Car Accident with Drunk Driver

Irish-Lass

Hi Guys,

Just want some advice.

Long story short

Our car was parked in a car park I was in the passenger side - car reversed into us - driver wasn't insured to drive the car - wasn't his car and only holds a provisional licence with no insurance of his own.

Driver left the scene police found him he was over two times the legal limit when they did get him blood tested (2 hours after the accident happened)

The woman who owned the car and has insurance arrived on the scene as well....I have been given her insurance details - but as she was not even in the car when the accident happened how likely are her insurance company going to be in covering our claim. There is damage to our front bumber, panel above the wheel arch has all been dented and scraped and front light has been moved

TouchingVirus

You are covered either way. If the driver was uninsured then you can claim from the uninsured drivers fund. For more info see http://www.mibi.ie/uninsured-unidentifi.html.

nicol

The Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland http://www.mibi.ie/ might be able to help. Think you can put a claim into them for damage caused by uninsured drivers. HTH

coylemj

Other posters in other threads have said that the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) is painfully slow, here's a plan B.....

The owner of a car can be prosecuted for allowing an uninsured driver to use the car.

Go to the owner, tell her that you are holding her responsible for the accident (which is legally correct, ultimately she is responsible) and that if she doesn't cough up for the damage you will get the Gardai to summons her for permitting an insured person to drive the car.

If she calls your bluff, you can point out to her that the MIB will ultimately be able to sue her for any money they pay to you so if she has any sense she should cut her losses, pay up and that will be the end of the matter.

TouchingVirus

coylemj wrote: »

The owner of a car can be prosecuted for allowing an uninsured driver to use the car.

And if the owner of the car did not have any hand, act or part in the actual uninsured driver taking the car for a spin....?

coylemj

TouchingVirus wrote: »

And if the owner of the car did not have any hand, act or part in the actual uninsured driver taking the car for a spin....?

I'd assume the OP would have mentioned it at this stage if the car had been stolen. If it was taken by a family member and the owner denies givng him/her permission then that would probably mean the OP has to fall back on the MIB though there are people on this and the Motors forum who would say that the owner's insurance is obliged to pay out and then claim the money back from the policyholder.

TouchingVirus

coylemj wrote: »

I'd assume the OP would have mentioned it at this stage if the car had been stolen. If it was taken by a family member and the owner denies givng him/her permission then that would probably mean the OP has to fall back on the MIB though there are people on this and the Motors forum who would say that the owner's insurance is obliged to pay out and then claim the money back from the policyholder.

I was getting at the second scenario, unauthorised usage of the vehicle by a person known to the owner.

coylemj

TouchingVirus wrote: »

I was getting at the second scenario, unauthorised usage of the vehicle by a person known to the owner.

Sounds like they already going down for drunken driving and driving with no insurance so not sure if the owner could be persuaded to co-operate (i.e. pay up) based on a threat of having the driver also charged with Unauthorised Taking (S.112) as an alternative to her (the owner) being charged with permitting the person to drive the car with no insurance.

Del2005

TouchingVirus wrote: »

And if the owner of the car did not have any hand, act or part in the actual uninsured driver taking the car for a spin....?

It's loose loose for her assuming the driver was a friend.

She has to either pay the OP's damages, with insurance or cash, or report her friend for stealing her car and let the MIB sort it out.

Her car will then be stolen recovered on insurance databases

Irish-Lass

Ok to clarify a few points

The lady who the car is registered to and who is insured - her husband was in fact the front seat passenger and he wanted us to lie and say his wife was driving the car. He refused to give the police the drivers name or say where he had gone to, when his wife appeared on the scene she brought the gardi around to her house and he was arrested there.

The guy that was driving was arrested and charged with drink driving and was charged with leaving the scene of an accident.

I think the car was also impounded (not 100% certain on this)

MapForJ

coylemj wrote: »

Other posters in other threads have said that the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) is painfully slow, here's a plan B.....

The owner of a car can be prosecuted for allowing an uninsured driver to use the car.

Go to the owner, tell her that you are holding her responsible for the accident (which is legally correct, ultimately she is responsible) and that if she doesn't cough up for the damage you will get the Gardai to summons her for permitting an insured person to drive the car.

If she calls your bluff, you can point out to her that the MIB will ultimately be able to sue her for any money they pay to you so if she has any sense she should cut her losses, pay up and that will be the end of the matter.

is it not thegardai who decide that. How can you get the gardai to summons anyone?

littlemac1980

Possibly by notifying them of her response, which will indicate one of the two scenarios outlined above, i.e. that the car was either stolen, or she permitted the uninsured person to drive it.

MagicSean

MapForJ wrote: »

is it not thegardai who decide that. How can you get the gardai to summons anyone?

You can't.

coylemj

MapForJ wrote: »

is it not thegardai who decide that. How can you get the gardai to summons anyone?

This is what I said......

coylemj wrote: »

Go to the owner, tell her that you are holding her responsible for the accident (which is legally correct, ultimately she is responsible) and that if she doesn't cough up for the damage you will get the Gardai to summons her for permitting an insured person to drive the car.

It's a strategy/bluff to force her to own up and fork out for the damage, I know you can't force the Gardai to prosecute anyone.

In most cases of a material damage accident the Gardai are content to let the insurance companies sort it out. However if one of the drivers or car owners starts screwing the other guy around and there is clear evidence of an offence having been committed they will listen to a request to prosecute. You can't force them to do it but in a lot of cases they will.

Zambia

Sounds like extortion to me mate.

Jo King

Irish-Lass wrote: »

The woman who owned the car and has insurance arrived on the scene as well....I have been given her insurance details - but as she was not even in the car when the accident happened how likely are her insurance company going to be in covering our claim. There is damage to our front bumber, panel above the wheel arch has all been dented and scraped and front light has been moved

The insurance company have no choice unless she reports that the car was stolen. This appears most unlikely given that the husband of the owner was in the car. Under the Road Traffic Act, if you obtain a judgement against an insured person, you can enforce it directly against the insurance company.
If you have an insurance broker you should advise him about the incident. A good broker would get the incident sorted out quickly.

RGS

If you have comprehensive cover your own insurance company must handle the damage claim without affecting your No Claims Discount.

The MIBI are insurer of last resort. See extract below from MIBI website:

Where the damaged vehicle is comprehensively insured or the damaged property is covered under a policy of insurance, the Agreement stipulates that the claim must be dealt with by the insurer of the vehicle or property.
There is a Protocol in place between MIBI and all companies writing motor insurance here which guarantees protection of the No Claims Bonus where the comprehensive insurer compensates the policyholder on behalf of MIBI.
This Protocol ensures a speedy resolution of the claim and avoids delay in having the vehicle repaired.

Irish-Lass

I have rang my insurance company and they said I have two options

1. Make a claim on my own insurance to get the work repair - it WILL affect my no claims bonus and reduce it to 2 years - they will then make a claim against her insurance company and if successful they will reinstate my full no claims bonus and also any extra premiums I have paid.

2. They are going to contact her insurance company and see if they are willing to deal with same and if they are then they will have an assessor come out and view the car.

I am not quiet sure what the options are if they don't fulfil the claim. The MIBI is not an option - the MIBI is only for claims against unidentified drivers or cars with no insurance. In this case the driver is known and there is insurance. I have a feeling if her insurance company won't deal with it that we are going to have to go after the individual personally and as a foreign national he has no ties to the country and guarantee he will move/change address or leave.

aacs

You should file a case wherein the lady in question should not be allowed to leave the country until the accident case pending clearance(against her owned car).

The original owner of the car(lady) should be forced pay the damages here. Since it is evident that her car was used with her permission.

Irish-Lass

Well getting different information from my insurance company and her insurance company....seems I have to claim under my insurance policy. My insurance company are saying that my no claims bonus will drop to 2 years where MIBI are saying that as part of the agreement my no claims bonus cannot be affected.

Her insurance company will only pay the excess on my policy which I think is about €150.00.

I am wondering what the hell is the point of having insurance in the first place when she gets off scot free for letting a drunk person drive her car with her husband in the passenger seat who is also a named person on the policy.

It is so damn frustrating

coylemj

Irish-Lass wrote: »

I am wondering what the hell is the point of having insurance in the first place when she gets off scot free for letting a drunk person drive her car with her husband in the passenger seat who is also a named person on the policy.

It is so damn frustrating

She will get off scot free unless the Garda prosecutes her for permitting someone to drive her car without insurance, go to the Garda and say what you said above, see what happens.

If I was you I'd talk to the woman who owns the car, tell her that you are going to write a letter to the local Super asking that she be prosecuted. Tell her that if she is prosecuted for an insurance offence, her premium will rocket and she will be out of pocket but that if she was prepared to pay for the damage to your car then you would be prepared to leave it at that.

MapForJ

Zambia wrote: »

Sounds like extortion to me mate.

which part sounds like extortion if i may ask?

RGS

The car was insured the driver was not. In these situations the insurance company who insure the vehicle deal with the claim as Insurer Concerned, which means the rules of the MIBI applies.

You must claim off your own insurance and your NCB cannot be affected.

It appears your insurance company are not providing you with the proper information or assistance.

coylemj

RGS wrote: »

The car was insured the driver was not.

Common mistake.

It is the use of the car by named individuals (the insured and spouse and named drivers) and (typically) people with a full licence aged between 25 and 70) all of whom are doing specific things (social, domestic and pleasure) that is insured, not the car.

No policy of insurance applies generically to anyone who drives the car.

Zambia

MapForJ wrote: »

which part sounds like extortion if i may ask?

Extortion (also called shakedown, outwresting, and exaction) is a criminal offence which occurs when a person unlawfully obtains either money, property or services from a person(s), entity, or institution, through coercion. Refraining from doing harm is sometimes euphemistically called protection. Extortion is commonly practiced by organized crime groups. The actual obtainment of money or property is not required to commit the offense. Making a threat of violence which refers to a requirement of a payment of money or property to halt future violence is sufficient to commit the offense. Exaction refers not only to extortion or the unlawful demanding and obtaining of something through force,[1] but additionally, in its formal definition, means the infliction of something such as pain and suffering or making somebody endure something unpleasant.[2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extortion

coylemj wrote: »

Go to the owner, tell her that you are holding her responsible for the accident (which is legally correct, ultimately she is responsible) and that if she doesn't cough up for the damage you will get the Gardai to summons her for permitting an insured person to drive the car.

This is what I was refering to.

bath handle

coylemj wrote: »

RGS wrote: »

The car was insured the driver was not.

Common mistake.

It is the use of the car by named individuals (the insured and spouse and named drivers) and (typically) people with a full licence aged between 25 and 70) all of whom are doing specific things (social, domestic and pleasure) that is insured, not the car.

No policy of insurance applies generically to anyone who drives the car.

Common mistake.
From the point of view of a third party it is the car which is insured. Breaches of terms and conditions by the insured do not permit the insurer to avoid liability to a third party. This is as a result of various European Directives which aim to harmonize the car insurance laws in the EU.

PCPhoto

coylemj wrote: »

Common mistake.

It is the use of the car by named individuals (the insured and spouse and named drivers) and (typically) people with a full licence aged between 25 and 70) all of whom are doing specific things (social, domestic and pleasure) that is insured, not the car.

No policy of insurance applies generically to anyone who drives the car.

ever hear of "open driving" ?

http://www.onedirect.ie/general_insurance/gi_car_faq.html#Open

What is Open Driving?

Our open driving is an optional cover which allows other drivers to drive your car as long as they are over 25 and under 70 years of age with a full EU licence. They must have no convictions in the last 5 years, endorsements or disqualifications in the last 10 years or claims in the last 3 years and must not have more than 4 penalty points. To qualify, you the policyholder must have your Full/EU licence for more than 5 years and have a minimum of 30% No Claims Bonus.

also on the FBD website:

3. Select open driving which will cover yourself and any driver between 25 and 71 with a full clean Irish or UK licence to drive your car with your permission.

coylemj

PCPhoto wrote: »

ever hear of "open driving" ?

So-called 'open' driving carries restrictions of the type that you quoted. My point is that no policy of insurance allows anyone to drive the car so the car itself is not unilaterally insured, the use of the car by individuals who meet specific criteria are.

ResearchWill

coylemj wrote: »

So-called 'open' driving carries restrictions of the type that you quoted. My point is that no policy of insurance allows anyone to drive the car so the car itself is not unilaterally insured, the use of the car by individuals who meet specific criteria are.

Correct,, as a matter of policy no pun intended, I will only drive a vehicle that I am named to drive, seen too many cases of people driving on an open policy to crash and discover only third party cover, or worse to discover that they are in fact not insured to drive the vehicle.

RGS

coylemj wrote: »

Common mistake.

It is the use of the car by named individuals (the insured and spouse and named drivers) and (typically) people with a full licence aged between 25 and 70) all of whom are doing specific things (social, domestic and pleasure) that is insured, not the car.

No policy of insurance applies generically to anyone who drives the car.

The insurance company who insured the car are handling the claim as insurer concerned under the MIBI rules, the bureau are not handling the claim--therefore in plain english the car is insured but the drive is not=Insured concerned.

bath handle

RGS wrote: »

3772758 wrote:

The insurance company who insured the car are handling the claim as insurer concerned under MIBI rules, the bureau are not handling the claim--therefore in plain english the car is insured but the drive is not=Insured concerned.

The MIBI always appoints a member company to handle a claim for which it accepting liability. That only happens when there is an unidentified vehicle or an uninsured or stolen vehicle involved. In any case where there is a policy in the vehicle (not just the driver) the insurer must deal with it as an insured claim albeit with right of recourse to their own insured for breach of contract. Section 3.8 of the MIBI agreement. This has been upheld in numerous court decisions.