The right of the injured to file a direct claim against insurance company First, the insurance contract is a written contract between two parties, the first WhatsApp: +971555570005
The right of the injured to file a direct claim against insurance company
First, the insurance contract is a written contract between two parties, the first party is the insurance company, and the second party is the owner of the motor vehicle.
Under this contract the insurance company is obliged to compensate the insured who is the owner of the motor vehicle for the damages that occurs to his motor vehicle as covered by the contract, in exchange for periodically installment paid by the insured.
In the United Arab Emirates, the compulsory insurance for motor vehicles is applied, the mandatory insurance is imposed by law on anyone who owns a motor vehicle moving on the roads.
This type of insurance states that the insurance company is responsible for compensating the third party affected by the traffic accident ,which may be the driver of the other motor vehicle as well as the injuries caused by the motor vehicle to pedestrians on the roads ,whether the damage is physical or material .
In this context ,the Dubai supreme court ruled in the appeal (no.94/2012 civil appeal) : the article (26) of law no.21 of 1995 concerning traffic ,and article (148) of ministerial resolution No.130/1997 issuing the executive regulations of that law , indicate that the legislator has adopted a system of compulsory insurance on motor vehicles for the benefit of others ,which gives the third party a subjective right reserved by law ,which provide him with capacity and interest to file his claim against the insurance company ,and claim compensation for the injuries and material damage ,without the right of the insurance company to argue against the injured by the exceptional conditions that exclude its liability for covering damage resulting from the use of the insured motor vehicle in accordance with the insurance contract, as the injured derive his right from the law directly, but the insurance company has the right To adhere to these exceptions against the insured only in accordance with the provisions of the contractual relationship between them.
That the previous judgement is dedicated to the goal and purpose of compulsory insurance … legislators wanted the insurance to be for the benefit of the injured person and not for the benefit of the insured and this is clear from the explicit text of Article (26) referred to by the judgement and the reason is to provide maximum protection for those affected by traffic accidents, Perhaps one of the most important consequences that resulted from the existence of direct claim of the injured person against the insurance company are:
1. The insurance company shall not argue by not receiving the insurance instalments against the injured person.
2. The insurance company cannot argue against the injured person by the insured’s violating the conditions of the insurance document as if he drove the vehicle without a driving license or driving it under the influence of alcoholic beverages … All these reasons, despite the gravity of the violations, do not affect the right of the injured person at all. As the insurance company is obliged to compensate the injured person and then refer to the insured in case of any violation.
3. In obligatory insurance, we note that the insurance company is obliged to cover intentional accidents, although intentional accidents in terms of origin cannot be covered because they contradict the principles of insurance, which stipulate that the risk must be probable, not certain and that it does not occur deliberately. But in obligatory insurance on vehicles, the insurance company is obliged to compensate the injured party even if the cause of the accident was the willful driver; the reason is that the insurance is in the interest of the injured and that the latter’s right derives from the law and a claim directly against the insurance company.
4. Moreover, if the accident resulted from the theft of the vehicle, and the thief who does not have a driver’s license committed a deliberate run-over accident, then the injured should refer to the insurance company on a direct claim, and the insurance company cannot invoke against him by any payment, because the insurance company is obliged to compensate him and my to refer to the culprit after that.
5. Because the right of the injured person is derived from the law and has a direct claim against the insurance company. Therefore, the other creditors will not have the right to compete with the injured in the amount of compensation which is an important advantage if the insurance is not compulsory and the perpetrator owes others ,the right of the injured will be included in the general guarantee and distributed between them by pro-rata.
Attorney / Mohamed Al Marzooqi
Mohamed Al Marzooqi advocates & Consultancy
Lawyer in Abu Dhabi, Dubai – UAE