The Supreme Court has ruled that an employer may be treated as using a vehicle through an employee acting in the course of their work, and that a claim by one vehicle user is not automatically outside compulsory motor insurance cover. The ruling resolves legal questions in a special case between RSA Insurance Ireland DAC and Zurich Insurance PLC; it does not determine which policy must indemnify Urban and Rural Recycling Limited (URRL), or establish that URRL was liable for the accident.
The case arose from injuries suffered by URRL employee Mr Moore on 19 December 2013. He was operating a lift on a recycling truck stopped beside a public road in Duncormick, County Wexford, when a bin fell and struck him. His personal injury claim alleged, among other things, that URRL had provided unsafe equipment or systems of work. That claim settled for €4.75 million after the High Court decision. No court determined how the accident happened or whether URRL was legally responsible.
URRL sought a declaration about insurance cover after RSA and Zurich each disputed that its policy covered the claim. The insurers agreed that operating the truck’s lift was use of the vehicle, and that Mr Moore was acting in the course of his employment in a public place. They asked the courts to decide legal questions based on agreed facts and documents, without deciding disputed facts.
The High Court held that the Road Traffic Act 1961 required the liability to be insured. The Court of Appeal reversed that decision, finding that compulsory cover was not required and that Zurich’s policy did not otherwise apply. RSA appealed.
The Supreme Court rejected Zurich’s argument that a claim by a vehicle user necessarily fell outside the statutory insurance requirement. It also held that a company can be a “user” and may use a vehicle through employees acting for it in the course of their employment. On the facts set out in the special case, URRL was using the truck through its employees.
The ruling is conditional. If Mr Moore’s injuries were caused wholly by his own negligence or other wrongdoing, URRL would face no liability and the statutory insurance requirement would not be engaged. If URRL, or someone whose acts or omissions made URRL liable, was negligent and that wrongdoing rendered URRL’s use of the truck negligent, the liability would fall within section 56 of the Act.
The Court answered the legal questions in RSA’s favour and against Zurich, but left the parties to apply those conclusions to the insurance policies in the continuing proceedings. It did not resolve the underlying facts or make a final determination of indemnity.