Insurance contract

The Supreme Court (TS) has resolved a quite striking case, a motorcyclist fell because the front wheel slipped on a liquid that had been spilled on the roadway . That liquid came from a truck that was parked on the public road and that, before the accident, had been doing sewer cleaning . From there, the motorcyclist claimed compensation for his injuries (in addition to interest) and directed the claim against several people: the driver of the truck, the owner or holder of the vehicle, and the truck's insurer. The material damages had already been paid, but the conflict continued over the personal injuries and the interest.

The insurer attempted to free itself arguing, basically, that since the truck was parked it was not a “ traffic event ” and that, in reality, the truck was functioning as if it were a work machine (something like “industrial use”), so the mandatory insurance typical of vehicles would not apply. It also argued that it should not have to pay late interest.

The Supreme Court, however, opts for a broad interpretation and considers that the concept of “traffic event” can include situations in which the vehicle is stopped or immobilized between movements, as long as the damage is connected to its normal function related to transportation. Furthermore, in this case, it was not proven that the truck was acting solely as an “exclusive work machine.”

In terms of the procedure, the first instance rejected the claim ; then the Provincial Court acknowledged the responsibility and compensation (jointly); and finally the TS corrects a key point, also condemns the insurer to pay the late payment interest from the date of the accident, because its refusal to compensate was not deemed justified.