How Do I Prove the Vehicle Was Insured?

Since the 2021 repeal of the uninsured-vehicle paragraph, a claim against MVIL stands or falls on one fact: that the vehicle was “a motor vehicle insured under this Act” at the time of the accident. The cases on how that fact is proved were decided under the old law, when the point decided only which paragraph applied; they now decide whether there is a claim at all.

Onus and standard of proof

The Supreme Court stated the rule in Motor Vehicles Insurance Ltd v Kawage [2014] PGSC 57; SC1362: a person claiming damages under the Act has the onus of proving that the injury was caused by or arose out of the use of a motor vehicle in the circumstances section 54(1) prescribes; the standard is the balance of probabilities; and “in some circumstances it will be necessary to prove that the vehicle was insured”. After 2021 it is necessary in every case.

Strict proof when MVIL disputes it

Two National Court decisions from 1992 set the tone. In Ambom v MVIT [1992] PGNC 37; N1116 Brown J required strict proof of registration and insurance. In Alo v MVIT [1992] PGLawRp 629; [1992] PNGLR 487 the same judge dismissed a claim where the statement of claim alleged the vehicle was registered and insured but no certificate of registration or insurance was produced and the oral evidence conflicted: “the conflict of evidence left the Court with no basis for a presumption of insurance”. The Supreme Court approved both decisions in Kuri v Motor Vehicles Insurance Ltd [2011] PGSC 26; SC1117. There, the deceased had fallen from a forklift; MVIL denied registration and insurance; the only evidence was the police accident report, and there was nothing to show that the officer’s entries had come from a search of the Motor Traffic Registry. The trial judge was entitled to find the statutory requirements unproved, and the appeal was dismissed.

What has been enough

The courts do not insist on the certificate itself. In Waine v MVIT [1993] PGLawRp 551; [1993] PNGLR 446 the unchallenged oral evidence of a police witness as to the registration number, the expiry date of the registration, the existence of a third party policy and the registration papers was held sufficient, “notwithstanding the lack of a safety sticker and a traffic registry search”. In Oni v MVIT [2004] PGNC 16; N2767 registration and insurance were proved “by observation” of the vehicle’s stickers. And in MVIL v Kawage the Supreme Court held that it “will not always be necessary to produce in evidence a certificate of insurance, for example where a police investigating officer gives evidence of the details of insurance and the MVIL does not take the opportunity to effectively rebut” it. In Kumbe v MVIL [2005] PGNC 110; N2860 the plaintiff’s evidence of insurance, corroborated by the police investigation, was accepted where MVIL called no evidence at all.

The difference between Kuri and Kawage is not a conflict. Where MVIL contests insurance and the claimant’s evidence is second-hand, the claimant loses; where the evidence comes from a witness who checked, and MVIL does not rebut it, the claimant wins. MVIL is the only body that knows for certain whether a premium was paid, and its silence in the face of specific evidence is telling.

How to gather the proof

1. Registration number. Record it at the scene, from witnesses, or from the police.
2. Police road accident report. It records the registration and insurance details the officer found. Ask the officer to state, in an affidavit, how he obtained them.
3. Motor Traffic Registry search. A search certificate showing the registration status on the date of the accident is the best evidence; because insurance is issued with registration (sections 49 and 50), current registration proves insurance.
4. Section 63 demand. The owner must, on demand by or on behalf of the claimant, state whether the vehicle was insured; refusing or lying is an offence with a fine of up to K500.
5. The 15-day rule. Check the expiry date against the accident date. Under section 49(2)(c) the cover continues for 15 days after registration expires, or until renewal if renewed within 15 days.
6. Discovery and admissions. Once proceedings are on foot, serve a notice to admit facts and seek discovery of MVIL’s records for the vehicle.

Pleading it

The statement of claim must allege that the vehicle was registered and insured under the Act at the material time, and identify the vehicle. A pleading that merely recites section 54 is insufficient: Kei v MVIT [1992] PGLawRp 588; [1992] PNGLR 195. Where the plaintiff pleads one thing and proves another — an uninsured vehicle pleaded, an insured one proved, as in Dup v MVIT [1995] PGNC 54; N1403 — the court may allow an amendment if MVIL is not prejudiced (George v MVIT [1993] PGLawRp 556; [1993] PNGLR 477), but the safer course is to plead the true position from the outset. In John v MVIL [2022] PGNC 400; N9973 the claim was dismissed because the plaintiff “has not proved that her injury arose out of the use of a vehicle and the vehicle was insured”.