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 cirmcustances, Guardian PMPA successfully argued it had no liability for injuries sustained by a passenger.
While "regrettably" dismissing the claim by James Power yetserday, 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 which had no passenger cover.
Mr Power later sued Guardian PMPA, claiming the driver was insured by the company to carry a passenger and that Guardian PMPA was bound to indemnify him for any damages found due by the driver to him in personal injury proceedings.
He also claimed the Ford Fiesta van was a vehicle constructed primarily for the carriage of one or more passengers.
PMPA Guardian 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 today, Ms Justice Mary 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.