A man who is paraplegic as a result of severe injuries sustained when a van in which he was a front-seat passenger crashed 16 years ago has lost his High Court action aimed at securing damages from the insurers of the vehicle.
The van was insured as a commercial van with no passenger cover and, in those circumstances, Guardian PMPA successfully argued it had no liability for injuries sustained by a passenger.
While "regrettably" dismissing the claim by James Power yesterday, Ms Justice Mary Laffoy remarked the case "shone a light" on a phenomenon in the late 1980s and 1990s arising from insurers considering young male drivers to be high risk.
The court had heard evidence that Guardian PMPA was "innovative" as an insurer in that it was taking on certain types of risk, which most others would not, the judge said. The insurer would quote a reasonable premium where it could limit its exposure to risk and the exclusion of passenger cover, where it was not compulsory, was such a device, the judge said.
While there was nothing unlawful about the company's strategy, "which no doubt generated profit for it", it had "serious consequences" for Mr Power, the judge said.
The case arose from an accident on October 6th, 1991. Mr Power, then aged 26, suffered serious injuries when the Ford Fiesta van in which he was travelling went out of control and crashed. The van was owned and driven by a friend of Mr Power's, who had a Guardian PMPA policy of insurance that had no passenger cover.
Mr Power later sued Guardian PMPA, claiming the driver was insured by the company to carry a passenger and that, under Section 76 of the Road Traffic Act, Guardian PMPA was bound to indemnify Mr Power for any damages found due by the driver to Mr Power in personal injury proceedings.
He also claimed that the Ford Fiesta van was a vehicle constructed primarily for the carriage of one or more passengers.
Guardian PMPA denied the claims. It argued the Fiesta van was a commercial vehicle, that the policy did not cover any liability of the driver for personal injuries and that the driver was aware of this.
In her reserved judgment yesterday, Ms Justice Laffoy dismissed Mr Power's claims.
She said it was a "very difficult" case but that, while Mr Power "deserves our sympathies", the law "unfortunately" does not provide a remedy for him.