The High Court dismissed James Power’s claim against Guardian PMPA Insurance Limited, finding that the insurance policy for the van in which he was injured did not cover passengers and that the law then in force did not require such cover for that vehicle.
The judgment, delivered by Miss Justice Laffoy on 2 February 2007, concerned an accident on 6 October 1991. Power was a front-seat passenger in a Ford Fiesta Flair van driven by his friend, Richard Wheeler. The van crashed, leaving Power with severe injuries and paraplegia. He had previously settled claims against three other defendants for IR£150,000 plus IR£40,000 towards legal costs. His personal injury claim against Wheeler remained pending.
Power sought declarations that Wheeler’s insurer had to indemnify him for any amount Wheeler might owe. A consent judgment against Wheeler, obtained in 2005, had been vacated in March 2006; the court said no judgment on the personal injury claim remained. The issue before it was whether the insurer had to provide cover, not whether Wheeler was liable to Power for the accident.
The court considered the compulsory insurance rules applicable in 1991. Under the relevant regulations, passenger cover was compulsory for vehicles constructed primarily to carry passengers. Justice Laffoy found that Wheeler’s Fiesta Flair van, built as a van with no rear seat, was not in that class. Its resemblance to a Fiesta car and its added sporty features did not change the purpose indicated by its construction. The court concluded Wheeler was not legally required to insure against passenger liability, and the insurer could lawfully issue a commercial policy excluding it.
The judge also found that the policy documents wholly excluded passenger cover. Although Power argued that the parties had agreed to cover front-seat passengers, Justice Laffoy found Wheeler had been told before signing a passenger-risk notice that there was no such cover. The judge further said the alleged oral agreement had not been pleaded and, in any event, Power could not enforce Wheeler’s insurance contract under the law of privity of contract.
Because passenger insurance was not compulsory for this van, the statutory route allowing a third party to sue an insurer directly did not apply. The court also held that the provision Power relied on to ring-fence insurance proceeds where an insured dies or becomes bankrupt did not assist him: Wheeler was neither, and the policy provided no indemnity for the claim.
The court dismissed Power’s claim. It did not decide the pending personal injury claim against Wheeler. Justice Laffoy noted the serious and lasting consequences for Power, but concluded the law provided no remedy against the insurer.