Claims Against a Foreign Insurer - Incorrect Causes of Action and Wrong Defendants

Summary

We were recently instructed by French insurers and their claims reps in the UK, to defend a claim following a road traffic accident in the UK in 2022.  Proceedings were issued by the claimant’s solicitors in 2024. The proceedings were served upon the defendant, the UK reps, directly by post.

Next Steps

We immediately identified the following issues:

1.  The claim was issued without any meaningful attempt to settle.
2. The claim was brought against the wrong defendant  UK representative/claims handling company and therefore neither the at fault party or the insurer.
3. Since Brexit, UK representatives can no longer be served with proceedings on behalf of their principal’s if they are based abroad.  Solicitors had been nominated to accept service of court proceedings in any case.
4. The claim was issued on paper, when it was compulsory, in the circumstances, to issue through the Damages Claims Portal (“DCP”).
5. The pleadings were generally poorly drafted.

We gave the claimant the opportunity to amend the pleadings but this was ignored. We disputed jurisdiction and made an application to strike the claim out.

The claim was struck out, and the Claimant was ordered to pay our wasted costs. The client saved approximately £25,000

In a judgment where the deficiencies in the claim and the pattern of continual breaches of court rules by the claimant was criticised, the court struck out the claim in its entirety. The Judge stated “I have considered the need to further the overriding objecting and deal with cases justly and at proportionate cost I am satisfied that it would not be doing so to keep the claim alive. It is therefore proportionate and appropriate to strike out the claim.”

Incorrect cause of action

We were instructed by a Bulgarian insurer, to defend a claim following a road traffic accident in the UK.

The pleadings did not show a correct cause of action. The claimant relied on UK legislations, namely, section 151 of Road Traffic Act 1988 and paragraph 3 of The Motor Vehicles (Compulsory Insurance and Rights Against Insurers) (Amendment) (EU Exit) Regulations 2020.

However, the defendant’s vehicle was based/registered outside of the United Kingdom and therefore the legislation was not applicable. We argued the claim should be struck out for disclosing no reasonable grounds in law and, therefore, having no prospects of success.

Given the significant risk that the claimant now faced they accepted a very low offer at trial, which was accepted immediately. The client saved approximately £22,000.

This type of situation often arises in England and Wales where the defendant is the driver/insurer of a foreign registered vehicle. If the claimant solicitors are not specialised in cross-border litigation and the issues that arise from conflict of laws, they will likely experience difficulties with pleadings and service. As set out above, this can be turned to the defendant’s advantage.

By Virginie Medard – principal associate at Weightmans LLP

Virginie.medard@weightmans.com