http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKPC/2015/47.html

The Bahamas has no equivalent of the UK's Motor Insurers' Bureau (ie a compensation fund for the victims of uninsured drivers). The Court of Appeal of the Bahamas in this case had held (somewhat controversially) that the claimant's claim against the negligent driver of a bus owned by a bus company (CCT) fell within the scope of the policy issued to CCT, even though the driver had not been listed as one of the 11 authorised drivers in the insurance certificate.

That decision has now been overturned by the Privy Council. It had been argued that the focus should be on the policy, rather than the certificate, but the Board has held that "it is clear that the policy must be read with the Certificate. The Certificate is not only said in the policy Introduction to “comprise” part of and be “the most important component of” the policy, it is in any event referred at various key points in the policy". Furthermore, the policy itself was clear as to its scope. It was wrong to suggest that the driver in this case should be covered in order to give "business efficacy" to the policy: The policy did cover drivers, but they had to be listed as authorised drivers.

In reaching its decision, the Board agreed with the Court of Appeal that the legislature should consider introducing measures to tackle this issue and to ensure that the victims of uninsured drivers are not left without compensation.