52 / 264
ga z e t te
MARCH 1977
DUBLIN SOLICITORS' BAR ASSOCIATION
"THE MOTOR INSURANCE CLAIM"
As already advertised, the Association broke new
ground when its Activities Sub-Committee presented a
meeting on the subject of "The Motor Insurance Claim",
in the Library of the Incorporated Law Society on the
19th January.
Mr. Liam Collins, of The Insurance Corporation of
Ireland, opened the proceedings with a very erudite,
informative and amusing Paper on the Motor Insurance
Claim, as seen from behind the Insurance Company desk.
Among a number of interesting matters, Mr. Collins
mentioned that the current estimates before the Motor
Insurers' Bureau, in respect of claims not covered by
proper insurance, amount to something in the region of
£2,000,000—unfortunately, the funding of this bill must
inevitably fall upon the law-abiding majority of motorists,
through increased insurance premiums.
Mr. Collins also ventilated the perennial questions of
the lack of vigilance in detecting uninsured motorists and
of the inadequacies of Court fines imposed for failure to
insure and tax cars—as he pointed out, the fine imposed
by District Courts in this respect is usually considerably
less than the cost of insurance and road tax and it is
arguably a sound economic proposition for motorists to
decline to insure and tax their cars and risk periodic
prosecution.
Referring to another matter calculated to give rise to
difficulties, Mr. Collins remarked that insurance
companies did their best to adopt a flexible attitude
towards the question of car hire, but they were not, at the
same time, prepared to lay themselves open to abuse in
this respect. In the case of a vehicle so damaged as to
require a fairly short period for repair, insurance
companies would normally agree to pay the cost of car
hire for a replacement vehicle for a "reasonable period" in
relation to the anticipated length of repair; if an insured's
car is a complete write off, then an insurance company
might be expected to agree to car hire for a period of up to
say, two weeks, to enable all arrangements being made to
secure a replacement vehicle. Despite Mr. Collins'
remarks on this subject, members of the profession may
have found, from time to time, that it is not always as
easy as this!
Another of Mr. Collins' remarks calculated to raise
eyebrows, was that the Insurance Companies in general
found it more profitable to admit liability in cases where
their investigations indicated their clients' culpability and,
rather than engage in tactics, the insurers should move for
an expeditious settlement, thus defeating inflation, cutting
overheads, and hopefully, leaving all parties happy! While
this may be true of certain companies, at least one
member of the audience, in the discussion which followed,
remarked to Mr. Collins that the profession's experience
did not necessarily support this statement! Among
other useful matters of professional interest Mr. Collins
mentioned in particular the recent decision that failure to
wear a safety belt amounted to contributory negligence.
He also stressed the desirability of becoming Plaintiff
rather than Defendant in any running down proceedings.
In fact, as he put it, "there should be a race to become
Plaintiff'.
Finally, Mr. Collins made the very important point, not
widely realised, that depreciation is nowadays
substantially disregarded in insurance claims.
Mr. David Pigot of Arthur Cox & Company, then read
a Paper on Insurance from the Solicitors' standpoint and
mentioned a number of matters of practical and
procedural importance. Among these, he raised the
question of whether the cost of a wake could be recovered
as part of Special Damages!
The discussion following the two Papers was opened
by Mr. Nat Lacy, who argued that the time had come to
revise the whole question of running-down procedure and
that in particular, the summons, as such, should be
abolished and that Pleadings should be confined to a very
full Statement of Claim and a Defence. He further
suggested that a great deal of the spade work involved,
including the agreement of medical reports etc. could be
done befor the Master instead of in open Court. Mr. Lacy
received a spontaneous round of applause for the
contentious statement that"solicitors should not be slaves
to the Bar Library" and he suggested that more of us
should be prepared to take on our own advocacy.
Mr. Desmond Moran referred to the procedure of the
Notice to Admit and suggested that this device was
insufficiently used in modern practice. Mr. Moran also
made a more revolutionary suggestion, as to the use of
motion film for evidential purposes in Court proceedings
instead of still photos.
'
Extending the earlier remarks on the subject of failure
to wear safety belts, Mr. Moran commented that listening
to car radios might also amount to contributory
negligence!
Mr. Moran concluded his remarks by quoting the
Obiter of the United States Supreme Court, which had
commented favourably on the subject of the speed and
relative inexpense of the British (and, presumably, the
Irish) Court systems!
Another member suggested that a second Senior
Counsel might be unnecessary in certain Actions, to
which David Pigot replied that if only one Senior was
employed, he might well charge as much as two! The
evening was as enjoyable as it was educative and it is to
be hoped that it will be but the first of many.
DUBLIN CITY AND COUNTY SHERIFFS
For a considerable time, the Practice and Procedure
Sub-Committee of the Association has been considering
the increasingly difficult matter of obtaining Returns from
the Dublin City and County Sheriffs.
It may be helpful to practitioners to note that the Sub-
Committee has been advised by the City and County
Sheriffs that the average length of time which may be
expected to elapse between the date of lodgment of a
Decree and the receipt by the practitioner of a Return is
as follows:
1. Where there are no seizable goods and a Return of
"No Goods" is made - two to three months;
2. where Execution can be levied without the necessity of
a seizure—four months;
3. where Execution can only be levied by means of a
seizure and sale—four to six months.
In view of this unsatisfactory position, the Association
is continuing to explore the possibility of obtaining greater
expedition in the making of Returns by the City and
County Sheriffs.
The Sub-Committee, in its correspondence with the
City and County Sheriffs, has elicited the following
4 3