The Tribune

By NEIL HARTNELL

Tribune Business Editor

nhartnell@tribunemedia.net

A Bahamian vehicle importer’s negligence claim against an insurance broker has been dismissed after the Supreme Court found he committed at least one Road Traffic Act violation.

Geslin Pierre, owner of GP Car Imports, had alleged that the failure of Shield Insurance Agents and Brokers to follow his instructions and cancel a third-party insurance policy on a 2009 Mitsubishi Colt exposed him to “humiliation and embarrassment” at the hands of the Royal Bahamas Police Force.

He claimed the broker had not only failed to “nullify” the policy but permitted Howard Tucker, to whom he sold the Mitsubishi Colt in March 2019, to renew it in his name for the year between January 2021 and January 2022.

During that period, the vehicle was involved in a “hit and run” accident on October 8, 2021, where the victim pursued the Mitsubishi Colt and eventually caught up with the driver who falsely identified himself as “Geslin Pierre”. This led to a series of events where Mr Pierre was arrested and detained by the Royal Bahamas Police Force and placed on its ‘Be on the Lookout’ list.

The vehicle importer, blaming Shield Insurance Agents and Brokers’ failure to cancel the insurance policy for triggering his misfortune and what he alleged was police harassment, initiated legal action against the company on April 5, 2022, for purported negligence and breaching its duty of care towards him.

However, Lloyd Howard Knowles, Shield Insurance’s principal, countered that Mr Pierre had failed to comply with the conditions required to cancel the Mitsubishi Colt’s coverage because he did not return the insurance certificate to the company.

Instead, the insurance certificate was in the possession of Mr Tucker, the vehicle’s purchaser, when he renewed the third-party coverage for the Mitsubishi Colt with Shield in Mr Pierre’s name. Mr Knowles said it was”not unusual” for clients to have a third party, such as Mr Tucker, renew coverage on their behalf provided there were no changes to the policy.

And, asserting that Mr Pierre had violated the Road Traffic Act’s section 28 by failing to remove his plates from the Mitsubishi Colt when he sold it, Mr Knowles also alleged that the GP Car Imports principal “may have engaged in the common but unlawful practice of selling vehicles as licensed and insured”.

That, though, was denied by Mr Pierre and the Supreme Court made no findings over the failure to remove the plates before the vehicle was sold. But Justice Neil Brathwaite, in an August 21, 2024, ruling found that the vehicle importer had breached the Road Traffic Act by not giving the insurance certificate back to Shield despite saying he was “well aware” of the required process.

Mr Pierre, in his claim, alleged that besides renewing the insurance policy in his name, even though he no longer owned the vehicle, and listing him as the “authorised driver”, Shield had also failed to verify whether he was still the Mitsubishi Colt’s owner and ensure he held “an insurable interest”.

“As a result of the defendant [Shield’s] negligence, the plaintiff has been arrested and detained for extended periods of time resulting in the deprivation of his right to liberty as a citizen of the Commonwealth of The Bahamas,” Mr Pierre’s claim alleged. 

“After the defendant permitted the third party to renew the insurance policy, the third party was permitted to operate the insured vehicle and commit criminal offences in the 2009 Mitsubishi Colt. As a result of the commission of these criminal offences, the plaintiff has been arrested and detained by the officers of the Royal Bahamas Police Force.

“The defendant caused the plaintiff to be subjected to humiliation and embarrassment as he was pulled over on numerous occasions by the officers of the Royal Bahamas Police Force for offences committed by the third party in the 2009 Mitsubishi Colt, namely a motor vehicle accident and the car not being adorned with licence plates.

Mr Pierre alleged that this resulted in him being placed in the Royal Bahamas Police Force’s ‘Be on the Lookout’ circular as a result of offences being committed by someone else using the vehicle, as well as causing harassment by both the police and traffic accident victims seeking compensation for losses suffered in collisions with the 2009 Mitsubishi Colt.

But Shield, in denying it was negligent, said Mr Pierre had failed to follow the process for cancelling insurance coverage. It added that the insurance certificate for the vehicle, which should have been returned to it, was instead in the possession of Mr Tucker who was able to renew it in Mr Pierre’s name.

Mr Knowles, in his evidence, said Mr Pierre and GP Car Imports had been a Shield client for four-and-a-half years from April 28, 2017, to November 1, 2021. The latter date was when the broker first became aware he had sold the Mitsubishi Colt as Monette Cartwright, the October 8, 2021, hit-and-run victim, sought to claim on the policy for damages she suffered in that accident.

Shield immediately cancelled the policy, which was effective for a year between January 18, 2021, and January 18, 2022, upon learning that the vehicle was not in Mr Pierre’s possession. Mr Knowles said the vehicle importer was fully aware of what was required to cancel an insurance policy as he had done this many times before for his business when an automobile was sold.

“Based on the fact that the alleged purchaser, Patrick Tucker, was in possession of the original insurance certificate in addition to the vehicle licence plates belonging solely to the plaintiff, it is my firm belief that the plaintiff may have engaged in the common local but unlawful practice of selling vehicles as licensed and insured,” Mr Knowles alleged.

“Had Mr Tucker not been provided with the insurance certificate by the plaintiff at the time of sale, Mr Tucker would not have known where the vehicle was insured.” Mr Knowles added that Mr Pierre’s failure to remove his licence plates from the Mitsubishi Colt, and allow Mr Tucker to retain them, would have resulted in him being detained by the police “in any event”.

“This is clearly negligence on the part of the plaintiff,” the Shield chief added. “This negligent act, as indicated before, is in direct contravention of section 28 of the Road Traffic Act chapter 220.” And, when the broker contacted Mr Pierre about renewing the Mitsubishi Colt’s insurance for 2020, he made no mention the vehicle had been sold.

Mr Knowles added that “it is not unusual for customers to have a third party renew a policy” on their behalf, adding that no “red flags” were raised when Mr Tucker appeared to renew it in January 2021 because no changes were requested.

Mr Pierre, in cross-examination, admitted that the nature of his business required him to licence and insure multiple vehicles. “He further accepted that he was well aware of the procedure to cancel a policy,” Justice Brathwaite said, noting that the Mitsubishi Colt was sold two months after he insured it.

“He denied selling the Colt as licensed and insured, and acknowledged signing the insurance contact and that the contractual procedure for cancellation of the policy was not followed,” the judge added. “He also admitted that he did not surrender the insurance certificate to the insurance company, as required by law, and stated he was not aware he could have taken the licence plates.”

And Shield argued that Mr Pierre “is entirely responsible for any misfortune he may have endured” by failing to surrender the insurance certificate and remove the licence plates before the vehicle was sold. It added that no evidence was supplied to support the negligence claim.

Justice Brathwaite, describing Mr Pierre as not “a credible witness”, found that Shield did not call him in March 2019 to inquire whether he wanted to renew the Mitsubishi Colt’s premium as this was not due to expire until January 2020. As a result, he rejected the vehicle importer’s contention that he informed the broker then that he had sold the vehicle.

“I further do not accept that the plaintiff ever cancelled the insurance policy in accordance with clause nine or at all,” Justice Brathwaite ruled. “That clause requires the insurance certificate to be returned, which the plaintiff accepts he never did, in breach of section 16 (1) (b) of the Road Traffic Act chapter 220.”

This requires the insured party to surrender the certificate to the insurer within 14 days of the policy’s cancellation. And Justice Brathwaite ruled that any contact between Mr Pierre and the police resulted from the former’s failure to remove the licence disc and plates, also finding that the vehicle importer was “solely responsible” for failing to surrender the insurance certificate.