New Privy Council ruling: Named Drivers Only

[Habit7]

Call to probe new Privy Council ruling on car insurance

Published:Thursday, August 23, 2012
Gail Alexander

A recent Privy Council ruling now means that vehicle insurance coverage will apply only when the vehicle is operated by the person named on its insurance policy and no other, Opposition Leader Keith Rowley said yesterday. He said the ruling—barring third-party coverage—meant only drivers named on the policy would be insured if an accident occurs. Nor would passengers be covered by the insurance unless the vehicle was driven by the person whose name was on the policy, he added.

“If ever there was a need to call the Parliament out of recess to deal with something urgently this is it, since it impacts on hundreds of thousands of vehicles out there, all being operated by persons who have the permission and authority of the owner but whose names are not on the policies,” Rowley added at the weekly Opposition media briefing yesterday.

He said the development had arisen from a Privy Council ruling on a case in which a company was called on to pay a claim and had refused. The matter was first adjudicated in the local High Court. He said the major ruling by the Privy Council on the Motor Vehicle /Traffic Act was that the company was only liable for acts incurred in the use of a car only where the car was driven by the person named on the policy for the vehicle.

He added: “What we have taken for granted for decades in having your child drive your car and being covered by insurance — that is not so. “The Privy Council has now ruled that unless the driver’s name is recorded on the policy, then no coverage is paid for that person.“ Also, he said, people damaged by the car would not have access to coverage, nor would the owner of the vehicle be covered for any damage the vehicle may incur.

Rowley added: “So we are largely uninsured, except for those persons named on insurance policies. “This is a very serious development which requires serious and immediate response from Government. “The Government is required to look at this matter and ensure the necessary amendments are made as a matter of urgency so this state of affairs would not continue.” He said the PNM’s interpretation of the situation was that there was now largely an absence of insurance.

“I”m therefore calling on Government to move with haste to respond,” Rowley added. He said Parliament was summoned out of recess as a matter of urgency last week to deal with Financial Intelligence Unit legislation which should have been dealt with earlier, since the matter was known to Government and could have been responded to well before last week.  

He said the FIU issue, however, had put the Government and its friends under scrutiny. Commenting on the new Woodbrook traffic plan, Rowley said that was the sole responsibility of the Works Ministry rather than the Port-of-Spain Corporation and the PNM had noted it was having a negative effect on the people of Woodbrook and St James, which formed part of the city’s business district. The corporation is PNM-controlled.

He said he lived in the West and had noticed an improvement in the traffic flow but added that the plan required review and consultation because of the concerns of those in Woodbrook and St James.

http://www.guardian.co.tt/news/2012-08- ... -insurance

[nemisis]

This may be an interesting way to get a lot of revenue. Mass road blocks and ticketing of drivers not named on the policy.....

[ronsin1]

This may be an interesting way to get a lot of revenue. Mass road blocks and ticketing of drivers not named on the policy.....

Named Drivers are not necessarily on the insurance certificate it is on the direct policy.

All of my vehicles have other named drivers on the policy however the certificate only has my name

[Monster 101]

what about company vehicles?

[W2J]

loophole - insure it as a company car.

[paparazzi]

This was a case where the policy said "X and Y only" allowed to drive the car. Z drove the car with permission of the insured.

The ruling does not affect policies that says "X and any other driver over the age of 25 with consent of the insured"

http://www.jcpc.gov.uk/docs/jcpc-2011-0062-judgment.pdf

Rowley's interpretation of the Judgement is wrong.

[pete]

My policy has different excesses to be paid for different drivers with permission.

Male under 25 is x
Female under 25 is y
Male over 25 is z
Female over 25 is u

[cinco]

or just tell the other person lets go to the station and make a report the owner was driving...
its not like police come to the scene of an accident

[rollingstock]

Rowley is one stupid bake.

[r3iXmann]

or just tell the other person lets go to the station and make a report the owner was driving...
its not like police come to the scene of an accident

what if there's a fatal accident?

[cinco]

or just tell the other person lets go to the station and make a report the owner was driving...
its not like police come to the scene of an accident

what if there's a fatal accident?

kill d owner at the accident site

[Habit7]

Insurers not liable
By JADA LOUTOO Saturday, August 18 2012

DRIVERS beware; insurance companies are not liable to pay compensation, in the event of an accident, if you allow someone to drive the vehicle, and they are not named on your insurance policy.

In a ruling yesterday, the Judicial Committee of the London Privy Council, held that Section 4(7) of the Motor Vehicle Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act, as amended in 1996, solely covered the policyholder.

According to the London Law Lords, the amended legislation was not intended to impose on any insurer a liability which the policy did not cover in respect of the person insured, or the persons driving, or using the vehicle with his, or her consent.

Their ruling was given in the case of Presidential Insurance Company Limited against Resha St Hill.

The case was used by the insurance company as a test case for a large number of other cases.

According to Lords Phillips, Hale, Dyson, Mance and Wilson, who presided over the appeal filed by Presidential Insurance, the issue of indemnification by an insurance company was of great interest and significance for motor insurers.

“There is no doubt about the importance of the point,” the Law Lords said.

They however noted that despite public awareness of the issue for at least 30 years, there was in Trinidad and Tobago, still no equivalent of the Motor Insurers Bureau, or any other facility to ensure that victims of negligent, uninsured drivers do not go uncompensated.

The insurance company was represented by Alan Newman, QC, and Shastri Parsad.

Presidential Insurance petitioned the Privy Council after the local appellate court ruled against it in a lawsuit filed by St Hill to recover damages she suffered during a vehicular accident.

According to the judgment, St Hill was the innocent victim of an accident on June 8, 2005 caused by a collision between the car in which she was a passenger, and another car owned by Edwin Hogan, but being driven by Dexter Denny.

Denny had Hogan’s consent to drive the car, although he was not covered by the latter’s insurance policy with Presidential.

In their ruling, the Law Lords overturned the ruling of the local appeals court in favour of the insurance company.

The case involved interpretation of Section 4(7) of the amended act.

It was submitted by St Hill’s attorneys Andrew Goddard QC, and Simon Crawshaw, that the persons driving, or using the vehicle, or licensed trailer, need only to be doing so with the consent of the person insured; they need not be “specified in the policy”.

Having forced to refer to the Hansard of the debate on the amendment in Parliament, the Law Lords said they encountered considerable difficulty in extracting any clear message from it as to the aim, or scope of what was intended to be achieved by the amendment.

In their ruling, the Privy Councillors held that the natural meaning of the actual text of the Act, as amended, was clear that insurance companies were only liable in the event of an accident caused by the named policyholder, and concluded that it must prevail.

http://www.newsday.co.tt/crime_and_court/0,164953.html

[wagonrunner]

Denny had Hogan’s consent to drive the car, although he was not covered by the latter’s insurance policy with Presidential.

need to find out what was the covering criteria?
holder of valid DP?
over 25?
etc.

In this case Hogan's policy was restricted to named drivers. Not all policies do that.

[moving]

does this apply to
open cover policies?
cause then registering the vehicle under a company will make no sense as all drivers will have to be named on the policy still.

[wagonrunner]

I'm seeing parts of that policy that confuse me, how the lords reached that decision yunno.

Doc 1

[wagonrunner]

Also vehicles are at times required to be driven by other persons. WTF is supposed to happen?
pack of assness by a cheapass insurance company. would faster pay for service of "lords", than settle a claim. typical.

[veedubtt]

but read your policies...it saying persons allowed to drive the vehicle include the policy holder and persons given permission to drive by the policy holder.

[wagonrunner]

exactly. once they over 25yo, and driving more than 3 years.

[veedubtt]

^^^ yea daz what i reading.

[TRAE]

so insurance companies reaching new lows to scam people again?

[paparazzi]

No it simply means that if the policy says x and y only, z will not be covered even if he was driving with the owners consent.

[crazychinee]

How does this affect Leased company vehicles, or cars whose certificate simply states the Company name, and not any individual?

[rollingstock]

There's a section of the policy called 'Limitations to use'.

Read that all the info is there as to who can and cannot drive unless the policy expressly states 'Policyholder/Named driver ONLY'

[crazychinee]

There's a section of the policy called 'Limitations to use'.

Read that all the info is there as to who can and cannot drive unless the policy expressly states 'Policyholder/Named driver ONLY'

So this shiet is just for when you bounce somebody?or any and all claims.

[rollingstock]

All claims will be affected as to whether the driver has authority to use or not. (In some instances a driver is not applicable, eg flood, vehicle stolen etc)

[fozzy2010]

There's a section of the policy called 'Limitations to use'.

Read that all the info is there as to who can and cannot drive unless the policy expressly states 'Policyholder/Named driver ONLY'

I tried to explain this to a traffic warden in Chaguanas last week. My company's name is on the policy, however it states 'Policy holder and anyone driving with the owner's permission' He was adamant that the policy did not cover me and that I was driving without insurance.

[rollingstock]

^ That Traffic Warden is an ignoramus.

[BrotherHood]

Wow, not very favourable to the public here. There are just instances that vehicles need to be driven by other persons whom have been given consent.

[achillies]

Wow, not very favourable to the public here. There are just instances that vehicles need to be driven by other persons whom have been given consent.

Correct, now the insurance companies wants you to pay for unforseen circumstances. Either you name a lot of people on your policy upfront and you come out of pocket for those names, or you authorize someone to drive the vehicle (unforseen circumstance) and something happens and you come out of pocket then.

No lubrication used at all.

[S_2NR]

This is nonsense.