[font='Verdana','sans-serif'][[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif']1965] 1 All ER 557[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']Taylor v Allon[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']Find out more[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']LORD PARKER CJ, MARSHALL AND WIDGERY JJ[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']14 JANUARY 1965[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']Insurance – Motor insurance – Third party risks – Temporary cover note – Effect – Former policy of insurance expired – Car owner intending to change insurers – Cover note issued by former insurers – No renewal premium paid – Cover note having effect as offer by former insurers – Owner not relying on cover note and not having accepted former insurers' offer – Former insurers ready to assume liability on cover note – Whether car owner insured by virtue of the cover note for the purposes of Road Traffic Act, 1960 (8 & 9 Eliz 2 c 16), s 201.[/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']The appellant's insurance of his motor car against third party risks expired on 5 April 1964. He intended to change to another insurer and obtained a temporary cover note from the new insurer for thirty days from 16 April. His old insurance company sent him a temporary cover note for fifteen days from 6 April. On 15 April when the appellant was driving his car on a road, he was stopped by the police and, being asked for his insurance certificate produced the certificate of insurance under the expired policy and the cover note from the new insurer, and stated that he was negotiating a change of insurers. He did not mention or produce the temporary cover note from his old insurance company. At the hearing of an information for using a motor car on a road without insurance against third party risks, contrary to s 201 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, the appellant did not give evidence, but evidence was given by a representative of his old insurance company that the company would assume liability under the fifteen-day cover note. On appeal against conviction,[/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']Held[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'] – Sending the fifteen-day cover note was an offer to insure for the future, but on the evidence, the appellant had not shown that he knew of the temporary insurance cover or took out his car in reliance on it, and thus had not shown that he had accepted the offer; accordingly there was no enforceable contract of insurance on 15 April 1964, and, notwithstanding the statement of the insurance company's representative that the company would assume liability, the appellant had been rightly convicted (see p 558, letter [/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif']h[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'], p 559, letters [/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif']f[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'] and [/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif']h[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'], and p 560, letters [/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif']a[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'] and [/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif']b[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'], post).[/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']Appeal dismissed.[/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']Notes[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']As to the nature of the third party insurance required for user of a motor vehicle on a road, see 22 [/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif']Halsbury's Laws[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'] (3rd Edn) 366, para 751; and for cases on the subject, see 2nd [/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif']Digest[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'] Supp, title Street and Aerial Traffic, nos 188m–188pc; 3rd [/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif']Digest[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'] Supp, title Street Traffic, Nos [/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif']188paa–188paca[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'].[/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']For the Road Traffic Act, 1960, s 201, see 40 [/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif']Halsbury's Statutes[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'] (2nd Edn) 882.[/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']Case Stated[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']This was an appeal by way of Case Stated from a decision of the justices of the Langbaurgh North Division of the North Riding of Yorkshire, who on 29 May 1964, convicted the appellant of using a motor car on 15 April 1964, when there was not in force in relation to the user of the motor car such a policy of insurance or such security in respect of third party risks as complied with Part 6 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, contrary to s 201 thereof. The appellant was fined a nominal amount.[/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']The cases noted belowa were cited during the argument.[/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']a[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'] [/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif']Carnill v Rowland[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'] [1953] 1 All ER 486, [/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif']Mumford v Hardy[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'] [1956] 1 All ER 337[/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']C G Young for the appellant.[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']J B Deby for the respondent.[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif'][1965] 1 All ER 557 at 558[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']14 January 1965. The following judgments were delivered.[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']LORD PARKER CJ.[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']The short facts were these. The appellant was found using the motor car on a road on 15 April 1964. In fact he had been insured by an insurance company called The Federated Employers Insurance Association, Ltd the policy expiring on 5 April 1964. On 16 April 1964, he obtained a temporary cover note for thirty days from a fresh insurance company, and there is a finding by the justices that on the expiration of the old policy he never intended to renew it with the old insurance company. The case is not very illuminating; we have been told that the appellant never gave evidence, but at some stage the solicitor appearing for him produced a temporary cover note from the old insurance company, purporting to cover him for fifteen days commencing from and including 6 April 1964, when the insurance policy expired. Accordingly, on 15 April when he used the vehicle, that extended cover was on the fact of it in force. The justices quite rightly came to the conclusion that the insurance which had to be in force for the purposes of s 201 must be an effective and enforceable contract of insurance. The question at the trial was whether that extended cover by the old insurance company was enforceable or not. A representative of the insurance company gave evidence and informed the court that the insurance company considered themselves liable, and in the case of an accident would have paid. Notwithstanding that, the justices came to the conclusion that they were not bound by that evidence, and that the extended cover was not supported by any consideration, was therefore unenforceable, and accordingly that the offence was made out.[/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']In this court counsel for the appellant has made a number of submissions. He says in the first place that a “policy of insurance”, which are the words in s 201 of the Road Traffic Act, 1960, is defined by s 216 of the Act in this form: “'policy of insurance' includes a covering note” and he maintains that a covering note in the form in question which had been current for a number of years when the Act of 1960 was passed was clearly intended by the legislature to be in the same position as a policy of insurance. For my part I cannot accede to that submission. Once one realises that “insurance” means insurance pursuant to an enforceable contract, then it seems to me that “covering note” referred to in the definition clause must itself be a covering note which is enforceable as a contract. He next submits that having regard to the evidence given by the insurance company, the mischief which s 201 of the Act of 1960 is designed to guard against did not arise, because in the event of an accident the insurance company would have paid. In that connexion counsel for the appellant refers to a number of authorities where this court, in deciding whether the terms of a particular policy covered the insured at the time, have in the case of ambiguity used words to the effect that since the insurance company had stated they would pay, the mischief which the Act of 1960 was designed to guard against was, as it were, cured. Let me say at once that, as I understand it, all those were cases where there was a valid contract of insurance. The question was what did it mean, and without referring to the various judgments, the court was saying, as I understand, that, since such a contract would have to be construed contra proferentem and therefore against the insurance company, valuable guidance was given by the evidence of the insurance company's representative that the company assumed the liability. None of those cases goes anything like the length of saying that when there is doubt whether there is an enforceable contract the insurance company can give any help to the court on the matter.[/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']The third submission which counsel makes is the submission which has given rise to the longest argument and the greatest difficulty in this court. He submits that the covering note is a good contract in that there must be implied a promise to pay for such cover in so far as it is not absorbed, as it were, by the renewal premium when paid. He puts the matter in a slightly different form also by assuming a case in which the insurance company claimed a declaration that the cover note was invalid, when, he submits, the assured could well say that, having [/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif'][1965] 1 All ER 557 at 559[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']acted on the representation in the cover note, the insurance company was estopped from claiming that it was invalid.[/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']The Case does not exhibit the cover note in question, but with the consent of counsel on both sides the court has been supplied with the original, and we have been invited to look at it. It takes the form of a motor renewal notice referring to the number of the policy, and the due date for the renewal premium, namely, 6 April. It sets out the annual premium and the credit in respect of a no-claims bonus. It goes on to state that the[/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']“renewal premium for the above mentioned policy is due for payment on the date stated and should be remitted to the agent named hereon who will deliver the new certificate of motor insurance and official renewal receipt.”[/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']It explains that a certificate under the Road Traffic Act, 1960, cannot be issued until the premium has been paid, and it states that it is an offence against the Act of 1960 to use a motor vehicle on a road without a certificate. Finally it says:[/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']“The object of the covering note on the reverse side of this notice is to protect you under the Road Traffic Acts should the certificate not be delivered to you by the due date. Please, therefore, retain this notice in your possession until you receive the certificate.”[/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']On the reverse side in print is the heading “Temporary Cover Note. Insurance is hereby granted in terms of the policy referred to in this notice for a period of fifteen days commencing from and including the due date referred to in this notice”, but only in respect of what I may call quite generally third party insurance,[/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']“Subject otherwise to the terms, exceptions and conditions of the said policy, and in accordance with the particulars of the certificate of motor insurance relating to the said policy up to the said due date, and provided that an insurance covering the aforesaid liability has not been effected with any other authorised insurer.”[/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']Bearing in mind that a valid insurance for the purposes of the section must arise from an enforceable contract, it seems to me that the contract, if any, contained in the temporary covering note must arise by offer and acceptance. It is conceded that the policy that expired had no provisions for extended cover, and accordingly, sending this temporary covering note, must in my judgment be treated as an offer to insure for the future. It may be, although I find it unnecessary to decide in this case, that there can be an acceptance of such an offer by conduct and without communication with the insurance company. It may well be, as it seems to me, that if a man took his motor car out on the road in reliance on this temporary cover, albeit there had been no communication of that fact to the insurance company, there would be an acceptance, and that the contracts so created would contain an implied promise by the insured to pay either in the renewal premium when that was paid, or if it was not paid for the period for which the temporary cover note had as it were been accepted.[/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']As I say, I find it unnecessary in the present case to decide that matter, and for this reason, that it seems to me that the appellant must at any rate go to the length of saying that he knew of the temporary cover and that he took out his motor car in reliance on it. In fact as I have already said the appellant never gave any evidence at all. Further from the justices' clerk's note, which again we have been allowed to refer to, it appears that when he was stopped by the police and asked to produce his insurance certificate, he did produce the old certificate of insurance which had expired on 5 April 1964, and he also produced the cover note from the new insurance company which commenced on 16 April 1964. When the police pointed out that, therefore, on 15 April 1964, he was not covered, he not only did not refer to this temporary cover note, but also he said then that he had been negotiating a change of insurance companies, and did [/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif'][1965] 1 All ER 557 at 560[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']not realise that it, presumably the original certificate, had run out. It was, as I have said, only at the hearing, and I think at the second hearing, that this temporary cover note was produced by the appellant's solicitor.[/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']In those circumstances it seems to me that the appellant has never gone to the length of showing that he knew of the temporary cover, that he acted in reliance on it, and thereby had accepted the offer contained in it. I think that the justices came to a correct decision in law and I would dismiss this appeal.[/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']MARSHALL J.[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']I agree.[/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']WIDGERY J.[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']I agree.[/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']Appeal dismissed. Leave to appeal to the House of Lords refused.[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']Solicitors: J B Izod, Solicitor for the Royal Automobile Club agent for D C Haslam, Middlesbrough (for the appellant); Gush, Phillips, Walters and Williams (for the respondent).[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif']C G Leonard Esq Barrister[/font][font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
[font='Verdana','sans-serif'][/font]
ראשי
צ'אט
09-12-2008, 11:42
מצב כלאיים
