header-logo header-logo

Motor insurers win hit & run case

20 February 2019
Issue: 7829 / Categories: Legal News , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail

The victim of an unidentified hit and run driver has lost her claim at the Supreme Court, in a case welcomed by insurance lawyers.

The case, Cameron v Hussain [2019] UKSC 6 concerned a collision in 2013 between Miss Cameron’s car and a Nissan Micra. The Micra did not stop but a passing driver took down its number plate. It was registered in the name of Naveed Hussain.

Hussain’s insurer challenged Cameron’s claim on the grounds it could not be proved that Hussain was the driver. Cameron sought to amend her claim to the ‘the person unknown driving vehicle….’.

The case centred on the issue of whether a claimant can bring a claim against an unnamed defendant if the claimant has been the victim of an unidentified hit and run driver, and the car the unidentified driver was driving is covered by an insurance policy, albeit one in the name of someone untraceable. Overturning the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court unanimously held that such a claim cannot be brought.

Damian Ward, partner at Keoghs, which acted for the insurer in the case, said: ‘It is long-established that the victim of an untraced driver in the UK has protection in the various forms of the Untraced Drivers Agreement.

‘What would have presented as an open goal to fraudsters has been instead determined as a rejection of the challenge to the existing compensation framework for victims of untraced drivers in RTA cases, and of the UK’s failure to lawfully implement the Sixth EC Motor Insurance Directive.’

Welcoming the decision, Ian Davies, partner at Kennedys, said: ‘We have returned to the established approach and insurers’ systems and processes should not need to be amended.’

Kennedys partner Mark Walsh said: ‘The judgment is unequivocal.

‘It is now abundantly clear that the issuing and service of proceedings by the claimant is simply not permitted in circumstances where the existence of the proceedings could never be brought to the attention of the defendant, and that substituted service on the defendant insurer is not an effective solution.’ 

Issue: 7829 / Categories: Legal News , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Cadwalader—Andro Atlaga

Cadwalader—Andro Atlaga

Firm strengthens leveraged finance team with London partner hire

Mourant—Stephen Alexander

Mourant—Stephen Alexander

Jersey litigation lead appointed to global STEP Council

mfg Solicitors—nine trainees

mfg Solicitors—nine trainees

Firm invests in future talent with new training cohort

NEWS
The Supreme Court issued a landmark judgment in July that overturned the convictions of Tom Hayes and Carlo Palombo, once poster boys of the Libor and Euribor scandal. In NLJ this week, Neil Swift of Peters & Peters considers what the ruling means for financial law enforcement
Small law firms want to embrace technology but feel lost in a maze of jargon, costs and compliance fears, writes Aisling O’Connell of the Solicitors Regulation Authority in this week's NLJ
Charles Pigott of Mills & Reeve reports on Haynes v Thomson, the first judicial application of the Supreme Court’s For Women Scotland ruling in a discrimination claim, in this week's NLJ
Bea Rossetto of the National Pro Bono Centre makes the case for ‘General Practice Pro Bono’—using core legal skills to deliver life-changing support, without the need for niche expertise—in this week's NLJ
Charlie Mercer and Astrid Gillam of Stewarts crunch the numbers on civil fraud claims in the English courts, in this week's NLJ. New data shows civil fraud claims rising steadily since 2014, with the King’s Bench Division overtaking the Commercial Court as the forum of choice for lower-value disputes
back-to-top-scroll