Cass. civ., Sez. VI - 3, Ord. n. 25849 of 2021: Recognition of Damage from Incidents Caused by Domestic Animals

The recent ruling of the Court of Cassation, n. 25849 of 2021, provides important clarifications regarding insurance coverage for damages caused by domestic animals. In particular, the case examined highlighted the interpretative difficulties related to the exclusion clauses of 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 this case, T.R. suffered damages following the 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 exclusion clause applied regardless of cohabitation. However, T.R. appealed this decision, arguing that the exclusion only concerned cohabiting relatives.

The Arguments of the Court of Cassation

The Court of Cassation, reviewing the appeal, emphasized the importance of a clear and unambiguous interpretation of insurance clauses. It pointed out that, according to the principle of contra stipulatorem interpretation, in cases of ambiguity, the meaning of the clause must be interpreted in favor of the non-drafting party. The Court noted that the wording of the clause was not unequivocal and that cohabitation could not be considered an exclusive requirement for parents. Furthermore, it highlighted that the rationale behind the exclusion clause was linked to the higher likelihood of damage resulting from cohabitation, not from the family relationship itself.

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

Bianucci Law Firm