THE HIGH Court is being asked to clarify issues relating to the liability of insurers in certain road crashes after a company refused third-party cover on a policy claim arising out of a collision in which a man was left a paraplegic.
The case, which could have implications for thousands of insurance policies, arises out of a crash near Drogheda, Co Louth, in June 2000 when the man was injured while travelling as a rear-seat passenger in a van which was in a collision with another vehicle.
The injured man sued both the van driver and its owner, who had a policy with FBD insurance company. FBD declined to cover the incident. It said the policy excluded passengers in the rear of such vehicles, which were not designed for passengers, and because the man was allegedly not wearing a seat belt. The injured man then initiated High Court proceedings against the owner, the driver and FBD.
Before the case goes to trial, the High Court has been asked to decide whether the State has transposed EU directives requiring that member states take measures to ensure that third parties are covered by insurance, except in certain circumstances. It is claimed the exceptional circumstances do not include the man's case.
The State and the Attorney General were joined as defendants in relation to the preliminary issue. Submissions were heard yesterday by Mr Justice Michael Peart who reserved his decision.
Anthony M Collins SC, for the injured man, said a 1990 EU directive relating to insurance against civil liability for motor vehicles provided that victims of accidents should be guaranteed comparable treatment irrespective of where the accident occurs within the EU. The directive also provided that insurance shall cover liability for personal injuries to all passengers, other than the driver, arising out of the use of a vehicle.
However, when this incident involving his client occurred in June 2000, Ireland had still not transposed the directive into Irish law, although the deadline for doing so was December 31st, 1995.
The European Court of Justice had already declared that the directive (guaranteeing comparable treatment in all EU states) had direct effect here, counsel said.