Accident Insurance Claim Refused Because Doesn't Have Driving Licence

Sukarto

New Member
1
First please forgive my grammar, my English is not good.

In Indonesia, we have accident insurance which cover claim for accident happened. Now there is a accident insurance which covers claim if accident happened in traffic when it doesn't happen on purpose and doesn't break the law.

The definition of not breaking the law, as so far I understand if the person doesn't break the law related to accident to happen or increasing the risk of having the accident like crossing the red light, speeding, etc.

One big accident happen in Indonesia, and a big-world well known-insurance company refuses to pay the claim just because the person doesn't bring/have driving license. As far as I know, there is no related connection between getting accident and bringing/having driving license. The capability of person in driving doesn't judged by its driving license. It is another story if the consumer drive like "Fast and Furious" or "Death Race."

I am afraid the scope of definition of "Breaking The Law" will be blurred. What if someone get accident and hit other people which caused to death. Will it be considered breaking the law? (for being clumsy having other people lives killed) and then the insurance company has the right to refuse to pay?

Please I need feedback from you all. I don't know if this practice is done world wide or it is just happened in Indonesia. Thank you very much.

Regards,

Sukarto
 
I don't think anyone on here can really give you advice on the insurance laws of Indonesia. All anyone can do is give their best opinion. Even if a large company had offices both here and there it will have different rules for each country based on the laws of that country. Good luck finding your answer.
 
You can name the insurance company. Not a problem. Just want to be clear, your friend was killed in an accident caused by another person and the insurance company is using the illegal act clause to deny the claim?

Here I believe that clause applies to the insured. Do you have any department in your government to contact?
 
The capability of person in driving doesn't judged by its driving license.


In the United States, and most other countries, having a driver's license does EXACTLY that... it judges the capability of someone to drive a vehicle. Because of that, driving without a license is breaking the law... and if you cause an accident but don't have permission to drive, an insurance company wouldn't accept responsibility on a claim.

But like previously stated, I don't imagine anyone here knows Indonesian law... just common sense.
(and with that said -- if you meant "The person has a driver's license but did not have it with him at the time of the accident", that would be a bit different)
 
In the United States, and most other countries, having a driver's license does EXACTLY that... it judges the capability of someone to drive a vehicle. Because of that, driving without a license is breaking the law... and if you cause an accident but don't have permission to drive, an insurance company wouldn't accept responsibility on a claim.

But like previously stated, I don't imagine anyone here knows Indonesian law... just common sense.
(and with that said -- if you meant "The person has a driver's license but did not have it with him at the time of the accident", that would be a bit different)

You would be wrong. I directly know of an accident where the insurance paid out when the driver had a suspended license. Maybe that is a state thing or a company thing, but the insurance company definitely handled and paid the claim.
 
Guys? what I am not sure of here is the OP talking about the driver of the car or somebody else's death. If the driver died and was the insured and was involved in an illegal act, the carrier has a leg to stand on. If someone else was killed by the driver and they are the insured, I don't believe the carrier can refuse to pay because the insured did not commit an illegal act.
 
I was talking to a marketing rep and trying to understand their underwriting. They said they have paid claims when a household without license took the car for a joy ride, or for use.

Not really sure how or why they paid but they said their biggest loss is w/o license drivers who take the car. They wont let me quote my clients because in NYC one of the household will not have a license but of age to drive.

I thought it was crazy that they would not allow to quote them because of this. I think 95% of my clients or target clients have family households w/o licenses.

But... back on topic.... So companies do pay out claims regardless of driver status.
 
Back
Top