The Government’s preferred approach here is described as “the amended Directive option”. It is probably more pragmatic than the alternative “comprehensive option”, which could give rise to significant complications and unintended consequences for insurers and users of a wide range of motorised vehicles.
A big problem, however, is that we don’t know either what the amendment to the Directive might look like or what might be the timeframe for change – there has been nothing visible from the Commission since the change of the lead Commissioner necessitated by Lord Hill’s resignation after the UK’s EU referendum in June. To this extent, the DfT’s consultation may be in the unenviable position of aiming at a moving target – or even an unknown one.
Nevertheless, it remains important to engage with DfT on the consultation and we shall continue to arrange meetings to address the detail in the 61 page paper. The attached one page summary may offer an easier way in, and please get in touch if you would like to get involved.
About the Author
Alistair Kinley is BLM’s Director of Policy & Government Affairs.
Alistair is responsible for BLM’s engagement with government departments and regulators on policy and public affairs issues and consultations affecting the firm and its customers. He coordinated BLM’s market-facing activities in connection with the Insurance Act 2015 and the consultations which preceded its publication and introduction in Parliament.
He is a member of the Civil Justice Council (CJC), a regular speaker and experienced commentator on legal and procedural reforms and was a contributing editor to the Law Society’s Litigation Funding Handbook (September 2014).
As we head towards Christmas with the reminder that a gift of a pet is “for life” and “not just for Christmas” a similar warning might be applied to those considering the 2016 “to do” list for UK general insurance. Continue reading
4 September 2015 marks the first anniversary of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s Vnuk judgment and whilst there remains much discussion there is little certainty as to how the RTA can best be brought into line with European law. At best it can be said that options are starting to emerge but there is at present little consensus around the likely legislative outcome that will be preferred.
I thought Alistair Kinley made a very valid point, in his earlier article of 13 August, calling for constructive solutions to the Vnuk problem. There needs to be a balance drawn between the protection of victims of accidents arising out of motor vehicles and the potential scope, post-Vnuk, of compulsory third party motor insurance (TPMI). Notably, TPMI will be required to cover use of vehicles, off-road, that may result in a contrived or potentially unworkable insurance solution.
Motorsport is an obvious example. At present, motorsport events that occur off-road are not subject to TPMI. Authorised motorsports events are licensed by the sport’s governing body through permits that extends public liability (PL) and personal accident cover for participants and event organisers. However this PL cover does not cover driver-to-driver liability. With this PL risk, post-Vnuk, potentially transferring over to a TPMI risk, not only does this give rise to some interesting liability questions, such as, how does one assess liability in a driver-to-driver collision when racing, but also fundamentally, with unquantified exposure, will there will be any appetite from motor insurers to underwrite the sport in the first instance?