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
The motor policy considered in Bantho v Alexander Forbes Insurance Co Ltd excluded an indemnity if the accident occurred while the driver was driving under the influence of intoxicating liquor or while the level of alcohol in the bloodstream exceeded the statutory limit. The court applied the exclusion despite a dispute about the accuracy of
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