Teacher Joanathan Lock Wins Case
-
Originally posted by allentyb:
I believe Mr Lock did not bring the case to the court of appeal but to the PDRC, and he thought he settled the case at the point when PDRC made its ruling. That was what the PDRC was set up for; to settle small dispute. But it was the lawyers who dragged it to the high court which ruled that Mr Lock has to pay $60,000 of legal fees, which forced him to have no other choice but bring the case to the appeal court. It would have settled if the lawyers did not dispute over a mere $60 of legal fees.
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,[b] 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.
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[/b]
Anyhow, a few hundred dollars may mean nothing for a insurance professional like you, but for a teacher earning around $1800, that is a substantial sum. -
K, i agree with you in principle that yes, if the amount is small we should see whether further legal trouble is needed to settle.
I guess Mr Lock has his reasons for pursuing the matter.
But i believe such harsh words on him is uncalled for.
What I am unhappy about the entire case is NTUC trying to muscle out people. -
In a way, NTUC is protecting their own interest, that lock shouldn't have engage a lawyer in the first place for such a small amount of money and i understand what you are saying, just that i don't understand at all, why he doesn't want to settle this before it even reach the court, his stupidity is for all to be seen, the amount of lawyer fees mountain up to such a huge amount, is because of the prolong of the court cases, if he had settle for, what ntuc has to offer, he could get something out of it, he could be $20k richer, but he didn't, that is a stupid move of his, now he end up with nothingOriginally posted by Ponders:K, i agree with you in principle that yes, if the amount is small we should see whether further legal trouble is needed to settle.
I guess Mr Lock has his reasons for pursuing the matter.
But i believe such harsh words on him is uncalled for.
What I am unhappy about the entire case is NTUC trying to muscle out people.
seriously, such stupidity is for everyone to be seen, even NTUC wants to waive off the lawyer fees, so what happens, it is NTUC 1 - LOCK O, he end up with nothing,
wasted his time, wasted the court time, THIS CASE SHOULDN'T HAVE END UP IN COURT AT ALL, if anyone doesn't understand the picture at all, then i will be rofl = rolling on the floor laughing.
He acted in his pride, he took too much risk, as a result, he end up a loser, just another troublemaker for any insurance company
if he is claiming 100 thousand dollars against an insurance company, then his action will be justified, but a fool like him, doesn't understand the simplicity of this, yet, wanted to complicate the matters further, which he wanted to cover his ass by, going to the court, imagine he lose the case, he would have to declare bankrupted. Still the outcome is, he end up with nothing.
A fool turn down an offer of $20K and wanted more, end up with nothing, which remind me of a story: a cat was bitting on a fish on his way back, and as he was looking at his own reflection at the river side, he wanted to bite the other fish, he drop the fish, without knowingly that it is just his reflection, that he is seeing.
there, he lose his meal, months have been wasted, a fool, indeed he is. only stupidity can be describle for his actions, a blind man overcome by his own greed, thinking he could have more, only to end up with nothing, mockery to be spare on him, laughter can be heard from the wise, what is the conclusion , a good ending, nope, just a close chapter on this to remind the rest of the people out there, settle the damn case asap, otherwise it will end up bad on yourself only -
he had no choice but to bring it to court of appeal, then in retrospect, why did he engage a lawyer in the first place, for such a small amount of claims, the lawyer fee will be even more huge than what he is claiming, this is stupidity, and his own pride has eaten him up, he should have settled with NTUC long time ago, but he didn't, and you are just repeating what the new paper have been mentioning so far, and my point of view will not change - he is a moron and a greedy manOriginally posted by Kachui:I believe Mr Lock did not bring the case to the court of appeal but to the PDRC, and he thought he settled the case at the point when PDRC made its ruling. That was what the PDRC was set up for; to settle small dispute. But it was the lawyers who dragged it to the high court which ruled that Mr Lock has to pay $60,000 of legal fees, which forced him to have no other choice but bring the case to the appeal court. It would have settled if the lawyers did not dispute over a mere $60 of legal fees.
Anyhow, a few hundred dollars may mean nothing for a insurance professional like you, but for a teacher earning around $1800, that is a substantial sum. -
what is GG ?Originally posted by allentyb: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 on
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 -
GOOD GAMEOriginally posted by ORIGAMIST:what is GG ? -
allentyb, I don't think you know what you are talking about at all. Firstly, he brought the case to the PDRC only and didn't intend to bring the matter further up the courts, for which he won: http://motoring.asiaone.com/Motoring/News/Story/A1Story20070913-25268.htmlOriginally posted by allentyb:he had no choice but to bring it to court of appeal, then in retrospect, why did he engage a lawyer in the first place, for such a small amount of claims, the lawyer fee will be even more huge than what he is claiming, this is stupidity, and his own pride has eaten him up, he should have settled with NTUC long time ago, but he didn't, and you are just repeating what the new paper have been mentioning so far, and my point of view will not change - he is a moron and a greedy man
Why did he do that? Probably because the other party refused to take responsibility for the damages. I don't see any reason why he would take it up to the PDRC if the other party agreed to pay him. Of course, I don't know that for sure, but do you?
Secondly, he already received the cheque and it was because his lawyer made some counter-moves without his knowledge that made the other party appeal it to the higher courts, as can be seen from the article.
http://tnp.sg/news/story/0,4136,143756,00.html
Thirdly, he avoided the $25,000 offered by NTUC because he was being sued for $80,000 by his former lawyer, Andrew Hanam, for unpaid legal fees. If he had accepted the $25,000, he might have to end up paying $80,000 legal fees to the lawyer and after deducting the $25,000 given by NTUC, would still have to fork out $55,000. That's why he took it to the court of appeal. So now that he has won, he doesn't need to pay anything. Get your facts right
http://www.straitstimes.com/Free/Story/STIStory_158166.html
He was greedy? I have never read of him trying to get any money from anybody. He ended up not having to pay the legal fees of $150,000, from both NTUC and his former lawyer, which is exactly what he wanted. But now NTUC is still offering him some money anyway and you should ask why NTUC is suddenly becoming so generous instead. -
Out of curiousity, what is the name of your insurance company?Originally posted by Ponders: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.
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.
It is unusual for them NOT to pursue the case, especially since you have the details of the other driver and have made an official accident statement. There are more than sufficient grounds for them to pursue NTUC, especially since the vehicle of the culprit was indeed registered under NTUC. Therefore, by proxy, they are the responsible party.
It doesn't matter whether the other party reported the accident. NTUC has an obligation to pay for your damages. Negligence and excuses from them are not acceptable.
And your insurance company sure as h.ell should not demand a payout from you before issuing a writ of summons. That's daylight robbery when they SHOULD be covering your costs and pursuing the case. -
Any fine print that goes against fair practices cannot be applied. There was a recent ruling somewhere that one can sue on those grounds, especially if the terms of the insurance coverage are MEANT to protect a client, but have failed to adequately do so.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. -
Your comments belly your limited knowledge of actual cases. And you still claim to work for AIG?Originally posted by allentyb:
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
How sure were you that his first lawyer was not assigned to him by his insurance company?
FYI his first lawyer is being investigated for 'failure to discharge adequate responsibilities to protect his client'; this also implies that the lawyer may have overzealously pursued his claims to recover his legal fees, prompting the whole chain of events in the first place by sparking a tit-for-tat spat between him and NTUC.
Jonathan Lock had absolutely nothing to do with it. As with standard accident cases, most victims do not get daily updates from their lawyers on proceedings. How could he have orchestrated the whole bedlam as you claim? It is even more incredelous that he would mastermind an attempt to undermine the legal system since his claim was a paltry $100+.
You should spit on yourself first before slandering others. -
Originally posted by BillyBong:
Your comments belly your limited knowledge of actual cases. And you still claim to work for AIG?
How sure were you that his first lawyer was not assigned to him by his insurance company?
FYI his first lawyer is being investigated for [b]'failure to discharge adequate responsibilities to protect his client'; this also implies that the lawyer may have overzealously pursued his claims to recover his legal fees, prompting the whole chain of events in the first place by sparking a tit-for-tat spat between him and NTUC.
Jonathan Lock had absolutely nothing to do with it. As with standard accident cases, most victims do not get daily updates from their lawyers on proceedings. How could he have orchestrated the whole bedlam as you claim? It is even more incredelous that he would mastermind an attempt to undermine the legal system since his claim was a paltry $100+.
You should spit on yourself first before slandering others. [/b]
you just don't quite get what i have mentioned, why in the first place, did he wants to engage a lawyer for such a small amount of claims, and why didn't he settle with ntuc, ntuc offer 20k and wanted to waive off the 48k lawyer fees,
and i am no longer, working for aig, and if you never read finish what i have typed, please don't make a fool out of yourself
again, i still spit on this greedy man -
oh god, over a claim less than 1k and he engaged a lawyer, when he could have settle with ntuc in the first place , how ridiculous can it be, if he never look for a lawyer, this will not be in court, if you are claiming up to 100k lah, then it justify what that fellow is doing
i don't understand the rational any of it, ntuc offer 20k and wanted to waive off the 48k lawyer fees to put an end to this matter -
Oh, you didn't read my post?Originally posted by allentyb:oh god, over a claim less than 1k and he engaged a lawyer, when he could have settle with ntuc in the first place , how ridiculous can it be, if he never look for a lawyer, this will not be in court, if you are claiming up to 100k lah, then it justify what that fellow is doing
i don't understand the rational any of it, ntuc offer 20k and wanted to waive off the 48k lawyer fees to put an end to this matter -
NTUC Income to further waive $15,000 of teacher's legal bill
NTUC Income, expressing relief with the closure of teacher Jonathan Lock's drawn-out court saga, on Wednesday offered to waive a further $15,000 of the $45,000 he is liable to pay the insurer.
This brings to $40,000 it has offered to help Mr Lock settle his costly legal tangle that started from a simple accident case.
Income's offer came hours after the Appeals court vindicated Mr Lock and ordered all the parties involved to bear their own costs, and a week after the primary school teacher turned down its earlier offer to give him a goodwill payment of $25,000.
Mr Tan had said then it was the company's way of helping someone who had "found himself caught in the middle of a protracted and unnecessary legal process". But a condition attached to Income's offer was that Mr Lock drop his case that was pending in the Appeals Court.
Mr Lock rejected it. Instead, he decided to let the Appeals Court decide whether an earlier court decision which made him ultimately liable for Income's legal bills still held. And he was vindicated on Wednesday.
Reacting to the Appeals Court's ruling, Income's Chief Executive, Mr Tan Suee Chieh, said in a statement on Wednesday: "Despite the Court of Appeal ruling against NTUC Income this morning, we are pleased and relieved with the closure of this unfortunate saga, which has gone on too far and for too long, without serving the interests of our customer, Jonathan Lock nor NTUC Income.
"Today's ruling is a positive outcome for Jonathan Lock and his family."
He added: "We deeply regret the distress which Jonathan and Shane Lock have had to endure. For these reasons, we had previously offered $25,000 to help them with their legal bills. To assist Jonathan Lock with his remaining financial obligations, we will increase our contribution by another $15,000, making it a total of $40,000.
"NTUC Income places people above process, and we seek to conduct our business with fairness and for the benefit of the people who are most important to us, namely our customers. Our overriding objective is to protect the interests of our customers, individually and as a whole. We believe our recent actions have been consistent with these principles."
Income had earlier also asked its lawyers to arrange for the lifting of the freeze on the items in Mr Lock's flat which were to to have been seized to pay for the costs he owed.
The case began with a hearing in the Primary Dispute Resolution Centre in March last year. It was to settle the November 2004 accident between Mr Lock's motorcycle and a car driven by Ms Jessiline Goh.
Mr Lock got $188 and Ms Goh was asked to pay $1,200 in costs. After getting a cheque for that amount, he thought the matter closed.
But the lawyer then representing him extracted a court order and took out a writ of seizure against Ms Goh to enforce payment of the $1,200.
This move set in motion a series of events that led to High Court judge Lai Siu Chiu agreeing, in May, with the NTUC's appeal that Mr Lock should be liable for the total costs of the case.
The $65,000 bill was cut to $45,000 after a review.
WHO IN THE RIGHT MIND, WANTS TO REJECT, AN OFFER LIKE THIS
20K GOODWILL MONEY, 48K TO WAIVE OFF THE LAWYER FEES -
'Work' or 'worked' is irrelevant. Since you claim to have WORKED for AIG previously, you should know how the system works. In fact, you should be far more aware WHY victims adopt a certain course of action than others, yet all you've managed is crap and misguided claims. You even managed to warp fact into fiction.Originally posted by allentyb:
you just don't quite get what i have mentioned, why in the first place, did he wants to engage a lawyer for such a small amount of claims, and why didn't he settle with ntuc, ntuc offer 20k and wanted to waive off the 48k lawyer fees,
and i am no longer, working for aig, and if you never read finish what i have typed, please don't make a fool out of yourself
again, i still spit on this greedy man
Obviously, selective reading isn't going to help you, or you would have noticed my comments on whether his lawyer was ASSIGNED or independently SOURCED.
Since his personal aim was to clear his name and absolve himself of the ridiculous legal bill, how did 'greed' come into the picture? It is amazing how you draw your self-deluded conclusions.
Continue making wild accusations like that and you just might just make the coverted list of resident trolls. -
I already mentioned before, insurance company will protect their own interest, and furthermore, he rejected the 25k goodwill money, and 48k to waive off the lawyer fees, all he need to do, is just drop the case that is pending in court of appeal, he could have walk away with 25k richer, but he didn'tOriginally posted by BillyBong:'Work' or 'worked' is irrelevant. Since you claim to have WORKED for AIG previously, you should know how the system works. In fact, you should be far more aware WHY victims adopt a certain course of action than others, yet all you've managed is crap and misguided claims. You even managed to warp fact into fiction.
Obviously, selective reading isn't going to help you, or you would have noticed my comments on whether his lawyer was ASSIGNED or independently SOURCED.
Since his personal aim was to clear his name and absolve himself of the ridiculous legal bill, how did 'greed' come into the picture? It is amazing how you draw your self-deluded conclusions.
Continue making wild accusations like that and you just might just make the coverted list of resident trolls.
he was greedy, if he never had engage a lawyer, issue a writ of summon over a SMALL claim, none of this would have happened. if you don't understand this, then i have nothing to say. -
Does principles and moral values mean anything to you?Originally posted by allentyb:The $65,000 bill was cut to $45,000 after a review.
WHO IN THE RIGHT MIND, WANTS TO REJECT, AN OFFER LIKE THIS
20K GOODWILL MONEY, 48K TO WAIVE OFF THE LAWYER FEES
In the first place, NTUC are no angels. Only upon publication of Lock's plight in the Straits Times did NTUC extend this olive branch. But Lock rightly rejected the offer because it came with an unconditional withdrawal to pursue the case in the court of appeal.
His choice was simple: accept the partial payment with another round of legal fees looming (with his first lawyer) or clear his name and absolve all legal costs.
The decision was a no-brainer.
Why should he accept a 'pay-off' which will not cover all his costs and still leave him in financial difficulties? That kind of settlement is no settlement at all. By accepting the offer, NTUC's public standing would have been falsely elevated, when they were in fact partially at fault for whole situation in the first place.
If anything, he should be dubbed a man of high moral standing.
As for NTUC, their continued attempt to offer Lock a pay-off seems more like an attempt to win back public opinion then a real gesture of real kindness. -
Pray tell me how he would have been 25K 'richer', when he still 'owed' 80K in legal fees to his first lawyer????Originally posted by allentyb:I already mentioned before, insurance company will protect their own interest, and furthermore, he rejected the 25k goodwill money, and 48k to waive off the lawyer fees, all he need to do, is just drop the case that is pending in court of appeal, he could have walk away with 25k richer, but he didn't
he was greedy, if he never had engage a lawyer, issue a writ of summon over a SMALL claim, none of this would have happened. if you don't understand this, then i have nothing to say. -
look, the lawyer can't be assigned, this is just a small claim doesn't even need to have a lawyer to represent him at all, the claim is less than 1k, and what was he thinking? if he had settle with ntuc, he wouldn't have end up this way, oh great, just because i am against this fellow, means that i am a troll, i don't think you get the picture at allOriginally posted by BillyBong:'Work' or 'worked' is irrelevant. Since you claim to have WORKED for AIG previously, you should know how the system works. In fact, you should be far more aware WHY victims adopt a certain course of action than others, yet all you've managed is crap and misguided claims. You even managed to warp fact into fiction.
Obviously, selective reading isn't going to help you, or you would have noticed my comments on whether his lawyer was ASSIGNED or independently SOURCED.
Since his personal aim was to clear his name and absolve himself of the ridiculous legal bill, how did 'greed' come into the picture? It is amazing how you draw your self-deluded conclusions.
Continue making wild accusations like that and you just might just make the coverted list of resident trolls.
if he accepted the offer that is make by ntuc, he wouldn't end up with nothing, he wanted more money, simple as that, this is my conclusion on him, if you can't accept this, then i think you are also a troll, because you simply can't accept what i have typed, and you are outright trying to throw me a flame bait.
my conclusion on him, is a stupid and a greedy man. -
i want to put an closure to what i said, ok fine!, he wanted to uphold high moral standard, since he is a teacher, great! as i already mentioned before, this claim doesn't need to be in a court to determine who is at fault, k?Originally posted by BillyBong:Pray tell me how he would have been 25K 'richer', when he still 'owed' 80K in legal fees to his first lawyer????
and look i already mention numerous time, when the heck, did he engage a lawyer over such a small claim, for what, maybe he consulted a lawyer, and the lawyer tells him, we can win this case, then he happy happy accepted it,
i don't understand the rational behind this at all, it is small claim less than 1k and still need to be settle in court of appeal, this is not a matter of life and death issue, he could have prevent all this by, settle with ntuc, from the start
oh ya, he has alot of moral, but he is a no brainer, in other words, stupid
and ok fine, i make a darn mistake on that part - greedy, i take back my words, he still own the lawyer fee, so die die no choice have to fight in court of appeal.
haiz, this is a f u c ked case, simple as that, a greedy lawyer, an ignorant teacher = carrot head -
Firstly, is it illegal to drive or ride without insurance coverage. (You should know that) Why are you so sure that his own insurance company did not assign him a lawyer?Originally posted by allentyb:look, the lawyer can't be assigned, this is just a small claim doesn't even need to have a lawyer to represent him at all, the claim is less than 1k, and what was he thinking? if he had settle with ntuc, he wouldn't have end up this way, oh great, just because i am against this fellow, means that i am a troll, i don't think you get the picture at all
if he accepted the offer that is make by ntuc, he wouldn't end up with nothing, he wanted more money, simple as that, this is my conclusion on him, if you can't accept this, then i think you are also a troll, because you simply can't accept what i have typed, and you are outright trying to throw me a flame bait.
my conclusion on him, is a stupid and a greedy man.
Alternatively, if he did indeed hire a lawyer, did his lawyer provide adequate advice? That is a contention issue at the heart of the law society's current investigation.
Either way, this actions exonerate him. It's amazing how you continue to distort the facts. -
Allen, I am not out to change your mind; I was just seeking clarifications because you kept on lambasting Mr Lock for bringing the case to the Court of Appeal, when he actually sought a quick settlement at PDRC. As Billybong has pointed out to you, it was the lawyers who forced the case to higher courts. It is obvious that you have a bias against people like Jonathan Lock, who gives a lot of paper work to insurance professionals like you.Originally posted by allentyb:he had no choice but to bring it to court of appeal, then in retrospect, why did he engage a lawyer in the first place, for such a small amount of claims, the lawyer fee will be even more huge than what he is claiming, this is stupidity, and his own pride has eaten him up, he should have settled with NTUC long time ago, but he didn't, and you are just repeating what the new paper have been mentioning so far, and my point of view will not change - he is a moron and a greedy man
And of course I got the information from the newspapers, where else can I get information on this case? I certainly don't have access to all the documents of the court proceedings. Don't tell me you have other sources of information on this case. Oh, I forgot, you WORK at AIG...so you must know more than us mere mortals.
Anyway, for someone who work for an insurance company, I have a feeling from what you have written, calling Joanathan "stupid" and "greedy", you have a contempt against clients who give you a lot of paper work. Thanks for the heads up, I will certainly avoid buying any insurance from AIG. -
The question of ignorance only comes in if a person chooses not to listen to sound advice or is oblivious to common knowledge and prefers to live in well.Originally posted by allentyb:i want to put an closure to what i said, ok fine!, he wanted to uphold high moral standard, since he is a teacher, great! as i already mentioned before, this claim doesn't need to be in a court to determine who is at fault, k?
and look i already mention numerous time, when the heck, did he engage a lawyer over such a small claim, for what, maybe he consulted a lawyer, and the lawyer tells him, we can win this case, then he happy happy accepted it,
i don't understand the rational behind this at all, it is small claim less than 1k and still need to be settle in court of appeal, this is not a matter of life and death issue, he could have prevent all this by, settle with ntuc, from the start
oh ya, he has alot of moral, but he is a no brainer, in other words, stupid
and ok fine, i make a darn mistake on that part - greedy, i take back my words, he still own the lawyer fee, so die die no choice have to fight in court of appeal.
haiz, this is a f u c ked case, simple as that, a greedy lawyer, an ignorant teacher = carrot head
When it comes down to legal issues, how often is the common man familiar with the precise options available? The average man on the street will certainly not have adequate knowledge of the law and how best to proceed. Following a lawyer's advice is the best option.
If the lawyer somehow mushrooms the costs to exhorbitant amounts, is it really the client's fault? Yes, you can label the lawyer as greedy and such, but it is the actions and intent that one should question. It is too simplistic to dismiss the case as one of a 'greedy lawyer' and 'ignorant client'.
A simple case like this mirrors many of the accident cases that are plaguing the legal system here. I'm sure there are plenty more cases just like Lock's pending to be settled but have not been blown to light. The ethical conduct of lawyers and insurance companies should take centerstage.
Ever since the TP absolved their responsibility to non-injury related accidents, insurance companies and their lawyers have been allowed to dictate play to their own ends. It is high time their unethical practices be brought to light and taken to task. Not only are they wasting the court's time, but their motives appear questionable: are they really protecting the clients' interests, as their role dictates? -
Same as where Attenby is working.Originally posted by BillyBong:Out of curiousity, what is the name of your insurance company?
It is unusual for them NOT to pursue the case, especially since you have the details of the other driver and have made an official accident statement. There are more than sufficient grounds for them to pursue NTUC, especially since the vehicle of the culprit was indeed registered under NTUC. Therefore, by proxy, they are the responsible party.
It doesn't matter whether the other party reported the accident. NTUC has an obligation to pay for your damages. Negligence and excuses from them are not acceptable.
And your insurance company sure as h.ell should not demand a payout from you before issuing a writ of summons. That's daylight robbery when they SHOULD be covering your costs and pursuing the case.
Well, my ins company simply put, just "made sure" i am happy by paying down damage to my excess. Any further claims against NTUC would be within their Claims Recovery policy.
After my company paid me down, they simply hand me over to their lawyer if i choose to proceed. -
How do you know what NTUC offered him from the start? Is it possible that they offered him nothing? Maybe you are the smart one who will let someone bang your car, cause hundreds of dollars in damage and get away with itOriginally posted by allentyb:and look i already mention numerous time, when the heck, did he engage a lawyer over such a small claim, for what, maybe he consulted a lawyer, and the lawyer tells him, we can win this case, then he happy happy accepted it,
i don't understand the rational behind this at all, it is small claim less than 1k and still need to be settle in court of appeal, this is not a matter of life and death issue, he could have prevent all this by, settle with ntuc, from the start