Slater and Gordon is representing a number of victims seeking compensation for physical and psychological injuries against the van insurer

Probus, the insurer of the van used in the June 2017 London Bridge terrorist attack, will not be entitled to support from the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) in paying out victims’ claims.

Probus is an MIB member, and last year members voted to share out the cost of claims arising from the use of a vehicle in a terrorist attack.

However, the MIB confirmed to Insurance Times that is because the incident took place prior to the new ruling starting from 1 January this year  members will not step in to pay the claims of victims. 

Prior to March 2017, vehicle claims from terrorist victims had been dealt with by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority Scheme (CICAS) which is applied to all victims of crime and based on apparent damages that are a fixed amount.

As part of its response to terrorist incidents, the MIB also took out reinsurance through Aon to the value of £400m to account for large losses. The MIB would be responsible for the first £100m, and thereafter the cost would be picked up by the reinsurer.

Uninsured drivers

Since 1946 the role of the MIB has been to compensate victims of uninsured drivers, and since 1969, to compensate the victims of hit and run drivers. 

Paul Ryman Tubb, chief technical officer at the MIB, told Insurance Times: “In a claim where someone is using the vehicle as an act of terrorism, the victim of that has a claim against that driver.

“No insurance will cover using a vehicle as a weapon or part of an act of terrorism. So, all claims that arise out of acts of terrorism are claims where the driver is uninsured.”

This means all claims in this category would fall to the MIB, with the cost spread across members.


As part of the old agreement, there was an exclusion where for claims up until 1 March 2017, the MIB would not have to step in.

The exclusion had meant the only route to compensation for terrorism victims was CICAS.

But after speaking with the government, the MIB decided that this exclusion was not fair, and had it removed.

Therefore prior to the new ruling on 1 January, the burden of terrorism-related claims fell on the insurer. 


As the London Bridge terror attack happened after the exclusion was removed but before the new MIB ruling to share the cost of terrorism claims between members, it leaves Probus liable to pay the whole claim.

However, Zurich, the the insurer of a rented Hyundai Tucson SUV used in the March 2017 Westminster Bridge terrorist attack, said it was not right that one insurer should take on all terrorism-related claims.

David Nichols, chief claims officer at Zurich, said: “The tragic events which unfolded in Westminster, London Bridge and Finsbury Park in 2017 highlighted the increased prevalence of the use of motor vehicles to perpetrate terrorist attacks.

“The potential scale of terrorism-related claims impacting across portfolios remains high and we would question whether it remains appropriate for a single insurer to bear the costs of a large scale terrorist incident.

“Terrorism liabilities should not be the specific consideration of motor vehicle insurers and both industry and government must work together to implement a long-term holistic solution to ensure that the spread of terrorism risk across all lines of business impacted remains equitable and sustainable.”

Insurance Times contacted Probus Insurance for comment, a Kennedy’s spokesperson responded: “Our thoughts remain with those affected by the terrible incident. We are, however, unable to comment while the inquest is ongoing.”

Subscribers read more 

The terrorism risk landscape is changing 

Story 1- Terrorism