The Supreme Court considered that the insurer was not responsible for the prolonged repair, unless the cause is objective, which determines life experience and current knowledge.
Resolution dated 15 February 2019 The Supreme Court after the Civil Chamber has examined a legal question on the reference no. III CZP 84/18, stated that ‘The liability of the civil liability insurer of the motor vehicle holder also covers the deliberate and economically justifiable expenses incurred by the victim for the hire of the replacement vehicle during the extended repair period, unless they are a consequence of circumstances for which the injured person or person is responsible third”.
Insurers cannot be liable for prolonged repairs if civil or criminal liability is attributable to this particular state of affairs, whether to the injured person or to the person third
The legal problem arose as a result of a situation where the repair period, and therefore the rental period of a replacement car, extended due to the entity's action third, external to the perpetrator and the victim.
In its resolution, the Supreme Court stated that the causal link between the damage to communication and the duration of the prolonged repair was objective (Article 361(1) k.c.), because if there were no collision, the victim's car would not have been in the workshop and would not have been affected by the situation of prolonged repair.
second The question is whether this relationship is normal, adequate. The Supreme Court has indicated that prolonged repair is not an abnormal, unusual phenomenon.
At this point it should be pointed out that the doctrine assumes that the normal consequences of the event from which the injury occurred are the consequences which such an event is in general capable of causing in the ordinary course of things, and not merely because of a particular coincidence.
Within the normal course of events, liability for damage may cause not only a direct cause, but also a further indirect cause. The qualification of consequences as normal is determined by an assessment based on objective circumstances using life experience and current indications of knowledge.
The question is when the causal relationship will be interrupted. Because the fact that he exists does not mean that the insurer will be responsible for the actions of the person. third Or the victim. The consequences of negligence on the injured person or persons cannot be passed on to the insurer third.
The Supreme Court considered that it would be decisive to determine whether we are dealing with deliberate and economically justified expenditure. Insurers cannot be liable for prolonged repairs if civil or criminal liability is attributable to this particular state of affairs, whether to the injured person or to the person third. If the cause is objective, in such a situation the injured person cannot be held liable and any costs associated with the elimination of the damage are borne by the insurer.
The Supreme Court therefore accepted a fair, reasonable compromise between the interest of the insurer and the protection interest of the injured person, who should cooperate in the resolution of the damage.
Author: Michał Wasilenko
Lawyer, Associate in the Legal Department, member of the Bar Association in Lublin, graduate of the Faculty of Law and Administration at Maria Curie-Skłodowska University in Lublin. He specializes in commercial and civil law law.