Shapoor v Promo Designs Unreported [2009]

FACTS:-

The case involved Section 13 of the Uninsured Drivers Agreement 1999. On the 8th January 2006 the Claimant’s motor vehicle was involved in a collision with another vehicle owned by the First Defendant and driven by a Mr Anwar. The Motor Insurers Bureau (“MIB”) was the Second Defendant. Mr Anwar gave his details and said that he was insured with Direct Line. The Claimant consulted solicitors one month after the accident, and they ascertained by on line search with the Motor Insurance Database that the vehicle was not insured by Direct Line. That information was not conclusive and this point was conceded by the counsel for the MIB. The Claimant’s solicitors chased up Mr Anwar who told them that he had no insurance.

The MIB argued that the Claimant’s solicitors had not complied with Section 13.1 of the 1999 Agreement, because they had not reported the matter to the police.

HELD:-

His Honour Judge Platt said that Section 13.1 of the 1999 Agreement read as follows:-

“MIB shall incur no liability under MIB’s obligation unless the Claimant has as soon as reasonably practicable:

(a)    demanded the information and, where appropriate, the particulars specified in section 154(1) of the 1988 [Road Traffic] Act, and
(b)    where the person of whom the demand is made fails to comply with the provisions of that subsection –
(i)    made a formal complaint to a police officer in respect of such failure, and…..”

Section 154(1) the 1988 Act required any person against whom a claim was made to furnish details of his insurance. Therefore it was a precondition of establishing a claim against the MIB to demand of the other driver:-

a)    whether he was insured, and

b)    if he was insured, require details of his insurance which in practical terms would not only identify his insurer but also give other information to enable the Claimant to enter into meaningful communication with that insurer, and

if the other driver failed to comply with the provisions of Section 154(1), the Claimant had to make a formal complaint to the police.

In this case, Mr Anwar had told the Claimant’s solicitors that he had no insurance. It had been said by the judge in the court below that the Claimant’s duty to obtain particulars was discharged if he simply obtained the name of the insurance company. That was plainly wrong. The particulars set out at section 154(1)(b) went far beyond simply the name of an insurance company. Certificate numbers, policy numbers and periods of insurance cover were essential details both to enable insurers to meet their obligations to third parties but also to enable the MIB to perform its functions.

Section 154 of the 1988 Act offered the Defendant two alternative ways in which to comply with his obligations. Either he said that he was uninsured or he said he was insured. If he said that he was not insured, then he had complied with his obligation under Section 154. There was no requirement on the part of the Claimant to conduct any further enquiries, and apart from checking the Motor Insurance Database, there was nothing further that he could do.

However if the Defendant said that he was insured, then a further obligation did arise under Section 154(1)(b) to give sufficient particulars of the insurance to enable both the Claimant and the MIB to take matters further. What the MIB were trying to do was import into the Agreement an obligation on the Claimant to report the matter to the police if the Defendant discharged his section 154 obligation by saying that he was not insured.

Judge Platt said that there were three reasons why the courts should decline to construe section 13 in this way:-

The Claimant was not a party to the 1999 Agreement

The 1999 Agreement is the means by which the government discharged its obligations under European Community law, and there was no evidence as to the effect that imposing this additional burden might have on those obligations.

Not every situation of conflicting statements led to the conclusion that a third party must have been committing an offence under Section 154(2). For instance a third party might honestly have thought thata he was insured. That was not an offence under Section 154(2).

Therefore the Claimant in this case was not under any obligation to report Mr Anwar to the police, and had not lost his entitlement to claim against the Second Defendant.

No related posts.