The injured party has no claim against the insurer, as mandatory insurance does not cover the third party injured if the driver intentionally caused the accident.
A request for annulment was rejected against a decision according to which mandatory insurance for civil liability from car accidents does not cover the third party injured if the driver intentionally caused the accident (Supreme Court Decision 551/2021).
The relevant defense of exemption is brought by the International Insurance Bureau when it is sued for damage caused by a vehicle registered in a member state of the Unified Agreement on the International Insurance Bureau, as in the present case.
Specifically, the second-instance court ruled that the sole responsible party for the bodily injuries caused is the first defendant, who acted intentionally (with eventual intent), when, facing the plaintiff and being asked to exit his vehicle, he accelerated his vehicle towards the plaintiff by pressing the accelerator without attempting to avoid him, resulting in the plaintiff being hit and injured, accepting the possible consequences of his action.
The court held that the bodily injuries of the plaintiff were caused intentionally — with eventual intent — by the liable driver, and therefore, the plaintiff’s claims arising from the bodily injuries caused to him are excluded from insurance coverage under the detailed conditions described in the contested decision regarding the accident.
Accordingly, the court rightly dismissed as substantively unfounded the appeal of the appellant, accepting as essentially valid the defense of the defendant — the private legal entity “International Insurance Bureau” — that the plaintiff’s bodily injuries were caused intentionally — with eventual intent — by the liable party, and for this reason, the plaintiff’s claims arising from the bodily injuries caused to him are excluded from insurance coverage.
Among other grounds, the appeal reason according to which the court of appeal applied a law repealed since 2012 — specifically Article 19 of Presidential Decree 237/1986 as amended by Article 5 paragraph 1 of Presidential Decree 264/1991, which provided that the Auxiliary Fund was obliged to compensate injured parties if the accident was caused intentionally by the driver — was rejected. Those Presidential Decrees have been repealed by Article 4 paragraph 1 of Law 4092/2012, meaning that the injured party has no other possibility for compensation for bodily injuries except to sue the natural person responsible, with all the implications this entails, thus creating inequality before the law.
However, according to the court’s reasoning, in the present case the above repealed provision was not applied, but rather Article 6 paragraph 1 subparagraph b (last paragraph of Law 489/1976, as codified by Presidential Decree 237/1986 and supplemented by later laws), which provides:
“1. Insurance must cover the civil liability of the owner, possessor, and every driver or person entrusted with driving or responsible for the insured vehicle. Civil liability of persons who took possession of the vehicle by theft or violence and those who caused the accident intentionally is excluded.”
This legal principle was referred to extensively in the contested decision regarding the issue of intentional causation of the accident and the exclusion of insurance coverage in this case. Furthermore, the reference in the same decision’s reasoning that the defendant may seek satisfaction either from the liable party himself or from the Auxiliary Fund did not influence the evidentiary conclusions regarding this matter.
