Obsolescence of this case raises wonder where that opinion may reach the degree of consensus in legal thought that the direct action of an injured from car accidents in the face of the insurer (insurance company) become obsolete the lapse of three years from the date of the occurrence of harmful act .Although the Court of Cassation see, according to the rule of [Article (752 / b) civilian], it should enter into force from the date of obsolescence availability of real science injured in the incident ([1]) . At which time the lawsuit become obsolete injured in the face of the defendant (the official) lapse of three years from the date of knowledge of the damage and asked about.
We estimate that this opinion under consideration for the following:
First - that the introduction makes direct that the case of an injured in the face of the insurer (insurance company) falling at a time remains the compensation claim in the face of the official (insured) List . How can that be? Believer it does not have a conclusion of the insurance contract with the insurer and fulfill his insurance premiums only in order to avoid the risk insured him a claim for compensation . In the logic of this view might take place this danger can not injured or official claim the insured amount of compensation, when expired three years from the date of knowledge that there TORT . Second because he can not claim in the amount of insurance unless the fulfillment of an injured or student - in this case - is achieved insured risk it. And I can not insured's claim for compensation only if he has real science of the damage and asked him, knows the damage he did not know of this charge during this term was knew about it then.
Secondly - Article (752) civilian Having developed the general rule for prescription claims arising from the insurance contract expiry of three years from the time of the tort . Decided in its second paragraph that this period shall not apply in the two cases our stuff to the provisions of item (b), which states that "in the event of an accident insured him only day he learned with regard Thereof".
The question which arises, in this regard, is what the incident is insured him (insured risk it) within the scope of compulsory insurance of liability for auto accidents? Is the accident? Or claim compensation? .Legal logic requires when answering to say that this risk does not verify the incident, but achieved the claim . Because the first check without a second check does not serve its insured risk, and say to the contrary lead to say that the insurer guarantees the insured non-occurrence of harmful act and this is not able to humans . Thus, the insurer believes the insured from being a claim and building be insured risk is to claim the occurrence of harmful act.
In light of this result, and the provision of item (b) above, it can be said that the limitation direct proceedings for an injured in the face of the insurer (insurance company) fall Shortest term:
- For aging compensation claim that the first in the face of the official (insured) .
- Or the lapse of three years from the date of verification insured risk it .
To say otherwise lead to enrich the insured at the expense of the insured for no reason.
([1]) Denunciation of Civil Appeal No. 1072 of the year 64 BC - 15.1.1995 session (publication in the journal of the judges, the twenty-eighth year - the first and second number - January December 1996).
التسميات
Liability Insurance