header-logo header-logo

11 July 2019 / Nicholas Bevan
Issue: 7848 / Categories: Features , Insurance / reinsurance
printer mail-detail

The MIB’s surrogate state liability (Pt 1)

In the first instalment of a two-part feature, Dr Nicholas Bevan, reflects on the ruling in MIB v Lewis & its implications for the UK’s compulsory third-party motor insurance regime

  • Why the Motor Insurers’ Bureau is liable to compensate motor accident victims affected by the government’s failure to implement the European Motor Insurance Directive properly.

On 5 June the Court of Appeal delivered an important ruling in MIB v Lewis [2019] EWCA Civ 909 that has far-reaching implications for the UK’s compulsory third-party motor insurance regime. It is likely to have an adverse impact on the reserves of the motor insurers who supply this cover.

The ruling fixes the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) with a new form of liability, based on directly applicable European law, to compensate motor accident victims who have been wrongly denied a compensatory guarantee through compulsory insurance due to the government’s failure to implement fully Article 3 of the Sixth Motor Insurance Directive 2009/103 (the Directive).

The appellant

The appeal in Lewis was brought

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll