Friends cousin wrecked my car. No nct

website_dude

Hi lads. Please bare with me here. Last friday, i was showing my friends cousin how to get to a new job he was starting monday. He is only 20 and starting out on his old mans policy on an integra. Anyway, he was driving behind me on a backroad. The road was narrow, so i pulled in to let another car pass me in the opposite direction. I was stopped for maybe 2 seconds when i heard his car sliding and whacked into me, destroying the rear end of my baby. I have spent nearly 10 grand on her in 3 years with custom respray and sensible mods, no mapping or massive exhausts or anything. The rear bumper is mashed and there is bending on the chassis arms. I havent had a chance to look in the boot because my neck and back are in tatters. I went to the quack and i got whiplash and need physio. The young lad has promised to pay everything outside insurance because he has an excess of 2.5 grand. Problem is i dont think it makes sense for him to pay out of his pocket. My car is likely a write off, but i want to keep it because of all the love i put into it. I'm afraid i will get the blame because the nct was out on my car. But his tyres were non existant! Im totally stressed now because i recently lost half my hours at work and things are tight!

I'm in a bit of a bind lads. I'm driving 10 years with full license and never been involved in accident and always had tax, insurance and nct up to date. I'm a lover of the mitsubishi colt and have been driving my 99, lightly modded colt for 3 years. The nct expired in January and it failed on emissions. I got that sorted, but had to get full test and then they failed on my hid lights even though they were accepted the month before. It is taxed til end of may and i planned on putting it off the road in june for a few months and just drive the family wagon, due to some personal life changes. So i didn't retest the car because i was disputing the hid thing with the nct centre. To be honest, i hadn't been using the car and it wasn't used for over a month before last friday, because i had her in the garage getting some paint work done and brake upgrades before my hours were cut to the bone.

Paying for the doctor and pain killers went on the credit card and i am not sure i can afford physio. I dont know if i should put in a claim and dont know if my car can be fixed if insurance writes it off. Please help. Any advice is appreciated. Ive gone from owning a business to working in a factory and then losing half that and now my car is wrecked by someone i know and i dont want him getting screwed by insurance, and i dont want to get into trouble about my nct, and im really worried about that. Sorry, i suffer with my nerves sometimes.

Atlantic Dawn

Having a valid NCT on your car will have no impact on the success of your claim.

As I see it you have 2 options, I would go with the 2nd..

1. If you feel he has the money to pay for the damage let him pay for it, put it in for repairs asap. Problem with this is your not yet known injuries are not covered.
2. Go through his insurance for everything to be fixed, see a doctor to see if you have any serious injuries. Problem with this is they will give you book value of car which will be circa a couple of hundred for the 99 Colt regardless of mods, possibly you could transfer parts to replacement car.

quadrifoglio verde

OSI wrote: »

You need to report the accident to your insurance and let them deal with it to be honest. Regardless of whether he plans to pay for it out of his pocket, unless you report it to your insurance, if anything happens down the line and he changes his mind you're going to be screwed.

*note I wouldn't expect an easy ride from his insurance company if it ends up going that way either. Driving an integra under his Dad's name is bloody obvious he's fronting and insurers are taking a very dim view on it of late.

Doesn't absolve the insurance company from paying out

They still have to honour third party claims

jimgoose

This is what insurance is for. Report the accident and get yourself sorted out.

Supergurrier

If he can afford to sort you for cash then the excess should be no problem for him.

Don't let this drag out op. You don't really know anybody until money is involved.

jimgoose

OSI wrote: »

...I wouldn't expect an easy ride from his insurance company if it ends up going that way either. Driving an integra under his Dad's name is bloody obvious he's fronting and insurers are taking a very dim view on it of late.

That isn't the OP's problem. OP, welcome to the world. This is why we have insurance. It is not a game of "Diddling your way past the Guards", it is deadly serious. When you get into the shít business big-time, and as you now know it does happen, you need backup.

SteelyDanJalapeno

Yep, if he wants to pay you in cash I can imagine it will be a lot more than the excess he's worried about paying for, go through insurance.

Kenny Logins

I'd say he's better of paying the excess, bills could be much higher.

djimi

Forget about letting him pay himself; if you have medical bills then there isnt a hope in hell that he will be paying this out of his own pocket. Go through insurance; if he wants to square it with his insurer after they pay out then let him go down that road.

mb1725

if you try to facilitate your friend it is going to end up costing you money on medical and maybe legal bills, money you don't have. I'd let the insurance company deal with it. Good advice from djimi about friend reimbursing his insurance.

murphym7

djimi wrote: »

Forget about letting him pay himself; if you have medical bills then there isnt a hope in hell that he will be paying this out of his own pocket. Go through insurance; if he wants to square it with his insurer after they pay out then let him go down that road.

Exactly. Go through the insurance, he can still pay himself and not get screwed at renewal time.

djimi

I think I'd be right in saying also that the excess would not apply to a third party claim? If that's what he is worried about.

slimjimmc

djimi wrote: »

I think I'd be right in saying also that the excess would not apply to a third party claim? If that's what he is worried about.

Yeah, I too think you're right on that. The excess only applies to claims he makes against his own (aka his father's) policy.

This was not a minor tip so the OP really needs to make yer man's insurance cover this, otherwise he might regret it later. He should also report it to his own insurer asap in case there is a counter claim (you'd be surprised what some people would argue when they're on the hook).

ShowMeTheCash

Like the rest said this is now a matter for insurance.

The cost to replace your car is probably going to be a lot less than the cost to fix you.

2500 excess you mentioned, medical bills plus comp for the accident will probably run in excess of 6K minumum, not including the cost of your car.

If you had not of been injured perhaps you could of come to an agreement but your hurt, not your fault.

dar83

Reading 10k spent on a 99 Colt gave me whiplash! :pac:

In all seriousness, I'd echo what most people are saying, if you're not only going to have car repair bills, but also medical expenses.... go with the insurance!

Spook_ie

You need to also check the fine print in the insurance policies to avoid giving companies any wriggle room (extract from 123.ie policy)

Conditions That Apply To The Whole Policy
1.
Accident and Claim Procedure
You or your legal personal representatives must inform us immediately in writing about any accident, injury or damage and send us any letter, claim, writ, summons or other information about the accident or claim as soon as you receive same. Your or your legal personal representatives must also inform us immediately, of any intended civil or criminal proceedings or Coroner’s Inquest for which there may be liability under this Policy. You must complete an Accident Report Form and supply any other documents as requested by us.
2.
Conduct of Claims
You or any person insured by this Policy must not negotiate, admit liability or make any offer, promise or payment for any claim unless you have our written permission. We are entitled to take over and conduct in your name (or in the name of any person covered by this Policy) the defence, prosecution or settlement of any claim for our own benefit. Anyone making a claim under this Policy must provide any information and assistance we may reasonably require.
3.
Other Insurances
If a claim for loss, damage or liability arises under this Policy and it is covered by any other insurance, we will only pay our rateable share of the claim. We are not required to make any payment under this condition if we would not anyway have been liable.
(i)
Under the terms of Section 2
or
Because of Exception 9 (b) to Sections 1 and 2.
4.
Care of your Motor Vehicle
The Insured Vehicle must be covered by a valid Department of Transport NCT Test Certificate, if you need one by law. You must take all reasonable steps to protect the Insured Vehicle from loss or damage, and keep it in an efficient and roadworthy condition. The vehicle keys should be removed from the ignition and the vehicle kept locked when not being driven. If we ask, you must allow us free access to examine the Insured Vehicle at any reasonable time. Alarms,immobilisers and tracking devices should be turned on when fitted. Endorsements may apply to your cover setting out other requirements relating to immobilisers, alarm and tracking devices. These devices must always be on and working whenever the Insured Vehicle is left.
If you do not take reasonable care of the Insured Vehicle and meet any security requirements, this Policy may no longer be valid and we may not pay any claim.

Voodoomelon

If my own mother smacked into the back of me and there were medical bills involved, i'd be putting it through the insurance. Your medical bills could be €150, or they could be several thousand. Do not let this other chaps puppy-eyed friend of a friend arguments get in the way.

I'd be livid with someone who wasn't paying attention with bald tyres.

Spook_ie wrote: »

You need to also check the fine print in the insurance policies to avoid giving companies any wriggle room (extract from 123.ie policy)

He'd be claiming off the other parties insurance, not his own.

Spook_ie

Voodoomelon wrote: »

He'd be claiming off the other parties insurance, not his own.

That's why I said insurance policies ( plural ) if the other parties insurance has similar wording then baldy tyres are not going to bode well

My car is likely a write off, but i want to keep it because of all the love i put into it. I'm afraid i will get the blame because the nct was out on my car. But his tyres were non existant!

There's a good probability that if investigated then both insurance companies have enough wriggle room to escape or mitigate payouts, which then leaves the situation being with the courts and the MIBI

corktina

it's what insurance is for..... stick in the claim

Pro Hoc Vice

Spook_ie wrote: »

That's why I said insurance policies ( plural ) if the other parties insurance has similar wording then baldy tyres are not going to bode well


There's a good probability that if investigated then both insurance companies have enough wriggle room to escape or mitigate payouts, which then leaves the situation being with the courts and the MIBI

An insurance company can not wiggle out of third party claims, there is no ifs or buts they must pay third party claims, the OP is a third party and must be paid.*

* This does not apply it seems if the insurance company is registered in Malta!

slimjimmc

Spook_ie wrote: »

You need to also check the fine print in the insurance policies to avoid giving companies any wriggle room (extract from 123.ie policy)

Doesn't matter to the OP. As the injured party he should be claiming from the other party's insurance, his own lack of NCT will not invalidate that claim and the other party's insurance is obliged by law to cover 3rd party claims. The other insurer might try use the OP's lack of NCT to argue he shouldn't have been on the road and therefore should share some of the costs but I can't see that working for them.

iwantmydinner

OP, definitely go through the insurers. It makes no sense for you to do otherwise!

MarkR

What value would a 99 colt be to an assessor? If they consider that it's worth a grand, and repair are going to cost way more than that, won't you just get the book value of the car?

corktina

Lack of an NCT has no bearing on the damage afflicted. The claim amount remains the same.

corktina

MarkR wrote: »

What value would a 99 colt be to an assessor? If they consider that it's worth a grand, and repair are going to cost way more than that, won't you just get the book value of the car?

It's the medical and legal costs that are the real issue, not the value of the car.

zarquon

you will only get the book value of the colt which won't be much so your focus will be on covering medical costs. The 10K spent on the colt is a write off now but who on earth spends that much on a 99 colt! Insurance will only value it at a few hundred euro most likely.

I don't want to be condescending but anyone who spends in excess of 10K modding a car that is still not roadworthy enough for an NCT has their priorities completely wrong and an accident was more likely to happen at some point.

_Brian

A friends cousin = A stranger
Go the proper route on this accident, contact your insurance company and report it, request that he do the same..

I don't suppose you took any photos to support your position??

Your just short changing yourself if you just take a few quid for this, you deserve your car replaced and your expences covered without feeling your doing anything wrong.

Caliden

Go through insurance, if he can't afford the 2.5k excess he won't be able afford to replace your car and you're only going to be chasing him for cash.

Notify your insurance company and let them deal with it. It's **** but he crashed into you remember, why should you suffer as a consequence?

Spook_ie

Pro Hoc Vice wrote: »

An insurance company can not wiggle out of third party claims, there is no ifs or buts they must pay third party claims, the OP is a third party and must be paid.*

* This does not apply it seems if the insurance company is registered in Malta!

If you say so, but if they can determine that there were factors that would have allowed them to deny insurance cover ( non disclosure ) then surely there would be no insurance and therefore a Garda/MIBI involvement

No NCT versus No Tyres = No Winner

cerastes

Spook_ie wrote: »

If you say so, but if they can determine that there were factors that would have allowed them to deny insurance cover ( non disclosure ) then surely there would be no insurance and therefore a Garda/MIBI involvement

No NCT versus No Tyres = No Winner

I wonder could they even drag the OPs HID's into it, put off approaching car, which affected following car? probably not, but its less of a problem than worn out tyres, too close for the conditions and road surface equals too little experience, result, potential risk of a collision occurring.

The other blokes father was fool to allow his son drive a car under the circumstances and not have the tyres or even the rest of the car in better condition.

Not sure why the OP wouldnt have driven along in the other persons car as a passenger either? I wouldnt drive my car unless I knew it was ok, and not without an NCT unless I couldnt get one but still that I knew it was ok.

The other driver only has themself to blame, you might not know these people soon enough but that might happen regardless of what decision you make OP, Id be looking out for my neck and back and whatever, less concerned about the car or the other persons no claims or excess.

corktina

The OP is a third party...the guy driving the cars insurance must pay for the damage he caused. They cannot invalid third party cover on a technicality.(They could do so for damage to the car that went into the back of the OP's car, but not for a third party's car

farmchoice

ok i'm in the motor insurance buisness.

put this through his insurance not yours.
reasons. 1. it was his fault
2. his excess will not apply to your claim as you are the Third party
3. you may have injuries which he will not be able to afford to pay from his own pocket so put it all through his policy.
4. your lack of NCT may mean you can't claim off your own policy (depending on who you are insured with) but it will not stop you claiming as a third party, althought it may reduce the amount you are offered.


if you were to claim off your policy and the lack of nct was not an issue you would still be subject to your excess and with the car being a 15 year old colt you would be lucky if you walked away with a cheque for €300.00 if you are keeping the car.
you might get a few quid more claiming off his policy as you are a third party.

discombobulate

farmchoice wrote: »

ok i'm in the motor insurance buisness.

put this through his insurance not yours.
reasons. 1. it was his fault
2. his excess will not apply to your claim as you are the Third party
3. you may have injuries which he will not be able to afford to pay from his own pocket so put it all through his policy.
4. your lack of NCT may mean you can't claim off your own policy (depending on who you are insured with) but it will not stop you claiming as a third party, althought it may reduce the amount you are offered.


if you were to claim off your policy and the lack of nct was not an issue you would still be subject to your excess and with the car being a 15 year old colt you would be lucky if you walked away with a cheque for €300.00 if you are keeping the car.
you might get a few quid more claiming off his policy as you are a third party.

I don't think he was contemplating claiming from his own policy either way. That would make absolutely no sense.

My NCT was out by a month and a half when I claimed on my own policy previously and there was no issue. I had it booked etc. and there was backlogs but they never mentioned it.

mgbgt1978

More to this than meets the eye....;)
An Integra & a modded Colt both driving along a back road with no passengers, supposedly to show one driver where a certain premises is.

Why not travel together in just one car ????
Why not just give verbal instructions on how to get there ????
Why not just sit at home and show him on google maps ????

discombobulate

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

More to this than meets the eye....;)
An Integra & a modded Colt both driving along a back road with no passengers, supposedly to show one driver where a certain premises is.

Why not travel together in just one car ????
Why not just give verbal instructions on how to get there ????
Why not just sit at home and show him on google maps ????

Good man Sherlock!

He was probably going to his work and passing where the cousins friend was going and not to the same place so no point driving together.

slimjimmc

Not that that the Q is really relevant but I'll play along.

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

More to this than meets the eye....;)
An Integra & a modded Colt both driving along a back road with no passengers, supposedly to show one driver where a certain premises is.

Why not travel together in just one car ???? -- possibly one party going elsewhere afterwards, just for fun, etc?
Why not just give verbal instructions on how to get there ???? -- Confusing, complicated, just for fun, etc?
Why not just sit at home and show him on google maps ???? -- Perhaps a new premises not mapped yet, crap internet, just for fun,etc

mgbgt1978

discombobulate wrote: »

Good man Sherlock!

He was probably going to his work and passing where the cousins friend was going and not to the same place so no point driving together.

Ah, thanks for explaining that.



And there was me thinking it was two fellows out for a blast around the back roads when the inevitable happened......now I just feel silly:D

website_dude

Thanks for all the replies. The information and advice has put my mind at rest. I am especially glad to know that the excess is only payable if the other lad claims off his own policy. It seems that i should contact the insurance company.

Another question! Do I contact my own insurance company to claim through his policy, or do i need his insurance info? Right now i only have his car make, model and registration number, plus a text message from him to say he would cover all my bills.

The reason we took 2 cars is because he lives on the other side of town and i was only leading the way and then heading back home. Google maps didnt come to my mind. Im a bit old fashioned and have been accused of driving like an old lady on more than one occasion. No speeding from me.

The colt holds some sentimental value too. It belonged to my brother who passed away a few years back. Thats why i spent so much time and money doing what he wanted to do with a colt. Silly, i know, but its also why i dont want the insurance company to write it off and take it away leaving me with a 300 euro check.

corktina

you don't have to let them take it.... they can do a deal where you keep the salvage

Whether you deal through your insurance depends if you have fully comp. I doubt they'll want to deal with it if you have TPFT

colm_mcm

A dented wing and broken headlight would make a 99 Colt an economic write-off. Very unlikely insurance will want to repair.

website_dude

corktina wrote: »

you don't have to let them take it.... they can do a deal where you keep the salvage

Whether you deal through your insurance depends if you have fully comp. I doubt they'll want to deal with it if you have TPFT

So i get to keep the car? That's good news if it can be fixed. But what if the repair bill is like 2 grand? The accident wasnt my fault. Can i not insist it be paid and not written off for 300?

Do I claim through mine, or his though?


Sorry for all my questions

corktina

I think the insurance company would only want to pay the market value as a write off.... you'd have to fight for more and I'm not sure you'd win

jimb43

I might be wrong but if you have a car on the road and you have no nct , his insurance will nail you on that alone. you have no right to be driving a vehicle on the road with no nct FULL STOP . They will say you were not legal, END OF STORY , any excuse not to pay , and that s a big one there

if I'm wrong well i will be surprised. the fact that his tyres were defective they won't care they will zoom in on your no nct wish you luck unfortunately i think your will not have a leg to stand on , keep us all posted

website_dude

corktina wrote: »

I think the insurance company would only want to pay the market value as a write off.... you'd have to fight for more and I'm not sure you'd win

Seems unfair if their customer caused the damage. But thanks again. I keep thinking about the car and not myself, so i am thinking the medical bills might not be high, but could be ongoing and in that sense it makes perfect sense to go through the insurance company. I will ring my insurer tomorrow and ask about it. I will also have to get some physio and something stronger for the pain so i can work. I can use my fiances car while mine is off the road.

website_dude

jimb43 wrote: »

I might be wrong but if you have a car on the road and you have no nct , his insurance will nail you on that alone. you have no right to be driving a vehicle on the road with no nct FULL STOP . They will say you were not legal, END OF STORY , any excuse not to pay , and that s a big one there

if I'm wrong well i will be surprised. the fact that his tyres were defective they won't care they will zoom in on your no nct wish you luck unfortunately i think your will not have a leg to stand on , keep us all posted

Thats what i was worrying about.

Supergurrier

jimb43 wrote: »

I might be wrong but if you have a car on the road and you have no nct , his insurance will nail you on that alone. you have no right to be driving a vehicle on the road with no nct FULL STOP . They will say you were not legal, END OF STORY , any excuse not to pay , and that s a big one there

if I'm wrong well i will be surprised. the fact that his tyres were defective they won't care they will zoom in on your no nct wish you luck unfortunately i think your will not have a leg to stand on , keep us all posted

This is not true.

Op was 3rd party (Victim)

Third party always gets covered regardless.

Spook_ie

Supergurrier wrote: »

This is not true.

Op was 3rd party (Victim)

Third party always gets covered regardless.

Correct, even if it has to go to the MIBI, however insurance can be invalidated for one or other or both under the No NCT/No Tyres or other reasons
http://www.1000ventures.com/ads/cars_insurance_invalidate_5ways.html

Have you ever let your MOT lapse, insured your child’s car in your name or failed to report a minor accident to your insurance company? If so, you could be driving with invalidated insurance. It’s surprisingly easy to invalidate your car insurance, but by avoiding the following mistakes you should insure that both you and your car remain on the right side of the law.

Misrepresentation


The most common way of invalidating your car insurance is misrepresentation, which means providing your insurer with false or misleading information. For example, you might feel tempted to lower your premiums by claiming that your car is kept in a garage when in fact it is parked on the street. Although this may seem like a harmless white lie, it could in fact land you in some serious legal trouble. Other common means of misrepresentation include lying about the number of years since you last made an insurance claim, providing incorrect information about the make and model of your car, or failing to disclose information that relates to the potential safety of your or your vehicle.

Failing to report an accident

Anxiety about losing a ‘no claims’ discount can stop drivers from reporting accidents to their insurance company. In fact, you have a duty to report any incident that could result in a third party making a claim – by doing so you are protecting yourself against loss by passing the risk to your insurers. Although this is unlikely to increase your premium, failing to report an incident can invalidate your car insurance.

Fronting

With insurance premiums so high for younger drivers, ‘fronting’ is something of which many parents are guilty. In fact, it has been estimated that more than two thirds of parents would consider breaking the law by insuring their child’s car in their own name – a practice which is technically fraudulent and can have serious consequences. If you are caught ‘fronting’ then your insurer may either cancel the policy or charge the correct premium as a lump sum. They can also refuse to pay out for any claims, which can result in the young driver being treated as uninsured and receiving a ban from driving and a large fine. Both parent and child may also find it harder and more expensive to find new car insurance in the future.

Making undisclosed changes to your car

Insurers can charge higher premiums for modified cars, so keeping mum about any changes is tempting. However, doing so can actually render your insurance policy invalid. You should report any changes you make to your vehicle, from fitting alloyed wheels and body kits to more complex alterations which boost speed and performance.

Out of date MOT

Driving without a valid MOT will automatically invalidate your car insurance. Any car more than three years old must hold an MOT certificate, which will need to be renewed regularly. Failing to do so will open you, the motorist, to a potential fine and prosecution. To avoid the potential scrapes not having car insurance can bring, look to online companies like Co Operative for quotes and policies you can purchase whilst browsing the internet.

I see nothing in most car policies that would differ here from the UK

website_dude

I think it would be really unfair if i was to get into trouble over the nct. Its not like my car was unsafe. It is well taken care of and the hid lights are were professionally installed and are not the type to blind you. Besides, it was afternoon when the accident happened.

John_Rambo

mgbgt1978 wrote: »

More to this than meets the eye....
An Integra & a modded Colt both driving along a back road with no passengers, supposedly to show one driver where a certain premises is.

Why not travel together in just one car ????
Why not just give verbal instructions on how to get there ????
Why not just sit at home and show him on google maps ????

Because one of them is twenty and they both are car enthusiasts. Car enthusiasts don't use google maps to navigate, they use their cars. Just like astonouts don't use telescopes! This was fairly well explained in the OP. It's not illegal.

website_dude, If your fairly fit and strong the injuries will heal within weeks, a bit like a rugby player! But, they may linger. Along with the car damage, I can't see this being paid by a wallet.

Whatever way this works out, I'd imagine you're covered, you may however be getting the cold shoulder from your cousin and his friend for doing this favour. Have to feel sorry for the twenty year old on the week of his new job.

With a bit of luck your injuries are just muscle sore and someone can get your car back to the way it was without too much €€€ and without involving the insurance company, however, if you feel you're being short changed, you have no choice but to call the insurers.

Awkward situation, I'd say you "dropped the anchors for no reason" in the local pub and you're brake lights weren't working!!

dougie-lampkin

website_dude wrote: »

So i get to keep the car? That's good news if it can be fixed. But what if the repair bill is like 2 grand? The accident wasnt my fault. Can i not insist it be paid and not written off for 300?

No? If the repairs cost more than what you could replace the Colt with like-for-like, then you'll be paid enough to replace the Colt. If his insurance company decides a '99 Colt with no NCT is worth €300, they'll offer you €300. In this case, they'll take the car. You can buy it off them for scrap value, which is maybe €100. So, to keep the car, they'd give you €200.

You can't tell them it's worth €10,000 to you, so you'd rather have €10,000. That doesn't make much sense. My car is worth a lot to me, but at the end of the day, to replace it it's only worth the same as any other model of that year in a similar condition.

jimb43 wrote: »

I might be wrong but if you have a car on the road and you have no nct , his insurance will nail you on that alone. you have no right to be driving a vehicle on the road with no nct FULL STOP . They will say you were not legal, END OF STORY , any excuse not to pay , and that s a big one there

if I'm wrong well i will be surprised. the fact that his tyres were defective they won't care they will zoom in on your no nct wish you luck unfortunately i think your will not have a leg to stand on , keep us all posted

Why would a third party's insurance nail him on no NCT? The OP could be after 25 pints, doing 200 km/h with no tax and test, but they'll still pay out if he's not at fault. An NCT is only valid on the day it's carried out, so why would it have an impact on his liability? It does get factored into the value of the car when paying out, as a car with NCT is going to be more valuable than one without.

Sure it's illegal to have a car on the road without tax, why would that make you any more liable in an accident? Will the tax make your car safer or something?

slimjimmc

Spook_ie wrote: »

Correct, even if it has to go to the MIBI, however insurance can be invalidated for one or other or both under the No NCT/No Tyres or other reasons
http://www.1000ventures.com/ads/cars_insurance_invalidate_5ways.html



I see nothing in most car policies that would differ here from the UK

Are you saying that most insurance policies have a clause saying they will not pay third party claims if the either party's car does not have an NCT?

This is certainly not the case with my AXA policy, heck doesn't even mention NCT; only that the car be maintained in a road worthy condition and even then that only affects me claiming against my own policy.

Let's put this myth to bed.
There is a legal liability to 3rd parties which insurers cannot clause out, so your insurance must pay out 3rd party claims regardless. Even if you slammed into a driver who is over the limit that does not make less liable for their injuries. Clauses such as your UK examples don't allow your insurer to avoid or reduce the 3rd party claim. They will pay the full claim agreed with the other party and then (probably) sue you personally to recover what they legally had to pay out.