The Single-Member Court of First Instance (MPrileias 139/2021) dismissed as unfounded the appeal of the Single Social Security Agency as the quasi-universal successor to the Social Security Institution.
The appellant, arguing that, for the benefits due for partial disability as a result of an injury sustained by its insured person in a traffic accident, it was subrogated by law to the latter’s claim for compensation against the party that caused the injury, requested the payment of partial disability, main and supplementary pension benefits on behalf of the liable party.
According to the provisions of Article 10(5) of Legislative Decree 4104/1960, as replaced by Article 18(1) of Law 4476/1965 and Article 18 of Legislative Decree 1654/1986, it follows that IKA, for insurance benefits owed to insured persons who are entitled to compensation for damage caused to them due to illness, disability or, as in this case, injury, is subrogated by law to the amount of insurance benefits owed to the injured party in the latter’s claim against the injuring party. This subrogation occurs by operation of law and dates back to the time when the damage occurred.
With regard to the issue of extending the limitation period for the appellant’s claims, the court ruled that, since the damage suffered by the victim was foreseeable in the normal course of events from the outset, the appellant’s claim for compensation for all damages, actual and consequential, present or future, arose as soon as the damaging event, i.e. the accident and injury, occurred.
In particular, the court found that the insured’s state of health due to the accident and his resulting inability to work during the period in question was foreseeable from the outset in the normal course of events. No evidence was presented, nor did the appellant claim, that, apart from the insured person’s initial serious injury, there were any further complications with his health that constituted an unexpected development of the situation and justified a new limitation period starting from the time when the consequences in question appeared.
It pointed out that the decisions of the Director of the Social Security Institution, which extended the insured person’s ordinary and partial disability pension due to the accident in question for the period in question, are relevant for determining the final amount of the claim transferred to the appellant by the injured insured person and do not constitute a condition for the origin of the appellant’s claim in the first place. The opposite view, according to which the origin of the appellant’s claim for compensation against the liable party depends on the issuance of a decision by the competent body of the Social Security Institution (IKA), would be contrary to Article 18 of Law 1456/1986, which links the transfer of the injured party’s claim for compensation to the origin of the claim, and would also postpone the start of the limitation period, linking it to an act (the issuance of an act by the competent body of the Social Security Institution) that falls within the sphere of influence of the creditor itself, with the result that, in essence, the limitation period is extended to the detriment of the debtor.
