The High Court has rejected a defendant’s application to dismiss a personal-injury claim arising from a 2000 rear-end collision in Galway as time-barred, or alternatively to have that issue tried as a preliminary question.
In a judgment dated 11 January 2006, Mr Justice John MacMenamin found that the defendant was precluded from relying on the limitation defence in the circumstances. The court declined the relief sought in the defendant’s motion. It did not determine the amount of any damages or make a final award on the underlying injury claim.
The plaintiff, David Murphy, was a cab driver who was injured when the defendant’s car struck his stationary vehicle near Eyre Square on 12 May 2000. The defendant’s motion argued that the proceedings were outside the three-year limitation period. The plenary summons was issued on 18 June 2003.
The judge considered correspondence between the plaintiff’s solicitors and the defendant’s insurer, Quinn Direct. In August 2000, the insurer said it was “satisfied that liability will not be an issue”. In December 2002, its regional claims manager invited the plaintiff’s solicitors to share medical reports and discuss settlement, stating that “liability is not an issue”.
After the three-year period had expired, the correspondence continued on medical reports, examinations and settlement. The insurer first asserted in May 2004 that the claim was statute-barred. The judge noted that the proceedings had been served in April 2004 and that the defendant’s solicitors later sought a statement of claim and threatened a separate dismissal motion for want of prosecution.
The defendant relied on Supreme Court decisions concerning when an insurer’s statements or conduct can prevent a defendant from raising a limitation defence. The judge distinguished those cases, finding that the negotiations here were not dormant and that the insurer’s representations and continued dealings objectively supported the plaintiff’s solicitor’s understanding that the claim remained under negotiation. He also noted that the defendant had not shown prejudice caused by the passage of time.
The ruling concerns the limitation defence raised in the motion. The judgment does not decide the underlying claim for damages.