Q&As

Is there any case law on an Article 75 insurer’s ability to avoid its liability to meet a judgment in circumstances where the claimant was travelling in a stolen vehicle? The claim made is not against the insurer of the vehicle the claimant was a passenger in but against another vehicle of which the insurers have Article 75 status.

Read full title

Produced in partnership with Jamie Gamble of No5 Barristers Chambers

Published on: 22 March 2018

$imgtext$

Article 75 is an agreement between the Motor Insurers’ Bureau (the MIB) and its members under which the motor insurer will accept liability in certain cases where they would not be liable under the Road Traffic Act 1988 (RTA 1988) (as RTA insurer).

An Article 75 insurer is the insurer who is providing cover against the compulsory risks set out in RTA 1988 and will remain the Article 75 insurer notwithstanding that—(i) the insurance was obtained by fraud, misrepresentation, mistake or non-disclosure of a material fact (even if a RTA 1988, s 152 declaration of entitlement to avoid liability under RTA 1988 has been obtained), and/or (ii) the cover has been back dated, and/or (iii) the use of

Access this content for free with a 7 day trial of LexisNexis and benefit from:

Instant clarification on points of law
Smart search
Workflow tools
42 practice areas

Would you also like a quote?

I confirm I am a lawyer or work in a legal capacity, intend to use LexisNexis products for business purposes and agree with the terms and conditions.^**

^**Trials are provided to all LexisNexis content, excluding Practice Compliance, Practice Management and Risk and Compliance, subscription packages are tailored to your specific needs. To discuss trialling these LexisNexis services please email customer service via our online form. Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK, Ireland and selected UK overseas territories and Caribbean countries. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason. Trial includes one question to LexisAsk during the length of the trial.

Jamie Gamble

No5 Barristers Chambers

Jamie practices exclusively in the areas of personal injury and clinical negligence. He is ranked as a tier one leading junior for personal injury and clinical negligence (Midlands) in the 2016 edition of the Legal 500, which states that he is “a great all-round barrister”. He is also one of only 31 junior barristers in the country to be approved by the Spinal Injuries Association for catastrophic injury work.

Much of his work is now of substantial value (acting with or without a leader) and includes claims of the utmost severity and death.

Jamie has significant experience of all areas of personal injury work, including accidents at work, public liability claims, road traffic accidents (including claims against the Motor Insurers’ Bureau), industrial disease, CICA claims, and claims involving allegations of fraud.

Recent and ongoing cases that Jamie has been involved in have included: (i) cases of severe brain injury, including an ongoing case with a potential value in excess of £3 million and Re M (2014), a CICA claim where an award of £365,000 was obtained; (ii) Re G (2016), negligent abdominal surgery, settled for in excess of £500,000; (iii) Re B (2016), death caused by infection and necrotising fasciitis, settled for £425,000; (iv) Re A (2014), fatal road traffic case settled for £265,000; and (v) B v P (2013), above knee amputation following a motorcycle accident, settled for £1.6 million.

Jamie also regularly lectures to solicitor and insurer clients on legal developments and civil procedure.