The High Court has dismissed Zurich Insurance plc’s application to set aside or strike out third-party proceedings brought by Quinns of Baltinglass Ltd. over an insurance dispute arising from a 2015 accident at the company’s premises in County Kildare. The ruling did not decide whether Zurich must indemnify the company.
The underlying personal injuries claim was brought by John Haughton, a farmer who attended the premises to buy cattle feed. The pleadings alleged that an employee operating a vehicle with a hydraulically controlled bucket negligently caused the bucket to close and crush Haughton’s left arm. The judgment’s account of the accident was based on the pleadings and made no finding on what happened.
Haughton’s claim against Quinns was settled on 24 January 2019. The remaining third-party proceedings concern whether Zurich must indemnify Quinns under a commercial motor fleet policy. Zurich had declined cover, arguing that the vehicle was stationary on private property and being used to load feed rather than as a means of transport. It also relied on the existence of public liability insurance with another insurer. At the hearing, Zurich added an argument that the claim had not been notified within the policy’s 30-day period.
Zurich sought to set aside the third-party proceedings on grounds including delay and insufficient connection to the personal injuries action, and to have them struck out as bound to fail. The High Court found the roughly five-month delay in applying to join Zurich did not justify setting the proceedings aside. Quinns had sought Zurich’s position before making the application, the delay had not appreciably affected the case’s progress, and the settlement occurred more than seven months after Zurich was joined.
The court held that Order 16 can, in principle, allow a defendant to pursue an insurer for contractual indemnity within third-party proceedings, even where the insurer is not alleged to be a concurrent wrongdoer. It also found factual overlap between the two claims, including the vehicle’s use at the time of the accident.
The court refused summary disposal. The full insurance documents and the public liability policy were not before it, and the legal questions about vehicle use, overlapping cover and late notification could not safely be resolved on the application. The court did not determine whether Zurich owes cover or whether the policy’s arbitration clause requires the dispute to be referred to arbitration. Zurich’s notice of motion dated 9 January 2019 was dismissed, and the third-party claim remains for full hearing.