Singapore Ferrari Accident: does crime pay?

Hospital/ Insurers not recovering compensatory costs from Ma Chi's (>S$3.4M) estate would be admission that crime in Singapore does indeed 'pay'.

PS: written from layman POV cos I'm not a lawyer.

Legally speaking, should Ma Chi's family really receive S$1.82Million compensation for causing fatal 'accident'?

In regard of 'PRC Ferrari driver runs red light, involving taxi and motorcycle in fatal accident' [STOMP, 13May2012], it has been suggested if not proven that at the point of impact, the Ferrari driven (and owned) by Ma Chi was traveling at 140 (+/-30)kph ('Ferrari crash: Physics teacher calculates that sports car was speeding at 140km/h' [STOMP, 17May2012])/ [YouTube:Singapore Ferrari Taxi Crash Enhanced HD Footage], far in excess of the 50kph speed limit typical of Singapore city roads, this in itself constitutes a serious and inexcusable traffic offense even if in defense, Ma Chi's legal team might deflect blame on the traffic lighting system for his fatal error in judgement. It could well also be argued that but for Ma Chi racing his Ferrari at such obscene speed and ignoring the traffic signals, the said accident would not have occurred.

So was it indeed an 'accident' or an act of 'terrorism'- the act being actually an act of road terrorism.

The reason for the necessity to use this odd classification of 'road terrorism' is due to the fact that from my perusal of the private car insurance [website] 'terms and conditions' [pdf] of NTUC income motor insurance (as an example of a typical car insurance company/contract), with " Page 4: GENERAL EXCLUSIONS> 1. Driving and Use> This Policy does not insure any accident, loss, damage, injury or liability where any motor vehicle in respect of which this Policy provides indemnity is:...
(c) being driven by anyone whilst under the influence of intoxicating liquor or drugs or medication" being the nearest in application to the fatal 12May2012 Bugis junction accident- which in fact fails to excuse the insurer from compensating Ma Chi's estate S$1.8M goven that 'Police: PRC Ferrari driver Ma Chi (马驰) did not consume alcohol before accident' [TT, 17May2012].

According to 'State media defends PRC Ferrari driver Ma Chi: He is not a ‘heavy drinker’ and has applied for Singapore PR' [TT, 14May2012], “Mr Ma’s wife,.. told Wanbao .. the Ferrari was a $1.8 million limited edition car that he bought for his 30th birthday last year”- the compensation for death to the driver by NTUCincome is $20k, would the insurer be liable to compensate Ma Chi's estate $1.82M.

That said, the 3rd party victims including the families of deceased taxi driver Mr Cheng Teck Hock and his passenger remain entitled to compensation according to NTUC of up to $5M in total.

Ma Chi's passenger, "(Ms Wu Wei Wei) was seriously injured in the three-vehicle crash that has claimed the lives of three people so far" ('Ferrari Crash - Mystery Woman is pte "student" who moonlights at naughty KTV' [A1news, 16May2012]), again presupposing an insurer such as NTUC, would only be responsible for "SCOPE OF COVER> SECTION III – MEDICAL EXPENSES> We will pay you, .. or passenger up to S$300 for reasonable medical expenses incurred by each person who is injured whilst in the Insured Vehicle...", begs the question of who would eventually bear the costs of her hospitalization.

It is thus my suggestion that perhaps either the insurer of the Ferrari note the loopholes in its insurance policy and if Ma Chi's family presses for compensation regarding damages to the Ferrari, press counter charges against Ma Chi for 'road terrorism' (flagrant disregard for the law) to dissociate itself from 1st party compensation and to reclaim compensation to 3rd parties such as the taxi driver and his passenger and other victims in the accident.

“Mr Ma’s wife, known only as Madam He, told Wanbao that her husband had bought a $3 million condominium in the East Coast and a $400,000 BMW. The Ferrari was a $1.8 million limited edition car that he bought for his 30th birthday last year.” [TT, 14May2012].

The public hospital to which Ms Wu is warded should also seek guarantees of payment from Ma Chi's estate for her payment of her medical bills given that an insurer such as NTUC income might only wish to cover $300 of these expenses- using his the illegality of his driving speed and methods as reason to cover for the hospitalization cost incurred in treating his passenger.

It would be travesty for Ma Chi's family to receive S$1.82M consequent to the accident as motor insurance should only cover genuine, unintentional 'accidents' and not Ma Chi's form of road terrorism (street racing and other criminal activities) for which all liabilities of the insurer ought be reclaimed from Ma Chi's estate- failure to do so would simple add to the insurers losses and predictably, an increase in premium for all other bonafide members since motor insurance is compulsory in Singapore.

Ma Chi's disregarded the traffic rules and laws of Singapore and treated it like a gangland paradise. For this, the Ma Chi's estate (BOTH China AND Singapore) must IMMEDIATELY be frozen in lieu of claims by either the insurer or the public hospitals for the damage that Ma Chi caused in flagrant disregard of the law.

Singapore's 'first class political leadership and judiciary', please do something about this, far too many times have foreigners on criminal charges gotten away scot free 'Kiwi bail jumper won’t return to S’pore to face charges' [YahooNews,30Dec2011], 'Two Romanian ‘foreign talents’ allowed to jump bail again' [TT, 18May2012].

PS: Pls note that I do NOT know who the insurer of Ma Chi's Ferrari is. Any reference to NTUC income insurance is only for the purpose of example since NTUC Car insurance seems to be a typical choice of Singaporeans from my anecdotal observation(s).

a lot depends on the policy contract, your example of using NTUC may be restricted for the debate. Maybe Mr Tan KL, as an insurance expert can give us some guidance.

BuriramUnitedFC said:

a lot depends on the policy contract, your example of using NTUC may be restricted for the debate. Maybe Mr Tan KL, as an insurance expert can give us some guidance.

Click to expand...

That is why if all else fails, sue Ma Chi for 'terrorism'... it wasn't an 'accident', suicide maybe or even terrorism (road terrorism)- that would void the insurance policy and allow the insurer to reclaim victim compensation fr Ma Chi's estate (insure must always 'pay first' of course).

Ma Chi broke the law and his victims died, now let the law do what is right.

From another forum site, but relevant:
====
Ma Chi broke the law and his victims died, now let the law do what is right.

My Little Diary 88 (13June2012) said:

Re Thread: [Ferrari accident] Should assets of Ma Chi be frozen immediately for (re-)compensation?
cherry6,
perhaps the government should not step in but rather the traffic police should quickly conclude its case so that a civil claim can proceed on two legs
in the civil claim, to request the Court to freeze the assets of the estate until such time the Court make a judgment. Also to serve notice to the administrator of the estate that a civil claim is being filed and that as administrator, she should not distribute the funds until the claim is settled
however, like you said, it is possible for the funds to be sent abroad, the administrator returned to China and then there is no way to recover the funds as a civil case cannot request extradition of the administrator
from the points you raised, the probability is present that the victims will suffer injustice

Click to expand...

Hi My Little Diary 88, tks for yr comment, its..
[pict source]
That is why I feel that with such compelling prima facie evidence all over the internet, the insurers of the Ferrari cannot help but be ready for a 3rd party claim which they cannot possibly defend (except by penny pinching)- to which they should immediately indemnify themselves from the costs by applying for the civil court to seize Ma Chi's accounts and properties in sufficient quantity to cover anticipated victim compensation (the public hospital treating Ms Wu [SBY, 15Jun2012] should do exactly the same).

If the SLA permits transfer of a title deed seized by the courts or a bank allows frozen accounts to be paid out or transferred then these professional bodies shall carry the liability for their negligence since the pronouncement of the court is law.

Singapore MUST NOT become like China, where personal profit and money seems their only purpose in life.
<iframe width="480" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/wo0_Yup17yc" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>, where the family of Ma Chi, in receiving the untouched proceeds of his estate may return to China boasting what a fantastic person he was while his victim suffer in silence and despair, and as Singaporeans cry over spilled milk.

The families of the victims deceased will replay the footage of the 'accident' each and every time they cross a road or log-on to the internet and no amount of money or regret can ever compensate for the loss and injustice they will experience; the least that the estate of Ma Chi can ever do is to take ownership, apologize and pay. Ma Chi broke the law and his victims died, now let the law please do what is right.

Rgds,
C6.

Post manslaughter excursion, Ma Chi's family inherits S$8.1million; families of decea

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.

Click to expand...

Ma Chi's family to AXA: illegal F1 street racing 'assailan' deserves full compensatio

bic_cherry said:

Hospital/ Insurers not recovering compensatory costs from Ma Chi's (>S$3.4M) estate would be admission that crime in Singapore does indeed 'pay'....

Click to expand...

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 [YouTube] was 99.9% if not 100% caused by Ma Chi's wilful act and/or wilful negligence in his operating his vehicle in willful disregard with driving rules and regulations.

Regular drivers pay motor insurance premiums as legislative requirements to compensate innocent victims and to protect themselves against liability for genuinely unavoidable accidents/ other calamity (floods, hurricane, thief, fire etc). The 12 May Rochor Road accident could have easily been avoided and Ma Chi's estate will pay for his indiscretion. AXA motor insurance in my opinion should cover for legitimate accidents only, Ma Chi illegitimately misused regular public roads as his personal racing track to impress a girl he'd just met, AXA insurance shall NOT be liable for Ma Chi's misconduct.

Perhaps if Ma Chi's family (which is incidentally set to inherit Ma Chi's estate worth S$8.1 million; 'Ferrari driver's $8m estate to go to family' [A1, 10Aug2012]]) were to be indeed genuinely concerned about the conduct of justice in Singapore: "We just want to follow the Singapore laws as to what we need to do following the accident that affected people's lives.", and appreciating the severity of the traffic offenses that Ma Chi committed culminating in 3 dead and 2 injured, (with good assistance from their kind lawyer 'Wendell Wong') perhaps the best thing that they should do is to pray hard that Ma Chi's estate is adequate (not made bankrupt) to cover for the deaths and damages consequent of the criminal conduct Ma Chi on public roads on 12May2012. Ma Chi's criminal driving habits were immoral if not criminal and other innocent subscribers to AXA motor insurance should not be expected to subsidize the damages consequent to Ma Chi's criminal acts; least of all the taxi occupants and other innocent victims- none of them should be short-changed despite the lengthy process of claiming insurance pay-outs.

Illegal F1 racing on public roads and the willful disregard of traffic signals must not be condoned, and Singapore laws must make that clearly so.

Ref:
- 'Motor insurance premiums continue to rise' - 'Motor insurance premiums continue to rise': "SINGAPORE : Motor insurance premiums will continue to go up this year as insurers look to recoup underwriting losses, said the president of the General Insurance Association of Singapore (GIA) Derek Teo." [CNA, 17Mar2011]

Family of dead Ferrari driver sues insurers
AXA Singapore had told Mr Ma's family that the crash was a "collision", not an accident.
Tue, Aug 14, 2012; AsiaOne
The wife and mother left behind by deceased Ferrari driver Ma Chi are taking the vehicle's insurers to court after the companies said they intend to withdraw coverage for the deadly crash.
The Straits Times reported insurers AXA Singapore had told Mr Ma's family that the crash on May 12 at Rochor Road was a "collision", not an accident.
What this means in the insurance industry is that the driver was aware that his actions would cause an accident, thereby voiding the insurers' liability to make a payout.
Mr Ma's family wants the High Court to reject this finding by suing the insurers.
The lawsuit is believed to be the first such reported case in Singapore and is becoming a public interest issue as to how accidents are treated as "collisions", under which an insurer can reject liability. The accident in May left three, including Mr Ma, dead and two others injured. He had allegedly run a red light, crashed into a taxi, which then hit a motorcycle.
According to The Straits Times, AXA first informed the Ma family of its decision last month. In the same month, the family had replied that they disagree with AXA's position.
The company then responded by asking the family not to liquidate any of Mr Ma's assets, and said the case should be arbitrated. AXA also asked the family to supply a list of his other assets.
Wendell Wong, lawyer for the Ma family, then filed a suit asking the High Court to rule that the crash was indeed an accident and not a "collision" as claimed by AXA.
The family released a statement on Monday, "It is not an easy decision but the family feels that we need to seek the assistance of the Singapore courts as the insurer made the decision to repudiate liability first.
"We just want to follow the Singapore laws as to what we need to do following the accident that affected people's lives."
A pre-trial conference has been scheduled for next month.
[email protected]

Click to expand...

BuriramUnitedFC said:

a lot depends on the policy contract, your example of using NTUC may be restricted for the debate. Maybe Mr Tan KL, as an insurance expert can give us some guidance.

Click to expand...

.


expect news blackout ...

cherry, but you know it is normal for insurers to deny liability first right? legal liability is not so straightforward

Post 'Ma Chi'- more affordable motor insurance premiums going forward?

Post 'Ma Chi'- more affordable motor insurance premiums going forward?

BuriramUnitedFC (16August2012) said:

Thread Context: Singapore Ferrari Accident: does crime pay?
cherry, but you know it is normal for insurers to deny liability first right? legal liability is not so straightforward

Click to expand...

Hi BuriramUnitedFC, I am not so much concerned if the insurers choose to deny liability, car owners/ drivers are not teenagers who don't have any ability to negotiate with the authorities- they can also seek advise from CASE, The Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre Ltd, free legal clinics (Hougang, every 3rd Tuesday of the mth [pdf][SBY-news]), their own personal legal council should they choose so- I think that insurance companies should compensate in so far as they are contractually liable to compensate and NOT to compensate (after having complied with all applicable laws, especially 'Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (CHAPTER 189)').

The reason for so is to prevent motor insurance premiums from escalating unnecessarily and so that those who really need to use cars- old, handicapped do not find motor premium payments/ charges too expensive/ burdensome.
To understand the principle of motor insurance, one must understand the context in which it is licensed in Singapore- principally by the government in context of 'Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (CHAPTER 189)' , a simpler explanation of which may be found at Victim wins civil suit against Ionescu or within this forum at 'Ma Chi's family sues insurers AXA after they withdraw coverage for deadly 'collision (post#28)'- principally that of the law requiring that 3rd party victims be adequately compensated regardless of the driver's ability to pay out personal compensation- the requirement "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 K Anparasan, KhattarWongLLP]. Anything in excess of the legislated requisite 3rd party motor insurance (e.g. the misnamed 1st party insurance/ comprehensive insurance) is thus for other 1st party damages/ liabilities that are generally unpreventable despite reasonable care e.g.: U are victim of car vandalism/ thief/ you are victim of a hit and run accident, floods sweep your car away, car despite proper care and maintenance caught fire after the warranty period, windscreen broken whilst driving on public roads/ by highway robbers, accident on M'sian roads with cow, zebra/ horse etc causing damage to car due to unavoidable accident despite traveling with speed limits, car skid due to new oily patch on road that was not demarcated e.g. sabotage etc (+at night, + car NOT speeding), accident with a bicycle- cyclist's fault but cyclist is too poor to compensate, driver of motor vehicle suffering sudden heart attack whilst driving with no warning signs/ symptoms etc etc etc.

Despite 1st party motor insurance generally being misnamed as "comprehensive", important exclusions clearly stated as follows:

AXA motor insurance contract [pdf: view][alt link]; (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.

Click to expand...

You could thus read that again: "(g) any wilful act and/or wilful negligence of yourself or that of your Authorised driver."

Thus, the ordinary 1st party insurance policies are NOT meant as coverage for accidents due to speeding, DUI, reckless/ careless driving, accidents caused by shooting red lights etc etc.

Perhaps the government could impose a more fluid tax upon insurers such that any amounts in excess of 20 percent earnings (profits) from motor insurance premiums over an up to 3 yrs declaration period should be taxed at 100% annually (tax free for profits below 20%)- and limits upon the management fees for the insurance scheme from exceeding 20% of premiums collected- thus the care by motor insurance companies across the board to ensure minimal unnecessary overhead costs, insured drivers remain careful and that premiums are kept to minimum so as to remain competitive, since drivers too would be able to insurance shop for the lowest rates. Drivers too will drive less recklessly as they know insurance companies to be careful about every cent paid out.

Motor insurance being a 'public good' and compulsory by legislation, ought be run on a 'not-for-profit' basis. Likewise, motor insurance SHOULD not promote the dangerous use of cars as private entertainment/ racing machines that illicitly abuse public roads as personal F1-racetracks/ playgrounds.

PS: 'Taxes' imposed upon motor insurance companies for profits in excess of 20% of premiums p.a. should be paid to a fund that subsidizes the care, welfare/ employment etc of hit and run victims wherein no insurer can be identified to compensate for such incidents (i.e. not to accrue as profits/ dividends to insurance co. shareholders). The 20% p.a. profit cap/ management fee cap figure is just a suggestion for consideration, it may be adjusted accordingly as necessary. The regulation suggested here to reduce motor insurance premiums is necessary due to the fact that motor insurance, according to the 'Motor Vehicles (Third-Party Risks and Compensation) Act (CHAPTER 189)' is compulsory; I am however, NOT advocating such regulations for other forms of life/ healthcare/ hospitalization etc insurance insofar that such insurance, unlike motor insurance in Singapore, are not legal necessities.