Insurers may, in time, be required to disclose certain information to plaintiffs when seeking to be joined as a party to proceedings.
The High Court case of Vera Lynch v Dean Reynolds, Otis Reynolds, Motor Insurers Bureau of Ireland and Axa Insurance DAC [2025] IEHC 527 relates to personal injuries sustained by the plaintiff who suffered severe psychological trauma after her son was killed in a road traffic accident. The Court awarded the plaintiff general damages of €130,000.
A key question in the case revolved around the identity of the driver of the vehicle. The second named defendant was the registered owner of the vehicle. At the time of the accident, the first named defendant had temporary insurance cover for the vehicle from the fourth named defendant.
No one has been charged with the death and it remains a live criminal investigation. In 2024, a jury at an inquest returned a verdict of unlawful killing.
Judgment in default of appearance had been granted against the first and second named defendants in January 2022. At hearing, the third and fourth named defendants disputed who is liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff and required the plaintiff to establish facts to identify which of those defendants will be liable by way of indemnity. The plaintiff issued subpoenas during the hearing against the first and second named defendants who subsequently attended for examination and exercised their right to refuse to give an answer which may incriminate them.
The Court did not accept the fourth named defendant's submission that no adverse inferences could be drawn from the decision of the first and second named defendants to exercise their common law and constitutional right not to give evidence. The Court did accept the submission from the fourth named defendant that opinion evidence about legal responsibility of the first or second named defendants given by witnesses from An Garda Siochana should be excluded. Additionally, the decision of the DPP not to prosecute either of those defendants was deemed irrelevant to the Court. The Court was not persuaded that identifying the driver in the civil proceedings had any consequence other than to create a liability to pay damages to the plaintiff.
The fourth named defendant submitted that the joining of the third named defendant supported its position that the plaintiff cannot establish that the first named defendant was driving the vehicle. The Court accepted it was not for any defendant to disprove anything and a plaintiff must prove all necessary ingredients of a tort – including that the first named defendant was driving the vehicle despite the order granting judgment in default against him.
Ultimately, the Court found that the first named defendant was the driver of the vehicle at the material time and as such it fell to the fourth named defendant to compensate the plaintiff.
While there was no criticism of any defendant in this matter as a denial of liability is not an abuse of process, the Court found it unfortunate that the fourth named defendant was joined to the proceedings without any ancillary or subsequent orders for disclosure. The Court noted that it is restricted by the adversarial process and does not have inquisitorial powers but commented that future applications by insurers under the road traffic legislation to be joined as a named party deserve to consider the interests of the plaintiff also.
The Court stated the requirement to identify the registered owner (as opposed to the user or potentially actual owner) and driver of a motor vehicle involved in a road traffic accident arises within a legislative and regulatory framework governing the use of motor vehicles. The Court also considered that proceedings would be more efficient from a time and cost perspective if insurers are directed to disclose material in compliance with the relevant data protection and privacy rights at an early stage.
