With so many attacks on the field of personal injury and, in particular, the proposed erosion of the rights of the accident victim, it’s easy to forget some other important changes to how car insurance will work in the future and what is required to be covered under a policy of insurance. The end point could be yet more increases in motor premiums.
I am referring to Vnuk of course which was decided as long ago as 2014. The MIB (Motor Insurers’ Bureau) and a few other key organisations issued a joint initial response to the EU Commission’s REFIT (Regulatory Fitness and Performance Programme) review of the Motor Insurance Directive in August this year. The message is clear. It would not be ideal to implement Vnuk into UK law.
Vnuk itself involved a Slovenian farmer who was knocked off a ladder by a tractor trailer which was reversing. The incident took place on private land. The ultimate finding by the European Court of Justice was that the EU Motor Insurance Directive was for vehicles to be insured for any use consistent with the normal function of that vehicle.
In a nutshell, motor insurance is potentially now required to be in place for vehicles used in all situations, not just roads and vehicle itself has a very wide meaning.
The MIB has clamped down on uninsured driving over recent years reporting an increase in seizure of uninsured vehicles. They have run endless campaigns that talk about financial penalties and endorsement of your driving licences, etc. The MID (Motor Insurance Database) is also assisting along with the police using ANPR (automatic number plate recognition) technology. The number of uninsured drivers has halved according to data held by the MIB.
Currently insurance is only required for mechanically propelled vehicles intended or adapted for use on a road. With a much wider scope, post Vnuk, how can the MIB or anyone else for that matter continue to enforce compulsory insurance. This also opens up the opportunity for fraud for accidents happening on private land away from the prying eyes of potential witnesses. Could this actually lead to more cost in terms of insurance premium? Surely not another excuse for insurers to increase our premiums. Please. No.