Date: Mon, 25 Apr 2005 11:47:56 +0100

From: Andrew Tettenborn

Subject: Insurance and protection of subrogation rights

A sensible decision in the English CA from a few days ago: Monk v Warbey is for the benefit of the man under the Clapham omnibus and not his insurers.

In Bretton v Hancock [2005] EWCA Civ 404 (13 April 2005) A let B drive her car (with her in it) without insurance. B was involved in an accident with another driver C, 75% C's fault and 25% B's. B was killed and A injured. B's estate was judgment-proof. A sued C. C (or rather, his insurers) sued A under Monk v Warbey, alleging that because A had let B drive uninsured C had been deprived of his ability to extract 25% contribution from B's estate (which was judgment-proof). The CA sent C's insurers packing: Monk v Warbey is only about personal injury, not economic loss or contribution rights.

Andrew

Andrew Tettenborn MA LLB
Bracton Professor of Law

Tel: 01392-263189 / +44-392-263189 (international)
Cellphone: 07729-266200 / +44-7729-266200 (international)
Fax: 01392-263196 / +44-392-263196 (international)

Snailmail: School of Law,
University of Exeter,
Amory Building,
Rennes Drive,
Exeter EX4 4RJ
England

Exeter Law School homepage: http://www.ex.ac.uk/law/
My homepage: http://www.ex.ac.uk/law/staff/tettenborn/index.html.

LAWYER, n. One skilled in circumvention of the law. (Ambrose Bierce, 1906).

<<<< Previous Message  ~  Index  ~  Next Message >>>>>