This is another matter where the court considered the onus and evidence necessary to be lead to establish proof of quantum of the insured’s claim again an insurer, arising out of a motor vehicle accident. There was no separation between merits and quantum. The insurer appealed the judgment, on the basis that the insured had

The plaintiff sued the insurer under a motor vehicle policy. The policy provided cover for repairs, or the retail value of the vehicle if the cost of repair was 65% or more of the retail value.

Merits and quantum were not separated, so the plaintiff had to prove both liability and quantum at the same

In November 2023 a Michigan Court of Appeals denied coverage to a ride-hailing driver whose rented vehicle was rear-ended whilst carrying a passenger for reward because the Under-Insured Motorist (“UIM”) benefits under the insurer’s policy excluded benefits for bodily injury sustained by any person when using “any vehicle that is owned by or available for

In this appeal judgment, the court dealt with an insurance claim in which the insured’s motor vehicle was written off in a collision.

The insured claimed damages in his summons based on the market-related value of the vehicle. The issue on appeal was whether the insured had produced evidence that supported his pleaded case

Extraordinarily, a case involving a passenger opening a car door and scratching a neighbouring vehicle in a supermarket carpark led to a decision before the Court of Justice of the European Union. Europe’s highest court found that this is ‘use of vehicles’ for the purposes of motor vehicle insurance.

The event happened in Latvia where