header-logo header-logo

22 July 2016 / Lucy McCormick , Matthew Channon
Issue: 7708 / Categories: Features , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail

Look, no hands!

nlj_7708_channon_mccormick

Matthew Channon & Lucy McCormick consider the challenges that driverless cars are posing for the insurance industry

  • May 2016 saw the UK announcement of the world’s first driverless car insurance legislation, as well as the launch of the first consumer driverless car policy.

  • However, the insurance of driverless cars remains a thorny issue, raising questions of how to set premiums and how to determine liability.

  • Over the next few years, the focus is likely to move from individual motor policies to manufacturers’ product liability cover. In the longer term, one possible solution would be the establishment of a central “no fault” compensation fund paid into through a premium on the purchase of driverless cars.

According to the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, 95% of all road accidents involve human error, and in 76% of road accidents the driver is solely to blame. Factors include tiredness, impatience and alcohol. While “driverless” cars are not infallible—as illustrated by February’s “Googlecar” collision and May’s fatal Tesla “Autopilot” crash—their introduction is likely to dramatically

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Gateley Legal—Caroline Pope & Bob Maynard

Construction team bolstered by hire of senior consultant duo

Switalskis—four appointments

Switalskis—four appointments

Firm expands residential conveyancing team with quadruple appointment

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

mfg Solicitors—Claire Pope

Private client team welcomes senior associatein Worcester

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll