King v Cornhill Insurance Company Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Ireland
• Judge: Mr. Justice Blayney
• Judgment Date: 01 January 1993
• Neutral Citation: 1992 WJSC-HC 2212
• Date: 01 January 1993
• Court: High Court
• Docket Number: [1989 No. 11004P],Record No. 11004P/1989

1992 WJSC-HC 2212

THE HIGH COURT

Record No. 11004P/1989

KING v. CORNHILL INSURANCE CO LTD

BETWEEN

PATRICK KING

PLAINTIFF

AND

CORNHILL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED

DEFENDANT

Citations:

ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1961 S65(1)(a)

ROAD TRAFFIC (COMPULSORY INSURANCE) REGS 1962 SI 14/1962 ART 6(1)(b)

Synopsis:

INSURANCE

Motor car

Meaning - Insurer - Practice - Irrelevance - Mitsubishi Shogun - Absence of rear passenger seats - Vehicle imported as goods vehicle - Road Traffic (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations, 1962 (S.I. No. 14), article 6(1)(b) - Road Traffic Act, 1961, s. 65 - (1989/11004 P - Blayney J. - 10/7/92)- [1993] 2 I.R. 43

|King v. Cornhill Insurance Co. Ltd.|

WORDS AND PHRASES

"Motor Car"

Insurance - Policy - Insurer - Liability - Repudiation - Motorist - Accident - Passengers injured - Indemnity claimed - Motorist not driving his own vehicle - Policy extended cover to the driving of a motor car not owned by the motorist - Denial by insurer that vehicle was a motor car - (1989/11004P - Blayney J. - 10/7/92)- [1993] 2 I.R.43

|King v. Cornhill Insurance Co. Ltd.|

INSURANCE

Motor car

Meaning - Insurer - Practice - Irrelevance - Mitsubishi Shogun - Absence of rear passenger seats - Vehicle imported as goods vehicle - Road Traffic (Compulsory Insurance) Regulations, 1962 (S.I. No. 14), article 6(1)(b) - Road Traffic Act, 1961, s. 65 - (1989/11004 P - Blayney J. - 10/7/92)- [1993] 2 I.R.43

|King v. Cornhill Insurance Co. Ltd.|

WORDS AND PHRASES

"Motor Car"

Insurance - Policy - Insurer - Liability - Repudiation - Motorist - Accident - Passengers injured - Indemnity claimed - Motorist not driving his own vehicle - Policy extended cover to the driving of a motor car not owned by the motorist - Denial by insurer that vehicle was a motor car - (1989/11004P - Blayney J. - 10/7/92)

|King v. Cornhill Insurance Co. Ltd.|

1 Judgment of Mr. Justice Blayneydelivered the 10th day of July 1992.

2 This case concerns a single net issue which arises under a motor insurance policy taken out by the Plaintiff with the Defendant Company. One of its terms provides as follows:

"Section I Driving other cars

Except where the insured is a firm, company or more than one person, we will in terms of Sections A and C indemnify you while driving any motor car or motor cycle not belonging to you and not hired to you under a hire purchase agreement provided such motor car or motor cycle is being used within the "limitations as to use" specified in the current certificate of insurance issued with this policy. No indemnity is granted under this section if indemnity is afforded to you by any other insurance."

3 The issue which arises is whether a particular vehicle, owned by the Plaintiff's father, which was involved in an accident on the 29th October 1988 while being driven by the Plaintiff, is a "motor car" so that the driving was covered by the policy. If it is, it is common case that the clause entitles the Plaintiff to an indemnity. The Defendant Company contends that the vehicle is not a motor car, and has refused to indemnify the Plaintiff in respect of claims arising out of the accident. The Plaintiff contends that it is and in these proceedings claims a declaration that he is entitled to an indemnity under the policy. If the vehicle is a motor car, he is entitled to succeed. If it is not, his claim fails.

4 The vehicle in question is manufactured by Mitsubishi and its model name is "Shogun". It is commonly referred to as a Mitsubishi Shogun. A photograph put in evidence shows it to look like a large jeep. It has straight sides, and three doors - one at each side, and one at the rear which contains a large glass window. The Shogun was purchased by the Plaintiff's father in May 1988. At that time it had only three windows - one in each of the side doors,...