Car damaged by stolen 'Minimoto'

Yorkie1

The MIB has two agreements - for uninsured (but traced) drivers, and for untraced drivers. It sounds as though the first one applies in your case.

I've had a quick look at the MIB documents and, whilst I'm not that familiar with them, the relevant phrase would appear to be 'motor vehicle'. This is a mechanically propelled vehicle which is adapted for use on roads (if memory serves right).

I think you are well within your rights to argue that a minimoto is a motor vehicle and - thus - covered by the terms of the MIB agreement. It does not have to be a car which is responsible for the damage.

The MIB will try every avenue possible to wriggle out of this - you already seem to have posted two different answers from them ... but it will be a very long battle and only you know if you're up for it.

DaveMacD

The problem may be in the bit of the phrase 'adapted for use on roads' since mini-motos are not, and never have been adapted for use on roads. Had a few problems with a few round where I stay, but I've made no secret of the fact that if I hit them, I won't feel a thing, and will keep on going.

Yorkie1

You're probably right that that's the angle the MIB might take - but the courts tend to take a wider definition than is immediately obvious. Worth a try

For example, a couple of decades ago 'Go-peds' were held to fall within the definition, as did (if I recall correctly) recently those Segway transporters - albeit the regulations were changed to enable this