翻車意外九巴原來無第三者保？賠償主導在九巴
歷史因素下，由九記同傷者&死者家屬傾變相即係賠幾多由九記話事
賠得少要請律師
乘客同家屬處於非常不利？
http://nextplus.nextmedia.com/news/latest/20180213/571751 究竟係咩歷史原因？普通私家車都有第三者保啦
你要明白點解私家車要買第三保去保障d 咩野
而九巴既做法係cover到有關要求，又符合法例 厹司入哂肉 自己賠 本帖最後由 proschebus 於 2018-2-13 15:24 編輯
保險公司都有最大陪償金額，每逢大事故發生也必然加大保費
所以是否陪賞金額不會因此減少
九巴自己好似有保險部，自己搞 本帖最後由 頭文字TRIDENT 於 2018-2-13 16:59 編輯
Councillor Chan seems to be lack of knowledge of the self-rentention mechanism and self-insurance concept which has last for over 300 years in the Transportation Insurance, starting from London lloyd insurance market.....;P
He seems not to be a suitable representative of insurance industry...... KMBAP1 發表於 2018-2-13 14:45
究竟係咩歷史原因？普通私家車都有第三者保啦
個人估計是當年批專謍權時，殖民地政府引用源自英國的Honour System (中文即有信用)，相信九巴會就其公司引起的一切損失向第三者作出賠償，加上當時殖民地政府相信九巴有財力。 另外，所有政府車輛也是豁免購買第三者保險，發生意外後，受害者一定要找律師替其索償。
本帖最後由 頭文字TRIDENT 於 2018-2-13 17:21 編輯
我是地球人 發表於 2018-2-13 15:42
九巴自己好似有保險部，自己搞
The British Hong Kong government required the francised public transport company to set up a sinking fund pool for self-insurance when granting the francise right to KCR/KMB/CMB ....Self-insurance already covered the interests of all parties, including the innocent third party....
KMB is exempted from Third parties insurance in accordance to the its francehise right and the Hong Kong Oridiance Cap. 272 Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Ordinance Section 4 (c),
"any motor vehicle owned by a person, other than a person specified in an order made by the Governor in Council for the purposes of this paragraph, who has made a deposit with the Director of Accounting Services to the value of $2,000,000 and has not required such deposit to be returned to him, at any time when such motor vehicle is being driven by the owner or by a servant of the owner in the course of his employment, or is otherwise subject to the control of the owner."(