Commentary on Ordinance No. 19148 of 2024: Unconstitutionality and Prescription in Life Insurance

The recent ruling by the Court of Cassation, Ordinance No. 19148 of 2024, provides an important reflection on the regulation of prescription in the field of life insurance. The central issue revolves around the declaration of unconstitutionality of Article 2952, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code and its consequences on existing legal relationships. In this article, we will analyze the details of the ruling and its practical implications for citizens and legal professionals.

The Regulatory Context and the Ruling

The Constitutional Court, with ruling No. 32 of 2024, declared the illegitimacy of Article 2952, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code, which established a particularly short prescription period for disputes concerning life insurance. This decision has sparked extensive debate, especially regarding its application to legal relationships that already existed at the time of the ruling's publication.

In general, regarding life insurance, the declaration of unconstitutionality of Article 2952, paragraph 2, of the Civil Code, as introduced by Article 3, paragraph 2-ter, of Decree Law No. 134 of 2008, converted with amendments into Law No. 166 of 2008, as per the ruling of the Constitutional Court No. 32 of 2024, also extends to legal relationships that arose prior to the publication of the decision in the Official Gazette (March 6, 2024), provided they are still pending and, that is, not exhausted by res judicata, so that the latter are subject, under Article 2946 of the Civil Code, to the ordinary prescription period of ten years.

This maxim highlights how the illegitimacy of the article extends to already existing legal relationships, provided they are still pending. This means that the prescription period, normally ten years as established by Article 2946 of the Civil Code, becomes applicable to legal situations that predate the ruling.

The Practical Implications of the Ruling

The consequences of this ruling are multiple and of great relevance for those operating in the insurance sector and for consumers. Here are some key points:

  • The recognition of an ordinary prescription period for pending disputes, thereby providing greater protection for policyholders.
  • The enhancement of legal protection for consumer rights, which will no longer be subject to excessively short prescription periods.
  • Greater clarity on the regulation of life insurance, contributing to a fairer and more just legal system.

These implications underscore the importance of the ruling not only for individual cases but also for the stability of the insurance sector as a whole.

Conclusions

In conclusion, Ordinance No. 19148 of 2024 represents an important step forward in the protection of policyholders' rights and in defining the rules regarding prescription. The decision of the Constitutional Court not only clarifies the applicability of the declaration of unconstitutionality to pre-existing relationships but also contributes to an overall improvement in the regulation of life insurance in Italy. It will be essential to continue monitoring the jurisprudential evolution in this area to ensure that citizens' rights are always protected and respected.

Bianucci Law Firm