NKY/WA/159178
0801 0856 2019 000073 (DW)
BY FAX (2541 6567) AND BY POST
China Taiping Insurance (HK) Company Limited,
15th Floor,
18 King Wah Road,
North Point,
Hong Kong.
[]
Mr. K. Y Ng /
Mr. Anson Wong
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
SAVE AS TO COSTS
Attn: Mr. Mathew Tang
Dear Sirs,
Re: Intended Property Damage Claim
Claimant: Wong Kam Kau
Traffic accident at 8:20 a.m. on 19th June 2019 happened to vehicle
bearing registration number JM3119 (“the Vehicle”)
We act for the abovenamed Claimant, Mr. Wong Kam Kau, in the
captioned matter. Please direct all future correspondences regarding the
captioned matter to our firm. We also refer to the previous correspondences
between our client and your Company, all of which have now been passed to us
with instructions to reply.
First of all, we note that the words “without prejudice” have not been
stated in the previous letters from our client to your Company regarding the
captioned matter. This was simply because our client is a lay person and had not
received any professional legal advice until our firm was engaged. We would
like to stress that notwithstanding the absence of the words “without prejudice”
in those letters, they were all sent to you on a without prejudice basis. Nothing
stated in those letters shall be binding on our client unless and until a Discharge
Form has been signed by our client, and those letters (except the supporting
documents enclosed therewith) should not be disclosed in future legal
proceedings in relation to the subject accident (if any).
Further, we would also like to address each of the heads of claim of
our client as follows:1.
Repairing costs
The parties’ agreement on the costs of repairing the Vehicle at
HK$79,093.30 is noted.
1
2.
Loss adjustor’s fees
The parties’ agreement on our client’s claim for loss adjustor’s fees at
HK$900.00 is noted.
3.
Car rental fees
As requested in your letter dated 4th September 2020, our client has
already provided to you copy of a letter issued by British Motors
Limited (“BML”) dated 17th February 2021 certifying that the
Vehicle has been kept at the repair shop of BML for repairing during
the period from 15th October 2019 to 18th November 2019 (our
client’s letter to your Company dated 29th May 2021 refers). Copies
of the Rental Agreement (Invoice) issued by Far East Rent-a-Car
Limited and the corresponding receipt have already been sent to you
as well.
In this regard, we take the view that our client has already adduced
sufficient documentary proof to support his claim of HK$28,000.00
for the expenses incurred for renting an alternative car for the
one-month period from 15th October 2019 to 14th November 2019. In
any event, even if the Vehicle had been collected on 25th October
2019 (which is strongly denied), we see no reason why our client’s
claim for the rental fees of an alternative vehicle should be assessed
on a pro-rata basis, given that rental fee for the alternative vehicle
rented by our client was paid on a monthly basis.
4.
Diminution in market value of the Vehicle
We note from your letter to our client dated 4th September 2020 that
you have rejected our client’s claim under this head (described as
“depreciation” / “stigma damage” by our client) on the basis that
betterment of the Vehicle’s condition was indicated and calculated in
the Motor Survey Report prepared by Yin Shing Motor Adjusters &
Search Services Co. dated 17th July 2019 (“the Report”). Our client
was further requested to provide supporting evidences or expert
reports regarding the diminished value of the Vehicle.
In this connection, we would like to point out that the betterment of
the conditions of the Vehicle as indicated in the Report only reflects
the physical / mechanical conditions of the Vehicle after the
completion of the repairing works. The market value of the Vehicle,
being a luxurious car (Land Rover Evoque Coupe Dynamic model), is
not only determined by its physical / mechanical conditions. Buyers
of second-hand luxurious vehicles are in general more demanding and
would look into whether the vehicles have been damaged before. The
fact that the Vehicle has met with the captioned accident in itself
2
would already have an adverse impact on the resale value of the
Vehicle in the second-hand market, irrespective of whether the
Vehicle has been satisfactorily repaired or whether there has been any
betterment in the physical / mechanical conditions of the Vehicle after
the repairing works. With respect, there is misconception on your part
in assessing the diminution in market value of deluxe cars. It is trite
law that such diminution in market value is recoverable by our client.
You may refer to the case of Hong Kong Construction Co. Ltd v. Ng
Fuk Choi and another (HCA 3427/2002) for a more detailed
discussion in this regard.
The Vehicle was first registered in 2014. Our client has always
exercised great care when using the Vehicle, and the same had not
met with any accidents prior to the subject one. The Vehicle was used
by our client for normal travelling and commuting purposes only and
had not been driven excessively. Hence, in the absence of expert
evidence on valuation (which has not yet been obtained in order to
save costs), it is appropriate for our client to make reference to
transaction records of vehicles of the same model and similar age in
the second-hand market to estimate the market value of the Vehicle at
the time of the accident but for the happening of the same.
According to our client’s research, the normal resale price of vehicles
of the same model and the same age in the second-hand market as at
2019 (i.e. when the accident occurred) is around HK$288,000.00 to
HK$298,000.00. Copies of some comparable transaction records
retrieved from 9000cc.com are enclosed herewith for your reference.
Hence, for present quantification purposes, we shall adopt the figure
of HK$(288,000.00 + 298,000.00) / 2 = HK$293,000.00 as the market
value of the Vehicle at the time of the accident but for its happening.
In our client’s previous quantification of his claim, he has adopted the
figure of 20% as the diminution in market value of / “stigma damage”
to the Vehicle caused by the subject accident. Based on the available
evidence, we do not consider the said figure to be excessive. However,
purely for the purpose of quantification and settlement, we are
instructed to give concession in this respect and adopt a figure of 15%
instead. Hence, our client’s claim under this head would be
HK$293,000.00 x 15% = HK$43,950.00.
In this respect, our client also expressly reserves his right to adduce
expert evidence on valuation of the Vehicle in future legal
proceedings (if any), the costs of which will be claimed against your
Company, and to adjust his claim under this head based on such
expert evidence.
3
5.
Interest
Our client would also claim interest on the total amount of damages
from the date of accident up to the date of payment at judgment rate.
6.
Legal costs
For settlement purpose, our client claims a sum of HK$30,000.00
(all-inclusive) for his legal costs incurred in the matter.
Summary of Claim
Repairing costs (agreed)
Loss adjustor’s fees (agreed)
Car rental fees
Diminution in market value of the Vehicle
Sub-total:
Interest at judgment rate from date of accident up
to date of payment, say 19th April 2022 (totalling
34 months)
HK$151,943.30 x 8% x 34/12
Legal costs
Total:
HK$
79,093.30
900.00
28,000.00
43,950.00
151,943.30
34,440.48
30,000.00
216,383.78
The above counter-offer is open for your acceptance within the next
14 days, failing which the same shall automatically lapse and we shall advise
our client to commence legal proceedings forthwith without further notice.
We look forward to your favourable reply. Meanwhile, all our client’s
rights are hereby expressly reserved.
Yours faithfully,
Liu Chan and Lam
Encl.
NKY/WA
4