Important decision for insurers
William Audland argued before the Court of Appeal:
(a) Where a vehicle is deliberately and criminally used as a weapon to inflict injury, such use cannot fall within ‘social, domestic or pleasure’ use, to which cover was extended under the policy; and
(b) Where that vehicle was being driven home, the driver having just dropped off fare-paying passengers, and the policy of insurance excluding use for ‘hire and reward’, that was use for hire and reward, being incidental to that use, and was excluded from cover; and
(c) that the insurer therefore had no liability under section 151 in respect of the claimant’s claim.
In relation to (a), it was held that the essential purpose of the journey was to drive home and the use of the car as a weapon (in the course of the homeward journey) was only ‘incidental’ to that use. The car was therefore still being used for ‘social, domestic or pleasure’ purposes. In relation to (b), it was held that the journey home was not for hire and reward because the last fare-paying passenger had left the vehicle, and a journey home was not “for hire or reward”.
If the decision stands, it will clearly have a significant impact in terms of a RTA insurers’ liabilities under section 151.
Frank Burton QC is "Everything you could possibly want in a Q.C.." (Chambers and Partners 2008)
