This is sooo wrong..."€215,000 award for fatal crash "

tomcollins97

Why should the rest of us pay becasue they/he was stupid enough not to have insurance?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0211/1233867931727.html

€215,000 award for fatal crash

The family and two children of a motorcyclist who died from injuries sustained in a road crash have secured €215,000 in settlement of their High Court action.

Edward Carter (24), Annagh, Gorey, Co Wexford, died after his motorbike was in collision with a vehicle driven by Declan Fleming, also of Annagh, Gorey, on March 26th, 2001, near Hollyfort, Gorey, Co Wexford.

Neither was insured and the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) was joined to the action. The settlement is against the MIBI.

Drummerboy08

So who will be paying the €215,000 then?

It is crazy, neither had any insurance but still expect a large sum in the event of a crash?

DonJose

This madness continues everyday in our courts... :mad:

A MAN who was severely brain damaged in an accident in which he was travelling in the back of a van with no passenger seat or safety belt has secured a €3m settlement in the High Court.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/braindamaged-crash-victim-gets-83643m-1635108.html

zulfikarMD

is there any clear-cut guideline for accident cases as to what would be compensation like considering when both parties have insurance or one of them have? how is the claim evaluated?

Mr. Incognito

The courts balance the rights of the individual for whom care will be required for the rest of their life against the profits of the insurance companies and generally, and in my opinion, make awards for these people who will need the care. It's an accident, I don't mind paying an extra X in my premium to cover this, it could be me, you or any of our loved ones someday.

As for the large award for death that's to cover the loss of the breadwinner.

Sure it's imperfect from time to time to subsidise these people but personally I think it's a hell of a lot better than having uncared for vegtables and destitute families as a result of a car accidents.

Cookie_Monster

As heartbreaking as it is for the family members of both parties there is no way they should be getting any money. Both men openly flouted the law and put themselves and others in unnessicary danger by not having insurance.

Crap like this is one of the reasons insurance remains so stupidly high in this country.

Drummerboy08

Im thinkin about doing something crazy like sitting out the sunroof, steering with my feet, while driving my car away from the insurance companies office, just after cancelling my policy. Hopefully i'll have a horrible accident, but survive to sue whoever put the road down, whover made me buy a car with a sunroof, whoever invented the runners i was wearing at the time, and the HSE for not having an ambulance on the scene within 60 seconds.

Madness i tells ya.:eek::rolleyes:

tin79

i can understand this one. the motorcyclist was involved in fatal crash with an uninsured driver, and as such the liabilty of the uninsured "vehicle" driver is covered by the MIBI. Whether the motorcyclist had insurance himself legally doesnt matter in this case.

if the motorcyclist had third party insurance and the liability was with the uninsured vehicle driver then his claim would still be with the MIBI.

Cookie_Monster

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

The courts balance the rights of the individual for whom care will be required for the rest of their life against the profits of the insurance companies and generally, and in my opinion, make awards for these people who will need the care.

There has to be some responsibility on the individual though. In this case he made the choice to travel unsecured in the back of the van knowing fully what would happen in an accident (i.e. thrown around as unsecured, high probability of serious injury)

Cookie_Monster

tin79 wrote: »

i can understand this one. the motorcyclist was involved in fatal crash with an uninsured driver, and as such the liabilty of the uninsured "vehicle" driver is covered by the MIBI. Whether the motorcyclist had insurance himself legally doesnt matter in this case.

Surely it does if the motorcyclist was the one who caused the crash?

I'm not saying he did, I'm saying "what if?"

PeakOutput

tin79 wrote: »

i can understand this one. the motorcyclist was involved in fatal crash with an uninsured driver, and as such the liabilty of the uninsured "vehicle" driver is covered by the MIBI. Whether the motorcyclist had insurance himself legally doesnt matter in this case.

if the motorcyclist had third party insurance and the liability was with the uninsured vehicle driver then his claim would still be with the MIBI.

yep pretty much

there are going to be downsides to having an organisation like the mibi

in general it helps people who are completely faultless who were involved in an accident with uninsured drivers

as for the large settlement it was probably under some sort of advisement from the personal injury assesment board

Cookie_Monster

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Im thinkin about doing something crazy like sitting out the sunroof, steering with my feet, while driving my car away from the insurance companies office, just after cancelling my policy. Hopefully i'll have a horrible accident, but survive to sue whoever put the road down, whover made me buy a car with a sunroof, whoever invented the runners i was wearing at the time, and the HSE for not having an ambulance on the scene within 60 seconds.

Madness i tells ya.:eek::rolleyes:

Can I come then I can sue all of the above and you aswell:pac:

PeakOutput

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Surely it does if the motorcyclist was the one who caused the crash?

I'm not saying he did, I'm saying "what if?"

IF the motorcyclist was at fault he would not have been entitled to claim anything

in that case the fact that the other guy had no insurance would be irrelevant and he would claim off the mibi

basically insurance and settlements like this are civil matters not having insurance is a legal matter for the police. so if either of the drivers survived it would be up to the police to prosecute them for driving without insurance. the insurance companies/mibi would still have to deal with the claim either way

Mr. Incognito

There has to be some responsibility on the individual though

It's called contributory negligence- if you read the facts of the case the settlement will be reduced by a percentage factor to take account of the fault or the blame if you will of the injured party.

It's never black and white and it's pretty much on the judges interpreation but there's a pretty long line of precedent for car crashes.

tomcollins97

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

The courts balance the rights of the individual for whom care will be required for the rest of their life against the profits of the insurance companies and generally, and in my opinion, make awards for these people who will need the care. It's an accident, I don't mind paying an extra X in my premium to cover this, it could be me, you or any of our loved ones someday.

As for the large award for death that's to cover the loss of the breadwinner.

Sure it's imperfect from time to time to subsidise these people but personally I think it's a hell of a lot better than having uncared for vegtables and destitute families as a result of a car accidents.

Fair enough it is an accident but why do any of us bother to get insurance if you will be compensated anyway in the event of an accident?

zulfikarMD

tomcollins97 wrote: »

Fair enough it is an accident but why do any of us bother to get insurance if you will be compensated anyway in the event of an accident?

Are we not legally bound to have insurance and carry a valid license?

I have had accident in Nov-2007 on N7 while traveling to Limerick. I have lost my mother and mother-in-law same day. We all were wearing seat belts and unfortunately as per doctors cause of death for both my mother and mother-in-law was seat belt. Now going by this judgement by doctors would anyone not wear a seat belt? Also, despite of both parties insured still my case is hanging. Just for my satisfaction driver who crashed into my car was pleaded guilty 2-3 weeks back and handed 2 years jail and 2 years driving ban on irish roards.

PeakOutput

tomcollins97 wrote: »

Fair enough it is an accident but why do any of us bother to get insurance if you will be compensated anyway in the event of an accident?

i think your missing the point

person a crashes into person b

person a is at fault, person b is entitled to compensation

weather or not person b has insurance or not is irrelevant unless the gardai decide to prosecute

now it turns out person a has no insurance, this must be confirmed by the gardai and it is then up to them to prosecute

now because person b is innocent in this accident if there was no mibi he would be left high and dry(weather or not he had no insurance, had tpf+t or had comp and was seriously injured_

the existence of the mibi and the agreements in place between them and insurance companies allow for this possiblility and allow person b to be, rightly, compensated for the accident they did not cause

if person a gets away scot free that is the guards fault

in the op's case the person who caused the accident was uninsured and died so they dont have anyone to prosecute

the motorcyclist not having insurance would be equally liable to prosecution if he was alive but he isnt

PeakOutput

zulfikarMD wrote: »

I have had accident in Nov-2007 on N7 while traveling to Limerick. I have lost my mother and mother-in-law same day. We all were wearing seat belts and unfortunately as per doctors cause of death for both my mother and mother-in-law was seat belt. Now going by this judgement by doctors would anyone not wear a seat belt? Also, despite of both parties insured still my case is hanging. Just for my satisfaction driver who crashed into my car was pleaded guilty 2-3 weeks back and handed 2 years jail and 2 years driving ban on irish roards.

what has that got to do with the op?

if you want advice or an insight into why it might be stalling then we need more info

its not unusual for an insurance company to wait for the outcome of a court case before settling

why were they stalling are you disputing the amount they are offering? have they made an offer

without more information a statement like the above means little accept obviously that a tragedy occured and im sorry for your loss

you will notice the op incident happened in 2001 and was only resolved this week??

zulfikarMD

PeakOutput wrote: »

what has that got to do with the op?

if you want advice or an insight into why it might be stalling then we need more info

its not unusual for an insurance company to wait for the outcome of a court case before settling

why were they stalling are you disputing the amount they are offering? have they made an offer

without more information a statement like the above means little accept obviously that a tragedy occured and im sorry for your loss

you will notice the op incident happened in 2001 and was only resolved this week??

I am just putting my arguments againt OP's following comment nothing more. Apologise for putting more information then necessary. And I didn't notice OP's incident happened in 2001.

Originally Posted by tomcollins97 View Post
Fair enough it is an accident but why do any of us bother to get insurance if you will be compensated anyway in the event of an accident?

Top Dog

PeakOutput wrote: »

person a crashes into person b

person a is at fault, person b is entitled to compensation

And in a situation where both person a and person b have decided for their own reasons to flaunt the law and not bother with insurance? To give a firm 2 finger salute to all of us who actually do bother to stump up for insurance? Personally I think they should have to live/die by the conscious decisions they've made in their lives.

Bogger77

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

As heartbreaking as it is for the family members of both parties there is no way they should be getting any money. Both men openly flouted the law and put themselves and others in unnessicary danger by not having insurance.

Crap like this is one of the reasons insurance remains so stupidly high in this country.

there's a levy that is part of every insurance policy, it's 3% I think, it doesn't add a massive amount to the policy quotes for an individual driver.

Drummerboy08

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

Can I come then I can sue all of the above and you aswell:pac:

Yeah come on, the more the merrier! Anyone for the rear seats? I'll cut the seatbelts out, and hit the brakes really hard.

I think its crazy. Both had no insurance, rendering thm driving on the road as illegal. What did he expect to happen if he crashed (as it turned out, he did)?

Its cases like this that cause insurance premiums to rocket.

tomcollins97

PeakOutput wrote: »

person a is at fault, person b is entitled to compensation

Why should you be entitled to compensation for any type of accident? If there is no-one to blame who pays this compensation which for some reason your are 'entitled' to? The tax payer??

PeakOutput

Top Dog wrote: »

And in a situation where both person a and person b have decided for their own reasons to flaunt the law and not bother with insurance? To give a firm 2 finger salute to all of us who actually do bother to stump up for insurance? Personally I think they should have to live/die by the conscious decisions they've made in their lives.

and if person b had passengers who did not know he had no insurance do you give them the two fingers too? your simplistic view if applied to the real world affects far far more innocent people negatively than it the currents systems affects criminals positively

PeakOutput

tomcollins97 wrote: »

Why should you be entitled to compensation for any type of accident? If there is no-one to blame who pays this compensation which for some reason your are 'entitled' to? The tax payer??

the law says your are entitled to compensation for loss's incurred that are not caused by yourself. so eh the law says

having worked in claims for almost 3 years(not working there anymore) i never came across an accident were,technically, at least one party was not at fault. i cant think of a situation that the rules of the road do not cover

Top Dog

PeakOutput wrote: »

and if person b had passengers who did not know he had no insurance do you give them the two fingers too? your simplistic view if applied to the real world affects far far more innocent people negatively than it the currents systems affects criminals positively

Person B's passengers would be innocent of any crime, any law flouting and any wrong doing. Thus IMO they'd be entitled to compensation if involved in an accident. 2 entirely different circumstances really.

The way I see it, both drivers are guilty and thus entitled to nothing. If there were innocent parties involved they yes, they'd definitely be entitled to some compensation in an accident.

I fail to see how this view affects any innocent person at all?

MrPudding

Top Dog wrote: »

Person B's passengers would be innocent of any crime, any law flouting and any wrong doing. Thus IMO they'd be entitled to compensation if involved in an accident. 2 entirely different circumstances really.

The way I see it, both drivers are guilty and thus entitled to nothing. If there were innocent parties involved they yes, they'd definitely be entitled to some compensation in an accident.

I fail to see how this view affects any innocent person at all?

So what crimes are the motorcyclist's children guilty of?

MrP

Yakult

To be honest nothing new reading that...

Drummerboy08

tomcollins97 wrote: »

Why should the rest of us pay becasue they/he was stupid enough not to have insurance?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0211/1233867931727.html

€215,000 award for fatal crash

The family and two children of a motorcyclist who died from injuries sustained in a road crash have secured €215,000 in settlement of their High Court action.

Edward Carter (24), Annagh, Gorey, Co Wexford, died after his motorbike was in collision with a vehicle driven by Declan Fleming, also of Annagh, Gorey, on March 26th, 2001, near Hollyfort, Gorey, Co Wexford.

Neither was insured and the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) was joined to the action. The settlement is against the MIBI.

Now, forgive me if im wrong, but both drivers were illegally driving when the accident occurred. If this is correct, this ruling will encourage uninsured drivers to continue driving illegally.

Why does either driver deserve any compensation, when both should not have been on the road?

Top Dog

MrPudding wrote: »

So what crimes are the motorcyclist's children guilty of?

MrP

Maybe he should have considered that before deciding to flout the law.

Fair enough they're not guilty of anything, but they also weren't involved (directly) in the accident. So while it may seem like a cruel opinion, I fail to see how they're entitled to anything at all as a result of their fathers choices.

galwaytt

Top Dog wrote: »

.....The way I see it, both drivers are guilty and thus entitled to nothing.

...first, where does it say that the motorcyclist was at fault ?

If he was not at fault, he (or his estate) is 100% entitled to claim off the car driver for their loss. That the other car driver was uninsured means the MIBI must bear the cost of the award. That is the law, that is why you pay 3% or whatever, MIB levy. It is irrelevant that the motorcyclist was uninsured. Taking he was not at fault, and did have insurance, the MIBI are still liable.

If the motorcyclist was even partially responsible, all that does is mitigate the size of the award, not an award in itself.

The presence of an insurance disc does not offer any protection or divination of, accidents.

Mr. Incognito

Now, forgive me if im wrong, but both drivers were illegally driving when the accident occurred. If this is correct, this ruling will encourage uninsured drivers to continue driving illegally.

Huh?

A guy DIED, how is that going to encourage people to drive illegally. Do you think they should dig him up and charge him?I don't really follow your logic here

Why does either driver deserve any compensation, when both should not have been on the road?

Like we said- it's a community pool we all pay into to look after the victims of the tragedy of the Irish roads.

Whether they deserve it or not is weighed objectively by the courts.

Thankfully most people choose not to flout the law.

Also- is it not worth considering that the fact neither had insurance may have been becasue the insurance companies denied liability? The are fcukers for that. Studying Insurance law was one of the bleakest modules in law. The courts upheld blatant deserving individuals on technicalities. Part of the reason we have the system we have today is to combat this. It's a damn sight better trust me.

Top Dog

galwaytt wrote: »

...first, where does it say that the motorcyclist was at fault ?

The mere fact that he was driving on a public road with no insurance puts him at fault - regardless of who caused the accident!

Can't afford/don't bother with insurance? Then don't bloody drive. Fairly simple really.

daveharnett

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Also- is it not worth considering that the fact neither had insurance may have been becasue the insurance companies denied liability? The are fcukers for that. Studying Insurance law was one of the bleakest modules in law. The courts upheld blatant deserving individuals on technicalities. Part of the reason we have the system we have today is to combat this. It's a damn sight better trust me.

Good point that. It's entirely possible that either or both drivers believed that they were insured.

daveharnett

Top Dog wrote: »

The mere fact that he was driving on a public road with no insurance puts him at fault - regardless of who caused the accident!

Balance of circumstances TD. Driving without insurance is not on, but it is not comparable to KILLING SOMEBODY!

That's like arguing that his family shouldn't get compensated because his exhaust was a little loud.

Top Dog

daveharnett wrote: »

Balance of circumstances TD. Driving without insurance is not on, but it is not comparable to KILLING SOMEBODY!

That's like arguing that his family shouldn't get compensated because his exhaust was a little loud.

An exhaust thats a little loud would not have contributed anything to an accident. The guy being on the road when he shouldn't have been, did contribute to the accident. Had he obeyed the law he wouldn't have been there and there never would have been an accident (though I suppose the same can be said for the other driver really). Granted its getting very hypothetical at this stage but still.

I feel sorry for the kids, genuinely I do. But I am also somewhat miffed that someone could be so wreckless as to drive without insurance, and its us that end up footing the bill.

Also, just to go back to the original post - there's no mention in the linked article as to who caused the accident. Just that both drivers were uninsured. For all we know the biker could have caused it which would make the settlement even more annoying.

Cormac2791

tomcollins97 wrote: »

Fair enough it is an accident but why do any of us bother to get insurance if you will be compensated anyway in the event of an accident?

if no one dies, you're fcuk3d

galwaytt

Top Dog wrote: »

The mere fact that he was driving on a public road with no insurance puts him at fault - regardless of who caused the accident!

Can't afford/don't bother with insurance? Then don't bloody drive. Fairly simple really.

That is asanine beyond belief - amazing you you're picking on the biker who died - more in your line to go after the guy that killed him. And, seeing as he had no insurance, he shouldn't have been on the road, either, so the biker (insured or not), would still be alive today, using your logic.

...which is why the court awarded damages to the biker's family.

If the other guy wasn't at fault, I'm quite sure he'd have got money too. The fact that he didn't, lends credence to the position it was the car driver's fault.

Barr

Personally I believe uninsured driver should not be able to claim at all ..why should the rest of us have to shell out more to cover these people

Keith C

it sucks but what can you do, im sure the family would rather have him alive then the money.
having insurance wouldnt have saved his life & this payout wouldn't have made the papers.
in a sad fact, its cheaper for ins companies for someone to die then to survive & have serious injuries.
Puts into perspective the losses insurance companies make (on car ins before anyone stats they make massive overal profits :rolleyes:), paying premium of €700 it would take one person 307 years premium to cover this :eek:

Tayto2000

Top Dog wrote: »

The mere fact that he was driving on a public road with no insurance puts him at fault - regardless of who caused the accident!

Can't afford/don't bother with insurance? Then don't bloody drive. Fairly simple really.

Utter rubbish and an argument based on emotion, the two are unconnected. If the biker had survived, he would have been prosecuted for not having insurance, but it has no bearing whatsoever on liability in an accident.

Top Dog

galwaytt wrote: »

That is asanine beyond belief - amazing you you're picking on the biker who died - more in your line to go after the guy that killed him. And, seeing as he had no insurance, he shouldn't have been on the road, either, so the biker (insured or not), would still be alive today, using your logic.

...which is why the court awarded damages to the biker's family.

If the other guy wasn't at fault, I'm quite sure he'd have got money too. The fact that he didn't, lends credence to the position it was the car driver's fault.

No need to resort to this sort of attitude just because my opinion differs from yours.

How am I picking on the biker? Am I saying he deserved to die? No. Am I happy that he died? No. Am I dancing on his grave? Hardly. Am I saying he was a moron for being out without insurance in the first place? Well, yes. And I'll stand by that until some time as someone can tell me that he actually did pay out for insurance but the insurance company would not accept liability and thats why the report is claiming he had no insurance.

As I've already pointed out, there's no mention of who caused the accident. I also believe that even if the biker had caused the accident, given that his life was lost his family would most likely still have pursued a claim.

Also, whats to say the other driver didn't get money? Whats to say he wasn't prosecuted? Simple fact is that there isn't enough detail in the story at all to know the finer details and have a proper fully informed discussion about the whole thing. Perhaps you're privvy to more detail than I am, I can only base my opinion on the details in the report so I could well be missing the bigger picture with all the finer details.

I think we'll just have to accept that the only part of each others opinion on this that we do share in common, is that neither should have been on the road with no insurance in the first place.

Tayto2000 wrote: »

Utter rubbish and an argument based on emotion, the two are unconnected. If the biker had survived, he would have been prosecuted for not having insurance, but it has no bearing whatsoever on liability in an accident.

Where on earth does emotion come into it? Hardly emotional to think he shouldn't have been on the road in the first place. Hardly emotional to think he should have left the bike at home if he wasn't insured on it. I'm simply stating that he put his own life, and the lives of others (in this case his kids and their life now without a father present), in jeopardy by driving without insurance.

galwaytt

Top Dog wrote: »

The mere fact that he was driving on a public road with no insurance puts him at fault - regardless of who caused the accident!
Can't afford/don't bother with insurance? Then don't bloody drive. Fairly simple really.

Top Dog wrote: »

... The guy being on the road when he shouldn't have been, did contribute to the accident. Had he obeyed the law he wouldn't have been there and there never would have been an accident (though I suppose the same can be said for the other driver really). Granted its getting very hypothetical at this stage but still.

I feel sorry for the kids, genuinely I do. But I am also somewhat miffed that someone could be so wreckless as to drive without insurance, and its us that end up footing the bill.
Also, just to go back to the original post - there's no mention in the linked article as to who caused the accident. Just that both drivers were uninsured. For all we know the biker could have caused it which would make the settlement even more annoying.

Top Dog wrote: »

No need to resort to this sort of attitude just because my opinion differs from yours.

How am I picking on the biker? Am I saying he deserved to die? No. Am I happy that he died? No. Am I dancing on his grave? Hardly. Am I saying he was a moron for being out without insurance in the first place? Well, yes. And I'll stand by that until some time as someone can tell me that he actually did pay out for insurance but the insurance company would not accept liability and thats why the report is claiming he had no insurance.

As I've already pointed out, there's no mention of who caused the accident. I also believe that even if the biker had caused the accident, given that his life was lost his family would most likely still have pursued a claim.

Also, whats to say the other driver didn't get money? Whats to say he wasn't prosecuted? Simple fact is that there isn't enough detail in the story at all to know the finer details and have a proper fully informed discussion about the whole thing. Perhaps you're privvy to more detail than I am, I can only base my opinion on the details in the report so I could well be missing the bigger picture with all the finer details.

Where on earth does emotion come into it? Hardly emotional to think he shouldn't have been on the road in the first place. Hardly emotional to think he should have left the bike at home if he wasn't insured on it. I'm simply stating that he put his own life, and the lives of others (in this case his kids and their life now without a father present), in jeopardy by driving without insurance.

So much, there, where to start ? Well you accuse others of being emotive....yet you're the same yourself - see bold highlights, above.

You make sweeping statements about a family who've lost a parent, quite possibly through no fault of his own whatsoever, and think this is o.k., despite agreeing you don't know the full picture.

Then there's the facts. An uninsured driver killed a motorcyclist. It is completely and utterly irrelevant the personal circumstances of the motorcyclist, and how much - if any - personal insurance cover he had. Even he was covered by insurance out the wazoo, the claim would still be filed, and won, against the uninsured driver of the car, paid for the MIBI - this is fact, this is law.

Don't like it? then take your own advice - Then don't bloody drive.

Mr. Incognito

I've done a bit of research on this because, frankly, peoples views on this frighten me.

The chap in the car that hit him was drink driving at the time

http://www.enniscorthyguardian.ie/news/drunk-driver-banned-for-two-years-after-fatal-accident-777177.html

The fact is NO-ONE here knows the facts of the case and the OP's outrage is pretty much a bigoted rant.

Anyone who has ever dealt with an Insurance company where there is a fatal accident will know they will do ANYTHING to deny that you were insured or that the insurance was valid.

Take for example the following-

Guy that hit was a learner driver- no L plates. Insurance denied.
Guy he hit had fully comp- Insurance denied as other party was at fault and it should be out of their insurance.

This happens. It's the reason the MIBI was set up.

Anyway rest in peace Edward.

Keith C

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

Anyone who has ever dealt with an Insurance company where there is a fatal accident will know they will do ANYTHING to deny that you were insured or that the insurance was valid.

Take for example the following-

Guy that hit was a learner driver- no L plates. Insurance denied.
Guy he hit had fully comp- Insurance denied as other party was at fault and it should be out of their insurance.

This happens. It's the reason the MIBI was set up.

Anyway rest in peace Edward.

Please provide prove that it states in your insurance contract that you must have L plates up or your insurance is not valid. guards can prosecute allright but doesnt affect your ins policy.
When you recevied a quote ins company knows you hold prov lic, why would they then deny claim??
Your post is complete bull**** & you shouldnt scaremonger any prov lic drivers with that drivel.

MrPudding

Keith C wrote: »

Please provide prove that it states in your insurance contract that you must have L plates up or your insurance is not valid. guards can prosecute allright but doesnt affect your ins policy.
When you recevied a quote ins company knows you hold prov lic, why would they then deny claim??
Your post is complete bull**** & you shouldnt scaremonger any prov lic drivers with that drivel.

I believe that there is a clause in your insurance that states you must comply with all restrictions and requirement of your licence in order for your insurance to be valid. So it follows that if you are on a provisional and you do not display L plates you are in breach of the terms of your insurance.

MrP

Keith C

MrPudding wrote: »

I believe that there is a clause in your insurance that states you must comply with all restrictions and requirement of your licence in order for your insurance to be valid. So it follows that if you are on a provisional and you do not display L plates you are in breach of the terms of your insurance.

MrP

Can anyone provide proof of this rather then hearsay or pubtalk??
Ive checked 2 diff ins policies & neither have this clause.

craichoe

Keith C wrote: »

Can anyone provide proof of this rather then hearsay or pubtalk??
Ive checked 2 diff ins policies & neither have this clause.

Having an Insurance policy and making a claim are two completely different things.

Keith C

craichoe wrote: »

Having an Insurance policy and making a claim are two completely different things.

care to elaborate?

MrPudding

Keith C wrote: »

care to elaborate?

I think it refers to the fact that insurance companies are quite happy to take your money and sell you a policy, but when you claim they will do everything in their power to try to get out of paying.

MrP

Mr. Incognito

Please provide prove that it states in your insurance contract that you must have L plates up or your insurance is not valid. guards can prosecute allright but doesnt affect your ins policy.
When you recevied a quote ins company knows you hold prov lic, why would they then deny claim??
Your post is complete bull**** & you shouldnt scaremonger any prov lic drivers with that drivel.

Well, aren't you lovely. Firstly, less text speak, secondly less agression, thirdly try manners. Just because YOU happen not to know something doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I recall from the law gazette that there was a case in Tipperary that was struck out on the basis of the interpreatation of the legislation. Basically the defending barrister stated that the road traffic acts legislation that applied penalties did not apply to provisional licence holders if they did not have their L plates displayed. Conversely your insurance is invalidated by such interpreations. Here's a quick link to something similar in Laois- I could dig up more but this seems like your sort of site anyway.


http://www.driver.ie/forum/showthread.php?t=25118

Learner drivers in Co Laois who are charged for driving without L-plates or without a qualified driver present are having their cases thrown out of court by a district judge who says existing legislation does not make such acts specific offences.

According to solicitor Philip Meagher, who recently represented a learner driver at Portarlington District Court, Judge Gerard Haughton "surprised everyone in the court" when he called a halt to a case against a provisional licence holder who had been charged for failing to display L-plates and also for not being accompanied by a qualified driver while she was driving.

"The judge explained to the court why he felt the article was improperly drafted," said Meagher.

He then struck out the charges. The article the judge was referring to, and under which provisional licence holders are charged, is Article 20 of the Road Traffic (Licensing of Drivers) Regulations, 1999, which deals with provisional licences and the rules governing the use of such licences by learner drivers.

According to the judge, Article 20 is drafted in such a way that it does not make either of the charges brought against the provisional licence holder offences, although he did concede that such acts render a provisional licence invalid and that this therefore could have insurance consequences.
As a result, he dismissed the case in question and is now dismissing other similar cases.

"In the way the judge dealt with the case, it was obvious he had interpreted this article before in this way," said Meagher.

Despite the cases being thrown out of court, the Garda has confirmed it will continue with its current policy of charging provisional licence holders who do not display L-plates or who drive unaccompanied until they have obtained legal advice on the judge's interpretation of Article 20.

The Department of Transport, which is responsible for drafting road traffic legislation, declined to comment on the judge's decision but it is clearly surprised by his interpretation.

When drafting the 2002 Road Traffic Act, the then minister for Transport, Seamus Brennan, even included making unaccompanied driving by provisional licence holders a penalty point offence. If the judge's interpretation is adopted by other district court judges it could result in the Minister of Transport being forced to redraft the legislation.

According to court reports, the judge had clearly prepared for the case in advance of the hearing and, in court, quoted from the relevant legislation before giving his interpretation of it.

However, Article 20 appears clear on the rules governing provisional licence holders' legal obligations regarding the display of L-plates and unaccompanied driving.