Somersall v Scottish & York SEF44
Two questions:
1. does SEF44 apply to Underinsured and Uninsured motorists?
2. if SEF44 endorsement was not purchased, could the insured seek compensation through their AB coverage?
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Two questions:
1. does SEF44 apply to Underinsured and Uninsured motorists?
2. if SEF44 endorsement was not purchased, could the insured seek compensation through their AB coverage?
Comments
Hi,
In the land cases battle cards Somersall v Scottish & York - Ruling Supreme Court Reasoning, why is there no mention of the standard mandatory AB and TPL coverage and only the optional SEF 44 endorsement? From reading this question and the response, I understand that even without SEF44, the insured is entitled to further pursue damages. Wouldn't knowing that the insured is entitled to recover damages from AB, TPL and SEF 44 be important for the exam answer?
Yeah the insurer is still entitled to recover damages through their underinsured driver coverage for whatever amounts in excess of the 200K limit. Good point, I think that should be added into the BC also @graham
There may be other relevant considerations as @zhangjessica mentioned but these were not discussed as part of the case. The Supreme Court ruling specifically concerned "...the application of S.E.F. No. 44 where the plaintiff had entered a Limits Agreement..." So it should not be necessary to state anything beyond what's listed in the BattleCards in your answer to an exam question on that topic.
See here for an old exam question about this case:
I'm not really convinced by the argument of the Supreme Court. I get that the key time was the moment of the accident and that moment of the accident there was a subrogation right. But saying thay is admitting that in the end, it is a fact the insurer was deprived of its right of subrogation.
In what situation could there be no right of subrogation at the time of accident? If the drivers have an eye contact and agree just before the collision? (Of course I'm being sarcastic)
Haha I think for the legal cases it is better to just memorise without thinking too much about it. No extra marks for critical thinking here
So just to confirm. In the end although the ruling as in favor of Somersall to claim the remaining damages from S&Y. S&Y was allowed to claim recoverable from Friedman right?
Whether or not Friedman has money and willing to pay is a separate issue. But S&Y can legally pursue recoverable from Friedman right?
S&Y could recover up to the limit of the agreement that was signed. There is nothing to claim from the tortfeasor as they would be fully covered by their insurance. The judge rules that because of the agreement, S&Y has lost subrogation rights