INSURANCE COMPANY NOT LIABLE

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 83, Issue 92, 20 April 1939, Page 12

INSURANCE COMPANY NOT LIABLE

DAMAGE TO MOTOR VEHICLE UNLICENSED DRIVER WAS IN CHARGE A judgment of interest to motor vehicle owners, insurance companies, and traffic administrators, has been delivered by Mr. J. H. Salmon. S.M., in the Magistrate’s Court at Wanganui. He has held that unless expressly covered in the terms of the policy, the owner of a motor-car cannot recover from an insurance company loss incurred through damage caused to the car while it is being driven by an unlicensed driver. The parties to the action were Elsie Harvey, married woman. Wanganui, plaintiff, represented by Mr. H. M. Keesing, ana lhe Pearl Insurance Company, Cnrislehurch, for whom Mr. C. F. Treadwell, Wanganui, appeared. On November 9, 1939, the company issued to the plaintiff a policy oi insurance indemnifying her against loss, damage or liability occurring within a specified 12 months, to her motor-car. The amount specified in the policy was £lOO. Mrs. Harvey, it was shown in evidence, had driven the car on many occasions accompanied by a lie .’used driver, but she herself had never obtained a driver’s licence undei the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act. On January 1 last Mrs. Harvey was driving the” car, with a licensed driver beside her, over the Warrengate Road, near Foretell. On the course oi tlie journey the car got into a skia, oi series of skids, on some loose metal, and ultimately went through a hedge and came to rest in a field, a man later losing his life as a resuit of being injured. The car was considerably damaged and the plaintiff claimed 5s 6d from the insurance company holding the policy covering damage to the vehicle. The company repudiates liability on the ground that the plaintiff was not a licensed driver at the time of the accident. Mr. Keesing submitted that Mrs. Harvey was unlicensed, that she was learning to drive and was permitted to drive by section 20 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1924, so lang as she was accompanied in the driver’s seat by a person holding a driver’s licence and was engaged teaching her to drive. He contended that she was authorised to drive by law. and the word “unlicensed” in the policy could be defined as “unauthorised.’’ “I do not think this contention can be supported,’’ said His Worship, giving judgment for the defendant company, with costs. “All that the latter portion of section 20 does is to provide that an unlicensed driver shall not be deemed to act in contravention of the section if he is in fact learning to drive and is accompanied tor that purpose by a licensed driver in the front seat, who is engaged tcacamg him to drive. It is a penal section. These latter words merely provide exemption. in the case of iearncis, from the offence constituted by the first part of the section, namely, Ine offence of driving a motor vehicle without holding a driver's licence. Mr. Keesing submitted that the pcison who was teaching plaint! :t io drive was really in control and in charge of the car at the time. T think there can be no doubt, and I would find .is a fad, that the plaintiff in the present case was not only actually driving the car. but that shv was in control of the car at the tinh of the accident." said His Worship. • <he herselt selected the route lithe Warrengate Road. Indeed. I doubt whether the plaintiff parted with the control ot the car at any stage, ecen when Duggan 'the licensed oi'iset drove it because Duggan would undoubtedly have been subject to tm plaintiffs directions as to where ■ were to go. as to ary particular route to be taken, and as to stoppingto p *■ up friends of plaintiff s