The claimant suffered severe personal injury as a passenger. The driver’s insurers removed payment, the passenger having failed to disclose his depression, his diabetes, and his cannabis use. Both claimant and driver had been found in possession of cannabis at the crash. The claim through the Motor Insurers Bureau had been rejected by the court on the grounds of ex turpi causa non oritur actio, but had succeeded on appeal, but the case still failed as the vehicle was being used in the course or furtherance of crime, namely the transportation of cannabis for the purpose of subsequent supply. The claimant now said that the MIB agreement I making that exclusion had failed properly to implement EU law.
Held: The claim succeeded: ‘ the issue is whether the Claimant had information from which he drew the conclusion that the driver might well be uninsured but deliberately refrained from asking questions for fear that his suspicions would be confirmed; or whether he was simply careless, giving no thought to the question of insurance, even though an ordinary prudent passenger in his position and with his knowledge, would have made inquiries.’
Jay J
[2014] EWHC 1785 (QB)
Bailii
Directive 84/5 1(4), Directive 72/166/EEC
Personal Injury, European
Updated: 04 December 2021; Ref: scu.526123