Teacher Joanathan Lock Wins Case
-
That's strange, because your insurance company should be handling the case. Letters still get CC-ed to you but your insurance lawyers should take it up with NTUC lawyers.Originally posted by Ponders:I was hit by a vehicle that was insured by NTUC.
When trying to claim third party from them, they said their client have not reported the accident to them. So they say they will wait for the client to report the accident.
The other party was finding excuses to not report, e.g. Reservist, OT, other plans, etc.
Few months later, they wrote me a letter, saying because their client did not report the accident within 48 hours of the event, the client has frustrated contract terms and therefore his insurance coverage is voided.
They still wrote they absolve all responsibilities and the case is between me, my insurer and the other party.
I end up have to pay for repairing my own damage. And my only option then was to pay $3000 upfront for legal fees if I want to pursue.
My big question is, What's stopping NTUC from saying the same story to everybody?
They can say they cancelled that client's policy, but the next day that client can sign up a new policy with NTUC and carry on as per normal.
A writ of summons can be issued to NTUC if they do not have sufficient grounds to absolve responsibility. Your lawyers should be well versed in the appropriate procedure. This summons will require NTUC to respond with a satisfactory settlement or counter claim suit, else they have to go to court.
I am not surprised by the myriad of excuses from NTUC; my experience with NTUC (twice now) is that they never own up and prefer to drag the case out, extending legal costs etc etc. These typical dirty tricks are wtat befuddles the legal process, turning a simple case into a ridiculous and frivalous waste of monies, as in the case of Mr Jonathan Lock. -
Every insurance company will disclaim liability for this and that. They will try not to pay, even for a small sum (like Mr Lock's case). They have retained lawyers, so they want lawyer to work. Lawyers get paid by the 'size' of claim or 'complexity' of case. So, using common sense - you come to your own conclusion what lawyers will do in order to drive Lexuses.Originally posted by Ponders:I was hit by a vehicle that was insured by NTUC.
When trying to claim third party from them, they said their client have not reported the accident to them. So they say they will wait for the client to report the accident.
The other party was finding excuses to not report, e.g. Reservist, OT, other plans, etc.
Few months later, they wrote me a letter, saying because their client did not report the accident within 48 hours of the event, the client has frustrated contract terms and therefore his insurance coverage is voided.
They still wrote they absolve all responsibilities and the case is between me, my insurer and the other party.
I end up have to pay for repairing my own damage. And my only option then was to pay $3000 upfront for legal fees if I want to pursue.
My big question is, What's stopping NTUC from saying the same story to everybody?
They can say they cancelled that client's policy, but the next day that client can sign up a new policy with NTUC and carry on as per normal.
I too have my fair share of frustrations dealing with insurance companies - not one (NTUC) included.
So, my conclusion is that insurance companies have the same tactics but a few may be worst than others. -
insurance companies are by nature quite sleazy, and NTUC Income is probably one of the worst, if not the worst.
-
I am in the same position now, though not with Income. A lorry hit me and the driver was quick to give me his particulars and drove off. I made a report with my insurer and had my car repaired. After two months, I got no news and I checked with my lawyer. They say the other party did not report the accident so the insurer will deny liabilities... meaning I had to absord the cost ??? I got so fed up. I told them I had given them the driver particulars and it up to them to find the driver instead they ask me if I can contact him... !!! what is wrong with Singapore law now ...???Originally posted by Ponders:I was hit by a vehicle that was insured by NTUC.
When trying to claim third party from them, they said their client have not reported the accident to them. So they say they will wait for the client to report the accident.
The other party was finding excuses to not report, e.g. Reservist, OT, other plans, etc.
Few months later, they wrote me a letter, saying because their client did not report the accident within 48 hours of the event, the client has frustrated contract terms and therefore his insurance coverage is voided.
They still wrote they absolve all responsibilities and the case is between me, my insurer and the other party.
I end up have to pay for repairing my own damage. And my only option then was to pay $3000 upfront for legal fees if I want to pursue.
My big question is, What's stopping NTUC from saying the same story to everybody?
They can say they cancelled that client's policy, but the next day that client can sign up a new policy with NTUC and carry on as per normal. -
got report police ?Originally posted by ORIGAMIST:I am in the same position now, though not with Income. A lorry hit me and the driver was quick to give me his particulars and drove off. I made a report with my insurer and had my car repaired. After two months, I got no news and I checked with my lawyer. They say the other party did not report the accident so the insurer will deny liabilities... meaning I had to absord the cost ??? I got so fed up. I told them I had given them the driver particulars and it up to them to find the driver instead they ask me if I can contact him... !!! what is wrong with Singapore law now ...??? -
no injury so no police report . .Originally posted by kramnave:got report police ? -
You don't report police who help you enforce law ?Originally posted by ORIGAMIST:no injury so no police report . . -
if I am not wrong, where there is no injury or damaged to public property, police bo chap one.... ...unless I am wrong .. please correct me ..Originally posted by kramnave:You don't report police who help you enforce law ?
-
yah, but now he never report mah...is he uncontactable ?Originally posted by ORIGAMIST:if I am not wrong, where there is no injury or damaged to public property, police bo chap one.... ...unless I am wrong .. please correct me .. -
so we know now there is a loop hole... the wrong doer don't report and can get away with it . . .Originally posted by kramnave:yah, but now he never report mah...is he uncontactable ? -
Yes, my insurance company is handling it and CC stuff to me. Ultimately, they got that "absolution" letter from NTUC and told me its really up to me to pursue the matter.Originally posted by BillyBong:That's strange, because your insurance company should be handling the case. Letters still get CC-ed to you but your insurance lawyers should take it up with NTUC lawyers.
A writ of summons can be issued to NTUC if they do not have sufficient grounds to absolve responsibility. Your lawyers should be well versed in the appropriate procedure. This summons will require NTUC to respond with a satisfactory settlement or counter claim suit, else they have to go to court.
I am not surprised by the myriad of excuses from NTUC; my experience with NTUC (twice now) is that they never own up and prefer to drag the case out, extending legal costs etc etc. These typical dirty tricks are wtat befuddles the legal process, turning a simple case into a ridiculous and frivalous waste of monies, as in the case of Mr Jonathan Lock.
But my Insurance company told me, that looking at circumstances, they are willing to pay for damages down to my excess.
For them to have writ of summons they want me to pay $3000 upfront first.
Till today, I am just pissed that if i think back, I am the only "victim"
The damage to the bus was negligible. My damage was about $4500 (though i only paid $700 of it).
The other party can just sign up another policy (if NTUC actually cancelled his policy in the first place).
In all, I think i am the only one who actually forked out money. -
Hmmm...this is f***ed up...so if we are involved in an accident, no injury and no destruction of public property, we cannot lodge a police report, and if the other party refused to report to his or her insurance company, there is nothing we can do about it but to absorb the cost for repairing the damage to our vehicles??
Going back to NTUC and Jonathan Lock, read that NTUC is offering him $50,000 now although he rejected their first offer before the appeal (the first offer was on condition he drop his appeal). Now he has won the appeal, I am surprise that NTUC is still willing to offer him cash again. Looks like NTUC is doing some damage control.
-
A side story of my main story, my insurance company said if the other party did not report the incident to his insurance company and the company "absolved" themselves, I can report to police saying it is hit and run.Originally posted by ORIGAMIST:if I am not wrong, where there is no injury or damaged to public property, police bo chap one.... ...unless I am wrong .. please correct me ..
I made a police report TWO times, the first time they did not want to receive the report because no injury/public property damage. But after explaining the circumstances they allowed me to report.
The Police classified it as hit and run.
Few weeks later, got letter from police saying that because no injury and public property damage, they will not investigate it.
So I called my insurance agent/lawyer again, told me to write to police the circumstances.
So I wrote. The very best they did was to visit the other party and "urge" him to report to insurance agent.
He finally did report (5 months later). But NTUC said, we absolvED (Past tense) responsibility, so it doesn't matter if he reported the accident. -
It's called "Shut-up, we-know-we-are-in-the-wrong-and-want-to-cover-up " Money.Originally posted by Kachui:Hmmm...this is f***ed up...so if we are involved in an accident, no injury and no destruction of public property, we cannot lodge a police report, and if the other party refused to report to his or her insurance company, there is nothing we can do about it but to absorb the cost for repairing the damage to our vehicles??
Going back to NTUC and Jonathan Lock, read that NTUC is offering him $50,000 now although he rejected their first offer before the appeal (the first offer was on condition he drop his appeal). Now he has won the appeal, I am surprise that NTUC is still willing to offer him cash again. Looks like NTUC is doing some damage control. -
I think you guys need to be educated a bit. An insurance company is fully entitled to repudiate liability against their insured for not reporting the accident or not cooperating. Read your insurance policies please.
Just because an insurance company repudiates liability against their insured doesn't mean that you cannot still sue against the insured. -
Yes i am aware they can repudiate.Originally posted by Rexdriver:I think you guys need to be educated a bit. An insurance company is fully entitled to repudiate liability against their insured for not reporting the accident or not cooperating. Read your insurance policies please.
Just because an insurance company repudiates liability against their insured doesn't mean that you cannot still sue against the insured.
But doing so on technicalities.... is a cheap move.
It not about we being uneducated, but about how protected (or not) we are.
Say I got into an accident and lost my limb, and my insurance company said that they are not paying me because my Road Tax disc is on the right side of the windscreen and hence the car was in an "illegal state" during the accident.
I would feel damn pissed.
We are just saying, the law isn't protecting the victim enough and insurance companies with all their resources and easily muscle out themselves.
If you notice some developed countries have laws specifically protecting parties of a Motor Vehicle accident, that insurance companies can ONLY repudiate liability IF the insured was drunk driving, involved in a crime, fleeing from police, etc. -
yes I know.. I can sue. But I need to engage a lawyer and look at what happen to Mr Lock ... I cannot afford that kind of money.... we do not enage lawyer very often, so how are we to know the lawyer is not out to fleece us !! ... last time must report to police and then we claims from insurance... thing were fairly ok except that the police say they are blogged down with such paper work that they decided that otherwise ... for their convenience, the people have to suffer lor ... this is SINGAPORE !!!Originally posted by Rexdriver:I think you guys need to be educated a bit. An insurance company is fully entitled to repudiate liability against their insured for not reporting the accident or not cooperating. Read your insurance policies please.
Just because an insurance company repudiates liability against their insured doesn't mean that you cannot still sue against the insured.
-
after all these I decided to call my lawyers to check the progress ... they say they receives the photos I sent them and will proceed to check with the other party .. then I asked how much are we claiming them, they told me only the access and the loss of use of car.. I asked them " what about the repair to my car ?". " oh that one, you are to check with your insurance !" ..
Wah lau .... after so long then they tell me I have to check with my insurer !!! What the f@#$ !!!!!!!!! -
To those who were personally involved: now's the best time to write to the straits times forum and raise this issue. You won't have a better chance than this!
-
Mr lock has to be blame partially for this long running court case, insurance company are not lazy, put it this way, even you report the case to insurance company, they will either ask you whether do you want to claim in your policy or claim against the other party, i believe he must have told NTUC, it is not his fault, he wanted to claim against the other party, as a result,
first an examiner will look at this case, wait for survey report, and then determine , imagine every single day, there are reports coming in.
Mr lock should have settle the case long time ago, i am disgusted by that mr lock behaviour, he should have settle the case with the insurer, for those who never work in a claims department before, i don't think you understand how much paperwork is involved in a single claim, he is more worried about his ncb, THATS WHY, he doesn't want to settle this case earlier on.
i spit on this guy -
that lock will be black listed by many insurance company, this guy is nothing more than a troublemaker, and such a small amount of money, he wants to engage a lawyer in the first place, he is nothing more than a moron, he could settle with insurance company instead of making a ho ha matter out of it, it is not even matter of life and death, or someone is dead from the accident.
-
Would you like to be in Mr Lock's shoe?Originally posted by allentyb:that lock will be black listed by many insurance company, this guy is nothing more than a troublemaker, and such a small amount of money, he wants to engage a lawyer in the first place, he is nothing more than a moron, he could settle with insurance company instead of making a ho ha matter out of it, it is not even matter of life and death, or someone is dead from the accident. -
look, in the first place, the repair fee is so little, i would have settle this thing long time ago, instead of dragging it for so long, i work in AIG, one of the biggest motor insurance company, in claims department, i have seen worse case before, this sort of case, should have never reach court of appeal at all, so that mr lock must be a greedy man, that he wants to prolong this case for so long, i don't understand the rational behind his action other than label that guy as a moron dick head.Originally posted by Ponders:Would you like to be in Mr Lock's shoe?
if the repair bill is so damn huge or it is total loss issue, then he should fight the case, but the fact is the repair bill is less than 500 dollars, and he wants to take so much risk as to fight all the way to the court of appeal, this is something i don't understand, if he lose, he would have to declare bankrupt, but for his case, i think he is stupid, thats why he doesn't understand.
i have seen cases where, people have to go through major surgery, porsche burning up (total loss). his case is so small, what the judge has mention is right, it is a total waste of the court time, Mr lock has a choice to purse the case or not, but he still purse, this is how dumb, he is
again, i spit on this sort of guy, major insurance company should blacklist him forever, troublemaker -
this is standard, they will let you claim $50 per day for the loss of use for the car, then wait for the examiner to determine the damage, and now you want to claim against the other party, do you think the other party will admit that it is his fault, the other party also don't want his ncb to be affected, and furthermore, the examiner would have alot of cases to handle, if you expect your case to handle first, dream onOriginally posted by ORIGAMIST:after all these I decided to call my lawyers to check the progress ... they say they receives the photos I sent them and will proceed to check with the other party .. then I asked how much are we claiming them, they told me only the access and the loss of use of car.. I asked them " what about the repair to my car ?". " oh that one, you are to check with your insurance !" ..
Wah lau .... after so long then they tell me I have to check with my insurer !!! What the f@#$ !!!!!!!!!
even you threaten the insurer a writ of summon, they will just refer this to their lawyer. You better pray that you will win bah, or GG -
lol this guy is my sister's form teacher...