Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Don't bother insuring you car.......

Options
24

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    Cain Green Symphony wrote: »
    My cousin was hit by an uninsured driver. No injuries involved. The woman was in an SUV and my cousin was in a fiat chiqichento. Insurance company couldn't/wouldn't do anything, my cousin had to pay for the damages herself.

    im sorry but this dosnt sound like the entire story. its black and white. you are hit by an uninsured car you do one of two things, claim off the mibi(there is an excess it was around 50euro) or if you have comp you claim of your own insurance pay your excess and your bonus is not affected.
    Police said they were powerless too. Could give the uninsured woman a warning. Like wtf?

    its up to the police weather or not they prosecute their decision makes no difference in weather or not your cousin gets her money

    so either she didnt tell you the whole story or she needs to get onto the mibi
    A while back my brother crashed his lexus, he went to claim and the insurance company wouldn't pay him the worth of the car. They were pitching about 2-3K less than what it was worth.

    in your brothers opinion it was worth 2-3K more. in the INDEPENDANT engineers opinion who has no vested interest either way it wasnt.....so who should you believe?
    Insurance in this country is operated by scum. They want your money, but you will be a long time waiting and will be put off by the long and horrible process of claiming...

    you are either with the worst insurance company in the world, believe everything you read in the red tops or,and this is the most likely one, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about


  • Options
    #33
    Profiler
    Registered Users Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭Profiler


    Rosco1982 wrote: »
    Very clever this.

    Mother nearly kills her kid then gets a family member to sue her on behalf of the child because she wouldn't be liable to pay anything and the family win a small fortune to look after the child.

    Only in Ireland.

    No not only in Ireland it's a point of law that operates in most countries.

    As the child is under the age of 18 it can not institute the legal proceedings itself so a family member has to.

    As the mother was the negligent then the mother can not on behalf of the child sue herself.

    So a family member has to sue on the child's behalf, for some reason the father was not the "litigation friend" so that is why it was the uncle.

    Nothing "clever" or dodgy going on here at all.


  • Options
    #34
    Profiler
    Registered Users Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭Profiler


    Mousey- wrote: »
    its more fooked up that the uncle thought all this up...."listen kid....you want some money and to get back at mommy and daddy"

    :rolleyes:

    As the child is under the age of 18 it can not institute the legal proceedings itself so a family member has to.

    As the mother was the negligent then the mother can not on behalf of the child sue herself.

    So a family member has to sue on the child's behalf, for some reason the father was not the "litigation friend" so that is why it was the uncle.

    Nothing "clever" or dodgy going on here at all.


  • Options
    #35
    Red_Marauder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,175 ✭✭✭Red_Marauder


    Mousey- wrote: »
    its more fooked up that the uncle thought all this up...."listen kid....you want some money and to get back at mommy and daddy"
    I think that's a completely naive view of what is going on here in fairness... I wouldn't be surprised if the parents were completely in favour of this for their kid.


  • Options
    #36
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    im sorry but this dosnt sound like the entire story. its black and white. you are hit by an uninsured car you do one of two things, claim off the mibi(there is an excess it was around 50euro) or if you have comp you claim of your own insurance pay your excess and your bonus is not affected.

    This isn't up for debate, it's what happened. What you chose to believe doesn't bother me... ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    Profiler
    Registered Users Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭Profiler


    Cain Green Symphony wrote: »
    This isn't up for debate, it's what happened. What you chose to believe doesn't bother me... ;)

    Sorry but those who know a little about the system find your "story" difficult to believe.

    I'd choose to believe that either you or your cousin (or both) are being to say the least "economical" with the truth.


  • Options
    #38
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    Cain Green Symphony wrote: »
    This isn't up for debate, it's what happened. What you chose to believe doesn't bother me... ;)

    no no its what you say happened after hearing the story from your cousin

    knowing the laws and rules and agreements its hard to believe that this is exactly what happened

    if

    your hit and your not at fault

    you can prove or your insurance company can prove the other person was uninsured

    you dont have comprehensive insurance

    the cost of the damage is over the mibi excess(which i made a typo about in the last reply its around 500 not 50)

    then the mibi deals with your damage. not your insurance company, the mibi


  • Options
    #39
    ilovelamp2000
    Registered Users Posts: 2,435 ✭✭✭ilovelamp2000


    Profiler wrote: »
    No not only in Ireland it's a point of law that operates in most countries.

    As the child is under the age of 18 it can not institute the legal proceedings itself so a family member has to.

    As the mother was the negligent then the mother can not on behalf of the child sue herself.

    So a family member has to sue on the child's behalf, for some reason the father was not the "litigation friend" so that is why it was the uncle.

    Nothing "clever" or dodgy going on here at all.

    I'm well aware of what happens when instituting proceedings on behalf of a child. Neither the mother nor father could sue in this instance.

    It is clever.


  • Options
    #40
    Profiler
    Registered Users Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭Profiler


    Rosco1982 wrote: »
    I'm well aware of what happens when instituting proceedings on behalf of a child. Neither the mother nor father could sue in this instance.

    It is clever.

    It's nothing to do with being clever.

    It is a legal instrument that ensure a child does not go without compensation.

    Moreover it also ensures that the person who caused the injury/loss can't influence either to court or the plaintiff unduly.

    It's not clever it's right.


  • Options
    #41
    podge3
    Registered Users Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭podge3


    Dudess wrote: »
    Yes, because that's exactly what the OP said.

    The little boy's mother didn't insure the car - and the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland was deemed liable for this (sweet Jesus...) I think that's the personal responsibility the OP is referring to.
    Exactly.

    Obviously something like this could happen to anyone i.e. we are in an accident where a family member is severely injured. However I would NEVER drive uninsured on my own, let alone with other family members in the car. Not only was this woman uninsured, it is also alleged that the child seat was not properly restrained so she may have contributed on the double to this catastrophe.

    I don't wish to be hard on the mother as I'm sure she feels guilty enough herself. However I don't see why I should have to pay for her mistakes. People need to wise up before they get behind the wheel of a car.

    The difference between this case and other cases of damage/injury by uninsured drivers is that the uninsured in this case is IMHO "benefiting" from the accident in which she herself was the uninsured driver. I imagine that the large sum of money awarded will be available immediately for help with looking after the child and to either build a new house or adapt their existing dwelling etc etc. The award will thus help the parents cope with the difficulties they now face and yet the woman was uninsured :confused:. Why should any of us insure our car in that case?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    Profiler
    Registered Users Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭Profiler


    podge3 wrote: »
    I don't see why I should have to pay for her mistakes.

    You are not paying for her mistakes.

    Those of us (myself incuded) who pay for motor insurance are paying so that the child does not go without a sufficient level of care.


  • Options
    #43
    podge3
    Registered Users Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭podge3


    Profiler wrote: »
    You are not paying for her mistakes.
    Everyone who pays car insurance is paying for her mistake and that includes me.

    The whole thing just seems wrong to me. What if she had injured the child at home? Who could she sue then?


  • Options
    #44
    PeakOutput
    Registered Users Posts: 7,639 ✭✭✭PeakOutput


    podge3 wrote: »
    Obviously something like this could happen to anyone i.e. we are in an accident where a family member is severely injured. However I would NEVER drive uninsured on my own, let alone with other family members in the car. Not only was this woman uninsured, it is also alleged that the child seat was not properly restrained so she may have contributed on the double to this catastrophe.

    your looking at this the wrong way, the mibi is not there to protect the person who drove without insurance, that just happens to be a short term undesired result of why it is there. it is there to protect the people the irresponsible uninsured driver hurts. does this child deserve nothing just becuase its mother is an irresponsible idiot?
    However I don't see why I should have to pay for her mistakes.

    your not it makes no difference to you either way
    The award will thus help the parents cope with the difficulties they now face and yet the woman was uninsured :confused:. Why should any of us insure our car in that case?

    if no1 insures their car then there are no insurance companies and therefore no mibi basically.

    look at this way. social welfare does not pay out childrens benefit (or whatever it is called) to irresponsible single parents who dont bother working and have never contributed a day in their lives so that they can live a happy and normal life. they do it so that the innocent children can


  • Options
    #45
    Dinkie
    Registered Users Posts: 1,291 ✭✭✭Dinkie


    Red_Marauder wrote: »
    I think that's a completely naive view of what is going on here in fairness... I wouldn't be surprised if the parents were completely in favour of this for their kid.

    I agree. It would be one way of getting the money required to help their son.

    I would like to know were any legal proceedings taken against the mother for driving uninsured without restraining her child properly. In my mind that is child abuse and illegal. Consequently I have no sympathy at all for the mother.

    Mistakes happen. Getting into and driving a car KNOWING you are uninsured is not a mistake. It is simply wrong.

    I would never, ever drive a car without insurance, and would refuse to get into a car if I knew the driver wasn't insured (I do realise the child didn't have this option!!)


  • Options
    #46
    Profiler
    Registered Users Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭Profiler


    Dinkie wrote: »
    I would never, ever drive a car without insurance, and would refuse to get into a car if I knew the driver wasn't insured (I do realise the child didn't have this option!!)

    Do you ask all drivers of any car you get into to produce insurance documents?

    The car might have a valid policy but that policy might not cover the driver!


  • Options
    #47
    Red_Marauder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,175 ✭✭✭Red_Marauder


    Dinkie wrote: »
    I would never, ever drive a car without insurance, and would refuse to get into a car if I knew the driver wasn't insured (I do realise the child didn't have this option!!)
    I agree with your post but I just wonder about this bit. I was driven to school as a kid in a car that had no seat belts in the back seats. There is risk attached to almost eveything. Kids do horse riding, swim in lakes that may be polluted, pet strange dogs, pick up mice, fall off their bikes on the street, fall off the garage roof - I wouldn't change any of that.

    I think the mother was wrong to not have her kid belted up, but we don't know what she was thinking that morning, where she was, or what the situation was. She now has a child with special needs, she's paying a price too, and personally I don't think she necessarily deserves anything further than that, including blame.


  • Options
    #48
    podge3
    Registered Users Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭podge3


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    your not it makes no difference to you either way
    Indeed it does make a difference to me as a portion my insurance premium goes to the MIBI and therefore funds this award.


  • Options
    #49
    Red_Marauder
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,175 ✭✭✭Red_Marauder


    podge3 wrote: »
    Indeed it does make a difference to me as a portion my insurance premium goes to the MIBI and therefore funds this award.
    How much?


  • Options
    #50
    Dinkie
    Registered Users Posts: 1,291 ✭✭✭Dinkie


    Profiler wrote: »
    Do you ask all drivers of any car you get into to produce insurance documents?

    The car might have a valid policy but that policy might not cover the driver!

    I said if I knew the driver was uninsured.

    Red_Marauder - I do feel for the mother. When I was growing up we didn't have any back seat seat belts either - it was virtually unheard of. But it has been law for a few years now.

    It is not easy having a disabled child, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone. It is both exhausting, frustrating and upsetting for the parents. But I see a lot of people driving kids in cars and the kids have no seatbelts on or are not in safety harnesses and are standing up between the two front seats. Sometimes there can be 4-5 kids squished into a back seat. Personally I consider that bad parenting.

    On the other side, I know of a case where the baby seat saved her childs life in a crash.

    I have no quibbles the son being awarded that money. They probably need the money to give the son the care he needs... and the parents the help they need.


  • Options
    #51
    podge3
    Registered Users Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭podge3


    Red_Marauder wrote: »
    How much?
    IIRC it is said that uninsured drivers add about 10% onto our premiums.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    Profiler
    Registered Users Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭Profiler


    Dinkie wrote: »
    I said if I knew the driver was uninsured.

    How do you know if the driver is insured unless you ask?

    Otherwise you simply assume there is cover in place however an assumption does not guarantee you anything.

    I would be very surprised if you have not traveled in an car that was not insured at some point in your life, even if you were not aware it was not insured.


  • Options
    #53
    Coriolanus
    Registered Users Posts: 4,879 ✭✭✭Coriolanus


    Profiler wrote: »
    How do you know if the driver is insured unless you ask?

    Otherwise you simply assume there is cover in place however an assumption does not guarantee you anything.

    I would be very surprised if you have not traveled in an car that was not insured at some point in your life, even if you were not aware it was not insured.
    Plus, having a valid insurance disc is no guarantee. The hubby was probably insured in the above case.


  • Options
    #54
    karlog
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,563 ✭✭✭karlog


    Wait so is this thing a scam then?


  • Options
    #55
    Profiler
    Registered Users Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭Profiler


    karlog wrote: »
    Wait so is this thing a scam then?

    No it's not. The child is only about 4 years of age now but I'd guess that even it doesn't think this thing is a scam.


  • Options
    #56
    podge3
    Registered Users Posts: 1,739 ✭✭✭podge3


    karlog wrote: »
    Wait so is this thing a scam then?
    Well its not illegal and I don't think scam is the correct description either.

    But an uninsured driver has effectively come out with the same award as if she had been fully insured. I don't really know what it is.


  • Options
    #57
    Profiler
    Registered Users Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭Profiler


    podge3 wrote: »
    But an uninsured driver has effectively come out with the same award as if she had been fully insured. I don't really know what it is.

    She got nothing! The money is for the severely disabled child.


  • Options
    #58
    Ickle Magoo
    Closed Accounts Posts: 17,485 ✭✭✭✭Ickle Magoo


    Profiler wrote: »
    She got nothing! The money is for the severely disabled child.

    Do you really think a parent of a child who is awarded nearly €3,000,000 will not benefit in anyway?! No new home? New car? Nothing?! :confused:


  • Options
    #59
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    PeakOutput wrote: »
    its up to the police weather or not they prosecute their decision makes no difference in weather or not your cousin gets her money

    My point was that the guards didn't do anything about it, what the uninsured driver done was illegal yet she didn't end up in court.
    so either she didnt tell you the whole story or she needs to get onto the mibi

    Is it up to every driver themselves to understand insurance, the technecalities and laws? Should everyone know about this "mibi" you are talking about? If they don't it's their own fault?

    My cousin dealt with 3 parties in this incident, the uninsured driver, the guardai and her insurance company. She done the right thing and ended up out of pocket because of some cheap wh0re who commited a crime. Should her insurance company have directed her to mibi? Who was at fault? Was my cousin at fault? I guess she was for taking her car out that day :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
    in your brothers opinion it was worth 2-3K more. in the INDEPENDANT engineers opinion who has no vested interest either way it wasnt.....so who should you believe?

    I can see you read what I said and made up your own story, that was a serious fail on your part. Nowhere did I say that the price of the car was an opinion belonging to anybody. It is what the car was worth, which he was quoted from a lexus dealer. The insurance company tried to do him out of a couple of thousand euro. He got a few differant quotes from a few differant dealers. He got the full worth of the car in the end.

    Again, the story is not up for debate, it's how it is. If you don't like it, don't read it, but do stop crying and whinging about it, will you?

    you are either with the worst insurance company in the world, believe everything you read in the red tops or,and this is the most likely one, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about

    Where did I say anything about my situation, my insurance company or any incident I have been in? Nowhere? Oh... so can you stop making up shíte and putting spins on what I say? It's not making you look very good.

    It's quite easy to understand that you haven't a clue what you are talking about, you must be an insurance broker or work in the business, do you? You are acting like they are companies we should applaud. They are scum trying to make a quick buck of anybody they can. They charged crazy prices in Ireland for decades because it was essential for people to have.

    I'm no expert, but I have studied insurance law back in college, I know a think or two about it ;)
    Profiler wrote: »
    Sorry but those who know a little about the system find your "story" difficult to believe.

    I'd choose to believe that either you or your cousin (or both) are being to say the least "economical" with the truth.

    For what reason, exactly, would I want to lie or distort the story? Any reasons? No? Then please stop, good lad...



    The fact that you two think it's ok for this mibi to exist is a prime example of WHY it has to exist. Instead of the parent of the child having to pay, whatever she has, I do. Why? Why do I have to pay for that child? It's a terrible thing that happened, but we should not be held liable for her mothers actions.


  • Options
    #60
    Profiler
    Registered Users Posts: 1,327 ✭✭✭Profiler


    Ickle Magoo wrote: »
    Do you really think a parent of a child who is awarded nearly €3,000,000 will not benefit in anyway?! No new home? New car? Nothing?! :confused:

    I wouldn't use the word benefit when the parents have to care for a severely disabled child.

    The money is placed in fund that is administered in such a way that the child is the beneficiary.

    If a lack of mobility requires a new car then they will have to buy a wheelchair accessible vehicle, the parents can't go out and buy a top of the range BWM for example because they'd like one.

    Same with a accommodation, if new accommodation is required then the house will have to fitted out in such a way that the child's needs are catered for. The parents can't go out and buy a penthouse apartment in Dublin docklands.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    m5ex9oqjawdg2i
    Closed Accounts Posts: 11,221 ✭✭✭✭m5ex9oqjawdg2i


    Profiler wrote: »
    I wouldn't use the word benefit when the parents have to care for a severely disabled child.

    The money is placed in fund that is administered in such a way that the child is the beneficiary.

    If a lack of mobility requires a new car then they will have to buy a wheelchair accessible vehicle, the parents can't go out and buy a top of the range BWM for example because they'd like one.

    Same with a accommodation, if new accommodation is required then the house will have to fitted out in such a way that the child's needs are catered for. The parents can't go out and buy a penthouse apartment in Dublin docklands.

    You honestly believe that they didn't benifit at all from this? Not one bit? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


Advertisement