0370 270 6000

already registered?

Please sign in with your existing account details.

need to register?

Register to access exclusive content, sign up to receive our updates and personalise your experience on brownejacobson.com.

Privacy statement - Terms and conditions

opening the floodgates to fraudulent RTA claims - sue an unidentified party?

25 May 2017

Insurers of vehicles involved in accidents leading to compensation claims, find themselves in a difficult position as a result of the Court of Appeal decision Bianca Cameron v (1) Naveed Hussain (2) Liverpool Victoria Insurance Co Ltd. If they are unable to identify the driver, and as in this case discover that the vehicle owner is not their policyholder, and their policyholder did not exist, they may be faced with an order to pay damages even if the alleged driver is not named.

This follows the Court of Appeal decision to allow proceedings to be amended to bring proceedings against an unnamed driver, as an unknown party, whose vehicle was the cause of the hit and run incident leading to personal injury.

The tensions created by the interpretation of naming a defendant under CPR rule 7A PD4.1(3), the obligations on insurers to satisfy judgments under section 151 of the Road Traffic Act 1998 and the adequacy of the Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB) Untraced Drivers Agreement were all considered and resolved in favour of the claimant appellant. Until this decision compensation would have been through the well-established insurance industry funded MIB scheme. Under that scheme, the deserving claimant would be compensated but costs would be limited.

It can be easily seen how dishonest claimants and defendants could conspire to exploit this decision. With the proliferation of ghost broking and identity theft, detecting insurance fraud has required significant resources and technical know-how. Following this decision, insurers will need to redouble their investigations, and where appropriate seek a declaration, in order to avoid being the victim of claims fraud, all of which will no doubt have an impact on innocent policyholders’ premiums.

related opinions

SFO fail to secure individual criminal convictions following Deferred Prosecution Agreement

On 16 July 2019 the Serious Fraud Office released details of the Deferred Prosecution Agreement reached with Sarclad Ltd in July 2016.

View blog

Watch this space on breach of contract, vicarious liability and assumption of responsibility

The concept of Assumption of Responsibility is on many stakeholders’ minds at the moment following the Supreme Court decision in CN & GN v Poole.

View blog

Discount rate remains negative

The much anticipated revision of the discount rate has arrived with the Lord Chancellor, David Gauke, announcing that it will be fixed at -0.25%.

View blog

Children and contact with parents who are domestic abusers

It was announced on 15 May 2019 that “more than 120 MPs have written to the government asking for an inquiry into how family courts in England and Wales treat victims of domestic violence.”

View blog

mailing list sign up

Select which mailings you would like to receive from us.

Sign up