Mib Agreement Ireland

98. The judge found that these concerns could justify a change in the agreements, but did not consider that the consequences provided for by the welded members changed the importance of the liability clause. 2. In this case, the question arises as to how outstanding claims on Setanta policyholders should be met if it is clear that there are not enough resources available. The number of claims is estimated between 1,700 and 2,000. In this action, the accountant of the courts asked the High Court whether the claims should be met by payments under the insurance fund he manages under the direction of the President of the High Court, as amended by the Insurance Act of 1964, or by the Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland. , in accordance with its 2009 agreement with the Minister of Transport. The argument of commercial reality 58. It is clear from the case law that the courts will reject the interpretation of a contract, resulting in a result contrary to business common sense: cf. Investor Compensation Scheme v. West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 WLR 896, 912 per Lord Hoffman and Analog Devices BV v. Zurich Insurance Co. [2005] IESC 12, [2005] 1 IR 274 , 281 by Geoghegan J.

This case law was invoked by Mr. Gallagher S.C to support his argument that this construction of the 2009 agreement is contrary to commercial realities and common sense. It would have been remarkable if insurers had accepted a cross-guarantee for the debts or potential liabilities of other insurers, without this being explicitly stated or confirmed in the MIBI agreement itself. Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland (MIBI) is a private company established in 1955 by mutual agreement between the government and Irish automobile insurance companies. Under the Law, all licensed insurance companies that purchase automobile insurance in Ireland are required to be members of MIBI and to contribute (proportionately to market share) to the operating costs and financing of rights under the MIBI`s jurisdiction. 80.C is a worrying argument, I admit. Even if this is not a satisfactory answer, it appears here that the interpretation of the agreement does not necessarily lead to the interpretation of the agreement being able to prevent this result, since the application of Article 3.11 for the reimbursement of a judgment of an innocent person but, in the event of it, is not assured or underinsured, is clearly unjust. 22. As noted above, Article 2 of the 2009 agreement provides that a person seeking compensation under the agreement « must enforce the provisions of that agreement through one of the four channels mentioned in clauses 2.1 to 2.4. » In addition, Clause 3 contains a number of conditions known as « MIBI`s terms of liability. »