Incorporated in the Motor Tariff. Agreement between two insurers. Each insurer shall bear its own policyholder’s vehicle damage loss irrespective of onus of legal liability. This agreement is the most popular because it applies to the most frequent type of road accident, which collision between vehicles.

To avoid litigation. To promote friendly relationship among the insurance company. On the other hands, the insured person in turn benefits through the saving in cost.

Applies to damage to vehicles as a result of: Collision or attempt to avoid collision. Loading or unloading of the vehicle. Anything falling from vehicles or anything thrown up by the wheels of a vehicles.

“damage to vehicle” is deemed to include:  Damage to accessories and other property on the vehicle.  Compensation for loss of use.  Medical expenses.  When such damage, loss, or expenses is insured under a Motor Policy

Any vehicle licensed or insured for the carriage of passengers for hire or reward. Any vehicle licensed or insured by the owner for the purpose which include driving by a hirer. To loss or damages cover by policy for fire only issued by either of the parties Not Apply To accidents for which indemnity is provided under policies issued by parties here to in respect of : Malaysia, a part of Thailand, Singapore, The State of Brunei Including arising areas to which the indemnity provided under such policies may have been extended. Apply

 Is an agreement between insurers whereby they will share equally the cost of settling any third party claims irrespective of legal liability, so respective policies cover such liability.

The Cost of Settlement Damages awarded to or agree by the third party Claimant’s cost Settlement expenses and legal cost incurred with the consent of both insurer Hospital fees

There must be collision between two or more vehicles. ‘Attempts to avoid collision’ are not included under the agreement. The vehicles involved must be insured against liabilities to 3 rd parties

Injury must be sustained by 3 rd party or damage done to his property, provided the 3 rd party is NOT: – One of drivers involved in the accident – A person whose injuries arise out of and in the course of his employment by an insured or a driver involved in the accident

The potential liability could theoretically be unlimited because there is no limit of liability under motor policy in respect of third party death or bodily injury. One basic concept in claim sharing agreement is averaging out of the costs of claim between the insurance companies. Third Party Sharing Agreement would not produce this averaging out if very large claim were come with their term. The larger claim that may fluctuate in value, most of the insurance company prefers to have a separate claim handling and full investigation must be carried out. They will impose limit to each insurer’s liability under this agreement. The agreements do not operate in respect of an accident if the cost of all claims arising out of the occurrence exceeds the limit. The limits refer to the total cost of all claims and not the cost of an individual insurer’s share under the agreement.

Immobile property Agreement is an agreement between insurer whereby the motor insurers pay three quarter (3/4) of the cost of repairing the damage to the property regardless of liability but subject to monetary limit. Cover impact damage to immobile property caused by a vehicle insured. Most the insurance policies issued today in respect of house cover damage caused by impact damage by a motor vehicle.

This is essentially an agreement between the fire department of one insurance company and the motor department of another insurance company. To apply where damage is caused to immobile property by a motor vehicle. The motorist should be liable, but there could be the occasional situation where motorist could successfully rebut the presumption of negligence that would usually arise by showing that in the circumstances of the collision the accident was inevitable, perhaps folly of another road user who did not stop and who was therefore unidentified.

As with all these no fault inter-company arrangements, there most obviously be equitable basis. It works fairly enough between composite company whose fire and motor portfolios are roughly comparable. It might not be appropriate between insurance company whose respective operations do not include both fire and motor business.