Defendent had several previous accidents

An individual is insured to drive a particular car (which should the car which they use primarily) as per the terms of your policy, perhaps there is an extra provision allowing you to drive other cars but that would be unique to each policy.

JohnJoe the type of insurance you have be it TFT or comprehensive does not determine whether or not you can drive other car, you have to look at the exact policy terms
 
DavyJones said:
I would also guess that the car in question might have to have an insurance policy already on it. For example My granny would have to be insured on the BMW before my insurance was valid, possibly?
Click to expand...

Sounds about right
 

yes I have read my policy and it says that I am insured to drive another car as long as i'm not the owner of it.
 
John joe said:
yes I have read my policy and it says that I am insured to drive another car as long as i'm not the owner of it.
Click to expand...

But in turn as DaveyJones says that car probably has to be insured.

Again, can you confirm who the gardai found to be at fault?
 
ney001 said:
But in turn as DaveyJones says that car probably has to be insured.

Again, can you confirm who the gardai found to be at fault?
Click to expand...

No one was charged. How would I find out it the other car needs to be insured?
 
I think until the OP tell us the facts involved here we are all wasting our time, having to guess the details from the bits supplied. Its like pulling teeth!
 
John joe said:
....The owner of the other car was negligent in the fact that he failed to pay his insurance.
Click to expand...

Is it?

Not illegal to own a car and not insure it. (On private land etc)

Only illegal to drive uninsured in a public place.
 
re this post to the effect that the defendant has had previous crashes on country roads but that the car was towed away before Gardai came.

I have some experience of RTA matters on country roads. If a car is damaged anywhere in the country side badly enough to immobilise it, the local sergeant will know about it within hours if not minutes- believe me on this.

Regarding your High Court action, Judges will listen to a lay litigant, but you need to set out the facts in writing clearly, in chronological order, stating why you consider the defendant to be negligent or in breach of a duty to you. You need to list your expenses and financial loss.

Such documents are called pleadings, and are usually prepared for their clients by their lawyers.

Judging from your posts, you need to work on the presentation of your case..
 
re this post to the effect that the defendant has had previous crashes on country roads but that the car was towed away before Gardai came.
Click to expand...

Whether or not the other driver was negligent in the OPs particular accident is the big issue, not whether or not they are bad drivers with previous history. Even the worst driver in the world can be in an accident which is someone elses fault.

I would assume the fault attributed by the Gardai would carry most weight in a case.
 
If I'm correct in my understanding of the OP's posts on this matter in various threads, then neither driver was insured.
(Thinking you're insured does not mean you are actually insured!)

I imagine then that this paragraph from the MIBI website would be relevant:
"Where a vehicle, the use of which is not covered by an approved policy of insurance,
collides with another vehicle and the use of that other vehicle is also not covered by an approved policy of insurance,
the liability of MIBI shall not extend to any judgement or claim in respect of injury, death or damage
to the property of the user of either vehicle."

As far as I am aware, MIBI normally pay out to an insured driver who has been in a collision with an UNinsured driver.
Then they pursue the uninsured driver to recover the compensation that they have paid out.
In the OP's case it wouldn't make sense to pay compensation to the OP that they would then insist on having back!
 
TreeTiger said:
If I'm correct in my understanding of the OP's posts on this matter in various threads, then neither driver was insured.
(Thinking you're insured does not mean you are actually insured!)
Click to expand...

It turns out now I was insured in the other car as my insurance policy states "Any Motor car (or Cycle) being driven, with the consent of the owner, by the Insured, provided such vehicle does not belong to him/her and is not hired to him/her under hire purchase agreement"


The above would not apply in my case



Again this this mean the MIBI have to pay out as I was an insured driver.

Conclusion is my solicitor has made a complete balls of this case claiming I was a uninsured driver, when in fact my policy states I was.
 
John joe said:
Again this this mean the MIBI have to pay out as I was an insured driver.

Conclusion is my solicitor has made a complete balls of this case claiming I was a uninsured driver, when in fact my policy states I was.
Click to expand...

Did you give your solicitor your insurance cover document and let him examine it? - in all fairness it's your business to know whether you are insured to drive or not! If this is the case then it would seem that you do have a claim against the other driver via the MIBI, however you will have to have a strong case to prove that he was at fault - local gossip won't do it!
 
my insurance has a similar provision allowing me to drive other cars with the owners permission, however even though I'm driving under my own insurance I'm pretty sure my policy insists that the other car be insured also, doesn't make sense unless it in someway ties in with the roadworthiness of something of the other vehicle
 

That would be third party I assume, so AFAIK you couldn't claim on your own policy for your own injuries. But it would mean you were insured which is the important point.

John joe said:
Again this this mean the MIBI have to pay out as I was an insured driver.

Conclusion is my solicitor has made a complete balls of this case claiming I was a uninsured driver, when in fact my policy states I was.
Click to expand...

Can't understand how this was overlooked by either of you???
 
Card said:
...I'm pretty sure my policy insists that the other car be insured also, doesn't make sense unless it in someway ties in with the roadworthiness of something of the other vehicle
Click to expand...

Insurance and roadworthiness? Is there some relationship there that policies detail in anyway? If you have your own insurance, why would the car need to be covered by another policy?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register