Post manslaughter excursion, Ma Chi's family inherits S$8.1million; innocent victims now forgotten?

[cherry6]

Post manslaughter excursion, Ma Chi's family inherits S$8.1million; families of deceased victims no?

Post manslaughter excursion, Ma Chi's family inherits S$8.1million; families of deceased victims now forgotten?

Ma Chi’s wife and children inherited $8.1 million dollars
Posted by temasektimes on August 7, 2012
PRC Ferrari driver Ma Chi who angered the entire nation by his reckless driving which caused the deaths of two innocent parties has left a fortune of S$8.10 million dollars to his family.
According to the Chinese tabloids, Ma Chi’s wife He Tingting will inherit half his fortune while the remaining will be split equally between his two children.
He Tingting has initially announced publicly that the family will not shed its responsibility to the victims, one of whom is a Singaporean cabby Mr Cheng who left behind three children.
However till now, there is no news if the Ma family has taken the necessary remedial actions to compensate the victims of the fatal accident which sparked a massive public backlash against China nationals living in Singapore.
http://temasektimes.wordpress.com/2...e-and-children-inherited-810-million-dollars/

Related post (HWZ): http://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/c...ozen-immediately-re-compensation-3769295.html

 

[ponpokku]

just to add, they will be fighting a case with an insurance company, dunno which one thou.

 

[whytespot]

i thought the wife said "the family will not ignore this matter, and will take responsibility towards them (victims)."

Ferrari driver's widow apologises for husband's 'driving error'

 

[cherry6]

Ma Chi's family to AXA: illegal F1 street racing 'assailant' deserves full compensation.

just to add, they will be fighting a case with an insurance company, dunno which one thou.

Ma Chi's family to AXA: illegal F1 street racing 'assailant' deserves full compensation.
=====
Disclosure, I am not member nor staff of AXA insurance nor party to any direct compensation, just a judicially concerned Singaporean internet observer who would like to see justice served and see no reason why innocent insurance subscribers should compensate for 'non-accidental' accidents consequent of the criminally negligent/ illicit use/conduct of motor vehicles as racing cars on public roads.
=====

Ma Chi's family now insists that insurers consider Ma Chi's tragic illegal F1 street racing as an 'honest mistake' and pay them compensation???!!!! ['Family of dead Ferrari driver sues insurers']

Please lah, it is stated clearly in his AXA motor insurance contract [pdf: view][alt link] that (Page 7: SECTION 1 - INSURANCE FOR YOUR CAR)
"2. What Is Excluded
Your Policy does not insure you against: ...;
(g) any wilful act and/or wilful negligence of yourself or that of your Authorised driver.
..."

So the ridiculous Chinese family is now trying to say that driving at almost TRIPLE the speed limit [Ferrari crash: Physics teacher calculates that sports car was speeding at 140km/h, STOMP:17May2012], not heeding traffic signals [YouTube:Singapore Ferrari Taxi Crash Enhanced HD Footage is NOT negligent?

Ma Chi didn't commit just one offense but TWO offences (each very serious) and both aggravating the other, altogether culminating in three fatalities (Ma Chi inclusive) and 2 more with serious injuries.

Despite this egregious if not fatal state of disregard for traffic laws, notwithstanding AXA's motor insurance contract clearly stating under 'GENERAL CONDITIONS (Applicable to the whole Policy)', page 16, point 7- [pdf: view][alt link]:
Mediation /Arbitration
"You and AXA agree that all disputes arising out of this Policy may be submitted to the Singapore Mediation Centre for settlement by mediation in accordance with the Mediation Procedure in force. The parties agree to take part in the mediation in good faith and undertake to honour the terms of any settlement reached. If any dispute is not referred to mediation or if mediation fails, the dispute is to be referred to arbitration. Arbitration shall be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the Singapore International Arbitration Centre."

The family still has the gall to appeal directly to the Singapore High Court (rather than accept arbitration as per contract) with the lame excuse of "we need to seek the assistance of the Singapore courts as the insurer made the decision to repudiate liability first".

Of course the insurer needed to "repudiate liability" given the international attention to the reprehensibility of Ma Chi's driving habits and the 3 fatalities of consequence. If Ma Chi had driven within the speed limit, he would unlikely have shot the red and even so, such fatalities would have been less likely.

In my mind, the Rochor Road fatal 'accident' of May12, 2012

 

[koxinga]

You know, the interest in this case is because it involves a rich FT. This type of road accidents, sadly are not uncommon. But nothing spoken about compensation to the victims family.

 

[acetylcholine]

If his actions do not amount to a 'wilful act and/or wilful negligence', then I really don't know what will.

 

[ponpokku]

yeah such accidents do happen... but then the family of the purpertuator usually not so insensitive as to attract more flaks from the general public.

 

[cherry6]

Insurer MUST always compensate 3rd party victims first.

You know, the interest in this case is because it involves a rich FT. This type of road accidents, sadly are not uncommon. But nothing spoken about compensation to the victims family.

For the avoidance of doubt regarding the respective liabilities (immediate vs.eventual) ('offending driver' vs his insurer) towards compensating victims (3rd party), the following case example remains instructive.

Victim wins civil suit against Ionescu
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
=====
Rest of the details plos see (or ask your MP to explain):
'Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (CHAPTER 189)'

 

[NTB2DO]

Not so sure about the law regarding this but my gut feeling is that the Ma family is likely to lose the suit against the insurer lor..

And I also hope that they lose.. that would send a strong message to drivers that if they drive in the same way as that Ma did, they shall risk having their car insurance coverage revoked..

 

[xdivider]

I kinda find driving at 200 mph a bit hard to be a mistake, not to mention a 'honest' one. Ill rank it as attempted murder of pedestrains crossing at the green man..........

 

[justicesg]

I kinda find driving at 200 mph a bit hard to be a mistake, not to mention a 'honest' one. Ill rank it as attempted murder of pedestrains crossing at the green man..........

Something like GTA Lion City

 

[justicesg]

Not so sure about the law regarding this but my gut feeling is that the Ma family is likely to lose the suit against the insurer lor..

And I also hope that they lose.. that would send a strong message to drivers that if they drive in the same way as that Ma did, they shall risk having their car insurance coverage revoked..

Yes, but insurance companies being corporate and profit-centred giants they are would abuse it and lawyer their way out of payouts of even genuine accidents.

 

[howvjc]

It goes without saying that we all condemn the Ferrari driver's actions, and he paid the ultimate price.

But if the family loses the suit and this precedent is set, in future insurers can just argue on "wilful act or negligence" ...

Driving at 1 km/h above speed limit ?

If you hit someone from the back, they can blame you for tailgating and refuse to help you pay even third party damages ?

 

[acetylcholine]

It goes without saying that we all condemn the Ferrari driver's actions, and he paid the ultimate price.

But if the family loses the suit and this precedent is set, in future insurers can just argue on "wilful act or negligence" ...

Driving at 1 km/h above speed limit ?

If you hit someone from the back, they can blame you for tailgating and refuse to help you pay even third party damages ?

It is a matter of line drawing. Legally, wilful act/negligence definitely implies a higher standard of wrongdoing than mere negligence. The examples you raise fall clearly within the latter category so there is no worry that insurance companies will disclaim liability under such circumstances (they can try but I highly doubt any court will rule in their favour).

On the other hand, exclusion of liability for such wilful act/negligence is commonplace in most insurance contracts (not limited to motor insurance) across many different jurisdictions. The idea is that the general pool of users should not be made to suffer, through the imposition of higher premiums, due to the rash acts of the few who blatantly flout traffic rules or regulations. Good examples would include driving at an excessive speed (as in the present case) or even drink driving.

At the end of the day, the victims will still be compensated if the driver is unable to pay (this is the idea behind third-party insurance). The driver, if he or she chooses to endanger other lives on the road, ought to bear the consequences of his or her actions. It is after all a loss distribution exercise and in this case, wilful act/negligence does seem to be a rather fair line to draw.

 

[ponpokku]

It goes without saying that we all condemn the Ferrari driver's actions, and he paid the ultimate price.

But if the family loses the suit and this precedent is set, in future insurers can just argue on "wilful act or negligence" ...

Driving at 1 km/h above speed limit ?

If you hit someone from the back, they can blame you for tailgating and refuse to help you pay even third party damages ?

plz use brain and logic, and do u actually drive?

laws are there for ppl to exercise commonsense. there is of cos a certain theshold so that ppl wont be penalised unecessarily.

for example in many countries 5-10km above speed limit is not considered 'speeding'. mata must be too free to catch ppl for that. of cos speed camera wise is different story, that is a strict requirement on roads known to be accident-prone.

even hitting someone on the back, there is 'total responsibility' where u must take all the damages, or 'partial responsibility' where the back driver usually(but not always) takes a greater share of responsibility, depending on situations.

the rules are there b4 most of us were born. what u can think of, already happened and settled in real life liao.

 

[howvjc]

plz use brain and logic, and do u actually drive?

Very friendly and courteous, thanks.

Anyway, someone else already clarified ... legally, wilful negligence is different from ordinary negligence. Presumably has to be determined by the court, case by case.

 

[GrimaH]

Dumb ass ****-stirring here. And just to reinforce the (pretty well-earned) stereotype of the Chinese papers here being complete ****, the TS had to post the front page of one stellar example.

 

[MrTheROCK]

This thread is similar to the 19 yr old nus girl.......