<TABLE border=0 cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%"><TBODY><TR>Case's advice on motor premiums impractical
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->LAST Thursday's report ('Motor workshops: Not our fault. Lawyers: Not our fault. General Insurance Association: Not around') mentioned the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) urging motorists to shop around for their car insurance policies and to ensure they are getting the best deal.
But how can the 'best deal' be sussed out when insurance companies insist comprehensive coverage must be applied for cars with outstanding loans?
It does not help that car insurance here is compulsory. This law cannot be circumvented and insurers have the upper hand in this matter.
Ask any mid-20s car owner with 1.6-litre car, or less, how much they paid for their insurance and they will quote a range of $3,000 to $6,000 with zero no-claims discount (NCD).
This is absolutely ridiculous when the car costs between $40,000 (off-peak car) and $60,000.
My 63-year-old relative who drives a 1.6-litre one-year-old car, with 50 per cent NCD and 5 per cent Certificate of Merit discount, paid almost $1,000 in renewal premium, from last year's $750.
And the ironic thing is, the value of his car (and all cars) depreciated.
In my opinion, the 'best deals' are policies that can provide the basic but necessary coverage to meet the compulsory requirement.
I am referring to third-party only coverage and third-party, fire and theft coverage (3PFT).
These two classes of insurance policies are cheap and highly affordable and meet the legislated requirement.
Comprehensive coverage has many unwanted small perks to build up the 'reasons to collect higher premiums'.
The least insurers can do is to offer 3PFT policies for cars with outstanding loans.
The respective regulatory body must step in and put in place 'fair dealings rules' for insurance companies to allow flexibility and options for the purchase of the two mentioned insurance coverage, alongside comprehensive coverage.
Let the buyers decide if they want to cover comprehensive or 3PFT, or third-party only. Let the buyer/insured know the consequences of trading in lower premium for lower coverage.
Let the buyers choose their coverage, premium and consequences. Su Kim Teck
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->LAST Thursday's report ('Motor workshops: Not our fault. Lawyers: Not our fault. General Insurance Association: Not around') mentioned the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case) urging motorists to shop around for their car insurance policies and to ensure they are getting the best deal.
But how can the 'best deal' be sussed out when insurance companies insist comprehensive coverage must be applied for cars with outstanding loans?
It does not help that car insurance here is compulsory. This law cannot be circumvented and insurers have the upper hand in this matter.
Ask any mid-20s car owner with 1.6-litre car, or less, how much they paid for their insurance and they will quote a range of $3,000 to $6,000 with zero no-claims discount (NCD).
This is absolutely ridiculous when the car costs between $40,000 (off-peak car) and $60,000.
My 63-year-old relative who drives a 1.6-litre one-year-old car, with 50 per cent NCD and 5 per cent Certificate of Merit discount, paid almost $1,000 in renewal premium, from last year's $750.
And the ironic thing is, the value of his car (and all cars) depreciated.
In my opinion, the 'best deals' are policies that can provide the basic but necessary coverage to meet the compulsory requirement.
I am referring to third-party only coverage and third-party, fire and theft coverage (3PFT).
These two classes of insurance policies are cheap and highly affordable and meet the legislated requirement.
Comprehensive coverage has many unwanted small perks to build up the 'reasons to collect higher premiums'.
The least insurers can do is to offer 3PFT policies for cars with outstanding loans.
The respective regulatory body must step in and put in place 'fair dealings rules' for insurance companies to allow flexibility and options for the purchase of the two mentioned insurance coverage, alongside comprehensive coverage.
Let the buyers decide if they want to cover comprehensive or 3PFT, or third-party only. Let the buyer/insured know the consequences of trading in lower premium for lower coverage.
Let the buyers choose their coverage, premium and consequences. Su Kim Teck
