Teviotdale v. Norwich Union Insurance Ltd [2009] ScotSC 15 (23 June 2009)

Teviotdale v. Norwich Union Insurance Ltd [2009] ScotSC 15 (23 June 2009)

The defenders, as insurers, had clear evidence from their insured that he had not seen the pursuer's vehicle and no evidence of undue speed by the pursuer, making liability apparent. Their failure to negotiate or offer settlement, thereby forcing the case to proof and causing the pursuer to incur unnecessary expense, constituted unreasonable conduct in relation to the proceedings. The sheriff was entitled to award expenses on the summary cause scale, and there was no error in law.

Citation
[2009] ScotSC 15
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 on Summary Cause Scale
Outcome
Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor upheld.
Legal Topics
Unreasonable Conduct in Litigation, Award of Expenses, Motor Vehicle Accident Liability, Insurer's Duty to Settle, Assessment of Evidence
Civil Procedure Insurance Law Tort Law Unreasonable Conduct in Litigation Award of Expenses Motor Vehicle Accident Liability Insurer's Duty to Settle Assessment of Evidence

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 4 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 on Summary Cause Scale

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defenders' conduct in relation to the proceedings or claim was unreasonable for the purposes of awarding expenses on the summary cause scale
  2. 2 Whether the sheriff erred in law in finding such conduct unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The defenders, as insurers, had clear evidence from their insured that he had not seen the pursuer's vehicle and no evidence of undue speed by the pursuer, making liability apparent. Their failure to negotiate or offer settlement, thereby forcing the case to proof and causing the pursuer to incur unnecessary expense, constituted unreasonable conduct in relation to the proceedings. The sheriff was entitled to award expenses on the summary cause scale, and there was no error in law.

Court Disposition

Appeal refused; sheriff's interlocutor upheld.

Orders

  • Defenders and appellants found 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.