Who is responsible for my injuries in a crash involving a stolen car?
Unfortunately, it is not uncommon to have a stolen vehicle being at fault in a motor accident and these circumstances require careful consideration in terms of the relevant insurer.
Stolen Vehicle Crash Liability Under Qld Motor Accident Insurance Act
The provisions of the Motor Accident Insurance Act 1994 (Qld) (the ‘Act’) are silent on the issue of scenarios specifically involving stolen vehicles and there might be a good reason for it. Perhaps being too specific would be to the exclusion of all other circumstances and with that in mind, section 31 of the Act is clear in terms of the principles to be applied when dealing with the question of ‘who is the relevant insurer?’. For completeness, section 31(1) of the Act provides as follows:
‘(1) If personal injury is caused by, through or in connection with a motor vehicle, the insurer for the statutory insurance scheme is to be decided in accordance with the following principles—
(a) if the motor vehicle is an insured motor vehicle—the insurer under the CTP insurance policy is, subject to this division, the insurer;
(b) if the motor vehicle is not insured but a self-insurer is the registered owner—the self-insurer is the insurer;
(c) if the motor vehicle is not insured and a self-insurer is not the registered owner—the Nominal Defendant is the insurer;
(d) if the motor vehicle, or insurer under its CTP insurance policy, can not be identified—the Nominal Defendant is the insurer.’ [Emphasis added]
In a scenario involving a stolen vehicle and assuming that the registration plate is identified, section 31(1)(a) of the Act would suggest that the CTP insurer registered against the stolen vehicle is the relevant insurer. Indeed, by this method, the determination ignores the fact that the owner of the stolen vehicle not being involved and that is on account of the nature of CTP insurance being issued against the vehicle itself, rather than the owner of the vehicle.
The upshot of the above is that if you were involved in a crash caused by an at fault stolen vehicle, as long as the registration is identified, the claim would be lodged against the CTP insurer registered against the stolen vehicle.
What if it was a ‘hit and run’?
It is common that when a stolen vehicle is involved in a crash, it flees the scene without stopping to exchange details and making it a ‘hit and run’.
In a ‘hit and run’ scenario, more often than not, the at fault stolen vehicle goes unidentified and assuming this to be the case, section 31(1)(d) of the Act provides guidance on who might be the relevant insurer:
‘(1) If personal injury is caused by, through or in connection with a motor vehicle, the insurer for the statutory insurance scheme is to be decided in accordance with the following principles-
(d) if the motor vehicle, or insurer under its CTP insurance policy, can not be identified—the Nominal Defendant is the insurer.’ [Emphasis added]
In these kinds of situations, the difficulty is often that the registration of the at fault stolen vehicle were not obtained because they fled the scene and consequently, in the absence of any additional evidence, the CTP insurer cannot be identified. This being so, owing to the structure of CTP insurance scheme in Queensland, the Nominal Defendant becomes the relevant insurer answerable to any claim for personal injuries arising from the accident.
If you are involved in accident with an unidentified vehicle, there are very strict time limits that apply to CTP claims, and you should seek legal advice as soon as possible.
We are specialist motor accident lawyers and we pride ourselves on being available to people from all walks of life on their unique journey to recovery. If you have questions and would like to discuss with a lawyer in a confidential setting, please reach out to the author of this article.
If you have any queries regarding the article, please contact via Free Claim Checker or email us.
