice. For example, there is NO payout for drivers who are drunk and involved in an accident.

  23. For once do i applaude the decision of AXA…Well Done….What more do the Mas want from Sg??They took innocent lives away,they don’t get the blame,the wife received substantial amts from the husband’s assets,no news abt them compensating the victims’ family and still wanted more $$$ from the insurance company??And yet most ppl are attacking AXA for their decisions…..What the media or the law cant do,at least AXA is doing it…Finally sumthing so right……

  24. P Koh said

    I cannot understand how AXA will ever be able to get out of this one. The insurance policy covers all forms of negligence but not intentional or fraudulent ones. Carelessness and recklessness are part and parcel of negligence. Indeed they are opening a can of worms.

    • Shut your mouth if you don't even understand Insurance Law / Insurance Contract said

      Hi P Koh,

      Apologies for the earlier outburst, and thank you for your timely reminder.

      As you may have guessed, I’m also with the General Insurance industry, and it probably got the better of me when I read of so many nonsensical comments in regards to insurance here.

      Agree with you that insurance policies cover all forms of negligence, in particular when such negligence constitutes a breach of duty of care owed to 3rd parties.

      Having said that, prima facie evidence thus far had concluded that this particular incident was not of carelessness / negligence. There is simply no defense to justify driving beyond 140km/hr within Singapore city due to carelessness or negligence, in particular when the police had confirmed that Ma Chi was not intoxicated in any way while driving and crashing the Ferrari. Not forgetting that, prior to crashing into the unfortunate Comfort cab at the particular junction, given the close proximity of another set of traffic lights before this junction, forensic experts may be able to determine whether if Ma Chi had actually sped past the earlier set of traffic lights before taking his chance at this particular junction, but ended up killing himself and taking away the lives of 2 other innocent 3rd parties.

      Agree with you that it’s best to leave it to the lawyers to thrash out the details in Court. But from all available facts as of now, I am prone to agreeing with AXA’s decision to proceed with compensating the families of the victims from Ma Chi’s motor insurance, and to retain subrogation rights against Ma Chi’s estate, in particular if the Coroner’s Court is able to establish that his speeding was intentional and/or a direct criminal breach of Road Traffic Act Section 66 – Causing death by reckless or dangerous driving.

      • P Koh said

        No offence intended and I am happy that you are gentleman enough to admit that your outburst was not necessary. I obtained my ACII in 1971 and have lectured on Motor Insurance in the then SITC for the UK exams and believe that even experience alone does not necessary give anyone the right to be right and we can never be sure what the courts may decide after all the evidences are produced and seriously challenged. Intentional criminal breach of RTA is also difficult to prove because nobody in his right sense of mind would want to do it and kill himself. I think it is a case of poor sense of timing and Ma thought that with that speed he could beat the lights and win but instead lost with his life.

      • Maximus said

        Congratulations!

        That’s a very well written piece of addtional comment – in both its technical content as well as its civility. Now we are seeing a true professional at work and his compassion for his readers and fellow comment contributors.

        Hope to get more such level-headed, well-argued pieces in such readible language from this forum and others ….

      • Goh Tong Seng said

        You really need to raise awareness of insurance law and insurance contract.
        You should consider writing a post on TT for everyone to read.

      • P Koh said

        Thank you ‘Maximus’ and ‘Goh Tong Seng’ for the compliments and I do appreciate the concern of many who are ignorant of the intrigacies of insurance contracts not by design but because of lack of understanding of the “Principles of Insurance” and the legalistic aspects of some wordings which may and can be capable of different intepretations.

  25. Shanghai kid said

    Everything with the name MA CHI in it , is a stinking pile of rotting dog shit plus a pigs puke mixed with decomposed FAECES !!!! You won’t want to even touched it with a 10 feet pole !!!

  26. animal farm said

    The evidence for reckless and dangerous driving is irrefutable in this case, AXA rightfully withdraws coverage and may seek legal recourse for losses in third-party payout. These companies are business entities after all.Insurance is never for wilful acts unless it is agreed upon for the coverage.

  27. @ Animal Farm abv: AVA can refuse future coverage, but if it’s existing coverage with the insured covers accidents, as in Ma Chi’s case, it wld b very diffic 4 AVA 2 claim his case is outside his accident policy. And AVA shd honour the policy, not attempt 2 avoid it.

    • Sweet Talk said

      Hey you stupid or what? When did AVA goes into the insurance business? Think before you spout nonsense like Temasek Times

    • insured said

      It’s people like you Yap Swee Hoo who is inferior in your thinking and Sillypore should get rid of useless rubbish like you…this is no accident…this is the bochap attitude of a flushed with cash PRC stinko with a cheap prostitue by his side rubbing his thighs who beat the red light after 3-4 seconds and causes 2 persons to die….
      Muah Chee’s family will pay for this….insurers only cover honest mistakes…you think Muah Chee’s was an honest mistake…better yet…would you still think like that if it was 2 of your own family members killed by PRC Muah Chee??? you r one dumb arse

  28. Only if they can totally exclude the possibility of vehicular dysfunction resulting in loss of control said

    If I’m rear-ended by a speeding motorist who’s insured by AXA today, can the latter deny my 3rd party claim and refer me back to the motorist himself?

    For Ma Chi’s case, the decision of AXA can only be justified if they can completely exclude the possibility of vehicular dysfunction resulting in the driver’s loss of control. The prob is, they can’t.

    • P Koh said

      It all depends on whether the motorist who rear-ended your vehicle has breached any policy conditions which gives the insurers the right to deny liability to you. If he has complied with policy requirements and reported the accident to AXA then there is no valid reason for your claim to be rejectted unless your loss falls below the excess clause of the motorist’s motor policy or that he was certified to be drunk-driving. Vehicular dysfunction is called “latent defect” and the accident happened because of this and that there is no way the driver is aware of the defect that caused the accident until it happened.

  29. @ Sweet Talk: Typo error, surely u know? Or u can’t know?

  30. two cents said

    Ma Chi is dead… no chance for the insurer to tell him “we’re not covering you because you were a prick!!”
    two things i’d like to know (and let’s be honest here)
    1. was Ma Chi cremated whole?
    Consider this, the Lady in the car with him, suffered minor injuries – most of her upper torso seemed well protected from the injuries she sustained. Could it be then because she was not fully seated in her cockpit but lying down? because that’s the only way i figure she’s been so well protected from fatal injury and only broke her leg, because of the angle of incline of her body. I wonder what she was doing lying down!?!?
    2. how come i see or hear no interview or investigation into the ONLY witness in the cockpit of the vehicle. Who’s hiding what?! or is her mouth still full or has she been issued a “gag” order?
    Yes i agree that the insurer has the right to oppose liability given the severity and magnitude of the incident, however, given that the principal owner of the vehicle and the primary insured being deceased, there is no “fuck you, you were the maniac who drove like a bitch – it’s your fault” chance
    My only concern is for the other victims of this senseless idiot, should they now be stricken with even more legal fees as they attempt to recover whatever consolation owing to them? by absolving AXA you are denying them of a more immediate means of recuperation and closure – that is unfair!
    It’s an acccident – when vehicles collide and no where in the terms and conditions of any policy is there a disclaimer “unless you drive like a prick” clause

    two cents

  31. Antiracist said

    Looks like Ma Chi’s case is not the only one involving PRCs:

    http://m.washingtonpost.com/world/asia_pacific/a-ferrari-crash-leaves-privileged-chinese-playboy-dead-and-ruffles-top-leaders/2012/09/04/b82573e0-f66c-11e1-a93b-7185e3f88849_story.html

  32. pi said

    without this accident, I would not have known we have a limited edition ferrari here….. or a Jap lady that is not married in her 40s…………

  33. LOL said

    well, this is as good as buying an accident insurance policy for yourself, then you go around slashing people and ended up killing yourself by suayness, then your family go and make a claim as an ‘accident’. well done people and good luck, for those who simply do not understand what they are buying for. for those who made claims from insurance companies before (unfortunately so), you will know what i mean. if Mr. Ma Chi is still alive, well, he will be prosecuted and most probably jailed for a long term, fined and etc etc. so if he is, is he eligible to file a claim for his broken Ferrari? LOL…

  34. Singaporean said

    it is justified, and AXA already stated the reasons for it. GO AXA!😀 GO AWAY MA CHI’S FAMILY.

  35. osiris8989 said

    Good job. AXA has done a lot of things right.

    Firstly, the ST article has already stated that AXA has already paid out to all third party injuries, and damages, “As such, MA’S ESTATE is liable to cover the payouts it may have to make to THE OTHERS hurt or killed in the crash, said AXA. In a press statement, AXA said it wants the courts to declare that it will be entitled to recover all these payments FROM Ma’s family.” I don’t even know why the Ma Estate wanted to uncover the can of worms they brought onto themselves by suing the insurer in the first place when the driver of the ferrari is at fault to wrongfully cause the collision (video evidence cant lie).

    It shows that AXA knows what they are doing. Insurance can do a lot of good, provided you were honest in the first place. Reason why some claims don’t go through is because there are ‘some’ who tend to lie when they signed the documents hoping to “snook” the insurer.

    • senseless said

      Insurer insures you when you are in the wrong. Why buy insurance if it cannot pay when you are liable?

      AXA is denying liability claims claiming he is “grossly” in the wrong, that borderline suicide. If “speeding” and “running red lights” are not insurable, then how about running yellow lights, driving while inexperienced, driving drunk, or texting?

      • Shut your mouth if you don't even understand Insurance Law / Insurance Contract said

        You’re not only senseless, you’re also stupid.

        Try go get an insurance coverage for any wrongdoing that you intend to commit. If you SERIOUSLY manage to obtain such coverage, then come back here & scan a copy of the cover, stating that whichever Insurance Company is willing to insure you against any wrongdoing / committed crime.

        Use your brain, Goondu!

  36. Commando Pants said

    To be honest in 2 years of living in Singapore I have not seen one police car take action against a driver in what I can only describe as wacky races – in fact never seen a police car, only officers wondering around SMRT stations. I will never drive here as I value my life and that of my family.

    Singapore claims to be the jewel of Asia, above the rest and as such with chronic arrogance look down on everyone else as if they are the masters. Bad news is Singapore, you cannot polish a turd, but granted you’ve doon well rolling it in glitter.

    The is the same decision you’d get in any proper country like the UK, AUS or USA – so shutup Singapore, buck up and ask your Government why they are not enforcing better driving. And while we are on it we all know your LV bags are fake —

    • LOL said

      *thumbs up* for ur maturity!

    • Jimmy Ho said

      What the hell are you doing in Singapore then, if you think so lowly about our country? Why are you using a pseudonym when making such a remark, you hypocrite. Tell us which jungle you previously belong, given your ill upbringing.

    • Tool Man said

      You have been in Singapore for 2 years and don’t drive. So it is quite obvious that you haven’t really seen a traffic police vehicle since you are watching the roads from the window of an MRT train or from the sidewalk. Traffic conditions and incidences in China and in the Middle East are FAR worse than in Singapore.

      Honestly, you have just made yourself look foolish with those remarks. Do yourself a favour – think before you write – it looks like you can’t do both.

      • Commando Pants said

        To answer your question: I’m here enjoying an extreamly high wage which I am filtering back to my Country of origin – like everyone else…. why else you think we are here…?
        My issue here is you disagree with a decision as you think it will affect you – simple don’t drive like a clown.

        I also don’t drive because I’m not stupid enough to pay 5 times what the vehicle is worth.

        I rent here because the property is also inflated by a factor of 5 (I do feel for your guys on this actually, I think the government need to act, instead of enjoying all that stamp duty and COE Singaporeans are being squeezed unfairly).

      • Tool Man said

        Like I said, think before you write. First, I am not fazed by the comment of your salary, which I doubt is high because you can’t spell common words, nor write grammatically-correct sentences. Second, your point about driving has changed from a safety aspect, to one that is related to cost. So again, you can’t be commanding a high salary as you are not certain about making your point. Thirdly, if you did indeed come to Singapore to work and think this country is “turd” as you eloquently put it, I do wonder what state your own country is in.

      • I like your response, its funny – and yes to be honest my Country is a turd … its the turd that owned this turd and made it what it is today, a ‘clone turd’.
        Also I’m not changing focus – just adding another. I look forward to your response, kind Sir.

  37. Living in the mercy of ppl,who approve the building of HDB flats. said

    I think the Ferrari driver commited suicide by driving at very high speed.

  38. There is a need to protect taxi drivers and their families.

    Before I go on to comment about the case, I feel it is important to remember that there is still a family who lost a father and a breadwinner. Our thoughts and prayers should be with the family, even as they move on with their lives.

    I have seen the footage of the accident (it went viral rather quickly) and I read the reports. I can’t say I am fully familiar with the issue because I have never had the privilege of owning a car. I do have a driving license, and I have driven company vehicles for work purposes, both in day and night conditions.

    Here is my take.

    By not paying out, AXA has made a very firm stand on whether insurance companies should bear liabilities for a driver who acted recklessly and endangered the lives of other road users.

    I agree wholeheartedly that the insurer should not compensate the family of a deceased driver who acted dangerously and without regard for others’ safety. In this case, the Ferrari driver should not have been driving the way he did.

    But I have a concern here – and that is for the family of victims. I am not familiar with car insurance policies (my fellow citizens should comment and educate me on this), but if there is a payout that needs to be made to the family of an innocent party who was injured or killed by the reckless driver, the insurer ought to proceed with that payout. If AXA has done that (compensate the family of the late taxi driver), and is now attempting to collect this sum back from the Ferrari driver’s family, I salute AXA for doing so and putting themselves through this process of litigation and spending resources on this task.

    I do believe all cars must be insured, and all drivers must be licensed. Insurers ought to be aware that they are essentially putting a driver and a car on the road whenever they sell an insurance policy. In this respect, the insurer has a dual role – one as a service provider making profit from taking a risk, and the other as a corporate citizen with a social responsibility who should not insure a driver who might not be the best operator of a vehicle. I’m not saying that the Ferrari driver was a bad one (though I think he was), but generally speaking, insurers should take this as an obligation, one that must be taken seriously.

    On the part of licensing drivers, I do note that there are a large number of foreign drivers on Singapore roads. I urge the Traffic Police and the Land Transport Authority to impose the same standards on foreign-licensed drivers as they do on local candidates. We must note that the road conditions, traffic conditions and driving culture are different in Singapore. We are not like the rest of the world. But let us not forget that we too, have bad drivers who are Singaporeans. They should be taken to task for their misdeeds and offences.

    Taxi drivers are a vulnerable group – they rent taxis, drive around for a fare, and pay rental to the taxi companies. Taxi drivers are “hirers” in the eyes of the taxi companies, and “independent contractors” in the eyes of the law. They are not employees. They do not receive the same protection and benefits that employees do. I personally feel that we need to protect them better.

    Think about it – when they fall sick, they lose money. I once took a taxi when I had a cough. The driver insisted on driving with the windows open. He humbly apologized and informed me that he was afraid of falling ill. “I take ‘MC’, no one pay me”, he said. Other taxi drivers told me that they couldn’t afford to take leave, since they earn their fares on a per-trip basis. The taxi drivers do not earn CPF.

    Lastly, passengers who ride in taxis should be offered a degree of protection. We must implement minimum standards of safety – air bags to say the least. We should establish the duty of care that the taxi owners (i.e. the taxi companies) owe to the public.

    I hope to see Singapore set the standard in managing taxis, licensing foreign drivers and administering taxi drivers’ benefits and protection in the near future.

  39. Ron said

    An interesting case. The insured person has died. So AXA is suing the estate? The dead driver is not there to defend himself. Hope the Court addresses the ;points of law that are involved. Are exceeding speed limits and traffic signals violations sufficient grounds to cancel a policy post-accident?

    What is the difference between a collision and an accident? AXA is chooing to save itself from paying but it is okay when they make big profits.

    And why should AXA be allowed to continue to operate in Spore if it wields the big stick against the small parties? Lawsuits are expensive. Clearly the Government should look at the regulations and take a stand if AXA is abusing the legal system. It will be interesting to hear the judgement.

    • Shut your mouth if you don't even understand Insurance Law / Insurance Contract said

      First of all, do you drive? If you do, then you better go take out your motor insurance policy, read it & re-read it again, ‘cos within the policy, there are many legal terms which, I’m very sure, you will not be able to comprehend their full meanings.

      Essentially, insurance policies are commercial contracts between Insured & Insurers. Prior to finalizing the contract, Insured must perform their due diligence to ensure thorough understanding on the applicable terms and conditions. And such practice of due diligence is to be practiced for every commercial transaction that one enters into. How stupid it reflects on people like you to blindly enter into a commercial transaction without verifying all the terms and conditions, only to cry foul at a later stage when you deem you have been short-changed by the transaction.

      In short, my “name” says the gist of this article.

      • P Koh said

        You replied to “Senseless” and now to “Ron” as if you are an authority on insurance. I am a qualified insurance practitioneer for almost half a century and had held top positions in the insurance industry and yet I would not dare to pass such rude remarks on others. Everyone is entitled to his own opinion be it right or wrong. The case if tested in court would be how this issue will be settled. That is why lawyers have to submit their case for hearing. I will thank you to be more civilized to your fellow citizens.

      • Maximus said

        Well said, P Koh!

  40. Some netizens are posting here much as if AXA is a govt body and therefore is doing right not 2 pay in instances of reckless (read ‘ruthless’) driving. They clearly forget AXA is a private commercial company that is responsible to pay out as appropriate on the terms of the policies they sold. When there is a payment due, even if it entails a big loss, AXA wld still be liable to pay on the terms agreed upon, morals being quite irrelevant. So all the brouhaha that AVA is doing great to set high stds of morality and whatever is very much ‘noises’ without substance, as the company wld hv 2 support its stand in court basing on the terms of the insurance policy or policies taken by the late Ma Chi, and not by other extraneous issues.
    In gist, AXA’s relationship with Ma Chi and his beneficiaries is strictly a commercial relationship with both parties agreeing on the insurance terms and Ma Chi paying his premiums on AXA’s full consent to pay out to him or his beneficiaries accordingly.

  41. Chew said

    AXA may lose the case.

    There are two sets traffic lights, one at the junction and there is a pedestrian just before it which is in green.

    Ma could have mistaken the pedestrian one as the one at the junction.

    • P Koh said

      There are always speculations some of which may be right but many are off the mark. If there is any breach of insurance policy conditions it would be one on “drunken driving”. Even then, the Road Traffic Act requries insurers to pay first and then if they can prove that coverage is null and void, they can sue the deceased driver’s estate. The accident is obviously a reckless driving case for beating the red lights and the motor policy covers such negligence unless proven that it was
      done with fraudent intent or wilful neglience which are not possible to prove as the driver paid for with his life. There is also the Motor Insurance Bureau should something is amiss and the families of the innocent taxi driver and passenger need not worry unnecessarily that the deaths of their loved ones are in vain.

  42. Reality is perception said

    This case is interesting because first and foremost, it is AXA’s word against..well basically everything is just AXA’s words. I reckon that is why they dare to file this lawsuit in the first place. The crux of this matter is in the fine terms and conditions in the insurance contract and their definition of accident.

    I think AXA will not lose because firstly they are an insurance company. Secondly, they are an insurance company. Thirdly, they are an insurance company. Fourthly, seriously the first three reasons are sufficient. Jokes aside, their legal team would have scrutinized the terms and conditions in the contract so finely they can probably read them backwards.

  43. But AXA may still lose ‘cos the Mas hv their lawyers plus the contractual terms if they cover Ma Chi’s accident. Ditto, and ditto.
    Except for fraud which wld hold no water as Ma Chi paid with his life, AXA has at best a rzor-edge chance of winning this case, if at all possible.

    • Reality is perception said

      I think AXA has more edge than anyone could imagine because the contractual terms are written by them, and hence it gives more room for them to interpret the definitions and meanings of the terms – by their rules. Also, in terms of the ‘big picture’, I think the message to be conveyed is – buying insurance does not mean you can ride or drive like the road belongs to your grandfather, no matter how high a premium you pay, because in the unfortunate event that you get into an accident, we will not be liable. And for this message to be effective to potential reckless motorists, it is not advantageous to the ‘big picture’ cause for AXA to not win.

  44. Don said

    Aiyo… someone is stirring sh*t behind the scene la…
    make big hooha and then dont pay out, who else has power to so such things??
    Think hard and you’ll know.

  45. Living in the mercy of ppl,who approve the building of HDB flats. said

    Can someone out there tell me why that it is a must for only Chinese (prc) table cleaners in Indian restaurants? Can’t an Indian restaurant get Indians from India ?

  46. Kelvin Lawrence said

    Just look at the motorized bicycles who zoom at more than 60 kmh and involved in an accident Who is liable?? What about those cement mixers and 10 wheelers who sped at more than 100 kmh and very few got booked. Double standard in Singapore.

  47. louis said

    i initially thought good of AXA car insurance, but after reading this bull story, i will not take on AXA… by the way, driving at a speed of 140KM/Hr is possible and norm in malaysia highway.. which literally means AXA doesnt cover you as long as you speed and crash your vehicle intentionally or unintentionally.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: