The argument is
The defence counsel claimed that Ma’s conduct was “so clearly reckless and dangerous that it was not a risk intended to be covered under the insurance policy.”
They also argued that Ma was “doing an act which he knew or ought to have known was courting imminent death to himself and others.”
The insurance company added that “the collision was highly probable, forseeable and to be expected.”
The objective of compulsory motor insurance is the protection of victims of road accidents. The compensation to the driver/owner is not the main objective. That’s why we are allow to purchase Third Party Motor Insurance.
In layman term, an insurer don’t care how one die if its a non-accidental plan like life/term policy but for accidental plan, the cause of death must be as the name says “Accidental”.
So the question how ‘accident’ is define.
Anything that is “probable, forseeable and to be expected” is not accidental.
For E.g. if someone goes to the zoo and looks at the lion then someone pushes him down into the den, any death/injuries is accidental cos he didn’t expect that to happen. But if someone decides to check himself into the lion’s den, that will probably leads to an injury/death. The injury/death is foreseenable & expected. This is not accidental.
If he is not drunk, then in his clear state of mind will know driving at that speed is “doing an act which he knew or ought to have known was courting imminent death to himself and others.”