# MIBI (Motor Insurance Bureau) and high court



## John joe (8 Jun 2008)

I had a car accident that left me with very serious injuries that I will have for the rest of my life. I am persuing the (MIBI) Motor Insurance Bureau of Ireland as the car I was driving on the day of accident belonged to a friend and he had not got it insured. Can give some advice in Law and the MIBI in the high court? I also need to know what there policy is in paying out a claim for uninsured drivers?


----------



## TreeTiger (8 Jun 2008)

*Re: MIBI and high court*

I didn't think that the driver of an uninsured car was eligible for any compensation; this [broken link removed] from the Sunday Business Post in February would seem to bear this out.  Part of the article says "Section 5.3 of the May 2004 agreement excludes drivers of uninsured vehicles from compensation for death, injury or damage, whether they caused the accident or not. That exclusion has been applied in Ireland since 1988 for public policy reasons."  That said, I don't know how the European Court of Justice ruled on the issue.

As far as I know, a claim must be lodged with MIBI within a year of the accident.  This [broken link removed] gives details of the MIBI Agreement and Conditions precedent to making a claim.  It should clarify matters for you a bit.

One way or another I think you would be well advised to consult a solicitor.  I'm assuming you didn't realise you were not insured to drive, as, so far as I know, you would be in trouble otherwise, I think MIBI will not pay out where a person knew or should reasonably have known that they were not insured.


----------



## dazza21ie (8 Jun 2008)

*Re: MIBI and high court*

If it is as serious as you say you should really talk to a solicitor. You cannot go straight to the High Court with a personal injury claim you must go to PIAB first. You didn't say who caused the accident was there another party involved?


----------



## John joe (9 Jun 2008)

*Re: MIBI and high court*

Thanks for both replies. I have read atricle 5.3 agreement of MIBI. However my accident happened before the 31st March 2004 in which the said agreement was made up. Also to the reply about contacting a solictor, I am now representing myself as it is not longer posssible to have my solicitor continue with the case as the Law Society found him for overcharging me. I cannot have a dishonest solicitor continue with this case anymore. So all replies are much appreciated.
I have printed off the Sunday business Post article that was printed on Sun Feb 17th. The ruling was to be made by thursday. Anyone know how the case went? or how could find out?


----------



## csirl (9 Jun 2008)

*Re: MIBI and high court*

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it not the case that you are in fact the uninsured driver?


----------



## John joe (9 Jun 2008)

*Re: MIBI and high court*

Yes I was an uninsured driver. I dont come under the 5.3 clause as my accident happened before the 31st March 2004 MIBI agreement. Due to the serious extent of my injuries I have to claim for compensation. Any have the MIBI agreement wrote before 31st March 2004?


----------



## rmelly (9 Jun 2008)

*Re: MIBI and high court*



> The first Agreement was signed in 1955 and there have been subsequent Agreements in 1964, 1988 and 2004.


 
MIBI Agreement (1988):

http://www.mibi.ie/mibipublic/mibi/documents/mibi_agreement.pdf*
​*​​http://www.mibi.ie/mibipublic/mibi/documents/mibi_agreement.pdf​


----------



## Mpsox (9 Jun 2008)

*Re: MIBI and high court*

We've established that you were an uninsurred driver. Were you aware that you were not insured at the time? Also, if you are pursuing the MIBI for compensation as opposed to anyone else's insurers, can we assume that you were to blame for the accident or that it was a single vehicle crash

As for your solicitor issue, there is more then one solicitor in Ireland and if you're injuries are as serious as you've said, you wold be far better off finding another solicitor to represent you


----------



## dazza21ie (9 Jun 2008)

*Re: MIBI and high court*

Unless someone else caused the accident i do not see how you have a claim.


----------



## mathepac (9 Jun 2008)

*Re: MIBI and high court*



John joe said:


> ...I am persuing the (MIBI) Motor Insurance Bureau of Ireland as the car I was driving on the day of accident belonged to a friend and he had not got it insured...


I am sorry to hear about your accident and injuries, but I admit I am at a loss here to see how you can sustain a claim against MIBI.

You state that you were driving and that the vehicle was not insured. It is  the legal responsibility of anyone driving a vehicle to ensure that he or she has appropriate cover in place for a vehicle before taking it on the road.

Maybe I don't understand the circumstances, but why should the MIBI, and consequently me as a properly insured driver, pick up the tab for you?


----------



## TreeTiger (9 Jun 2008)

*Re: MIBI and high court*

MIBI compensates innocent victims of accidents caused by uninsured and unidentified vehicles.

As someone who drives while knowing they are not covered by insurance could hardly be described as innocent, I was assuming that the OP was under the mistaken impression that he/she was insured.

Perhaps the OP can let us know whether that was the case or not?


----------



## csirl (9 Jun 2008)

*Re: MIBI and high court*



> Unless someone else caused the accident i do not see how you have a claim.


 
I agree with this. The purpose of the MIBI scheme is to pay compensation to people who would have been entitled to claim, but couldnt, because the other person was uninsured. How would you have been entitled to claim in the first place as the accident was your fault?

Also, there is a principal in law that you cannot be insured for losses incurred in engaging in illegal activity. I dont see how MIBI would be permitted to "insure" you for illegally driving a car?


----------



## John joe (9 Jun 2008)

*Re: MIBI and high court*



mathepac said:


> I am sorry to hear about your accident and injuries, but I admit I am at a loss here to see how you can sustain a claim against MIBI.
> 
> You state that you were driving and that the vehicle was not insured. It is the legal responsibility of anyone driving a vehicle to ensure that he or she has appropriate cover in place for a vehicle before taking it on the road.
> 
> Maybe I don't understand the circumstances, but why should the MIBI, and consequently me as a properly insured driver, pick up the tab for you?


 
Mathepac. I understand where you are comming from. I too was paying my contribution to the MIBI as I had been insured to drive my own car(which was parked at home on day of accident). The car which I was driving belonged to a friend and I honeslty thought it had been insured. After all he drove the car to my house.


----------



## Mpsox (9 Jun 2008)

*Re: MIBI and high court*



John joe said:


> Mathepac. I understand where you are comming from. I too was paying my contribution to the MIBI as I had been insured to drive my own car(which was parked at home on day of accident). The car which I was driving belonged to a friend and I honeslty thought it had been insured. After all he drove the car to my house.


 
Cars aren't insured for everyone to drive them as I am sure you now realise. Therefore unless your friend had an open drive policy, you were not insured. For you to be insured to drive your friends car you would either have had to transfer over your own insurance or have got your friend to extend his policy to cover you

From the sounds of it you were therefore an uninsured driver involved in an accident of your own making(I am assuming since you have made no mention of anyone else being involved) and you now expect the MIBI to pay you money for your own carelessness. Sorry to be so blunt but that basically is what it seems to me. What were you doing driving the car in the first place?


----------



## Red (9 Jun 2008)

*Re: MIBI and high court*

If you have fully comprehensive cover on your own policy, it is possible to drive op's car with their permission with third party cover under your own policy.

Did you have fully comprehensive cover for your own car ??


----------



## Mpsox (9 Jun 2008)

*Re: MIBI and high court*



worth reading this article


----------



## mathepac (9 Jun 2008)

*Re: MIBI and high court*



John joe said:


> ... The car which I was driving belonged to a friend and I honeslty thought it had been insured. ...


Not good enough to think you are insured - it is your responsibility to make sure you have cover.

Therefore I believe from what you are saying that you were an uninsured driver at the time of the accident and unfortunately only 3rd parties to the accident might have claims (unless the accident involved another uninsured driver?)


----------



## rmelly (9 Jun 2008)

*Re: MIBI and high court*



> (unless the accident involved another uninsured driver?)


 
Neither could claim in those circumstances according ot the 1998 document


----------



## peteb (9 Jun 2008)

*Re: MIBI and high court*



Red said:


> If you have fully comprehensive cover on your own policy, it is possible to drive op's car with their permission with third party cover under your own policy.
> 
> Did you have fully comprehensive cover for your own car ??


 
Doesnt make a difference.  Third Party cover does what it says on the tin - covers third parties.  It doesnt cover damage to the car being driven, and definitely doesnt cover injury to the driver! Neither will your comprehensive policy in your own car.

You cant sue yourself for your own negligence regardless of the insurance issue, so why would the MIBI pay out here?!!!


----------



## MOB (9 Jun 2008)

*Re: MIBI and high court*

It is not very clear from the OP's post what happened here, but I am guessing as follows:

1.  He borrowed friend's car.

2.  He crashed it.

3.  There is some element of negligence on the part of the friend, in that, perhaps, the car was in some way unroadworthy. [off the top of my head, this is the only way I can think of whereby OP would be able to make a claim]

4.  He wants to know if MIBI will cover his claim against the uninsured friend.

If I understand the situation correctly, then OP certainly needs a solicitor to advise.  I would not venture any opinion.


----------



## dazza21ie (9 Jun 2008)

*Re: MIBI and high court*

OP really needs to clarify who or what caused his accident. Just because he has injuries doesn't mean he has a claim.


----------



## John joe (9 Jun 2008)

*Re: MIBI and high court*



peteb said:


> You cant sue yourself for your own negligence regardless of the insurance issue, so why would the MIBI pay out here?!!!


 
Because I was paying my levy to the MIBI throught my own car insurance. I understand that the MIBI was set up compensate the innocent victims of uninsured vehicles. I had insurance on my own car and which I was insured on at the time of the accident. In my opinion I believe I am indeed an innocent victim, as the owner of the vehicle in which I was driving failed to insure his car.


----------



## dazza21ie (9 Jun 2008)

*Re: MIBI and high court*

Even if the car you were driving was insured you still would not have a claim. The car owner may be able to recover for the car damage if he had comprehensive cover but the insurance company would not pay out for your personal injuries. That is what accident insurance and health insurance are for.
I cannot see how you are going to succeed in making a successful claim.


----------



## MOB (9 Jun 2008)

*Re: MIBI and high court*



John joe said:


> Because I was paying my levy to the MIBI throught my own car insurance. I understand that the MIBI was set up compensate the innocent victims of uninsured vehicles. I had insurance on my own car and which I was insured on at the time of the accident. In my opinion I believe I am indeed an innocent victim, as the owner of the vehicle in which I was driving failed to insure his car.



John joe,

dazza21e is right.  The starting point for any successful claim - whether against an insured or uninsured driver - is that somebody other than you must have been negligent AND that their negligence must have caused, or contributed to, your injury.   

What caused the accident?   Just to be clear, if you have a valid claim, the answer to this question cannot be 'my bad driving and nothing else'.   

Unless the answer is either 'my friend's vehicle's defect's' or 'negligent action of a third party' then you are missing the point and, in all likelihood, wasting your time pursuing any claim.


----------



## ajapale (9 Jun 2008)

ajapale said:


> *Askaboutlaw* For legal issues not covered in another forum. Ask about conveyancing in Mortgages forum. Ask about road traffic law in Cars & Motoring. Ask about tenant issues in Property Investment.
> 
> Moved from Askaboutlaw to motoring related issues which is where this type of question is discussed


----------



## aircobra19 (10 Jun 2008)

I assume you can insure a car or a person. Does that matter?


----------



## mathepac (10 Jun 2008)

*Re: MIBI and high court*



John joe said:


> ...I understand that the MIBI was set up compensate the innocent victims of uninsured vehicles. I had insurance on my own car and which I was insured on at the time of the accident. In my opinion I believe I am indeed an innocent victim, as the owner of the vehicle in which I was driving failed to insure his car.


It is my understanding, subject to correction of course, that the purpose of the MIBI is to compensate the innocent victims of *uninsured drivers*.

It would appear that you, unfortunately on the day in question, were an uninsured driver of your friend's vehicle.


----------



## Mpsox (10 Jun 2008)

*Re: MIBI and high court*



John joe said:


> Because I was paying my levy to the MIBI throught my own car insurance. I understand that the MIBI was set up compensate the innocent victims of uninsured vehicles. I had insurance on my own car and which I was insured on at the time of the accident. In my opinion I believe I am indeed an innocent victim, as the owner of the vehicle in which I was driving failed to insure his car.


 
Let's assume for a second that the owner of the car had fully comp insurance. If you had driven it, chances are, unless you were a named driver on that policy, you still would not be insured. Therefore you are not an "innocent victim". Just because a car has insurance on it doesn't mean that every Tom, Dick and Harry is insured to drive it.


----------



## bullbars (10 Jun 2008)

*Re: MIBI and high court*



John joe said:


> I too was paying my contribution to the MIBI as I had been insured to drive my own car(which was parked at home on day of accident). The car which I was driving belonged to a friend and I honeslty thought it had been insured. After all he drove the car to my house.


 
Your own car insurance has nothing to do with this. Had the owners car been insured would they have paid out because of your negligence if you were not insured to drive it?? If I take a car that I'm not insured and crash it, I'm left to face the cost of the car. The MIBI will cover the cost of the other persons car I damage, i.e. the innocent party. You are not an innocent victim.


----------



## John joe (10 Jun 2008)

*Re: MIBI and high court*



mathepac said:


> It is my understanding, subject to correction of course, that the purpose of the MIBI is to compensate the innocent victims of *uninsured drivers*.
> 
> It would appear that you, unfortunately on the day in question, were an uninsured driver of your friend's vehicle.


 

Sorry but you are incorrect here when u mention *'uninsured drivers'*. Here is something I have copied and pasted from the MIBI website _*"The MIBI was set up 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."*_ www.mibi.ie

No where in the above statment from the MIBI does it mention about 'uninsured drivers'. It mentions only 'uninsured vehicles'


----------



## aircobra19 (10 Jun 2008)

*Re: MIBI and high court*



John joe said:


> Yes I was an uninsured driver. I dont come under the 5.3 clause as my accident happened before the 31st March 2004 MIBI agreement. Due to the serious extent of my injuries I have to claim for compensation. Any have the MIBI agreement wrote before 31st March 2004?


 
That clause is in the 1988 one. 



rmelly said:


> MIBI Agreement (1988):
> 
> http://www.mibi.ie/mibipublic/mibi/documents/mibi_agreement.pdf


 
It seems specifically aimed at preventing claims from uninsured drivers. If you could claim when uninsured. There would be no incentive to get insurance. 

Terrible position for the OP. Its a common enough story people not checking the details of their policies, and on the cars they drive and getting caught out. But really its up to everyone to know they are insured.


----------



## MOB (10 Jun 2008)

John Joe,

You are wasting your time by focusing on these distinctions without first asking yourself (and answering) the important questions.  

What caused the accident?   Who was at fault  - and by this I mean at fault in the sense of having caused the accident?   

We still don't have these basic facts.  A discussion without the basic facts is quite possibly futile.   Without the basic facts, it seems to me that the insurance issue is something of an irrelevancy.


----------



## aircobra19 (10 Jun 2008)

Why?


----------



## MOB (10 Jun 2008)

Because the starting point for any compensation claim is that somebody other than the claimant has to be negligent and such negligence must have caused the damage.  If you haven't got over this hurdle, there is no point in even looking at insurance issues.


----------



## aircobra19 (11 Jun 2008)

Where in the MIBI does it say that?


----------



## rmelly (11 Jun 2008)

Why don't we just let the OP proceed and see how he gets on? He doesn't appear inclined to take any advice or even furnish the most basic details.


----------



## mathepac (11 Jun 2008)

*Re: MIBI and high court*



aircobra19 said:


> That clause is in the 1988 one.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Specifically, "MIBI Agreement (1988)"

Page 4, Section 5 "Exclusion of certain user and passenger claims", Sub-section (2), "Where at the time of the accident the person injured or killed or who sustained damage to property knew, or ought reasonably to have known, that there was not in force an approved policy of insurance in respect of the use of the vehicle, the liability of the M.I.B. of I. shall not extend to any judgment or claim either in respect of injury or death of such person while the person injured or killed was by his consent in or on such vehicle..."


----------



## aircobra19 (11 Jun 2008)

rmelly said:


> Why don't we just let the OP proceed and see how he gets on? He doesn't appear inclined to take any advice or even furnish the most basic details.


 
What details do you need? Seems like the act is very specific.


----------



## rmelly (11 Jun 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> What details do you need? Seems like the act is very specific.


 
Whatever


----------



## aircobra19 (11 Jun 2008)

rmelly said:


> Whatever


 
And you complain about the OP not answering questions.


----------



## rmelly (11 Jun 2008)

aircobra19 said:


> And you complain about the OP not answering questions.


 
I know I'll regret this, but what details has the OP supplied?

He was in an accident before 31st March 2004 while driving without insurance that left him with serious injuries - have I missed anything?


----------



## Card (11 Jun 2008)

he's left out the most important part which other posters incl MF1 have tried to get out of him.........who was at fault for the accident?


----------



## aircobra19 (11 Jun 2008)

My question is, why do you need any of that? All the MIBI agreement exclusion seems to need is that there isn't any valid policy covering the use of the vehicle that the injured party was in etc. (I can't access the exact text at the moment). From my reading of the MIBI, any issue of liability or fault, isn't required. Perhaps I'm wrong, and maybe someone who has read it and understands it could clarify. On a side issue I wonder how the exclusion effects passengers injured in uninsured vehicles. It would seem to exclude them also. I'd have to re-read it.

Its an interesting topic. I've seen a few thread about similar issues where people drive other peoples car assuming they are covered either by their own policy or that of the car owners. But subsequently it transpires that they are not covered. I know I have had policy's in the past that did not have 3rd party cover for driving other vehicles even though I would expect it as standard these days.


----------



## Card (11 Jun 2008)

what i think you're overlooking is that the MIBI is in effect the second step in such a process following an accident
first step is who is at fault
then once you have identified who is at fault you pursue them or their insurance company, or if you discover that they are uninsured then you have recourse to the MIBI, the existence of the MIBI does not remove the need for the first step above


----------



## aircobra19 (11 Jun 2008)

Again from reading the MIBI I thought you identify any other insurance that may cover the situation and claim on that before going to the MIBI. Where in the MIBI does it specifically say you must establish liability first? I thought it said you can claim without any admission of liability.

You could be right, I'm just looking for clarification.


----------

