Insurance Liabilities of Travellers
Page 49
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A DECISION of the greatest import ti to all who use motorcars in connection with their businesses, and particulaily to commercial travellers, has recently been given by the High Court.
The case of Passmore v. Vulcan Boiler and General Insurance Co., Ltd., of which a full account will be found in The Times Law Reports of February' 14 last, was an appeal from the award of an arbitrator in the kern of a special case.
The car in question was owned by the claimant. Her insurance policy covered her against any liability which she might incur while the car was being used, among other purposes, for social, domestic and pleasure purposes, or when " carrying on or engaged in the business or profession of representative and no other for the purpose of this insurance."
The claimant used her car in her business as representative, and was doing so at the time of the accident which gave rise to the arbitration. She was accompanied by another woman, who was a representative of the same corn pany, and who, at the time of the accident, was engaged in her business as representative, but it was that other woman who was driving. The driver was seriously injured. It was alleged that the accident was due to the claimant having interfered with the driving of the car.
Action for Damages.
The injured woman brought an action against the claimant, in which she claimed damages for negligence, and judgment was given against the claimant. She claimed that the insurance company with which she was insured against third-party risks was liable to indemnify her for the amount which she was liable to pay in respect of damages and costs, but the company denied this responsibility and declined to do so.
The dispute was referred to arbitration. The arbitrator found that, at the time of the accident, both women were engaged in their respective businesses as representatives of the company ; that the car was being used for business purposes, and that it was not • being used for the business of the claimant —as representative of the company— alone.
He held, subject to the opinion of the Court. that the business use of the car which was covered by the policy was that only of the claimant, and that the insurance company was not liable, because the vehicle was being employed for the business of some person other than the claimant, although it was also being run for the business of the claimant.
Mr. Justice du Parcq, before whom the special case was argued, upheld the award of the arbitrator. In doing so, he pointed out that insurance companies are entitled to know exactly what business they are covering, and what is the extent of the risk they are undertaking.
In view of this decision, any car owner who uses it for business, and who may wish to carry any other person, who is travelling for business purposes, whether or not that person's business is the same as that of the car owner, should make sure that his policy covers him in the event of an accident.