Campbell v BMW Insurance Company

On a second-tier appeal, permission should be granted only where the proposed appeal raises an important point of principle or practice, or another compelling reason. That threshold is not met where the claim seeks insurer-specific relief but is brought against an insurance broker, and its factual basis is undermined by an unresolved claim in the same policy year. The court may refuse permission without determining any separate rights the claimant may have against the insurer or broker.

The claimant sought approximately £5,000 from BMW Insurance, which he said acted as his brokers, alleging that he had been overcharged insurance premiums. He relied on correspondence from the Insurance Ombudsman Bureau concerning his insurer, Royal & Sun Alliance. The application followed a judgment of His Honour Judge Cotran in the Shoreditch County Court on 25 July 2001. The central issues were whether the claim had been brought against the proper defendant and whether the proposed second-tier appeal satisfied the applicable permission threshold.

1. Permission to appeal refused. This was a second-tier appeal. The Court of Appeal could grant permission only if there was an important point of principle or practice, or some other compelling reason.
2. The substance of the claimant’s complaint concerned reinstatement of his no-claims bonus and repayment of the difference between the premium charged without the bonus and the lower premium that would have been charged with it. That was a claim against the insurers, not a negligence claim against the brokers. The claimant had sued BMW Insurance, while the material correspondence identified Royal & Sun Alliance as the insurers.
3. The factual basis of the complaint was also insufficient. Two claims had been made during the 1998/1999 policy year. Although the insurers ultimately recovered their outlay on the first claim, the second claim arose from a disputed accident and remained unresolved. The insurers were still out of pocket on that claim. The claimant’s assertion that recovery had been made in respect of both claims was therefore incorrect.
4. The position might have been different if the correct party had been sued and the matter concerned only the first claim. That was not the case before the court. Any rights against the insurers, or any negligence claim against the brokers, were separate matters not determined on this application.

Order: permission to appeal refused.

1. Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Lord Justice Rix refused permission to appeal on 26 October 2001.
2. Shoreditch County Court: His Honour Judge Cotran gave judgment on 25 July 2001. The judgment appealed from is not otherwise described in the supplied judgment.