Article 15: Cession of judgments, comparisons and undertakings: the applicant must now detribute the applicant`s right to sue the uninsured motorist if the law is settled by mutual agreement before obtaining an unse satisfied judgment. This reflects the common practice of pitting a form of assignment against an applicant`s claim before a final decision that is the subject of a final decision. The new agreement is much simpler, and the most important requirements are to submit an application in good shape to the MIB and join the MIB at the beginning of the action. Presumptions in the field of «knowledge» have also been repealed and the agreement has been reconciled with the definition of «knowledge» in sections 143 (3) and 151(4) of the RTA (actual knowledge or constructive knowledge/»blind eye»). The 1999 agreement refers to «you have to know,» whereas the 2015 agreement refers to the «reason for being»; This amendment brings the agreement with the decision of the House of Lords in White v. [2001] 2 All 43 and, therefore, the amendment will make no difference in practice with the claims that the MIB wants to exclude. In addition to the uninsured driver contract, a new endorsement for unsecured drivers for accidents that occurred on or after that date will come into effect on August 1, 2015. This reflects the provisions of the new contract concerning uninsured drivers with respect to the exclusion of passengers with knowledge and the extension of the exclusion of subrogated rights. The MIB is now working with the Ministry of Transport to develop a brand new driver agreement. However, this will, by its very nature, be of limited importance to insurers.

Article 9 of the 2015 agreement specifies that the MIB is not responsible for acts of terrorism and reflects a similar provision under the 2003 Convention on Safety-Related Drivers (see paragraph 5, paragraph 1, point d). Since the implementation of the 2015 agreement, the government has been forced to reconsider the legality of such a blanket exclusion and has acknowledged that it should not be included. But it is on this point that one is wrongly concentrated: with the exception of the type of horrific incidents that claimed the life of Fusilier Lee Rigby, it is extremely difficult to imagine circumstances in which a vehicle could be used for terrorism, while «using» the vehicle as a vehicle, so that the provisions of the 1988 Act apply. After: AXN e.a.