Insurance 'not liable' for £250,000 House of Fraser damage
INSURERS for a driver who smashed into Cabot Circus shopping centre in an apparent suicide attempt will not have to pay the £250,000 repair bill, senior judges have ruled.
James Williams, 26, of Stoke Gifford – who was described as a "very unhappy young man" – caused massive damage to the outside of the House of Fraser store in a crash in December 2008 which almost cost his own life, as well as that of another driver whose car was in his path.
Lord Justice Ward told London's Civil Appeal Court yesterday that Mr Williams drove his Ford Puma at speeds of up to 100 mph along the M32 and Newfoundland Street before deliberately swerving into a low wall.
The car span into the air, bounced off the roof of another car waiting at a junction and smashed into the shop window.
10% off of any full price ticket
Terms:
Must not be used in conjunction with other offers
To redeem either print and use at the venue on purchase or use code MAY7974 on our website.
Contact: 0117 2443656
Valid until: Tuesday, December 31 2013
Mr Williams very nearly died of his injuries but was saved thanks to the immediate first aid he received from a Bristol Royal Infirmary doctor who arrived at the scene by chance shortly afterwards.
He was left with scars and a limp from the crash.
The driver of the other car, Jamie Haynes, also suffered serious injuries, including a fractured shoulder, four fractured spinal vertebrae, a broken rib and punctured lung.
His Audi A6, which was waiting at a red light, was pushed on to its side, writing the 11-year-old car off, the court heard.
Mr Williams, of Fabian Drive, was later jailed for 21 months for dangerous driving and causing criminal damage.
He was also banned from driving for five years and ordered to take an extended driving test before ever getting back behind the wheel.
The judge who jailed him had observed: "It is clear you suffered from serious depression at that time and the purpose of your driving was to kill yourself."
Police traced an apparent suicide note in which he wrote: "Crazy, what I'm going to do now. Sorry."
The crash sparked a legal battle between the shop's insurers, Bristol Alliance Limited Partnership, who initially covered the cost of replacing the vast windows, and EUI Ltd, with whom Mr Williams had a motor policy.
EUI fought the case tooth and nail – insisting they were not liable for the damage as it had been caused by Mr Williams' "deliberate act" – and yesterday finally triumphed in what is likely to be seen as an important test case for the insurance industry.
Allowing EUI's appeal against an earlier ruling against the company, Lord Justice Ward, sitting with Lord Justice McFarlane and Dame Janet Smith, said that what Mr Williams did fell outside the terms of his policy and his vehicle was therefore uninsured at the time.
In his ruling, the judge described Mr Williams as "a very unhappy young man".
He added: "Fortunately, he seems to have recovered and, although he did not participate in this appeal, he did attend court and took a keen interest in the proceedings."
The Post attempted to contact Mr Williams after the ruling but he was not available for comment.
Comments
by LUCIFER
Wednesday, October 24 2012, 10:11PM
“He was tempting a ramraid he was looking to hit a top floor shop lol”
by Gazzabristol
Saturday, October 13 2012, 5:23PM
“I think I know what will happen......
The driver is now considered to be uninsured.
So anyone care to guess what happens when suffering losses at the hands of an uninsured driver?
Yup, you claim from the MIB.
Who pays into the MIB?
All of us responsible and legitimately insured motorists!!!!! So guess who is picking up the tab!
Before anyone says "well the customers of that company would have picked up the tab anyway due to the resulting increase in premiums" - this is not the case. Those customers could simply renew with another company so their premiums could not have been raised dramatically else the company would lose business. Therefore this ruling protects the bottom line of the company concerned at our expense.
Costs can now be spread across all motorists as opposed to high risks groups. So at the moment young men get hammered with high premiums because young men cause a lot of accidents.
In future the company insuring these high risk drivers can avoid liability in a lot of "non-accidents" ("accidents" where the driver "deliberately" deviated from the highway code) and spread the cost across everyone. So we all end up paying more as opposed to just the high risk drivers! The insurance companies also reduce their level of risk/exposure and maximise their profits!
Hooray for them!”
by Bert_Hindle
Saturday, October 13 2012, 3:44PM
“Exactly Gazza. I think uninsured drivers, or drivers who nullify their insurance should become liable themselves for ALL third party costs, even if it means them having to sell every last asset they have. They can't expect the rest of us to shoulder the costs through our premiums.”
by Gazzabristol
Saturday, October 13 2012, 3:04PM
“Does this mean that his insurers are also not liable for the injuries to Mr Haynes or the damage to his vehicle?
Also what constitutes a deliberate act?
Mr Williams deliberately drove into a wall. The collision between his vehicle and the shop presumably was not deliberate even if it was a foreseeable possibility.
How does that differ from a boy racer speeding down a lane well in excess of the speed limit with the unintended consequence that he loses control and hits another motorist? In this scenario the initial act would be deliberate and the subsequent collision would not be intentional even if it were a foreseeable possibility.
Do you see where I am coming from? How long will be before a speeding motorist hits your car but his insurance refuses to pay out because the accident was caused by a deliberate act?”
by Bert_Hindle
Saturday, October 13 2012, 2:26PM
“Would this mean that Mr Williams is now liable for the costs?”