Analysis of Judgment Cass. Civ. No. 9380 of 2021: Subrogation and Insurance Policies

The judgment of the Court of Cassation No. 9380 of 2021 represents an important reference point for understanding the regulation of insurance against fatal accidents and the issue of subrogation. In this article, we will delve into the main legal aspects addressed by the Court, particularly regarding the right of subrogation of insurance companies and their applicability to insurance policies.

Context of the Judgment

The dispute concerns a claim for compensation by S.G., heir of a doctor who died in an airplane accident. The insurance company UNIPOLSAI had contested the validity of this claim, invoking the one-year statute of limitations for the payment of compensation, but the Court of Appeal of Venice had ascertained that the statute of limitations had been interrupted by a valid communication. The central issue was whether UNIPOLSAI could exercise the right of subrogation against the responsible air carrier.

Legal Principles Established by the Court

The Court confirmed that the right of subrogation arises by law and cannot be excluded by contractual clauses or conduct of the parties that do not explicitly manifest the intention to waive such right.

The Court of Cassation referred to Article 1916 of the Italian Civil Code and clarified that the right of subrogation exists even in the presence of policies that do not have a purely compensatory function, as in the case of policies for fatal accidents. It also emphasized that the settlement agreement between the injured party and the carrier's civil liability insurer did not prejudice the insurance company's right of subrogation.

Conclusions and Practical Implications

Judgment Cass. No. 9380 of 2021 clarifies that, in the case of insurance policies for fatal accidents, the function of the insurance benefit is primarily welfare-oriented and not compensatory. This implies that the right of subrogation cannot be limited by settlement agreements that release the insured from further claims. Insurance companies must therefore be cautious in managing their recourse and ensure that subrogation rights are adequately protected.

Final Conclusion

Ultimately, the judgment offers an important clarification on the distinction between different types of policies and the rights of insurance companies. The legal implications of this ruling could influence future disputes concerning policies and the right of subrogation, making this case a significant reference point for legal and insurance professionals.