Bermuda has one of the highest rates of road traffic accident fatalities in the world, given the size of its population.Although it is illegal to drink and drive, drive at speeds in excess of 35 km per hour, and fail to wear a seatbelt, these are still the causes of many injuries sustained in car accidents on Bermuda’s narrow, winding roads.What many drivers in Bermuda do not realize, is that under Bermuda law (section 4 of the Motor Car Insurance (Third Party Risks) Act 1943), dangerous and drunk driving might leave them without any insurance cover in excess of the statutory minimum of $125,000 (any one claim) or $500,000 (all claims arising out of one accident).Beyond that, they may be personally liable to compensate their victims, out of their own resources.In many cases, the damages involved would bankrupt most individuals.And what some passengers do not realize, in turn, is that failure to wear a seatbelt can substantially reduce their compensation in the event of an injury that was not otherwise their fault.These points are illustrated by the recent case of Thomson v Colonial Insurance Company Limited [2013] SC (Bda) 49 Civ, in which the Supreme Court of Bermuda considered various coverage and liability issues arising out of a motor insurance policy claim.The insured driver, Mr. Thomson, was involved in a road traffic accident, in which his wife, the front seat passenger, sustained serious personal injuries, resulting in her making a claim for damages against her husband as the insured driver, and him making a claim, in turn, against his Insurers.Insurers denied liability under the policy on the basis of allegations that the insured driver had been driving illegally at the time of the accident, in excess of the speed limit and under the influence of excess alcohol.Insurers also asserted a contributory negligence defence against the claimant passenger, on the basis of allegations that she was not wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident, and had allowed herself to be driven in a car when she knew that her husband was under the influence of excess alcohol.The Court rejected the illegality defences, since Insurers could not prove, on the evidence, that the accident was caused by the insured driver driving at a deliberately or recklessly dangerous speed, or that the insured driver was driving over the legal limit at the time of the accident.However, the Court noted that, if it had been established on the evidence that the insured driver was driving over the legal blood alcohol limit, this would have been a cause of the accident and Insurers would have been entitled to avoid liability under the Policy, as a matter of Bermuda law and under the terms of the policy.The Court found as a fact that the injured passenger was not wearing her seat belt at the time of the accident, but rejected the allegation that she had knowingly allowed herself to be driven in a car when she knew that her husband was under the influence of excess alcohol.However, the Court recognized that both allegations, if established on the facts, could result in a finding of contributory negligence.Although the issue of the appropriate percentage deduction to be applied to the injured passenger’s claim due to her failure to wear a seat belt has not yet been decided, the Supreme Court of Bermuda has shown some willingness to follow the English guidelines first set down in Froom v Butcher [1976] QB 286 (which continue to suggest that a deduction would be applied in most cases in the range of 15 percent to 25 percent, despite recent attempts by British insurers to have the levels increased).So what’s the moral of the story?When in Bermuda, take your time; don’t drink and drive; and always wear your seatbelt!Alex Potts is a Special Counsel at Sedgwick Chudleigh. He can be reached at alex.potts@sedgwicklaw.com