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

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Carey Olsen—Kim Paiva

Group partner joins Guernsey banking and finance practice

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

Morgan Lewis—Kat Gibson

London labour and employment team announces partner hire

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Foot Anstey McKees—Chris Milligan & Michael Kelly

Double partner appointment marks Belfast expansion

NEWS
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) has not done enough to protect the future sustainability of the legal aid market, MPs have warned
Writing in NLJ this week, NLJ columnist Dominic Regan surveys a landscape marked by leapfrog appeals, costs skirmishes and notable retirements. With an appeal in Mazur due to be heard next month, Regan notes that uncertainties remain over who will intervene, and hopes for the involvement of the Lady Chief Justice and the Master of the Rolls in deciding the all-important outcome
After the Southport murders and the misinformation that followed, contempt of court law has come under intense scrutiny. In this week's NLJ, Lawrence McNamara and Lauren Schaefer of the Law Commission unpack proposals aimed at restoring clarity without sacrificing fair trial rights
The latest Home Office figures confirm that stop and search remains both controversial and diminished. Writing in NLJ this week, Neil Parpworth of De Montfort University analyses data showing historically low use of s 1 PACE powers, with drugs searches dominating what remains
Boris Johnson’s 2019 attempt to shut down Parliament remains a constitutional cautionary tale. The move, framed as a routine exercise of the royal prerogative, was in truth an extraordinary effort to sideline Parliament at the height of the Brexit crisis. Writing in NLJ this week, Professor Graham Zellick KC dissects how prorogation was wrongly assumed to be beyond judicial scrutiny, only for the Supreme Court to intervene unanimously
back-to-top-scroll