I've no insurance - mibi help

kimi

I was hit by an uninsured drunk driver. I've just found out from my husband who usually deals with the car/tax/insurance that that our insurance policy has lapsed. I'm devisated. I've quite extensive medical problems as a result, finance on our car etc. Am I able to apply via mibi for compensation as a result of the drunk drivers actions? Or because both parties have no insurance is it even considered. Never had an accident or had to deal with insurance or solicitors before. Thanks for your help.

Hitman3000

You need a solicitor to get proper advise. The guards take a very dim view of uninsured drivers.

gimli2112

From their website

The Motor Insurers’ Bureau of Ireland was established in 1955 by an Agreement between the Government and the companies underwriting motor insurance in Ireland for the purpose of compensating victims of road traffic accidents caused by uninsured and unidentified vehicles.

The fact you are uninsured should not prejudice your claim against them although I haven't dealt with them before

https://www.mibi.ie/

kimi

Hitman3000 wrote: »

You need a solicitor to get proper advise. The guards take a very dim view of uninsured drivers.

And I completly agree with them. I'm absolutly mortified and disgusted that although it's my husband that usually sorts those matters it's ultimately my responsibility to know I'm insured when I get a car. I have a solicitors appointment tomorrow.

kimi

gimli2112 wrote: »

From their website

The Motor Insurers’ Bureau of Ireland was established in 1955 by an Agreement between the Government and the companies underwriting motor insurance in Ireland for the purpose of compensating victims of road traffic accidents caused by uninsured and unidentified vehicles.

The fact you are uninsured should not prejudice your claim against them although I haven't dealt with them before

https://www.mibi.ie/

Thanks for your advice. I'll hopfully have some clearer answers tomorrow.

Spook_ie

This might be an interesting one to follow as logically you should both be able to claim off the mibi as neither of you were insured.

Please keep us updated.

Eggs For Dinner

Spook_ie wrote: »

This might be an interesting one to follow as logically you should both be able to claim off the mibi as neither of you were insured.

Please keep us updated.

Only the person who is the victim of an uninsured driver can benefit from the MIBI, so the person liable for the accident would have no right to compensation.

Agreed that this is of interest and I've never come across it before. I'd imagine there might be a clause that would prevent a payment if it was "against the public interest" , allowing an uninsured driver to benefit from a fund to protect people from losses by uninsured drivers.

Eggs For Dinner

Speaking to a very learned colleague. He believes the OP will be able a make a successful claim against the MIBI. But expect the usual prosecutions for uninsured driving

Spook_ie

Eggs For Dinner wrote: »

Only the person who is the victim of an uninsured driver can benefit from the MIBI, so the person liable for the accident would have no right to compensation.

Agreed that this is of interest and I've never come across it before. I'd imagine there might be a clause that would prevent a payment if it was "against the public interest" , allowing an uninsured driver to benefit from a fund to protect people from losses by uninsured drivers.

But surely they were both the victim of an uninsured driver, surely just because one was drunk wouldn't preclude him from claiming as the victim of an uninsured driver.

troyzer

Spook_ie wrote: »

But surely they were both the victim of an uninsured driver, surely just because one was drunk wouldn't preclude him from claiming as the victim of an uninsured driver.

Why would he be able to claim if he was at fault?

Thatnastyboy

Spook_ie wrote: »

But surely they were both the victim of an uninsured driver, surely just because one was drunk wouldn't preclude him from claiming as the victim of an uninsured driver.

No, because being uninsured does not equate to being at fault.

Yes, they should not have been on the road uninsured but it does not automatically put them at fault.

If the drunk driver caused the crash, they caused the crash. lack of insurance by either party did not cause the crash.

MIBI should indeed look after the OP, however, the Gardai may use their power to apply the law - though it would be dealt with in a completely seperate matter to the crash.

wexie

Spook_ie wrote: »

But surely they were both the victim of an uninsured driver, surely just because one was drunk wouldn't preclude him from claiming as the victim of an uninsured driver.

kimi wrote: »

I was hit by an uninsured drunk driver.

How do you reckon that hitting another car while driving drunk and uninsured makes anyone a 'victim'?

(Without knowing anymore details of the accident and taking OP at her word etc. etc. of course)

Eggs For Dinner

A person causing an accident is not a victim

NUTLEY BOY

The matter of the OP's entitlement to claim, in tort, against the uninsured driver appears inalienable on my quick reading of the 2009 MIBI Agreement.

Specifically, I see nothing in the 2009 agreement that precludes a claim from an injured claimant who was not themselves insured at the time of the accident. Equally, I cannot see anything covering this in the conditions precedent to the liability of the MIBI.

Thus, the issues of the OP's claim and her uninsured status appear to be distinct matters which cannot be conflated.

In relation to the OP a case of driving without insurance is a mandatory court appearance. According to the RSA site the penalty on conviction is 5 penalty points. The amount of any fine is determined by the court on the merits.

NUTLEY BOY

wexie wrote: »

How do you reckon that hitting another car while driving drunk and uninsured makes anyone a 'victim'?

(Without knowing anymore details of the accident and taking OP at her word etc. etc. of course)

Of itself, it does not automatically make the other party a victim. What makes the other party a victim is the negligence of the drunk and uninsured driver.

NUTLEY BOY

Spook_ie wrote: »

This might be an interesting one to follow as logically you should both be able to claim off the mibi as neither of you were insured.

Please keep us updated.

In a slightly eccentric sense of meaning they can both be said to "claim" from the MIBI.:eek:

The victim claims against the MIBI - self explanatory.

The uninsured driver does claim from the MIBI in the sense that he receives an effective indemnity from the MIBI for his civil liability to the claimant. This assumes that he has no financial means to satisfy the claimant or to reimburse the MIBI after settlement. In that event he has received an indemnity from the MIBI which you and I, as insured motorists, actually sponsor through our motor insurance premiums :mad:

Henry Ford III

How did your policy lapse OP? You and your husband should have been aware of it.

Thatnastyboy

Henry Ford III wrote: »

How did your policy lapse OP? You and your husband should have been aware of it.

Good point - she wouldn't have been hit by the drunk driver if an insurance policy was in place

MarkR

I suppose MIBI can't require the lodger of a claim to have insurance, as they may be pedestrians etc.

Henry Ford III

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

Good point - she wouldn't have been hit by the drunk driver if an insurance policy was in place

Very drole.

p.s. The point is that there's no excuse for driving uninsured.

Thatnastyboy

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Very drole.

p.s. The point is that there's no excuse for driving uninsured.

Very drole indeed, just like coming in to sink the boot into an OP who knows very well that they did wrong.

ED E

More importantly did your husband cancel the policy or fail to pay repeatedly? If the latter and the payment period was exceeded then you will have an insurer cancelled policy. This is a very significant black mark on your name. Add to that a conviction for uninsured driving and getting back on the road may be very expensive for you without going near repairs and medical costs.

CiniO

Interesting point as well would be a question what makes op believe that other party was at fault.
I'm not saying he/she wasn't. But I just got impression that op assumed other party was at fault as they were drunk, which doesn't necessarily have to be correct.
I.e. other party could have driven uninsured and drunk, but still drive 100% correctly and by so not contribute to accident.

It would make it clearer if op described what actually happened for us to better understand who was actually at fault of the accident.

Henry Ford III

Thatnastyboy wrote: »

Very drole indeed, just like coming in to sink the boot into an OP who knows very well that they did wrong.

OP claimed they didn't know, but you obviously know better.

Thatnastyboy

Henry Ford III wrote: »

OP claimed they didn't know, but you obviously know better.

As do you it seems

Gregor Samsa

Henry Ford III wrote: »

How did your policy lapse OP? You and your husband should have been aware of it.

Sounds to me like the hubby got the letter and didn’t do anything about it and the OP wasn’t aware that he didn’t act on it.

I know it wouldn’t be a defence in court, but here in the regular world you’d want to be on a horse on stilts to think that it wasn’t a possible, but unfortunate, scenario.

In any case OP seems rightly pissed off and contrite about ending up in such a situation, so tutting at her is hardly going to help.

kimi

Henry Ford III wrote: »

How did your policy lapse OP? You and your husband should have been aware of it.

We moved from another country. Renewal documents sent to old address. We were in the process of bring our car "through" so couldn't get insurance in Ireland. Were Completly at fault.

kimi

phutyle wrote: »

Sounds to me like the hubby got the letter and didn’t do anything about it and the OP wasn’t aware that he didn’t act on it.

I know it wouldn’t be a defence in court, but here in the regular world you’d want to be on a horse on stilts to think that it wasn’t a possible, but unfortunate, scenario.

In any case OP seems rightly pissed off and contrite about ending up in such a situation, so tutting at her is hardly going to help.

I'm so upset. I've been driving since 17 and have a completly clean slate. To think I'd put my baby, myself and the public in danger is more than I can bare at the moment.

NUTLEY BOY

MarkR wrote: »

I suppose MIBI can't require the lodger of a claim to have insurance, as they may be pedestrians etc.

That seems to be the position. There seems to be nothing in the MIBI agreement that would provide for this.

NUTLEY BOY

kimi wrote: »

We moved from another country. Renewal documents sent to old address. We were in the process of bring our car "through" so couldn't get insurance in Ireland. Were Completly at fault.

That specific matter really needs to be brought to the attention of your solicitor, and if you are engaging them, counsel.

Generally, in RTA matters, many offences are of the strict liability type.
This means that once the facts are established guilt is presumed to attach.
In that case the accused then has to advance the case to justify acquittal.

In something like this it is safe to assume that a conviction is probable.
The only defence I could see would be to establish reasonable doubt.
This could occur if there was credible confusion about the insurance position. However, much would depend on the exact facts and whether they could sway a District Justice to the view that there was reasonable doubt on the basis of no deliberate intention to drive without insurance or no recklessness about the issue.

There is a clear cut view that no insurance = guilty = and that is final !
Generally, that proposition is correct.
However, it is actually possible to have no insurance and to be acquitted of the charge on the evidence - that requires some exceptional advocacy but it has happened.

troyzer

I thought that theoretically you don't need insurance, you just need to be able to prove you can pay for damage?