MOTORISTS face higher insurance premiums as insurers are suffering what they say are alarming losses.General Insurance Association president Derek Teo said yesterday: 'While there are some grounds for cautious optimism on some areas of our business in the first quarter of this year, the important motor account continues to produce underwriting losses at an alarming rate.'The GIA issued its quarterly report card on Friday, showing a 7.65 per cent rise in gross premiums in the first quarter. The gross premium income of GIA's 29 member companies was $670.66 million, against $623.02 million in the first quarter of 2006.But rising claims and expenses caused a fall in underwriting profits by 9.4 per cent or $54.5 million.Motor insurance, the largest single class of general insurance here, saw gross premium income stay flat at $195.7 million. But underwriting performance turned from a profit of $11 million in the first quarter of 2006 to a $13 million loss.'We advise motor policyholders that our industry can no longer sustain these kinds of escalating losses in a market which is such a key component in our business. Motor insurance premiums have been too low for a considerable period and these unsustainable losses must be corrected.'Singapore motorists can expect to pay more to insure their vehicles from now on.'GIA data showed that net incurred claims among its members climbed 14 per cent. Management expenses also rose by 10.9 per cent.In the fire segment, gross premium income fell by 6.4 per cent to $97.4 million. Underwriting profit was flat at $9.8 million.Workers compensation saw an 18 per cent jump in gross premium income to $60.7 million. Losses on the account were reduced from $4.4 million to just $182,000.There were some bright spots for some classes of insurance. In the marine hull sector, gross premium income was up at $18.3 million, and underwriting profit jumped 193 per cent to $6.6 million.Personal accident insurance recorded a gross premium income of $73.9 million, a 23 per cent rise. Underwriting profits doubled from $10.5 million to $21.1 million.
He modifies car, insurer voids policyBy Desmond NgIS IT modification when you change your car's stock rims to sports ones? Mr Jefri, 28, found out it is.When his insurer discovered he had switched to sports rims and made other modifications, it cancelled his policy and returned his premium.This happened after an accident in April this year, when the teacher was driving in Johor Baru and a Malaysian-registered car rear-ended his 1.4-litre Hyundai Verna.He had made a third-party claim against the Malaysian driver, but as a matter of procedure, alerted his own insurer - Aviva Singapore.But to his surprise, his insurer said his policy was cancelled because he had modified his car.Mr Jefri posted his experience with Aviva Singapore on a local Hyundai forum last month.So, did he modify his car?Yes, said Aviva Singapore.
ChangesModification refers to any change to a car that directly relates to how it works, said the insurer.This includes changes to engine performance, air intake systems, exhaust systems, and the handling characteristics of the car, such as suspension systems and strut bars.On top of that, changes to wheels, rims or tyres that are not within the manufacturers' defined and acceptable specifications are not allowed under the terms of Aviva's car insurance policies.Under LTA rules, some modifications are allowed as long as the changes stick to the manufacturer's recommendations.These include items such as sports rims, steering wheels and spoilers.But Mr Jefri claimed his modifications are LTA-compliant.He had paid about $3,000 to add sports rims, a strut bar, brake vacuum tube, voltage stabiliser, exhaust tail tip and meter gauge.He said: "Do all the above modifications affect the safety of the car?"(Aviva) terminated my notice immediately and expected me to search for an insurer immediately, and yet it would refund my premium only in one month's time."A check on LTA's website showed that some of his modifications, such as the sports rims, strut bar and meter gauge, may be allowed. But we were unable to verify the rest of the items as they were not listed on LTA's website.Mr Jefri received a letter from Aviva dated May 5 stating that his policy had been cancelled and he would be refunded fully.The insurer refunded him his premium of about $1,300 in full on May 20.He said he has since insured his car with another insurer for $700 for the remaining eight months. Mr Jefri told The New Paper that he purchased a motor insurance policy for his off-peak Hyundai Verna last December. The five-year-old car cost him $27,000 then.He said one of the questions asked on the Aviva form that he filled up was: "Has your vehicle been modified from the manufacturer's standard specifications?"Mr Jefri said he answered no. He said: "As far as I am concerned, modification refers to engine enhancement in terms of performance."In its letter, Aviva said if Mr Jefri had answered "Yes" to the question, the insurer would not have even provided a quotation. Aviva said it doesn't insure modified vehicles.Mr Jefri said he knew something was wrong when the insurer sent people over twice to take pictures of his car after the accident.He said that on the second trip, "instead of taking the pictures of the damage, they took photos of my engine bay, tyres and interior. I found that strange because the damage was on my bumper".
RepairedHe said the bumper has since been repaired for a few hundred dollars, and he's in the midst of claiming the amount from the Malaysian driver.Mr Jefri said that Aviva should be clearer on what constitutes a modification on its website.Aviva said it is unable to disclose information regarding specific claims or policy holders due to confidentiality reasons.The insurer added that if a policy is declared void because of car modifications not being disclosed, it will refund in full any premiums that have been paid by the policy holder.It does not insure modified vehicles, and if a customer says he has modified his vehicle, the quote process is stopped immediately.Mr Andrew Tait, Aviva's head of general insurance, said: "This is because we sell insurance online direct to the consumer, so simplicity and clarity are important."Modified vehicles require more complex underwriting."This definition does not include routine maintenance where like-for-like compatible non-manufacturer parts are used, said the insurer.Aviva said it has declined to pay claims for heavily modified cars but these claims represent only 0.16 per cent of the vehicles insured.Aviva is the world's sixth largest insurance group, going by its gross worldwide premiums as of Dec 31 last year, as listed on its website.
Get approval and declareA check of LTA's one.motoring website showed that some of Mr Jefri's modifications, such as the sports rims and meter gauge, are allowed.This is provided they are installed in accordance with the product manufacturer's recommendations.For sports rims, the size should be in accordance with the car manufacturer's recommendations.According to the one.motoring website, vehicle owners may modify their vehicles for many reasons, be it to improve the vehicle's performance or to create a distinctive appearance.LTA's website has a list of items that are allowed, those that need LTA's approval, and those that are not allowed at all.The rest of Mr Jefri's modifications are not listed on LTA's website.Owner of car workshop JMotowerkz , Mr Wong Soon Leong, 32, said the additional accessories that Mr Jefri installed on his car only enhance the car's performance in terms of road handling, not power.The largest motor insurer here, NTUCIncome, told The New Paper that if its policy holder installs LTA-approved parts such as the strut bars, sports rims or meter gauges, it doesn't void the coverage.However, the policyholder should declare these items.Said an NTUC Income spokesman: "Generally, a motor insurance policy covers all the standard parts and accessories that come with the car sold by the distributor."More expensive accessories that are not factory-fitted can be insured for an additional premium."If these expensive accessories or modifications are not declared in the application for insurance, then, in the event of a claim, the insurance company will pay only for the cost of the original parts and accessories."Motorists seeking to enhance the performance of their vehicles must seek approval by LTA, added NTUC Income.We understand that the number of motorists who had their policies cancelled by NTUC Income due to vehicle modifications is negligible.The other insurers that do accept modified cars charge a 10 to 50 per cent more to cover them, reported The Straits Times last November.And the onus is on the owner to ensurethat the modifications are declared in detail.
Singapore PR in traffic accident was '75 per cent' liable, says JudgePosted: 25 October 2011 0621 hrsSINGAPORE: A Singapore permanent resident who fractured his arms and right leg in an accident involving a van was found to be "75 per cent" liable for the accident, a judge ruled on Monday.Hence, he is only entitled to a quarter of the claims, which will be assessed by the court later.Mr Thorben Langvad Linneberg, 41, a freelance consultant, had claimed for general damages for his injuries, which include his "pain, suffering and loss of amenities" and future transport expenses. He also claimed for special damages close to S$263,000, including medical expenses and loss of earnings.Mr Linneberg, a Danish citizen, alleged that the collision on June 3, 2009, at Clemenceau Avenue North was caused solely by the negligence of Madam Leong Mei Kuen, who was driving the van.Mr Linneberg claimed that Mdm Leong had failed to keep a proper lookout for his motorcycle and failed to signal right before executing the U-turn or right turn.His lawyer also suggested to Mdm Leong that she did not check her right wing and rear view mirror, as well as her blind spot.Mdm Leong denied his claims: She had checked for traffic on the opposite side and on her side of the road before making the turn.Mdm Leong pointed out that she had stopped her vehicle to let a student alight before the accident. She added that she had checked for traffic and signalled right before engaging the gear to move off.She alleged that Mr Linneberg was riding his motorcycle at an excessive speed and failed to keep a proper lookout.Justice Lai Siu Chiu ruled that Mdm Leong's evidence was consistent, while Mr Linneberg made no mention of the speed he was travelling at when he was interviewed by the Traffic Police. - TODAY
