Analysis of the 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 its applicability to insurance policies.
The Context of the Judgment
The dispute concerns the claim for compensation made by S.G., heir of a doctor who died in an air crash. The insurance company UNIPOLSAI contested the validity of this claim, invoking the annual statute of limitations for the payment of compensation, but the Court of Appeal of Venice established that the limitation had been interrupted by a valid communication. The central issue was whether UNIPOLSAI could exercise its right of subrogation against the responsible airline.
Legal Principles Established by the Court
The Court confirmed that the right of subrogation arises ex lege and cannot be excluded by contractual clauses or behaviors of the parties that do not explicitly manifest the intention to waive such a right.
The Court of Cassation referred to Article 1916 of the Civil Code and clarified that the right of subrogation exists even in the presence of policies that do not have a purely indemnity function, as in the case of policies for fatal accidents. It also emphasized that the settlement agreement between the injured party and the civil liability insurer of the carrier did not impair the right of subrogation of the insurance company.
Conclusions and Practical Implications
The judgment Cass. No. 9380 of 2021 clarifies that, in the case of insurance policies for fatal accidents, the function of the insurance benefit is predominantly assistive and not indemnifying. 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 actions and ensure that subrogation rights are adequately protected.
Final Conclusion
Ultimately, the judgment provides an important clarification on the distinction between different types of policies and the rights of insurance companies. The legal implications of this orientation could influence future disputes concerning policies and the right of subrogation, making this case a significant reference point for operators in the legal and insurance sectors.
