NO OBLIGATION OF INSURANCE COMPANY TO PAY COMPENSATION IN CASE OF VEHICLE THEFT DUE TO GROSS NEGLIGENCE OF THE OWNER

In its recent ruling no. 210/2023, the Supreme Civil and Criminal Court of Greece (Areios Pagos) held that the insurance company, with which the stolen vehicle was insured, is not obliged to pay the stipulated compensation if the theft occurred due to the gross negligence of the vehicle’s owner.
Specifically, in this case, the claimant had insured the vehicle with the defendant insurance company against risks including theft, up to the amount of €90,000. The vehicle in question was stolen by unknown individuals during the night while it was parked in the parking area of a restaurant located on the beach of Fanari, a restaurant operated by the owner himself, which was closed at the time.
It is noted that, according to the facts established before the Court:
• The vehicle had no visual or audible alarm system.
• There was no artificial lighting in the area.
• The location was not illuminated nor visible from any nearby residence, meaning that any movements or individuals in the area during the night could not be detected.
• Furthermore, it was not proven whether there were any other vehicles parked in the area at the time of the theft, apart from the claimant’s vehicle.
According to the Court’s judgment, these conditions were, from an objective standpoint, favorable to facilitating the theft of the vehicle—particularly given that it was completely exposed in a dark and remote location. Considering these circumstances, along with the fact that other luxury vehicle thefts had previously occurred in the same area, the Court concluded that the claimant himself was or should have been aware that the risk of theft was significantly increased.
According to Article 7(5) of Law 2496/1997, the insurer is relieved of the obligation to pay compensation if the insured event occurs due to intent or gross negligence in the case of property insurance, and due to intent only in the case of personal insurance, whether by the policyholder, the insured, the beneficiary, or other persons listed in the same paragraph.
Furthermore, under Article 11 of the same law, insurance against the risk of total or partial theft of an object is considered property insurance, in which case compensation consists in the restoration of the loss when the insured event occurs. However, such compensation may not exceed either the extent of the insured loss or the insured amount (Supreme Court Decision 930/2020).
In the case at hand, the Supreme Court (Areios Pagos), with its decision no. 210/2023, held that the vehicle owner indeed acted with gross negligence by parking the vehicle in the specific parking area and leaving it unattended throughout the night, failing to foresee that parking his insured vehicle under the aforementioned conditions could lead to its theft.
This deviation from the behavior of a reasonable and diligent insured person was deemed substantial, unusual, and particularly serious, indicating the owner’s complete disregard for the consequences his actions might have on the insurance coverage.