header-logo header-logo

03 June 2016 / Nicholas Bevan
Issue: 7701 / Categories: Features , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail

Putting wrongs to rights (Pt 2)

nlj_7701_bevan

In the second of two articles, Nicholas Bevan explains why he believes the MIB is liable for defects in the Road Traffic Act

In “Putting wrongs to rights (Pt 1)” the author argued the case for the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) being held directly liable for compensating motor accident victims who fall through the statutory protection conferred under Pt VI of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988). The article hypothecated that if the Becker exception applies to Art 10 of the European directive (2009/103/EC) on motor insurance (the Directive) then the MIB will be liable to compensate any victim of a motor vehicle whose use ought under European law to be covered by third party insurance, even if there is none in place because the RTA 1988 does not require it. In short the case was made for Art 10 of the Directive having direct effect against the MIB.

Article 10 of the Directive defines the role of the authorised compensating body. The Uninsured Drivers Agreements 1999 and 2015 and the Untraced Drivers Agreement 2003 are supposed

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

Anthony Collins—20 promotions

20 promotions mark major people investment at national law firm, Anthony Collins

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley—Elaine Whiteford

Sidley adds competition litigator Elaine Whiteford in London

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys—Claudina D’Costa

Charles Russell Speechlys welcomes Claudina D’Costa as Director of Client Development Marketing

NEWS
The 25th Pro Bono Week begins today until 6 November, with events hosted by law firms, chambers, law schools and charities across the UK
Pro bono is celebrating a silver anniversary, with initiatives putting businesses and students at the heart of access to justice
Choosing the wrong expert can cost a clinical negligence claimant more than their case
Judges risk weakening their own independence by staying silent over government reforms, a leading public lawyer argues
A discount on damages does not automatically mean an equivalent haircut for legal costs in military deafness claims
back-to-top-scroll