LAWYERS haven’t proved that Ally McCoist should pay a £244,000 claim brought by an insurance company over his son’s dangerous driving, a judge has heard.

Lawyers acting for McCoist asked judge Lord Menzies to dismiss the claim brought against him by Aviva during a hearing at the Court of Session on Thursday.

The company has gone to Scotland’s highest civil court in a bid to recover the sum from the Rangers legend.

The insurers believe that Ally, 60, failed to stop his uninsured son Argyll, 24, from driving an Audi which struck Stephan Murdoch in Bishopton, Renfrewshire, in December 2016.

Argyll later pleaded guilty to driving without insurance and causing serious injury to Mr Murdoch by driving dangerously in a high speed hit and run. Argyll’s victim was left with a brain injury and fractured skull because of the incident.

On Thursday, Ally’s lawyer Alan Cowan said the case against his client should be thrown out.

He said: "Even at its highest, the pursuer's case fails. The matters relied on in the pleadings are insufficient."

Mr Cowan was speaking on the third day of proceedings at the Edinburgh court.

Aviva has taken Ally and Argyll to court because of what happened following the collision.

Legal papers state that Ally had bought the car at the centre of the case and had it insured with Aviva. They add that Ally was the only person covered by the insurance policy.

Argyll was able to drive the car as he obtained a policy with More Than which the firm later cancelled.

Documents tell of how Mr Murdoch raised a legal action against Aviva because it was the insurance company responsible for the Audi which struck him.

Mr Murdoch obtained a legal order which forced Aviva to pay out £200,000 to him. The firm was also liable for £44,000 in expenses.

Aviva is now suing Ally and Argyll for the £244,000 which it paid out as a consequence of the action.

The insurance company believes that Ally should be liable for the cost as the policy for the Audi didn’t cover Argyll.

Lawyers for the firm also believe that Ally didn’t do enough to ensure his son couldn’t take charge of the vehicle.

Ally is contesting the action.

He says that he took every measure he could to ensure that his son couldn’t drive the car.

Argyll is also contesting the claim arguing that he shouldn’t be liable for the costs.

On Thursday, Mr Cowan said Ally told his son that he was not allowed to use the car and if that was established that was "determinative" of the case.

Mr Cowan said the insurers seemed to be suggesting that McCoist ought to have realised the likelihood of the car being driven by his teenage son.

He said: "In my submission there simply is not evidence to support that. Indeed the evidence is to the contrary, that the first defender was entitled to assume the car would not be driven by his son."

He said: "It was never suggested to him that he ought to have realised his son may ignore his instructions to drive the car."

Mr Cowan told the court that passing the keys to the car to his son's mother was "consistent with him enforcing the ban".

"It is not authorising the first defender's ex-wife to permit the second defender to drive under any circumstances," he said.

Nick Ellis KC, for the insurers, said that the "use of the car was permitted" by McCoist and he should be held liable after the vehicle and its keys were made available to the son.

Lord Menzies told the lawyers he’d issue his decision in the case sometime in the near future.