Zurich Insurance plc can be joined as a co-defendant in three High Court personal injury proceedings arising from a 2013 car crash, after the court found the insurer’s financial interest in any award justified adding it despite the plaintiffs’ objections.
Mr Justice Meenan delivered the ruling on 31 July 2017. The proceedings were brought by Winifred McDonagh, Martin Ward and Patrick Ward, who was identified in the judgment as a minor. They were passengers in a car driven by Helen Ward and owned by Anthony Ward. The judgment says the car veered out of control and hit a signpost on or about 21 October 2013, on a public road at or near Caltralea, Ahascragh, Ballinasloe, Co Galway. The plaintiffs alleged negligence and breach of duty caused their injuries and losses; the court was not deciding those claims in this application.
Zurich had insured the car. It declined indemnity to Helen and Anthony Ward, citing a policy condition concerning use of a vehicle known to be unsafe or unroadworthy. Its letter said two tyres had tread below the legal limit and that their condition contributed to the crash. It also said Anthony Ward had known about the tyres and had not arranged to replace them, and that he was later convicted and fined over their condition. The judgment records that Zurich was not alleging fraud against either defendant.
Zurich argued that it would likely have to meet any award under section 76 of the Road Traffic Act 1961 and that joining it would allow related disputes to be heard together. The plaintiffs opposed joinder, arguing there were no exceptional circumstances. They said earlier cases relied on by Zurich involved allegations of fraud, which were absent here.
The court held that fraud was not required. Because Zurich was the indemnifier and was, in the judge’s view, almost certain to be called on to satisfy any award, its legal or financial rights would be directly affected by the proceedings. That was enough to meet the exceptional circumstances test for adding a party against the plaintiffs’ wishes.
The judge also rejected the argument that Zurich could wait to be heard in any later section 76 proceedings. Joining it now would let it make arguments about liability or seeking an indemnity from the defendants in the same hearing. The ruling said this would not prejudice the plaintiffs: adding Zurich did not force them to make a claim against it or change their pleadings.
The court allowed Zurich’s application to be joined as a co-defendant in all three proceedings. The ruling addressed party joinder only; it did not determine liability for the crash, the plaintiffs’ injuries or any compensation.