Insurance rebuts liability allegations

Elmo Insurance Ltd has filed a counter-protest in the First Hall of the Civil Court in which it rebutted allegations made against it by Untours Insurance Agents in a protest calling upon Elmo to honour a court decision to pay damages following a traffic collision.

Untours had claimed that following a collision between a car driven by Rachel McKay and a car driven by Abdul Baser Dabia (insured by Elmo), Untours had filed proceedings before the Magistrates' Court. A judgment delivered in July 2004 had condemned Dabia to pay Untours a total of Lm3,477 as well as Lm35 to McKay.

However, according to Untours, once the case was decided Elmo told Untours that since Dabia was not in possession of a valid driving license, Elmo would not cover him.

Untours claimed that Elmo ought to have carried out proper research before accepting Dabia's premium and issuing an insurance cover for him and it called upon Elmo to fulfil its legal obligations and make good for the damages.

In its counter-protest however Elmo pointed out that when it was notified by Untours of the case filed before the Magistrates' Court it had immediately informed Untours of its position on the matter.

Elmo had pointed out that Dabia had not produced a valid driving licence and that there was therefore no insurance cover in his regard.

As a result, Untours could have taken action to secure its claim against Dabia but it had not done so and had, instead, chosen to resort to speculation and allegations against Elmo.

Elmo had issued its insurance policy in favour of Dabia after the latter had declared he had a valid driving licence. Once Dabia was shown not to have this license, then his insurance cover lapsed.

Elmo therefore called upon Untours to immediately stop its unfounded allegations and held the company liable in damages.