The Court of Appeal has dismissed Zurich Insurance plc’s appeal against a High Court decision refusing to set aside its joinder as a third party in personal injuries proceedings involving Quinns of Baltinglass Limited. The ruling leaves the indemnity dispute to be determined; it does not decide whether Zurich must cover any liability or damages.
John Haughton’s claim against Quinns arose from an incident at the company’s agri-store premises in Athy, County Kildare, on 21 July 2015. His pleaded case was that a hydraulically controlled bucket on a Manitou loader closed on his left arm while cattle meal was being dispensed, causing injury. These are allegations in the underlying claim, not findings made in this appeal.
Quinns had a commercial vehicle fleet policy with Zurich that covered the loader, as well as a public liability policy with another insurer, Amlin UK. Quinns sought an indemnity from Zurich. After Zurich declined cover, Quinns pursued third-party proceedings under the court rules. Zurich argued that the proceedings should be struck out, raising objections including delay, the relationship between the indemnity dispute and the injury claim, the policies’ terms and an arbitration clause.
The High Court refused Zurich’s application in December 2019. On appeal, the Court of Appeal found no basis to disturb that interlocutory decision. It held that the rules can permit a defendant to seek an indemnity from an insurer through third-party proceedings, even where the insurer is not a concurrent wrongdoer. The court also rejected Zurich’s argument that the claim was, in substance, one for contribution that had to be brought by Amlin in its own name. It said that argument had been raised for the first time on appeal and contradicted Zurich’s position in the High Court.
The Court of Appeal agreed that Zurich’s objections about the policy’s scope and the use of the loader went to the merits of the indemnity dispute. They could not properly be resolved in this procedural application, particularly when key policy documents had not been put before the High Court. The judgment also upheld the High Court’s treatment of delay and prejudice.
The appeal was dismissed. The court’s provisional view was that Quinns should receive its appeal costs, with Zurich given 14 days to seek a further hearing on costs. The judgment records agreement by Whelan and Donnelly JJ. with Noonan J.