17 year old teen girl crashes Mercedes Benz into houses at "Bend of 100 corpses" in NE

[webfact]

Picture: Siam Rath

 

Ban Klang police in Muang district of Nakhon Phanom, NE Thailand, were called after a 17 year old girl failed to negotiate a bend and flipped ending up in a row of terraced properties.

 

The bend is known as "The bend of 100 corpses" due to the large number of accidents there.

 

Also inside the Mercedes Benz was a 17 year old boy. Both occupants suffered only minor injuries and are not in danger in the local hospital, reported Siam Rath. 

 

Picture: Siam Rath

 

The 17 year old girl was charged with negligent driving causing damage and not having a license. 

 

The house owners said that insurance had agreed to compensate them for the damage. 

 

The police urged motorists to be careful. 

 

-- © Copyright  ASEAN NOW 2022-11-14

 

- Cigna offers a range of visa-compliant plans that meet the minimum requirement of medical treatment, including COVID-19, up to THB 3m. For more information on all expat health insurance plans click here.

 

Monthly car subscription with first-class insurance, 24x7 assistance and more in one price - click here to find out more!

 

Get your business in front of millions of customers who read ASEAN NOW with an interest in Thailand every month - email [email protected] for more information

[ikke1959]

no driverslicense... and a mercedes.. probably people with money and so no further charges as the insurance company already agreed to pay.... 

[HauptmannUK]

Is insurance valid if the driver has no licence?  Giving coverage to unlicenced drivers is quite some liability to taken on!

[bobbin]

7 minutes ago, HauptmannUK said:

Is insurance valid if the driver has no licence?  Giving coverage to unlicenced drivers is quite some liability to taken on!

True that..

 

Why would any insurance company agree to pay out with an unlicensed driver at the wheel?

 

Probably the family agreed to pay..

[Photoguy21]

28 minutes ago, HauptmannUK said:

Is insurance valid if the driver has no licence?  Giving coverage to unlicenced drivers is quite some liability to taken on!

Most parts of the world no it isnt but in Thailand depending who you are it could be.

[KhunLA]

Possibly home owner's insurance is paying, IF having.

[Liverpool Lou]

1 hour ago, ikke1959 said:

no driverslicense... and a mercedes.. probably people with money and so no further charges as the insurance company already agreed to pay.... 

From the OP...

"The 17 year old girl was charged with negligent driving causing damage and not having a license". 

 

What other charges could there be?

[Liverpool Lou]

1 hour ago, HauptmannUK said:

Is insurance valid if the driver has no licence?  Giving coverage to unlicenced drivers is quite some liability to taken on!

Generally, in most cases, with some exceptions, in Thailand it's the car that's insured, not the specific driver.  Obviously the insurance was valid in this case for the home owner's claim.

[Liverpool Lou]

1 hour ago, bobbin said:

Probably the family agreed to pay..

Probably not...

"The house owners said that insurance had agreed to compensate them for the damage". 

[OneMoreFarang]

No problem, papa will buy you a new car. Stop crying, all will be fine my darling.

 

[sammieuk1]

Now known as Benz Bend not 101 corpses ????

[bobbin]

18 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Probably not...

"The house owners said that insurance had agreed to compensate them for the damage". 

I saw the highlighted text but wondered if there was some subterfuge going on..

 

 The idea that an insurance company agreed to pay out with an unlicensed driver is very hard to comprehend..

 

Maybe the fact that it was property damage on private land, not a public highway? Not a traffic accident per se.

[Liverpool Lou]

9 minutes ago, bobbin said:

The idea that an insurance company agreed to pay out with an unlicensed driver is very hard to comprehend..

Car insurance frequently attaches to a vehicle and not to the person driving it. An auto insurance policy may, therefore, cover an injured party’s damages even if the at-fault driver was unlicensed or uninsured.

[owl sees all]

Quote

"The bend of 100 corpses"

Renamed; "The Benz of 100 corpses"

[carlyai]

1 hour ago, Photoguy21 said:

Most parts of the world no it isnt but in Thailand depending who you are it could be.

I'd say no licence, no insurance. Would be a brave insurance company to start a HiSo precedent.

I remember when you could get an International Driving Permit in Thailand that wasn't real, but the Police let it go. Trouble was (so my insurance guy said) if you have a accident then you're not licenced and therefore no insurance.

Same as learning-to-drive. My wife started at a driving school. Then I switched her to our car as that was the one she'd be driving.

My insurance guy said your wife and car not covered as she has no licence, better get a licence first then learn to drive. So she got her licence, then learnt to drive. 

Love Thailand ????

[ikke1959]

26 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Car insurance frequently attaches to a vehicle and not to the person driving it. An auto insurance policy may, therefore, cover an injured party’s damages even if the at-fault driver was unlicensed or uninsured.

Most insurances don't cover anything if you don't have a valid driverslicense... read the policy

[Photoguy21]

29 minutes ago, carlyai said:

I'd say no licence, no insurance. Would be a brave insurance company to start a HiSo precedent.

I remember when you could get an International Driving Permit in Thailand that wasn't real, but the Police let it go. Trouble was (so my insurance guy said) if you have a accident then you're not licenced and therefore no insurance.

Same as learning-to-drive. My wife started at a driving school. Then I switched her to our car as that was the one she'd be driving.

My insurance guy said your wife and car not covered as she has no licence, better get a licence first then learn to drive. So she got her licence, then learnt to drive. 

Love Thailand ????

That is the same as the rest of the world. Similarly if you need a road worthiness certificate. Have an accident without one (assuming your vehicle should have one) and insurance will walk away from you.

I agree there shouldn't be any exception but as we all know if money passes over things can be ignored.

[ezzra]

Good thing they don't have to change the name to " Bend of 101 corpses" as damages can be fixed, loss of life, not so much...

[SunsetT]

Where exactly is this bend? anyone know?

 

Its OK, I found Ban Klang on a map.

[falang07]

44 minutes ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Car insurance frequently attaches to a vehicle and not to the person driving it. An auto insurance policy may, therefore, cover an injured party’s damages even if the at-fault driver was unlicensed or uninsured.

I am sure this is impossible. No license = insurance is void. If the insurance is not attached to a specific person, then any person can ride it and be covered IF AND ONLY IF they have a valid driving license. Period.

[BritScot]

3 hours ago, HauptmannUK said:

Is insurance valid if the driver has no licence?  Giving coverage to unlicenced drivers is quite some liability to taken on!

In Thailand its the vehicle that's insured and every time you buy a new vehicle you start your insurance again so no incentive to drive carefully...

[G Rex]

20 minutes ago, BritScot said:

In Thailand its the vehicle that's insured and every time you buy a new vehicle you start your insurance again so no incentive to drive carefully...

Yes - this concept has been difficult for me to comprehend in LOS.  No No Claim Bonus to carry onto your new car , no multi vehicle discount on policies.  I have insurance on all of my cars - I just hope to never need to use it here!

[Etaoin Shrdlu]

2 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Car insurance frequently attaches to a vehicle and not to the person driving it. An auto insurance policy may, therefore, cover an injured party’s damages even if the at-fault driver was unlicensed or uninsured.

This can be the case in places where third party liability coverage is compulsory and it is against public policy to have potentially uninsured vehicles on the road simply due to the operation of clauses such as the unlicensed driver exclusion.

 

Thailand does not compel vehicle owners to insure for third party liability, so insurers would likely be able to deny third party liability claims, even if the principle of "follow the car"  would otherwise apply. It seems that Thailand has no problem having vehicles on the road without proper TPL cover. It is possible that the OIC could step in and compel the insurer to honor a third party claim even in the case of an unlicensed driver, but I'm not sure how likely that would be.

[edwinchester]

4 hours ago, HauptmannUK said:

Is insurance valid if the driver has no licence?  Giving coverage to unlicenced drivers is quite some liability to taken on!

Maybe the homeowners had house insurance that covered the damage.

[kidneyw]

5 hours ago, webfact said:

Both occupants suffered only minor injuries and are not in danger

Amazing that no one commented on the fact that they had minor injuries.

I mean, just look at it.

Guess it says a lot for Mercedes safety features.

(Or Thai reporting).

Also no mention of amulets or lottery numbers.

[NoshowJones]

5 hours ago, HauptmannUK said:

Is insurance valid if the driver has no licence?  Giving coverage to unlicenced drivers is quite some liability to taken on!

There is money for the insurance company somewhere. They did not pay just pay out for good will.

[Aussieroaming]

Well that's one way to park the Benz. Bet you can't park like that in your Toyota she says.

[mancub]

5 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Car insurance frequently attaches to a vehicle and not to the person driving it. An auto insurance policy may, therefore, cover an injured party’s damages even if the at-fault driver was unlicensed or uninsured.

If that's the case. then why would anyone bother at all with getting a licence ? How about if the person driving was found to be over the legal limit, for instance ?

[richard_smith237]

6 hours ago, Liverpool Lou said:

Probably not...

"The house owners said that insurance had agreed to compensate them for the damage". 

It opens an interesting point... 

 

In other threads the matter of Driving licences, International driving Permits, Thai licenses etc have all been discussed...  One point always pops up - that is the potential for insurance not to pay out if there is any minor indiscretion in licensing... Its even been mentioned that if you are here longer than 90 days the IDP is no longer valid etc... 

 

Thus... from an insurance perspective - whats the point in getting a licence at all ????

May as well just stick to our home licences and not bother !

 

[richard_smith237]

40 minutes ago, mancub said:

If that's the case. then why would anyone bother at all with getting a licence ? How about if the person driving was found to be over the legal limit, for instance ?

Could it be some sort of liability insurance attached to the car.... 

... i.e. it will pay for damage to someone else’s property, but not the car itself. 

It's then up to the insurance company to go after the ‘illegal’ driver to recover costs, no ?

 

Isn’t this what the Government insurance is also for ?