Elinor Watts successful in motor insurance appeal

Elinor Watts successful in motor insurance appeal.

The appeal related to an insurer’s liability under Regulation 3 the European Communities (Rights against Insurers) Regulations 2002.

The underlying claim was for vehicle damage arising from a road traffic accident. The Second Defendant (the First Defendant’s insurer) denied liability, either as ‘contractual’ or ‘RTA insurer’, on the grounds the First Defendant’s use of the vehicle fell outside the terms of the policy (he was driving for business purposes when his policy covered him for SDP only).

At trial, the Second Defendant failed to serve any evidence to prove its insured driver was using the vehicle for an excluded purpose. The Claimant (a hire company) had no knowledge of the accident circumstances and/or the purposes for which the First Defendant was using the vehicle. 

Absent any evidence on the ‘use’ point, the trial judge was satisfied the policy of insurance remained valid and entered judgment against the Second Defendant.

On appeal, the Second Defendant argued, inter alia, the trial judge wrongly applied the burden of proof. Effectively, they argued it was for the Claimant to prove the policy of insurance remained valid.

The Second Defendant’s appeal failed. HHJ Truman held that where the insured driver is covered by a policy of insurance which fulfils the requirements of section 145 of the 1988 Act, it is for the insurance company to prove that one of the policy exceptions has been engaged. Otherwise, an insurer could simply withdraw indemnity, give no reasons for it, leaving the Claimant with the difficulty of proving the policy remained valid.

Elinor Watts was instructed by @Nicola Spragg at Keoghs.

View Elinor's Profile: https://deanscourt.co.uk/our-barristers/elinor-watts