Cass. civ., VI Section - 3, Order no. 25849 of 2021: Recognition of Damages from Incidents Caused by Domestic Animals

The recent order of the Court of Cassation, no. 25849 of 2021, offers important clarifications regarding insurance coverage for damages caused by domestic animals. In particular, the case examined highlighted the interpretative difficulties related to exclusionary clauses in insurance policies, especially in relationships between family members. The decision focuses on an incident in which the appellant, T.R., was injured by her son's dog, S.C., and the consequent exclusion of insurance coverage by Helvetia Swiss Insurance Company.

The Case and Legal Issues

In the specific case, T.R. suffered damages following an incident caused by her son's dog. The insurance company refused compensation, arguing that damages inflicted on non-cohabiting parents were not covered by the policy. The Court of Appeal of Rome upheld this interpretation, stating that the exclusionary clause applied regardless of cohabitation. However, T.R. appealed this decision, arguing that the exclusion only applied to cohabiting relatives.

Arguments of the Court of Cassation

The Court of Cassation, examining the appeal, highlighted the importance of a clear and unambiguous interpretation of insurance clauses. It emphasized that, according to the principle of interpretation contra stipulatorem, in case of ambiguity, the meaning of the clause must be interpreted in favor of the non-drafting party. The Court observed that the text of the clause was not unambiguous and that cohabitation could not be considered an exclusive requirement for parents. Furthermore, it pointed out that the rationale behind the exclusionary clause was linked to the higher probability of damage arising from cohabitation, not from the kinship relationship itself.

The Court stressed that the interpretation of insurance clauses must take into account clarity and comprehensibility, avoiding the attribution of ambiguous meanings without clear justification.

Implications and Conclusions

The decision of the Court of Cassation has significant implications for the management of insurance policies and for the rights of injured parties. For family members, in particular, it is crucial to understand that coverage exclusions cannot be applied indiscriminately but must be interpreted based on the context and the rationale of the clause. This ruling represents a step forward in protecting the rights of injured parties, reiterating the importance of a fair and correct interpretation of contractual provisions.