RSA Insurance Ireland has emerged victorious in a legal quarrel with Zurich Insurance revolving around the question of which company is required to compensate a waste collection firm employee who suffered severe injuries. Joseph Moore, an employee of Urban and Rural Recycling Ltd (URRL), based in Wexford, incurred life-altering injuries from an accident on December 19th, 2013. He was injured when a wheelie bin dropped from the lorry’s bin lift, hitting his head while he was at work.
Moore, who was at the wheel of the lorry at the time of the accident, pursued legal action against URRL, his employer. He alleged among other things, negligence and a lack of a proper safety protocol. The High Court initially assigned liability for the injuries to Zurich Insurance under a motor policy. However, the ruling was overturned by the Court of Appeal in favour of RSA Insurance Ireland, the employer’s liability insurer, which they deemed should accept the claim.
This decision prompted another appeal by RSA to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court pronounced its judgement in favour of RSA on Thursday, citing legal reasons. Furthermore, the five-judge bench felt the need to reconsider the compulsory motor insurance rule in its entirety.
In a unanimous judgement by the court, Mr Justice Brian Murray disagreed with Zurich’s arguments concerning the legal construction of the compulsory motor insurance law, specifically section 56 of the Road Traffic Act. He clarified that URRL, as a corporation, was competent in using the vehicle. He also mentioned that an employer, in this case, URRL, could use a vehicle through the actions of its employees during their work.
Moreover, the appeal led to inquiries regarding the extent of the obligatory motor insurance requirement, and raised new questions about the correct interpretation of a 2009 European Council directive, which demands member countries ensure motor insurance covers civil liability.
According to Mr Justice Murray, despite the omnipresence of the 2009 directive in the case, his decisions didn’t necessitate leanings on its stipulations. Nevertheless, he suggested that lawmakers must review the compulsory vehicle insurance clause. If it fails to properly execute European Union legislation, it might burden the taxpayer with the expense of compensating accident victims, which should ideally be motor insurers’ responsibility.
He also raised concerns that ongoing sporadic amendments to these provisions might amplify risk of non-adherence, further emphasizing the dire need for a comprehensive rejuvenation of the mandatory vehicle insurance requirement.
Having made judgements in favour of RSA and opposed to Zurich in this law case, He expressed that further application of these legal conclusions in the proceedings should be left to the parties to contest, as per their judgement.