Teviotdale v. Norwich Union Insurance Ltd [2009] ScotSC 38 (23 June 2009)

Teviotdale v. Norwich Union Insurance Ltd [2009] ScotSC 38 (23 June 2009)

The defenders (insurers) had clear evidence from their insured that he did not see the pursuer's vehicle and no evidence of undue speed by the pursuer, making liability clear. Their failure to negotiate or offer settlement, proceeding instead to proof, constituted unreasonable conduct under section 36B(3)(b) of the 1971 Act, justifying an award of expenses on the summary cause scale.

Citation
[2009] ScotSC 38
Parties
Pursuer and Respondent: Lynne Mary Teviotdale; Defenders and Appellants: Norwich Union Insurance Limited
Jurisdiction
Scotland
Judgment Date
23 June 2009
Procedural Posture
Small Claim (road Traffic Accident) / Appeal Against Award of Expenses
Outcome
Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor upheld.
Legal Topics
Unreasonable Conduct, Award of Expenses, Road Traffic Accident Liability, Summary Cause Scale, Insurer's Duty to Settle
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Tort Law Unreasonable Conduct Award of Expenses Road Traffic Accident Liability Summary Cause Scale Insurer's Duty to Settle

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lynne Mary Teviotdale

Pursuer and Respondent

Norwich Union Insurance Limited

Defenders and Appellants

Procedural Posture

Small Claim (road Traffic Accident) / Appeal Against Award of Expenses

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders' conduct in relation to the proceedings or claim was unreasonable, justifying an award of expenses on the summary cause scale in a small claim action.

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders (insurers) had clear evidence from their insured that he did not see the pursuer's vehicle and no evidence of undue speed by the pursuer, making liability clear. Their failure to negotiate or offer settlement, proceeding instead to proof, constituted unreasonable conduct under section 36B(3)(b) of the 1971 Act, justifying an award of expenses on the summary cause scale.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor upheld.

Orders

  • Defenders and appellants liable to the pursuer and respondent in the expenses of the appeal as assessed.
  • Refusal to certify the appeal as suitable for the employment of counsel.