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

Court Explores Alleged 'Grave Risk' in Child Abduction Case

28th March, 2024 By

Cross-jurisdictional disputes surrounding child custody can be complex but, in cutting through the complexities, the courts will always focus on the welfare of the children involved, as was evidenced in a High Court case centred on a child abduction. A father wrongfully removed his 5-year-old child from Lithuania during an agreed contact session and took him back to the UK. Prior to this abduction, a series of contested proceedings related to the child's custody had already taken place in the Lithuanian courts. The father had applied to have the child returned...

Tenant Succeeds in Reducing Service Charges

26th March, 2024 By

A case recently decided by the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) serves as a reminder to tenants to check the terms of their leases and to monitor the service charges they are asked to pay. The tenant of a ground-floor flat sought a determination of liability to pay service charges under Section 27A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, in respect of the 2017-2022 service charge years. He challenged various charges, on grounds that they was no evidence that they had been incurred or that they had not reasonably been incurred. Although...

Risk Passing on Exchange of Contracts

20th March, 2024 By Arman Khosravi

Risk Passing on Exchange of Contracts   Between Exchange and Completion (where the property is freehold):- It is generally the responsibility of the seller to take care of the property and to keep it insured against damage. The buyer also has a responsibility to insure the property from the exchange of contracts because of “Risk Passing”. There is no obligation on the seller to maintain buildings insurance once exchange has taken place.  It is therefore very important that buildings insurance for the property is in place before you proceed to exchange...

Court of Appeal Overturns Will Dispute Ruling

20th March, 2024 By

Unfortunately, will disputes can sometimes be drawn out long after the passing of the person who bequeathed their assets. This was so in a contentious probate battle which progressed to the Court of Appeal after a High Court judgment was challenged. The crux of the matter was a 2015 will made by a woman prior to her death at the age of 85. In that will, the woman bequeathed her home – her largest asset – to her only daughter. The daughter and the woman's three sons were to share...