Litigants-in-the-Direct-Insurance-Claim-Cases-d
/ / Litigants in the Direct Insurance Claim Cases According to the Emirati Civil Law

Litigants in the Direct Insurance Claim Cases According to the Emirati Civil Law

Litigants in the Direct Insurance Claim Cases, According to the Emirati Civil Law and its Amendments
The Defendant in the direct claim is always the Insurer, but the Claimant is the aggrieved party, and the aggrieved party could be another party, and it is stipulated in all cases not to have been previously compensated against the harm. There is a third party in the claim that is the Insured and it may be intervened in some cases. WhatsApp: +971555570005

Litigants in the Direct Insurance Claim Cases, According to the Emirati Civil Law and its Amendments


The Defendant in the direct claim is always the Insurer, but the Claimant is the aggrieved party, and the aggrieved party could be another party, and it is stipulated in all cases not to have been previously compensated against the harm. There is a third party in the claim that is the Insured and it may be intervened in some cases. There are three important remarks:
(1) The Claimant is the aggrieved party or whoever replaces him.
(2) The aggrieved party should not have been previously compensated.
(3) Intervention of the Insured as a litigant in the case.
-The Claimant is the aggrieved party or whoever replaces him-
The Claimant in the first place is the aggrieved party, means the person affected because of fault of the Insured. In case he has died, there are his heirs. They could be harmed directly as well because of death of their Deceased, they then become original Claimant not only heirs. The aggrieved party may waive his right for a third party, and the referred to is the Claimant. They are all successors of the aggrieved party, whether general or designated successors.
In addition to successor of the aggrieved party, whoever replaces the aggrieved party could be a Claimant. His personal insurer may replace him, that the aggrieved party may have insurance on the same risk affected him, he may claim the insurer who contracted with him. Then, the insurer could replace him in claiming the responsible party. In claiming the insurer of the responsible party in the direct case, he becomes the Claimant in the latter case. Harm of the aggrieved party may result in compensation or reward by its employer, and abidance of the employer by paying this compensation or reward is a harm affected him because of fault of the responsible Insured, then he claims him because of this fault, and claims directly the insurer and becomes an original Claimant not a Claimant replacing the aggrieved party.
If there is more than one aggrieved party, or there is a Claimant replacing him, and the insurance amount is not enough to compensate them all, it should be considered if there is a party deserves more than others. We suppose that there are many aggrieved parties, as the Insured hit many persons and they all claimed the insurer directly and the insurance amount is not enough, here no party may deserve more than others, and the insurance amount should be divided between them as rivals. The insurance amount may be divided between the aggrieved party and his employer who gave him compensation or reward because of the harm affected him. He has been affected as well because of fault of the Insured, he can claim directly the insurer besides the aggrieved party and partake in the insurance amount as rivals. For the personal insurer of the aggrieved party, if he has compensated him partially in limits of the insurance amount, and replaced him in the direct claim against the insurer of the responsible party, and the aggrieved party claimed the insurer of the responsible party for the residual compensation, then the personal insurer of the aggrieved party and the aggrieved party may rival in the direct claim if the insurance amount is not enough to compensate them together, and then the aggrieved party deserves more than his personal insurer, because the creditor precedes who replaces him in fulfilling his residual.
– In case the aggrieved party not compensated, the Insured and the Insurer have several liability:
It is noted that the aggrieved party, in report of the direct case against the insurer, has two debtors for the compensation.
The beneficiary: the responsible Insured and he is debtor according to rules of responsibility, and the insurer under the direct case judgment, and both of them are debtors for one debt but they are severally not jointly responsible, according to the rules established in the direct case. The aggrieved party cannot gather them and claim against each of them, and if he receives his right from one of them, the other party becomes discharged. If he does not receive all his right from the insurer because the insurance amount is not enough, he can claim the responsible Insured.
From the aforementioned, if the aggrieved party fulfills his right from the Insured, he cannot claim the insurer directly as his right is fulfilled.
Even if he does not take all his right from the Insured, but he takes value of his money from the insurer under the direct case, means value of the insurance amount, he cannot claim directly against the insurer, as he fulfills a value equals to the insurance amount. Whether he fulfills the amount from the Insured or from the insurer, the insurer becomes discharged with this fulfillment, and the Insured can claim against the insurer.
It is stipulated then for the aggrieved party to be a Claimant in the direct case not to fulfill his right from the Insured, at least at limits of the insurance amount, and the aggrieved party fulfills his right from the Insured through payment. The Insured should give the aggrieved party his right and then claims against the insurer. The aggrieved party can take his right from the Insured through set-off, and this occasionally occurs in vehicles collision. The aggrieved party whose car collides with the Insured’s car may also be responsible before the Insured and becomes responsible for the two debts. The Insured may pay for the aggrieved party his right through set-off, but the insurer of each of them stays responsible towards the Insured for the debt paid by set-off. The aggrieved party may fulfill his right from the Insured through joint liability. If the Insured is an heir of the aggrieved party, right of the aggrieved party is settled by joint liability, and the Insured can claim the insurer not through the direct case but under the insurance contract, and right of the aggrieved party may elapse through prescription, and the aggrieved party claim the insurer directly, and the Insured may not claim the insurer in this case as the insured upon risk has not occurred.
Intervention of the Insured as litigant in the case:
We presented that settling the liability with the aggrieved party is often judicial. If the aggrieved party files a case against the Insured only without intervention of the insurer as litigant in the case, and acquires a judgment with liability and value of compensation- or the insurer acknowledges principle of liability and value of compensation. Here, acknowledgment of the Insured is not effective as it has no power over the insurer, and the aggrieved party cannot file the direct case against the insurer only without intervention of the Insured as litigant, as there is no need for intervention of the Insured as litigant as long as the insurer acknowledges principle of liability and value of compensation, or as long as there is a judicial judgment sentenced against the Insured with these two issues. If the aggrieved party acquires a judgment against the insurer besides the judgment acquired against the Insured, he can have the choice whether to execute against the insurer or the Insured, and if it is executed against one of them, it could not be executed against the other, as it becomes discharged according to rules of severalty aforementioned.
In most cases, if the aggrieved party files a case of responsibility against the Insured, the insurer intervenes in the case or is intervened by the Insured, until decided in liability and assurance together. This is previously aforementioned.
If the aggrieved party chooses, instead of filing the liability case against the Insured, to file the direct case against the insurer, and principle of liability or value of compensation has not been decided judicially or with acknowledgment of the insurer, then the Insured has to be intervened in the direct case in order to decide in principle of liability and value of compensation, as the aggrieved party files the direct case on basis that liability of the Insured is fixed and the compensation is valued. Liability of the Insured against the compensation is estimated as it is the basis of the direct case, and how liability can be confirmed and how value of compensation can be determined if the insurer does not acknowledge them, and there is no judgment against the Insured, who confronts the insurer, the real litigant in both cases? So, in this case, the aggrieved party has to intervene the Insured as a litigant in the direct case, and this is established upon in judiciary of the French Court of Appeal.



Attorney / Mohamed Al Marzooqi
Mohamed Al Marzooqi Advocates & Consultancy
Lawyer in Abu Dhabi, Dubai – UAE

Litigants in the Direct Insurance Claim Cases, According to the Emirati Civil Law and its Amendments
The Defendant in the direct claim is always the Insurer, but the Claimant is the aggrieved party, and the aggrieved party could be another party, and it is stipulated in all cases not to have been previously compensated against the harm. There is a third party in the claim that is the Insured and it may be intervened in some cases. . WhatsApp: +971555570005

Similar Posts