Facts: Ms Tiffany Moreno, a UK national, was - while on holiday in Greece - struck by a car as she walked along a road. She sustained serious injuries. The car was registered in Greece; however, the driver, who was at fault, possessed no driving licence and the vehicle was not subject to insurance cover.
Given that a motor accident victim has, often, no likelihood of recovering damages from an uninsured driver, EU law - through the motor vehicle insurance Directives - provides a means of protection (Directive 2009/103/EC relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability). Each member state is required to have established a central guarantee fund from which the innocent victims of negligent uninsured drivers may seek compensation. In the UK, the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (MIB) is the body that undertakes this responsibility. The relevant transposing law is the Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance) (Information Centre and Compensation Body) Regulations (MV Regs) 2003 SI No 37.
Tiffany Moreno returned to the UK and began her claim for compensation through MIB. MIB determined that damages were awarded in keeping with Greek law, while the claimant argued that the applicable law in quantum was English law.
Decision: At first instance, Gilbart J applied the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in Jacobs v Motor Insurers’ Bureau [2010] EWCA Civ 1208 to hold that the damages were to be determined according to English law ([ 2015] EWHC 1002 (QB)). MIB appealed.
… the Directives do not allow states discretion about a choice of which law of the member states they wish to use in the calculation of an award
The Supreme Court held that the motor vehicle insurance Directives do not allow states discretion about a choice of which law of the member states they wish to use in the calculation of an award. The compensation body in the victim’s country of residence is required to ‘apply, in evaluating liability and assessing compensation, the law of the country in which the accident occurred’ (clause 7.2 and clause 8.2 of the Directive (para 35 of the judgment)).
In so doing, the court overruled previously inconsistent judgments in Jacobs above and Bloy (Charlie Ireson (a minor, suing by his mother and litigation friend, Georgina Bloy) v Motor Insurers’ Bureau [2013] EWCA Civ 1543 in relation to the meaning of the MV Regs. It followed the reasoning provided in ERGO Insurance SE v If P&C Insurance AS Insurance AS and Gjensidige Baltic AAS v PZU Lietuva UAB DK C-359 /14 and C-475 /14 regarding the lack of any specific conflict-of-law rule intended to determine the law applicable to the action for indemnity between insurers. There was no scope for the independent provision of which law was to apply in the circumstances of the case. Where an accident and associated losses occurred, for example, in Greece, Greek law is to be applied even where the victim of the uninsured driver brings a claim in another member state and through its national guarantee-fund body (in this case, in the UK the body is MIB).
Comment: The ruling clarifies the law concerning which jurisdiction is to be used when determining the quantum of damage. In some countries, this may result in a lesser amount being awarded than would be available in other states where EU law applies. Therefore, it is advisable that visitors to other member states (as a foot passenger or driver) upgrade their insurance cover to avoid the unfortunate consequences of the vagaries of damages awards between states.