After Christmas, I received a letter saying that the insurers had not paid third parties and that a lawyer had been appointed by my insurers. I then received a form on uninsured losses, which I signed, that I did not have, since my surplus was cancelled, and I also explained that I did not intend to follow the path of aggression. This week I received some form of assignment and agreement. She now refers to third parties as “the driver of the unisured” and says that her company will pay for my repairs and then pass them on for the costs. I know of two insurers who often insist on these rights for RTA. During the w/p discussions, their fees recognized that it is very rare for the insurer to sue a driver with a transfer contract. This is due to the fact that most of the people involved in this type of business have no money (for example, criminals. B, TWOC`ers minors, foreign drivers who return abroad without a trace, etc.). I assume that an advisor was able to convince the insurers that the transfer agreement provided them with additional ammunition. This is stupid, because most automobile policies contain an explicit section of their rights to recover payment of a third party fee, and the Road Traffic Act also gives them a legal provision to recover costs. This is also particularly ridiculous for under-eduged claims, since an applicant would give two separate insurance companies a means to bring an action that would arise from the same incident! Judge`s opinion: He was very angry with the accused. He made it clear to counsel for the accused that the message he had to give to those who insisted was to research the Highway Code. He explained that the insurer RTA would be able to track the driver under Section 151(8) (b) for damages paid by the insurer.
The lawyer, who had been given a wrong order, was courteous and explained his instructions that the assignment was an internal political decision of the insurer. This only angered the judge when he sat on the family and court court, and clearly had more important things to do than listening to a wealthy insurance company that shoved an innocent complainant. The judge appreciated our argument that the insurers insisted on a conditional plan, which was entirely inappropriate, because they put the complainant to a halt to two possible remedies based on a single incident. Unfortunately, our claim for compensation was rejected, which was a bloody shame because I lost $10 in a bet with a colleague. NOTE: This practical note relates to the MIB Uninsured Agreement 2015 and applies to accidents that occurred on or after August 1, 2015. Information on the previous 1999 agreement (which applies to road accidents between 1 October 1999 and 31 July 2015) is provided in the practical reference: uninsured drivers and the role of the MIB – for accidents that occurred between 1 October 1999 and 31 July 2015 [Archived]. (d) EUI Ltd. wishes to avoid unnecessary delays and litigation and costs and has proposed to pay the applicant a payment based on fair and fair compensation for damages and/or injuries, as well as to exercise and withdraw the applicant`s rights of appeal outlined below. Let me get straight to the point very quickly. If you are an insurer that insists that an innocent applicant sign a transfer contract before paying off, the companies will take legal action against you. Because of the frequency with which the insurer actually sues someone who uses the agreement, it may run the risk that the low chance of “signing and taking the money” is worth it. You may have struck an uninsured or unidentified driver.
Perhaps the other driver left the accident site without the possibility of obtaining a vehicle registration or third-party personal data, or gave false statements or was not insured.