Quizzes & Puzzles5 mins ago
Expired Car Insurance
I very carelessly allowed my car insurance to expire, not intentionally but I know it was an extremely carless lapse. One month after I caused a collision, only a minor one but other driver suffered some injuries and damage to her car. As I had no insurance cover, the other driver has told me that she will be suing me for damages of around £2000.
I am aware that there is the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) who consider claims in cases of an accident with an uninsured driver. The other driver is a young girl and thinking she may not be aware of the MIB I told her about them. However she has written to me to say she will still be suing me for damages.
Do you think she should be suing me rather than going through the MIB?
I am aware that there is the Motor Insurance Bureau (MIB) who consider claims in cases of an accident with an uninsured driver. The other driver is a young girl and thinking she may not be aware of the MIB I told her about them. However she has written to me to say she will still be suing me for damages.
Do you think she should be suing me rather than going through the MIB?
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by mannguy. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
-- answer removed --
If she has comprehensive insurance the MIB won't pay for car repairs, she will have to claim from her own insurance if you don't pay up - and why should she?
If she claims for her injuries the MIB they will report the matter to the relevant authorities and you will be prosecuted for driving without insurance.
My advice is to pay up.
If she claims for her injuries the MIB they will report the matter to the relevant authorities and you will be prosecuted for driving without insurance.
My advice is to pay up.
The MIB scheme is not a simple replacement for your insurance. It is a safety net of last resort for victims of uninsured or untraced drivers. Ultimately you are responsible for meeting this lady’s costs and if she takes court action against you to recover those costs the court will not simply say “Never mind, the MIB can pick up the bill” (which is what I think you have in mind).
Whether or not her insurers deal with this matter or whether she deals with it herself, if the MIB end up meeting her claim they will attempt to recover their outlay from you (as indeed will her insurers if they cough up). My advice is to start saving your pennies because if it gets nasty you may find yourself on the wrong end of "No Insurance" allegation.
Whether or not her insurers deal with this matter or whether she deals with it herself, if the MIB end up meeting her claim they will attempt to recover their outlay from you (as indeed will her insurers if they cough up). My advice is to start saving your pennies because if it gets nasty you may find yourself on the wrong end of "No Insurance" allegation.
Trawling through the MIB’s terms, this may be interesting:
“This clause covers various situations. It seeks to reflect MIB’s status as the guarantee body which operates as a safety net for victims who have suffered loss or damage which cannot be recovered elsewhere. It is effectively a final port of call…”
So you can see it does see itself as a last resort.
This is also relevant to your situation:
“In summary, the clause is intended to — • prevent insurers, who have met some or all of the claimant’s losses, from recovering their outlays from MIB; • divert those parts of the claimant’s losses to the insurers who have taken a premium for the risk; • avoid a claimant electing to claim from MIB when there is an insurer who could deal with some or all of the claim MIB does not pay subrogated claims from”
This is pertinent if the lady involved has comprehensive insurance. It says, in effect, that she cannot claim from the MIB but that her insurers should meet her costs. It also prevents insurers from recovering their outlay from the MIB. But of course there is nothing to prevent her insurers from chasing you to recover their outlay (and in fact there is nothing to prevent her from pursuing you herself if she does not want to jeopardise her No Claims Bonus).
In short, the MIB is almost certain to be a non-starter in your case.
“This clause covers various situations. It seeks to reflect MIB’s status as the guarantee body which operates as a safety net for victims who have suffered loss or damage which cannot be recovered elsewhere. It is effectively a final port of call…”
So you can see it does see itself as a last resort.
This is also relevant to your situation:
“In summary, the clause is intended to — • prevent insurers, who have met some or all of the claimant’s losses, from recovering their outlays from MIB; • divert those parts of the claimant’s losses to the insurers who have taken a premium for the risk; • avoid a claimant electing to claim from MIB when there is an insurer who could deal with some or all of the claim MIB does not pay subrogated claims from”
This is pertinent if the lady involved has comprehensive insurance. It says, in effect, that she cannot claim from the MIB but that her insurers should meet her costs. It also prevents insurers from recovering their outlay from the MIB. But of course there is nothing to prevent her insurers from chasing you to recover their outlay (and in fact there is nothing to prevent her from pursuing you herself if she does not want to jeopardise her No Claims Bonus).
In short, the MIB is almost certain to be a non-starter in your case.
New Judge, thank you for the information I didn't realise that the MIB worked like that and that they are like a last resort.
As MIB doesn't seem to be an option, it may well be that this young lady does not want to go through her insurance company for the reason of keeping her no claim bonus as you have said. It does seem that everything in this case is very much in her favour so she may just prefer to start suing me herself.
As MIB doesn't seem to be an option, it may well be that this young lady does not want to go through her insurance company for the reason of keeping her no claim bonus as you have said. It does seem that everything in this case is very much in her favour so she may just prefer to start suing me herself.
fiction-factory, yes I'm sure that she has notified her insurance company. It may be like New Judge has pointed out that she does not want to lose out on no claims bonus.
Unfortunately for me, everything in this case looks to be very much in her favour and she may just prefer to start suing me herself.
Unfortunately for me, everything in this case looks to be very much in her favour and she may just prefer to start suing me herself.
"Unfortunately for me, everything in this case looks to be very much in her favour..."
And if you think about it that's not wholly unreasonable. She's been involved in an accident which was not her fault; she's suffered injuries to herself and damage to her car; her normal recourse (your insurers) is not available to her as you had no insurance.
And if you think about it that's not wholly unreasonable. She's been involved in an accident which was not her fault; she's suffered injuries to herself and damage to her car; her normal recourse (your insurers) is not available to her as you had no insurance.
You will be lucky if the claim against you stays as little as £2000.
She could put in a personal injury claim for at least 20x that. Plus if she reports it to her insurance they will inform the police and you will be prosecuted for driving without insurance. That is 6 points and at least triple insurance premiums for the next 3 years!
She could put in a personal injury claim for at least 20x that. Plus if she reports it to her insurance they will inform the police and you will be prosecuted for driving without insurance. That is 6 points and at least triple insurance premiums for the next 3 years!
yes or no
you cant dictate who she sues
and certainly not - dont sue me and sue someone else...
you have committed a crime by driving uninsured
and also the rules for cancelling insurance is that they have to send a warning letter and then a termination letter both of which you must have ignored
you are learning the hard way that insurance is not a recommended added extra if affordable but an absolute necessity that you must attend to after 'roof over your head'
you cant dictate who she sues
and certainly not - dont sue me and sue someone else...
you have committed a crime by driving uninsured
and also the rules for cancelling insurance is that they have to send a warning letter and then a termination letter both of which you must have ignored
you are learning the hard way that insurance is not a recommended added extra if affordable but an absolute necessity that you must attend to after 'roof over your head'
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles11 mins ago
Crosswords13 mins ago
ChatterBank22 mins ago
Is Farage Labours Secret Weapon ?.
Politics22 mins ago
