fbpx

Motor Insurers Not Liable for £2 Million Fire Damage

27th June 2019 By Arman Khosravi

The law requires that the driver of any vehicle has a valid insurance policy that covers injury or damage to third parties caused by or arising out of the use of the vehicle on a road or in a public place. The Supreme Court has given authoritative guidance on the meaning of that phrase in a case of crucial importance to vehicle owners and the insurance industry.

The case concerned an employee of an engineering firm, the owners of which allowed him to use the premises to do work on his own car in his own time. He was welding a plate onto the bottom of his car when a spark set light to the car’s seat covers and the resulting blaze gutted the firm’s and neighbouring premises. The firm’s property insurers paid out more than £2 million in respect of the fire, but sought to recover their outlay from the employee’s motor insurers.

The High Court rejected the property insurers’ claim on the basis that the blaze resulted from the negligent manner in which the employee was repairing his car. What happened could not be said to have been caused by, or to have arisen out of, the use of the vehicle.

That ruling was, however, reversed by the Court of Appeal, which found that the policy’s wording was inadequate and did not provide the compulsory level of cover required by the Road Traffic Act 1988. In those circumstances, the Court interpreted the policy so as to require the motor insurers to provide cover in respect of any accident involving the vehicle, wherever it happened.

In upholding the motor insurers’ challenge to that ruling, the Supreme Court noted that a correction to the policy’s wording was necessary to achieve the level of cover required by the Act, but no more than that. The Court of Appeal had gone too far by removing the required causal link between use of a vehicle on a road or other public place and the accident. The fire did not fall within the terms of the policy as so interpreted and the motor insurers had thus been entitled to refuse cover.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Tenants Can Purchase Freehold When Landlord Cannot Be Found

11th June, 2024 By

The Leasehold Reform, Housing and Urban Development Act 1993 gives qualifying leaseholders the right to join together to buy the freehold of their properties – a process known as collective enfranchisement. A recent case demonstrated that this right can be exercised even when the landlord cannot be found. The leaseholders of two flats in a terraced house wished to purchase it from the landlord, but were unable to ascertain his whereabouts and therefore could not serve notice on him under Section 13 of the Act. They therefore applied for an...

Court Refuses to Set Aside Divorce Order Applied for by Mistake

6th June, 2024 By

While the courts have a range of powers to set aside orders, they will only exercise them in limited circumstances. In a somewhat surprising case that has attracted much comment, the High Court declined to set aside a final order of divorce that had been applied for by mistake. A couple separated in January 2023, after more than 21 years of marriage. In October that year, while financial remedy proceedings were still ongoing, the wife's legal representatives inadvertently applied for a final order of divorce in respect of her instead...

Waiting Time for Grants of Probate Falls

3rd June, 2024 By

Following concerns last year about delays in processing probate applications, recent figures from HM Courts and Tribunals Service show that waiting times for grants of probate are continuing to improve. The average time from submission of a probate application to probate being granted fell to 11.3 weeks in March 2024, a decrease from 13.7 weeks in February and 13.8 weeks in January. This is the lowest figure since March 2023, when the average was 10.8 weeks. The longest waiting time since then was in November, at 15.8 weeks: that month,...

Late Appeal Against Tax Penalties Rejected

31st May, 2024 By

It is incumbent on taxpayers to make sure they fully comply with their obligations to file returns and pay any tax due. The point was illustrated by a recent case in which a taxpayer whose return had not been received by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) failed to persuade the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) that he should be permitted to appeal against the resulting penalties. On the evening of 31 January 2014, the man had completed his 2012/13 Income Tax return on HMRC's website. Shortly afterwards he went to Cyprus, and...