In the recent Liverpool County Court decision of Nagorski v Nikolics and Tradewise Insurance, the court had to determine RTA liability where the first defendant was uninsured, but the vehicle he was driving was shown on MID as being insured on a Motor Trader policy.
The insurer is on MID, so they must be the RTA insurer, right?
In the recent Liverpool County Court decision of Nagorski v Nikolics and Tradewise Insurance, the court had to determine RTA liability where the first defendant was uninsured, but the vehicle he was driving was shown on MID as being insured on a Motor Trader policy.
The scenario presented by this case is far from being a one-off and further highlights the need for a solution.
Click here to read more.
You may also like
HF Takes Another Step Forward in the Battle for Transparency & Control of Medical Agency Fees
In the latest skirmish involving medical agency fees, the Senior Costs Judge has stated that reasonable medical agency fees should...
Product Liability Bitesize – September Edition
It’s been a busy time since the first edition of our regular product liability update. The Queen’s Speech heralded new laws...
Landlords be aware – 10% uplift in damages can apply to breach of repairing covenant
The Court of Appeal has held that the 10% uplift in the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act...
Government’s proposed CPR changes to QOCS will overrule Ho v Adelekun
On 9 May 2022, the Government launched a consultation on proposed changes to the Qualified One-Way Costs Shifting (QOCS) rules...
