Smith -v- Meade & Ors [2009] IEHC 99 (05 February 2009)

Smith -v- Meade & Ors [2009] IEHC 99 (05 February 2009)

The exclusion clause in the insurance policy, which denied indemnity for injuries to a passenger in a part of the vehicle not designed for passengers, is void as it conflicts with the objectives and requirements of the relevant EU directives. The court is required to interpret national law in conformity with EU law, and thus FBD cannot rely on the exclusion to refuse indemnity to the first and second defendants in respect of the plaintiff's claim.

Citation
[2009] IEHC 99
Parties
Plaintiff: David Smith; First Defendant: Patrick Meade; Second Defendant: Philip Meade; Third Defendant: FBD Insurance PLC.; Fourth Defendant: Ireland and the Attorney General
Jurisdiction
Ireland
Judgment Date
05 February 2009
Procedural Posture
Personal Injury / Insurance Coverage / Preliminary Issue Before Trial of Damages
Outcome
Exclusion clause in insurance policy declared void; insurer cannot rely on it to refuse indemnity for plaintiff's injuries.
Legal Topics
Compulsory Motor Insurance, Direct Effect of EU Directives, Harmonious Interpretation, Primacy of EU Law, Exclusion Clauses in Insurance Policies
Insurance Law European Union Law Personal Injury Law Compulsory Motor Insurance Direct Effect of EU Directives Harmonious Interpretation Primacy of EU Law Exclusion Clauses in Insurance Policies

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Smith

Plaintiff

Patrick Meade

First Defendant

Philip Meade

Second Defendant

FBD Insurance PLC.

Third Defendant

Ireland and the Attorney General

Fourth Defendant

Procedural Posture

Personal Injury / Insurance Coverage / Preliminary Issue Before Trial of Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an exclusion clause in a motor insurance policy denying indemnity for injuries to a passenger in a part of a vehicle not designed for passengers is void under EU law
  2. 2 Whether the relevant EU directives had direct effect against the insurer
  3. 3 Whether the Irish statutory regime was in conflict with EU law at the material time

Ratio Decidendi

The exclusion clause in the insurance policy, which denied indemnity for injuries to a passenger in a part of the vehicle not designed for passengers, is void as it conflicts with the objectives and requirements of the relevant EU directives. The court is required to interpret national law in conformity with EU law, and thus FBD cannot rely on the exclusion to refuse indemnity to the first and second defendants in respect of the plaintiff's claim.

Court Disposition

Exclusion clause in insurance policy declared void; insurer cannot rely on it to refuse indemnity for plaintiff's injuries.

Orders

  • FBD Insurance PLC. is disentitled from relying on the exclusion clause to refuse indemnity to the first and second defendants in respect of the plaintiff’s claim for damages.