Omar Anderson, Gleaner Writer
INSURANCE COMPANIES offering third-party motor vehicle coverage could soon be required to make retroactive payments to clients who have already received minimum payments.
But Opposition Leader Bruce Golding yesterday urged caution in enacting retroactive legislation.
Yesterday, a debate on the the bill, An Act to Amend the Motor Vehicles Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act, was suspended in the House of Representatives to allow the Government and Opposition to confer on the proposal made by Foreign Affairs Minister K.D. Knight.
In a private member's motion, attorney-at-law Senator Arthur Williams piloted and had the bill passed in the Senate on September 16, following certain amendments. Yesterday, Audley Shaw, Opposition spokesman on finance and the public service, piloted the bill in the Lower House.
MINIMUM PAYMENT SCHEME UNJUST
In 2002, the Court of Appeal dismissed a $550,000 award against Globe Insurance Company, which had disbursed a $200,000 minimum payment to a client who had paid premiums for the maximum $750,000 coverage. However, the Appeal Court stated that while it was bound to overturn the Supreme Court's award, the minimum payment scheme was unjust.
Yesterday, Mr. Knight, an attorney-at-law, said a bill of this kind is not usually given retroactive effect following the Governor-General's assent. He, however, pleaded for there to be an exception to the rule.
"This, to my mind, is perhaps the kind of statute that could be given retroactive effect and I want us to consider it," he argued, "because it would be no injustice to the company because the company collects premium."
He suggested that the debate be suspended until next Tuesday, during which time Senator A.J. Nicholson, Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, and Mr. Williams would have consultation.
In his contribution, Mr. Golding lauded Senator Williams, who was present in the gallery, and also Government members for supporting the bill.
He said, however, that while the Opposition was open to dialogue on Mr. Knight's proposal, it had consistently opposed the enacting of retroactive legislation.
"We are extremely apprehensive about retroactive legislation," he said. "We hold a principled position on it and it's a principle we would seek to rationalise only in very extreme circumstances."
