Motor Insurers Bureau meaning

Motor Insurers Bureau v Houston [2025] EWHC 3178 (KB) What are the practical implications of this case? Although the outcome may catch seasoned credit hire practitioners off guard, it was driven in large part by the precise language of the debarring order in this case. The order confined any future debarring strictly to the question of rate and made no reference to reliance on impecuniosity for the hire period or for any wider purposes; appellant counsel on appeal suggested this flowed from a legacy version of a standard form. Practitioners familiar with credit hire litigation will know that, more often than not, directions orders bar a claimant from reliance on impecuniosity for all purposes following a failure to provide financial disclosure. Even so, the judgment is a clear reminder that the courts will apply the ordinary and natural meaning to the words of any order, and practitioners should take care to verify the exact wording of a debarring order in every case. That is not, however, to suggest the...

PI & Clinical Negligence weekly highlights—13 February 2025 In this issue: CPR updates Public authorities and the state Clinical negligence Employer’s liability Other PI and Clinical negligence news New content LexTalk®PI & Clinical Negligence: a Lexis®Nexis community Daily and weekly news alerts Useful information CPR updates 179th Practice Direction update and pre-action protocol update—in force 22 January 2025 and 6 April 2025 The 179th Practice Direction (PD) update takes effect on 6 April 2025. The Master of the Rolls and the Courts Minister have signed the Practice Direction Update, which sets out a series of amendments in support of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2025, SI 2025/106...

DHV (a protected party through his litigation friend WTX) v Motor Insurer’s Bureau [2025] EWHC 2002 (KB) What are the practical implications of this case? While the dispute largely turned on pre‑Brexit jurisdictional rules and the particular application of Spanish law, it still carries wider lessons for general practice in foreign accident claims. It acts as a timely reminder of how jurisdiction was established for overseas accidents before the expiry of the Brexit transitional period. It will not assist those dealing with newer accidents, where the position is now more complex. How the position will evolve remains uncertain; however, see FS Cairo (Nile Plaza) LLC v Brownlie [2021] UKSC 45 for examples of when jurisdiction may still arise. Much of the judgment addressed contributory negligence and had relatively modest wider effect, yet the outcome depended on the calibre of expert accident reconstruction evidence—something worth noting in both international and domestic accident cases. As such, although its route to jurisdiction reflects the pre‑Brexit approach, its evidential emphasis provides takeaways beyond...

THIS PROTOCOL ONLY APPLIES TO LOW VALUE RTA CASES WHERE THE CLAIM NOTIFICATION FORM IS SUBMITTED TO THE DEFENDANT'S INSURERS BEFORE 30 APRIL 2013. The Pre-Action Protocol for Low Value Personal Injury Claims in Road Traffic Accidents (the RTA protocol) covers claims worth up to £10,000 in value. It aims to accelerate decision-making by imposing fixed response periods and fixed costs on the parties involved. The protocol applies to all road traffic accident (RTA) claims: with a value that is between £1,000 and £10,000 where the accident occurred in England or Wales where the accident occurred on or after 30 April 2010 Excluded cases The protocol does not apply in the following circumstances: where pain, suffering and loss of amenity are assessed at under £1,000 to employer and to public liability claims to Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB) untraced driver claims where either the claimant or the defendant is deceased where the claimant is...

A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z This glossary provides helpful (re)insurance and underwriting definitions. For focused guidance on reinsurance terminology, see Practice Note: Reinsurance—essentials. A Accident An unforeseen or unintended event or incident that typically results in damage or injury (physical or financial) to the insured or a third party. Accidental damage Unintended or unexpected harm or damage caused to property or a person. Accidental death benefit Some life insurance policies pay an extra amount, over and above the original sum insured, if the insured dies because of an accident. Act of God (force majeure) An occurrence beyond anyone’s control, such as a natural disaster. Active underwriter The person with primary responsibility and authority to accept insurance and reinsurance risks on behalf of the members of a syndicate in the Lloyd’s market. See also Underwriter. Actuary A qualified professional who...

Introduction to Road Traffic Act 1988 and Motor Insurers Bureau This Practice Note offers a concise overview of motor insurance, uninsured motorists and untraced drivers, clarifying Part VI of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) and the Motor Insurers' Bureau (MIB) Uninsured and Untraced Drivers Agreements. Motor insurance in the UK is notably complex. Across much of mainland Europe, the owner insures the vehicle and the policy extends to any driver who has the owner’s permission. By contrast, UK cover is generally written for specified drivers, and frequently only for stated uses. Part VI of the RTA 1988 requires compulsory third-party motor insurance and sets out a statutory scheme describing when an insurer must pay damages to an injured person. It gives effect to what is now Directive 2009/103/EC, the Sixth Motor Insurance Directive. The MIB is a private organisation comprising all of the UK’s motor insurers. Operating as an insurer of last resort, it can be required to satisfy a judgment against a motorist...

Claim no: [ insert claim number ] In the county court at [ insert ] Between [ INSERT CLAIMANT’S NAME ] Claimant -and- [ INSERT FIRST DEFENDANT’S NAME ] First Defendant -and- Motor Insurers’ Bureau Second Defendant Particulars of claim [ Insert introductory wording if relevant, for example: The Claimant is [ insert details ] ] At all relevant times: The Claimant was [ insert details, for example the driver of ] The First Defendant was the driver of [ insert details, for example registration number ] The Second Defendant is joined to these proceedings for the reasons set out further below...

IN THE [ INSERT NAME OF COURT ] Claim no. Parties AB Claimant and (1) C D First Defendant (2) MOTOR INSURERS’ BUREAU (acting through its agent X Y INSURANCE PLC) Second Defendants PARTICULARS OF CLAIM Throughout the material period, the First Defendant drove a vehicle [ insert description ], [ insert registration ] (“the vehicle”), whilst the Claimant was travelling as a passenger therein. The Second Defendant (the “MIB”) is a company limited by guarantee within the Companies’ Acts. Under an Agreement with the Secretary of State dated 3 July 2015 (the “Agreement”), MIB provides compensation, in specified circumstances, to persons who suffer injury or damage arising from the negligence of an uninsured motorist. The Claimant has taken all reasonable steps to identify the insurer and any liability in respect of the First Defendant and, as at the commencement of these proceedings, believes the First Defendant was not insured to drive the said vehicle at the relevant...