Don't bother insuring you car.......

Profiler

Dinkie wrote: »

I said if I knew the driver was uninsured.

How do you know if the driver is insured unless you ask?

Otherwise you simply assume there is cover in place however an assumption does not guarantee you anything.

I would be very surprised if you have not traveled in an car that was not insured at some point in your life, even if you were not aware it was not insured.

Coriolanus

Profiler wrote: »

How do you know if the driver is insured unless you ask?

Otherwise you simply assume there is cover in place however an assumption does not guarantee you anything.

I would be very surprised if you have not traveled in an car that was not insured at some point in your life, even if you were not aware it was not insured.

Plus, having a valid insurance disc is no guarantee. The hubby was probably insured in the above case.

karlog

Wait so is this thing a scam then?

Profiler

karlog wrote: »

Wait so is this thing a scam then?

No it's not. The child is only about 4 years of age now but I'd guess that even it doesn't think this thing is a scam.

podge3

karlog wrote: »

Wait so is this thing a scam then?

Well its not illegal and I don't think scam is the correct description either.

But an uninsured driver has effectively come out with the same award as if she had been fully insured. I don't really know what it is.

Profiler

podge3 wrote: »

But an uninsured driver has effectively come out with the same award as if she had been fully insured. I don't really know what it is.

She got nothing! The money is for the severely disabled child.

Ickle Magoo

Profiler wrote: »

She got nothing! The money is for the severely disabled child.

Do you really think a parent of a child who is awarded nearly €3,000,000 will not benefit in anyway?! No new home? New car? Nothing?!

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

PeakOutput wrote: »

its up to the police weather or not they prosecute their decision makes no difference in weather or not your cousin gets her money

My point was that the guards didn't do anything about it, what the uninsured driver done was illegal yet she didn't end up in court.

so either she didnt tell you the whole story or she needs to get onto the mibi

Is it up to every driver themselves to understand insurance, the technecalities and laws? Should everyone know about this "mibi" you are talking about? If they don't it's their own fault?

My cousin dealt with 3 parties in this incident, the uninsured driver, the guardai and her insurance company. She done the right thing and ended up out of pocket because of some cheap wh0re who commited a crime. Should her insurance company have directed her to mibi? Who was at fault? Was my cousin at fault? I guess she was for taking her car out that day :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

in your brothers opinion it was worth 2-3K more. in the INDEPENDANT engineers opinion who has no vested interest either way it wasnt.....so who should you believe?

I can see you read what I said and made up your own story, that was a serious fail on your part. Nowhere did I say that the price of the car was an opinion belonging to anybody. It is what the car was worth, which he was quoted from a lexus dealer. The insurance company tried to do him out of a couple of thousand euro. He got a few differant quotes from a few differant dealers. He got the full worth of the car in the end.

Again, the story is not up for debate, it's how it is. If you don't like it, don't read it, but do stop crying and whinging about it, will you?

you are either with the worst insurance company in the world, believe everything you read in the red tops or,and this is the most likely one, you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about

Where did I say anything about my situation, my insurance company or any incident I have been in? Nowhere? Oh... so can you stop making up shíte and putting spins on what I say? It's not making you look very good.

It's quite easy to understand that you haven't a clue what you are talking about, you must be an insurance broker or work in the business, do you? You are acting like they are companies we should applaud. They are scum trying to make a quick buck of anybody they can. They charged crazy prices in Ireland for decades because it was essential for people to have.

I'm no expert, but I have studied insurance law back in college, I know a think or two about it

Profiler wrote: »

Sorry but those who know a little about the system find your "story" difficult to believe.

I'd choose to believe that either you or your cousin (or both) are being to say the least "economical" with the truth.

For what reason, exactly, would I want to lie or distort the story? Any reasons? No? Then please stop, good lad...



The fact that you two think it's ok for this mibi to exist is a prime example of WHY it has to exist. Instead of the parent of the child having to pay, whatever she has, I do. Why? Why do I have to pay for that child? It's a terrible thing that happened, but we should not be held liable for her mothers actions.

Profiler

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Do you really think a parent of a child who is awarded nearly €3,000,000 will not benefit in anyway?! No new home? New car? Nothing?!

I wouldn't use the word benefit when the parents have to care for a severely disabled child.

The money is placed in fund that is administered in such a way that the child is the beneficiary.

If a lack of mobility requires a new car then they will have to buy a wheelchair accessible vehicle, the parents can't go out and buy a top of the range BWM for example because they'd like one.

Same with a accommodation, if new accommodation is required then the house will have to fitted out in such a way that the child's needs are catered for. The parents can't go out and buy a penthouse apartment in Dublin docklands.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Profiler wrote: »

I wouldn't use the word benefit when the parents have to care for a severely disabled child.

The money is placed in fund that is administered in such a way that the child is the beneficiary.

If a lack of mobility requires a new car then they will have to buy a wheelchair accessible vehicle, the parents can't go out and buy a top of the range BWM for example because they'd like one.

Same with a accommodation, if new accommodation is required then the house will have to fitted out in such a way that the child's needs are catered for. The parents can't go out and buy a penthouse apartment in Dublin docklands.

You honestly believe that they didn't benifit at all from this? Not one bit? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Profiler

Cain Green Symphony wrote: »

For what reason, exactly, would I want to lie or distort the story? Any reasons? No? Then please stop, good lad...

The parts of the "story" you posted do not make sense.

"My cousin was hit by an uninsured driver. No injuries involved. The woman was in an SUV and my cousin was in a fiat chiqichento. Insurance company couldn't/wouldn't do anything, my cousin had to pay for the damages herself. Police said they were powerless too. Could give the uninsured woman a warning. Like wtf?"

Based in the fact that if the Police knew the SUV driver was uninsured then they would prosecute her for driving with no insurance.

That you claim all they offered to do was issue a warning tells me that either you or your cousin is being less than truthful.

As for the reason why you would want to lie or distort the story. I don't care.

RGS

The same award would have been made if the mother was insured.
I.E. if your child was severely injured whilst you were legally driving, the child through its "next friend" is entitled to sue the negligent driver. Nothing wrong with that course of action. If driver uninsured then MIBI deal with claim. MIBI will seek recovery from negligent drivers if possible.
Secondly the money is lodged in court and if any money is needed an application is made to court. So there is no chance the parents can seek to buy luxury cars etc.
Thirdly it is very likely that the child will be made a ward of court and the court appointed trustees will administer the fund for the total needs of the child.

This was a civil action held a number of years after the event, any criminal prosecution would have been dealt with well before this case was concluded.

Profiler

Cain Green Symphony wrote: »

You honestly believe that they didn't benifit at all from this? Not one bit? :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Yes I do. How are those parents in any way in a better position since the accident occurred?

What proof do you have that they have benefited or will at some point?

Ickle Magoo

Profiler wrote: »

I wouldn't use the word benefit when the parents have to care for a severely disabled child.

The money is placed in fund that is administered in such a way that the child is the beneficiary.

If a lack of mobility requires a new car then they will have to buy a wheelchair accessible vehicle, the parents can't go out and buy a top of the range BWM for example because they'd like one.

Same with a accommodation, if new accommodation is required then the house will have to fitted out in such a way that the child's needs are catered for. The parents can't go out and buy a penthouse apartment in Dublin docklands.

Of course. I just think it's extremely naive to suggest that the parents won't benefit at all. Obviously the OTT examples you use above are not possible but there is plenty of grey area to take advantage of. Thanks to the complete incompetency and negligence of the child's mother, the child's family will be considerably better off, that's the bottom line.

Don't get me wrong, I feel really sorry for the kid - and the mother for that matter - & if I was the parents/uncle I'd do exactly the same if I thought it would make life easier for me & mine. I can still see why the double edged sword of helping the kid which automatically, albeit indirectly, benefits the very person guilty of causing the injuries - and not even accidentally, through complete negligence doesn't sit well with some, though.

Louvarella

podge3 wrote: »

IIRC it is said that uninsured drivers add about 10% onto our premiums.

There is a 3% levy added to every motor insurance policy in Ireland. This 3% is given directly to the MIBI to fund the claims for compensation from victims of uninsured and untraced drivers.

If you are hit by an uninsured driver, the MIBI will pay compensation for your injuries. If you have Comprehensive insurance on your own vehicle, you will have to claim from your own insurers and pay the excess, but your No Claims Bonus will NOT be affected. It is a 'free claim' so to speak. The remainder of your uninsured losses ie anything not covered by your comp policy can be claimed from the MIBI minus their own excess.

If you don't have comp insurance then the MIBI will pay for your vehicle damage.

The MIBI will pursue the uninsured drivers to recoup their costs in a case, they will take you to court if they have to.

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

Profiler wrote: »

The parts of the "story" you posted do not make sense.

"My cousin was hit by an uninsured driver. No injuries involved. The woman was in an SUV and my cousin was in a fiat chiqichento. Insurance company couldn't/wouldn't do anything, my cousin had to pay for the damages herself. Police said they were powerless too. Could give the uninsured woman a warning. Like wtf?"

Based in the fact that if the Police knew the SUV driver was uninsured then they would prosecute her for driving with no insurance.

That you claim all they offered to do was issue a warning tells me that either you or your cousin is being less than truthful.

You took my story and started making lots of assumptions. I love it when people make assumptions as it leaves them open for attack (their posts I mean).

So what are you assuming here? You assume that the guardai were on the scene of the accident? You assume that there were witnesses? Anything else?

The uninsured woman left the scene of the accident, that is the only thing that the gardai could do, or at least that's what they told my cousin, maybe they could do something but would take up too much resources. As it wasn't a serious accident and nobody was injured. My cousin had to follow the woman to her house, which wasn't far from the accident, to record any details.

For my cousin to prove, in court, that this woman had hit her car she would need a witness, she didn't have one as it was a "hit and run".

They police may know that the woman was not insured to drive that SUV, but they could not in any way prove that she was in the car and that she hit my cousins car. Do you understand that?

As for the reason why you would want to lie or distort the story. I don't care.

If you "don't care", then why bother insinuating that it was a lie? Like I said before, there is no reason to lie or distort the truth on an internet discussion board...

Profiler wrote: »

Yes I do. How are those parents in any way in a better position since the accident occurred?

What proof do you have that they have benefited or will at some point?

Their daughter is sitting on 3 million euros, and you don't think their parents will benifit, even in the slighest, of this?

Profiler

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Thanks to the complete incompetency and negligence of the child's mother, the child's family will be considerably better off, that's the bottom line.

To be considerably be better off they will have to be in a better position post accident than they were prior to the accident.

The reality of it is that to define how someone is better off you have to take into account every aspect of their life.

That includes that the parents have to be spend considerably more time their disabled child than they would have had to have done were it not injured.

This would curtail how much time they have for each other or any other children they might have.

It will prevent a normal social life for parents and child, restrict free time for parents and child, restrict holidays for parents and child, restrict schooling for parents and child.

When the child is 18 it will not leave home go off and have it's own life, own job, own family.

You should also bear in mind the €2.9m is not put into the parents current account for them to spend as they wish.

The money is administered by the court and the court has to satisfied that the money is being spent appropriately.

Given all of that, please explain to me how that family is considerably better off.

Whyno

In cases such as this the MIBI can pursue the mother for up to 12 years (i think, not fully sure about the length of time) and can sieze assets in the name of the mother to recuperate their losses.

The MIBI normally pursue the uninsured driver with a mandate which requires the unisured driver to bare all expenses incrued by the MIBI including whatever settlement is came to.
However this can take years to come to a conclusion and it appears in this instance that the mother is bordering bankruptcy and more than likely has no assets. This is where it gets tricky it seems as the mother will surely be a beneficiary should the toddler pass away and thus MIBI may possibly be able to recoup some of the losses.

Its a very unfortunate circumstance but what i`d ask is who the great fella or lady with the great idea decided that the toddler should sue his mother. Its a major scam in my opinion and i feel sorry for the poor child as he is the one that has to suffer. I cant even begin to imagine what is going through the mothers head.

Hagar

Profiler wrote: »

If a lack of mobility requires a new car then they will have to buy a wheelchair accessible vehicle, the parents can't go out and buy a top of the range BWM for example because they'd like one.

Ironically the fund will even pay to insure the vehicle.

While I accept that the child is the innocent victim in this situation, the whole thing is a legal charade that stinks to high heaven.

Profiler

Cain Green Symphony wrote: »

You assume that the guardai were on the scene of the accident?

No I didn't

Cain Green Symphony wrote: »

You assume that there were witnesses?

Again, I didn't make that assumption.

Cain Green Symphony wrote: »

The uninsured woman left the scene of the accident,

How is it that you know the SUV driver was uninsured? If the Gardai don't?

Cain Green Symphony wrote: »

that is the only thing that the gardai could do, or at least that's what they told my cousin, maybe they could do something but would take up too much resources. As it wasn't a serious accident and nobody was injured. My cousin had to follow the woman to her house, which wasn't far from the accident, to record any details.

There would be physical evidence on both cars that would prove there was contact. Based on what you have said then the Gardai have grounds to prosecute the SUV driver for first of all for no insurance and secondly, leaving the Scene of the accident. If your cousin asks for the Gardai to investigate the matter then they have to.

Cain Green Symphony wrote: »

For my cousin to prove, in court, that this woman had hit her car she would need a witness, she didn't have one as it was a "hit and run".

Incorrect and the Gardai or any two bit solicitor would have told you or your cousin different.

Cain Green Symphony wrote: »

They police may know that the woman was not insured to drive that SUV, but they could not in any way prove that she was in the car and that she hit my cousins car. Do you understand that?

The more you add to your "story" the more you prove to me it's a total fabrication.

Profiler

Hagar wrote: »

Ironically the fund will even pay to insure the vehicle.

While I accept that the child is the innocent victim in this situation, the whole thing is a legal charade that stinks to high heaven.

I agree bits of it stink, I personally have difficulty with the fact that the solicitors and barristers who represented the child are able to claim full costs.

However the alternative is that nobody gets a single cent if hit by an uninsured driver and that to me is 1000 times worse than the situation we have right now.

PeakOutput

Cain Green Symphony wrote: »

My point was that the guards didn't do anything about it, what the uninsured driver done was illegal yet she didn't end up in court.

and my point was that has nothing to do with the outcome for your cousin either way, of course she should have ended up in court.

Is it up to every driver themselves to understand insurance, the technecalities and laws? Should everyone know about this "mibi" you are talking about? If they don't it's their own fault?

no of course not

Should her insurance company have directed her to mibi?

yes, assuming it was applicable to her case(if for example the damage to the car was 499euro, the mibis excess is 500 or there abouts so it has no involvement. it is there to help people who have seriously large loss's

Who was at fault? Was my cousin at fault?

of course not, again assuming these are the exact facts of the case

Nowhere did I say that the price of the car was an opinion belonging to anybody.

value is an opinion and weather you said it or not its what happened. the insurance companies get engineers to value the cars for them.

He got a few differant quotes from a few differant dealers.

which is exactly what the insurance companies advise people to do if they are not happy with their valuation. expert tells insurance company a price, insurance company tells customer, customer isnt happy, insurance company tells him to get other experts opinions which he does, the insurance company make a decision based on all the expert opinion.

its all very transparent but because, as i said, you have no idea what your talking about besides your one or two experiences you jump to ridicolous conclusions based on very little fact.

If you don't like it, don't read it, but do stop crying and whinging about it, will you?

i havnt whinged once but if and when i feel like it ill do it weather you like it or not

It's quite easy to understand that you haven't a clue what you are talking about, you must be an insurance broker or work in the business, do you?

i worked in insurance for around 3 years part time and one year full time in a claims department then decided to go back to college to do something completely different so guess what, i have the knowledge and absolutely no vested interests. im not an expert by any means but i have 4 years first hand knowledge of insurance claims and exactly how they are dealt with

You are acting like they are companies we should applaud. They are scum trying to make a quick buck of anybody they can. They charged crazy prices in Ireland for decades because it was essential for people to have.

i can tell you which ones should be applauded and which ones shouldnt if you like because there are some of both

I'm no expert, but I have studied insurance law back in college, I know a think or two about it

as do i

For what reason, exactly, would I want to lie or distort the story? Any reasons? No? Then please stop, good lad...

can you debate for one post without being patronising? im not saying your lieing or distorting the facts im saying you either dont have all the facts / for some reason your cousins case dosnt fit with mib (again you dont have all the facts) or she was ill advised,

jesus what i just told you could potentially get your cousins money back from the mibi there is a limitation on the time frame to make a claim but i think THINK its 5 years. but instead of taking that on board you just choose to stay angry at them damns insurance companies and blather on about how they are out to screw you and how i must be in their pockets

The fact that you two think it's ok for this mibi to exist is a prime example of WHY it has to exist.

you know that the mibi was set up after a voluntary agreement between the insurance companies and the goverment? they didnt have to agree to take a portion of your premium and send it of to another organisation but they did. they also sign up to many other voluntary ideals on your behalf like not effecting your no claims bonus if you are hit by an uninsured driver and claim threw your own insurance. so even though they are a big mean corporate identity trying to screw you out of every penny they do do the odd thing that will save you a **** load of money if you ever are unfortunate enough to get into this situation

Instead of the parent of the child having to pay, whatever she has, I do. Why? Why do I have to pay for that child? It's a terrible thing that happened, but we should not be held liable for her mothers actions.

iv probably said this 4 or 5 times by now. she was found liable. the mibi will pursue every available avenue to make her pay. their existence simply means the child gets the money now and dosnt have to pursue every available avenue themselves to get the money

edit; i forgot to add. your question should not be 'why do I have to pay', it should be 'why should the child suffer because of the negligence of another?' i cant believe im actually the one on the side of social responsibility in this debate im usualy quite the opposite. the answer to both questions by the way is because thats the right thing to do.

i used this scenario earlier

what if you earn 100K a year, have a wife and 3 kids, get hit by a stolen car driven by an unemployed homeless guy and you are injured to the extent you cant work anymore ever. there is no mibi, how much money do you think you will get off the unemployed homeless guy?

if your that person who just got hit, and cannot work. how,without the existence of the mibi will your family get by?

heviballs

axer wrote: »

I know, let the child suffer for he knew the risk he was taking by travelling in an uninsured car without restraining himself into his seat properly! :rolleyes:

in that case the mother should be put away,what ban did she get do you know,

PeakOutput

heviballs wrote: »

in that case the mother should be put away,what ban did she get do you know,

do you not think they are two seperate issues?

to me weather or not she is criminally prosecuted and weather or not the child has the means for a secure future are two completely different things

should the mother be more harshly treated because her actions had such a bad outcome? or should she be treated the same as anyone else who drives without insurance and gets lucky?did the mother think she was insured or know she was driving uninsured(you would be suprised at some people genuine ignorance to that)

do the answers to these question matter to how the child is dealt with or should the child just be taken care of no matter what?

podge3

Louvarella wrote: »

There is a 3% levy added to every motor insurance policy in Ireland.

Is it really only 3%? Doesn't seem like much.

Just had a quick Google and found this over on ThePost.ie from 2005:

ThePost wrote:

Carmel Mulroy of the Irish Insurance Federation (IIF) said the primary factors affecting car insurance costs in Ireland included the high number of claims taken, the relatively high levels of compensation awarded, fraudulent claims and a poor road safety record countrywide.

She said uninsured drivers, who are thought to make up about 6 per cent of Ireland's motoring population, increased average insurance premiums for insured drivers in Ireland by an average of €45

AFAIK uninsured drivers are more inclined to have accidents so thats why I thought it resulted in a 10% charge.

Ickle Magoo

Profiler wrote: »

Given all of that, please explain to me how that family is considerably better off.

Tell me how they are not considerably better off than the hundreds of thousands of families who have to care for and struggle to give the best possible care to disabled children that they didn't disable and don't have the luxury of dipping into a multi-million pound slush fund.

It stinks to high heavens that a woman who caused her own child's injuries should be able to give herself and the child a better quality of life than another parent & child in the same position through no fault of their own. What's the alternative though? Either disbanding the fund for all those who are victims of uninsured drivers or preventing payment to this particular child who would be entitled to better care and quality of life if their injuries had been caused by anyone else - neither are fair options to the child & at the end of the day, that's what is important.

PeakOutput

podge3 wrote: »

AFAIK uninsured drivers are more inclined to have accidents so thats why I thought it resulted in a 10% charge.

the mibi fund is only one part of the cost to us

you have to be able to prove the car was uninsured just not knowing isnt good enough for the mibi to get involved so there are numerous cases where this cannot be proved(hit and runs for example) were the insurance companies end up paying out themselves this increases premiums on top of the 3% levy so it could very well be around 10% if not more when all those other effects are taken into account

Louvarella

PeakOutput wrote: »

the mibi fund is only one part of the cost to us

you have to be able to prove the car was uninsured just not knowing isnt good enough for the mibi to get involved so there are numerous cases where this cannot be proved(hit and runs for example) were the insurance companies end up paying out themselves this increases premiums on top of the 3% levy so it could very well be around 10% if not more when all those other effects are taken into account

Yeah, you're absolutely right, PeakOutput - the overall costs incurred by insurers for having to deal with comp claims where a policyholder was hit by an uninsured driver, contributes to the overall cost of insurance across the board, but there is a specific 3% charge added to the cost of your policy which the insurers pay directly to the MIBI.

Liam Byrne

Onkle wrote: »

I see you points but look at it this way, I'm crossing the street and I'm mown down by an uninsured driver,

Are you not personally liable for your own safety ? Should you not have stayed on the path instead of stepping out in front of the car ?

I know I'm playing Devil's Advocate with that, but it is a factor.

Having said that, the mother is 100% responsible, and not a cent of my premium should go to this case.

The fund should be there when innocent third parties get hit. Not the uninsured driver's passengers (be they mates or family).

Profiler

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Tell me how they are not considerably better off than the hundreds of thousands of families who have to care for and struggle to give the best possible care to disabled children that they didn't disable and don't have the luxury of dipping into a multi-million pound slush fund.

You claimed they benefited from this accident, I pointed out how I felt that they as a family are not in fact better off compared to how they were prior to the accident.

Rather than acknowledge that you instead compare them to other families who live with a person of disability? You've moved the goalposts considerably there in your race to the bottom.

Moreover the money is not a slush fund and to describe is as such is quite sad really, it shows how little you know.

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It stinks to high heavens that a woman who caused her own child's injuries should be able to give herself and the child a better quality of life than another parent & child in the same position through no fault of their own. What's the alternative though? Either disbanding the fund for all those who are victims of uninsured drivers or preventing payment to this particular child who would be entitled to better care and quality of life if their injuries had been caused by anyone else - neither are fair options to the child & at the end of the day, that's what is important.

Where has all this care and consideration for the injured child come from? You were mid rant about how the mother and the system are a disgrace and now all of a sudden the child's welfare is the important thing :rolleyes:

Welcome to life, sometimes it's greatly inequitable!

PeakOutput

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Not the uninsured driver's passengers (be they mates or family).

that 4month old kid is not innocent?

you know that if you the driver of a car you are passenger in causes a crash and they are at fault you can claim damages from them right? it dosnt matter that you were a passenger or in the other car their negligence caused you harm.

sesna

I wonder how much the concerned uncle will get for all his effort and trouble in protecting this unfortunate child.

PeakOutput

lads i am the most cynical(sp??) person i know and even i am amazed at the cynisism(sppppp???/) in this thread

Profiler

sesna wrote: »

I wonder how much the concerned uncle will get for all his effort and trouble in protecting this unfortunate child.

He would get nothing of the €2.9m. That is 100% for the injured child.

podge3

Profiler wrote: »

You claimed they benefited from this accident, I pointed out how I felt that they as a family are not in fact better off compared to how they were prior to the accident.

Nor are they any worse off than if she had paid her insurance premium like the rest of us law-abiding citizens.

The real nub of the issue IMHO is that they have ended up in the same financial position as if she were fully insured.

sesna

Profiler wrote: »

He would get nothing of the €2.9m. That is 100% for the injured child.

I was not talking about direct payment from the MIB to the uncle. Just that I hope the parents will recognise the uncles effort and reward him accordingly, or the child in later life.

WalterMitty

i dont think the scheme was evisaged to deal with such cases.If the babys injuries had occured as a result of mothers negligance outside of the car , say in a park or home would could they sue then?it was luck that it happened in a car and that a scheme exists relating to cars. Im all for the child receiving best medical treatment but i dont want the mother to see even one cent of benefit from such a sum. In fact there should be laws for criminal negligence if there isnt already one.

PeakOutput

podge3 wrote: »

Nor are they any worse off than if she had paid her insurance premium like the rest of us law-abiding citizens.

The real nub of the issue IMHO is that they have ended up in the same financial position as if she were fully insured.

are you going to keep on ignoring my posts?

for the 7th time, the mibi take on the responsibility of going after the liable party for partial or all moneys paid out

they will get teh same amount back as the child would have gotten from them if he had of sued them directly(ie if they cant afford the full amount they will take assets or a portion of income forever)

the plus for the child here is it dosnt matter that his parents probably are not worth 2.9million he gets that anyway the mibi just reclaim as much as they possibly can under the law

omahaid

Its a bit sick that parents of disabled children who don't cause the disability do not get €2.9 million but the mother who does cause the disability does get €2.9 million.

And before anyone points out that it is the child who gets the money, I suspect that it is the parents who spend it on behalf of the child.

sesna

I wonder when Mrs McHale is going to be prosecuted for driving without insurance.

I wonder what caused this "blackout" she had too. Was this her version of events or a pre-existing medical condition.

Profiler

podge3 wrote: »

Nor are they any worse off than if she had paid her insurance premium like the rest of us law-abiding citizens.

The real nub of the issue IMHO is that they have ended up in the same financial position as if she were fully insured.

I fail to see how anyone in that family is no worse off as a consequence of this incident.

sesna

Profiler wrote: »

I fail to see how anyone in that family is no worse off as a consequence of this incident.

+2.9 million euro and saved money on having no insurance.

Liam Byrne

PeakOutput wrote: »

that 4month old kid is not innocent?

Parents are responsible for their children.

PeakOutput wrote: »

you know that if you the driver of a car you are passenger in causes a crash and they are at fault you can claim damages from them right? it dosnt matter that you were a passenger or in the other car their negligence caused you harm.

Yes, you can claim damages from them.

But (a) you should not be able to claim from anyone else and (b) if you're knowingly a passenger in an uninsured car you have contributed and should not be entitled to claim from those of us who do pay our insurance.

Profiler

omahaid wrote: »

the mother who does cause the disability does get €2.9 million.

The mother does not get €2.9m :rolleyes:

omahaid wrote: »

And before anyone points out that it is the child who gets the money, I suspect that it is the parents who spend it on behalf of the child.

The €2.9m is not given to the parents to spend. The money is paid to the county registrar not to the parents.

axer

sesna wrote: »

+2.9 million euro and saved money on having no insurance.

does not equal a blind and severly brain damaged child that this mother will be taking care of and dealing with the guilt for the rest of her life. I would rather not have the 2.9m than to be in her situation.

Profiler

sesna wrote: »

+2.9 million euro and saved money on having no insurance.

The mother does not get €2.9m. What part of that don't you understand.

Liam Byrne

axer wrote: »

I would rather not have the 2.9m than to be in her situation.

She deliberately and knowingly put herself and her child in that situation.

Profiler

Liam Byrne wrote: »

She deliberately and knowingly put herself and her child in that situation.

Ridiculous and utterly preposterous.

The mother did not deliberately put herself or her child in danger.

axer

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Yes, you can claim damages from them.

But (a) you should not be able to claim from anyone else and (b) if you're knowingly a passenger in an uninsured car you have contributed and should not be entitled to claim from those of us who do pay our insurance.

The child is an innocent party in this. Passengers cannot be held liable for the actions of the driver since they are not in control of the car - definitely not a 4 month old passenger anyway.

RGS

All passengers in vehicles are entitled to compensation for the negligence of the driver, be it caused by an uninsued driver or insured driver. However the MIBI do have the defence of reasonable knowledge:
clause 5.2 of the 2009 agreement:

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 MIBI shall not extend to any judgement or claim either in respect of injury or death of such person.

In this incident the child was 4 mths old and therefore was a totally innocent victim.

Just to affirm the position the money is lodge in court and will be administered by the court and in all likelihood the child may be made a ward of court, with the court determining the best interests of the child.