MIBI (Motor Insurance Bureau) and high court
- Thread starter John joe
- Start date
Re: MIBI and high court
Because I was paying my levy to the MIBI throught my own car insurance. I understand that the MIBI was set up compensate the innocent victims of uninsured vehicles. I had insurance on my own car and which I was insured on at the time of the accident. In my opinion I believe I am indeed an innocent victim, as the owner of the vehicle in which I was driving failed to insure his car.
Because I was paying my levy to the MIBI throught my own car insurance. I understand that the MIBI was set up compensate the innocent victims of uninsured vehicles. I had insurance on my own car and which I was insured on at the time of the accident. In my opinion I believe I am indeed an innocent victim, as the owner of the vehicle in which I was driving failed to insure his car.
Last edited:
Re: MIBI and high court
Even if the car you were driving was insured you still would not have a claim. The car owner may be able to recover for the car damage if he had comprehensive cover but the insurance company would not pay out for your personal injuries. That is what accident insurance and health insurance are for.
I cannot see how you are going to succeed in making a successful claim.
Even if the car you were driving was insured you still would not have a claim. The car owner may be able to recover for the car damage if he had comprehensive cover but the insurance company would not pay out for your personal injuries. That is what accident insurance and health insurance are for.
I cannot see how you are going to succeed in making a successful claim.
Last edited:
Re: MIBI and high court
John joe,
dazza21e is right. The starting point for any successful claim - whether against an insured or uninsured driver - is that somebody other than you must have been negligent AND that their negligence must have caused, or contributed to, your injury.
What caused the accident? Just to be clear, if you have a valid claim, the answer to this question cannot be 'my bad driving and nothing else'.
Unless the answer is either 'my friend's vehicle's defect's' or 'negligent action of a third party' then you are missing the point and, in all likelihood, wasting your time pursuing any claim.
John joe,
dazza21e is right. The starting point for any successful claim - whether against an insured or uninsured driver - is that somebody other than you must have been negligent AND that their negligence must have caused, or contributed to, your injury.
What caused the accident? Just to be clear, if you have a valid claim, the answer to this question cannot be 'my bad driving and nothing else'.
Unless the answer is either 'my friend's vehicle's defect's' or 'negligent action of a third party' then you are missing the point and, in all likelihood, wasting your time pursuing any claim.
aircobra19
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,733
I assume you can insure a car or a person. Does that matter?
Re: MIBI and high court
It would appear that you, unfortunately on the day in question, were an uninsured driver of your friend's vehicle.
It is my understanding, subject to correction of course, that the purpose of the MIBI is to compensate the innocent victims of uninsured drivers.
It would appear that you, unfortunately on the day in question, were an uninsured driver of your friend's vehicle.
Re: MIBI and high court
Let's assume for a second that the owner of the car had fully comp insurance. If you had driven it, chances are, unless you were a named driver on that policy, you still would not be insured. Therefore you are not an "innocent victim". Just because a car has insurance on it doesn't mean that every Tom, Dick and Harry is insured to drive it.
Let's assume for a second that the owner of the car had fully comp insurance. If you had driven it, chances are, unless you were a named driver on that policy, you still would not be insured. Therefore you are not an "innocent victim". Just because a car has insurance on it doesn't mean that every Tom, Dick and Harry is insured to drive it.
Re: MIBI and high court
Your own car insurance has nothing to do with this. Had the owners car been insured would they have paid out because of your negligence if you were not insured to drive it?? If I take a car that I'm not insured and crash it, I'm left to face the cost of the car. The MIBI will cover the cost of the other persons car I damage, i.e. the innocent party. You are not an innocent victim.
Your own car insurance has nothing to do with this. Had the owners car been insured would they have paid out because of your negligence if you were not insured to drive it?? If I take a car that I'm not insured and crash it, I'm left to face the cost of the car. The MIBI will cover the cost of the other persons car I damage, i.e. the innocent party. You are not an innocent victim.
Re: MIBI and high court
Sorry but you are incorrect here when u mention 'uninsured drivers'. Here is something I have copied and pasted from the MIBI website "The MIBI was set up in 1955 by an Agreement between the Government and the Companies underwriting motor insurance in Ireland for the purpose of compensating victims of road traffic accidents caused by uninsured and unidentified vehicles." www.mibi.ie
No where in the above statment from the MIBI does it mention about 'uninsured drivers'. It mentions only 'uninsured vehicles'
Sorry but you are incorrect here when u mention 'uninsured drivers'. Here is something I have copied and pasted from the MIBI website "The MIBI was set up in 1955 by an Agreement between the Government and the Companies underwriting motor insurance in Ireland for the purpose of compensating victims of road traffic accidents caused by uninsured and unidentified vehicles." www.mibi.ie
No where in the above statment from the MIBI does it mention about 'uninsured drivers'. It mentions only 'uninsured vehicles'
aircobra19
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,733
Re: MIBI and high court
That clause is in the 1988 one.
It seems specifically aimed at preventing claims from uninsured drivers. If you could claim when uninsured. There would be no incentive to get insurance.
Terrible position for the OP. Its a common enough story people not checking the details of their policies, and on the cars they drive and getting caught out. But really its up to everyone to know they are insured.
That clause is in the 1988 one.
It seems specifically aimed at preventing claims from uninsured drivers. If you could claim when uninsured. There would be no incentive to get insurance.
Terrible position for the OP. Its a common enough story people not checking the details of their policies, and on the cars they drive and getting caught out. But really its up to everyone to know they are insured.
John Joe,
You are wasting your time by focusing on these distinctions without first asking yourself (and answering) the important questions.
What caused the accident? Who was at fault - and by this I mean at fault in the sense of having caused the accident?
We still don't have these basic facts. A discussion without the basic facts is quite possibly futile. Without the basic facts, it seems to me that the insurance issue is something of an irrelevancy.
You are wasting your time by focusing on these distinctions without first asking yourself (and answering) the important questions.
What caused the accident? Who was at fault - and by this I mean at fault in the sense of having caused the accident?
We still don't have these basic facts. A discussion without the basic facts is quite possibly futile. Without the basic facts, it seems to me that the insurance issue is something of an irrelevancy.
aircobra19
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,733
Why?
aircobra19
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,733
Where in the MIBI does it say that?
R
rmelly
Guest
Why don't we just let the OP proceed and see how he gets on? He doesn't appear inclined to take any advice or even furnish the most basic details.
Re: MIBI and high court
Page 4, Section 5 "Exclusion of certain user and passenger claims", Sub-section (2), "Where at the time of the accident the person injured or killed or who sustained damage to property knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that there was not in force an approved policy of insurance in respect of the use of the vehicle, the liability of the M.I.B. of I. shall not extend to any judgment or claim either in respect of injury or death of such person while the person injured or killed was by his consent in or on such vehicle..."
Specifically, "MIBI Agreement (1988)"
Page 4, Section 5 "Exclusion of certain user and passenger claims", Sub-section (2), "Where at the time of the accident the person injured or killed or who sustained damage to property knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that there was not in force an approved policy of insurance in respect of the use of the vehicle, the liability of the M.I.B. of I. shall not extend to any judgment or claim either in respect of injury or death of such person while the person injured or killed was by his consent in or on such vehicle..."
aircobra19
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,733
What details do you need? Seems like the act is very specific.
R
rmelly
Guest
Whatever
aircobra19
Registered User
- Messages
- 2,733
