However, knock for knock agreements between insurers have been criticized as unfair to the party who is not responsible for an accident. If an insurer pays, for reasons of administrative ease, for compensation for damage to the car of its policyholder instead of suing the person responsible for the accident for all relevant costs, an actual claim is recorded against the insurance file of that policyholder. In this way, knock for knock agreements can lead policyholders to unexpectedly find that they face higher premiums when extending their insurance, regardless of who is liable for an accident in which they participated. I like this article written by a lim Ka Ea woman about her recent experience to understand how the process of machining engine claims works. You can see it in the Malaysian insider. The reason for this is economic and administrative efficiency: while an insurer may be able to track recovery from the party responsible for an accident or its policyholder, this is an expensive administrative procedure. The Knock for Knock agreement simplifies debt collection between insurers and, over time, allocates costs fairly to insurers. Ms Lims` case was categorically about a taxi that goes beyond the sector`s agreement, called `Knock for Knock` or KFK, as she had rightly described. As this goes beyond the KFK, it should, as a third party, bring an action brought by the party causing the damage. It would have to bear the cost of the necessary repairs in advance itself, and then make the necessary efforts to recover from the insurer of the third party concerned. A knock for knock agreement is an agreement between two insurance companies under which the policyholders of both companies suffer losses in the same case (usually a car accident), each insurer pays the losses of its own policyholder, regardless of who is responsible. A right that you have invoked with a 3rd party insurer to the costs of compensation in the event of an accident occurring under a CCA agreement. .

. .