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

Challenge to Will's Validity Rejected by High Court

12th April, 2024 By

The best way to ensure your assets will be distributed as you wish is to have your will professionally drafted by a qualified solicitor. In a recent case, a challenge to the validity of an elderly man's will was dismissed by the High Court. The man had previously made a will in 2011, leaving most of his estate equally to his three children. In 2018, by which time one of his sons had predeceased him, he made a further will, leaving the residue of his estate to his other son...

Defiance of Family Court Orders Will Always End Badly

10th April, 2024 By

Custodial sentences very rarely come into play in the family courts. Where there have been repeated breaches of court orders, however, judges may have little choice but to clamp down. This was illustrated in the High Court during committal proceedings that stemmed from a child custody dispute. The background to the case involved contested proceedings between the father and mother of a young child. These concluded with a court order establishing that the child – a daughter – would live with the mother. Three months later the daughter travelled with...

Claim for SDLT Relief on Annex Unsuccessful

8th April, 2024 By

When buying a property consisting of more than one residence, it may be possible to claim multiple dwellings relief (MDR) against Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT). However, there are certain conditions that must be met for an MDR claim to succeed, as a recent case illustrates. A property was purchased for £1.8 million. Prior to the purchase, the buyer had agreed with the seller that he would be allowed to carry out works to construct a self-contained annex at the property. The buyer's SDLT return included a claim for MDR...

Divorce – Alleged Bigamy Raised in Financial Remedies Dispute

5th April, 2024 By

The issue of bigamy and its potential impact on a person's ability to seek financial remedies in a divorce came under the legal spotlight recently. A husband made an application to strike out his wife's financial remedies claim on the basis that she had committed bigamy and deceived him into a marriage when she knew she was not free to marry. This deceit, he claimed, was so egregious that, as a matter of public policy, she should be debarred from pursuing any claim for financial remedies against him. The husband based...