Competence Disputes Relating to Liability of the Insurance Guarantee Fund and an Insurance Undertaking on the Background of Compulsory Motor Liability Insurance - Practical and Legislative Solutions

Sława Cwalińska - Weychert, Iwona Kaja
{"title":"Competence Disputes Relating to Liability of the Insurance Guarantee Fund and an Insurance Undertaking on the Background of Compulsory Motor Liability Insurance - Practical and Legislative Solutions","authors":"Sława Cwalińska - Weychert, Iwona Kaja","doi":"10.5604/01.3001.0013.5638","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The authors of this article, having analyzed the role of the Insurance Guarantee Fund in the compulsory insurance system, show the most significant differences in the liability of motor liability insurers and the IGF towards the injured. In their opinion, the identified differences in the liability principles and the differences in the interpretation of the applicable laws are the most frequent sources of competence disputes between insurance undertakings and the Fund, particularly about the competence of one of them in the claims settlement of victims of incidents involving unidentified perpetrators. On the one hand, these disputes are essentially held over formal issues, such as the existence or non-existence of insurance cover of the perpetrator and, on the other hand, \nover substantive ones, namely the recognition of the liability of either the IGF or the insurer in the circumstances of the event. Owing to their complex nature these disputes are frequently long-lasting, which results in the victims waiting for an extremely long time for their compensation. The authors emphasize that in the European Union the above problem has already been identified and was mostly regulated by the Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability. In Article 11 of the regulation it is stated that in the event of a dispute between the guarantee institution and the insurer, about determining who must compensate the victim, the Member States are required to designate one of those parties to be responsible in the first instance for paying the compensation to the victim without delay. The Insurance Guarantee Fund has repeatedly pointed to the negative effects of the lack of full implementation of this regulation to our national legislation. It consequently must have led to competence disputes and the need for conflict resolution in courts, at the expense of victims waiting long for being paid the compensation. Having recognized the importance of the above problems, the Polish legislator finally resolved this issue by the Act of 23 October 2018, amending the act on compulsory insurance, the Insurance Guarantee Fund and the Polish Motor Insurers’ Bureau in accordance with the directive. In the above amendment it has been indicated that in the event of a competence dispute the insurance undertaking is required to satisfy the justified claims, but at the same time the obligation has been imposed on the Fund to reimburse the paid compensation to the insurer, in the situation when the responsibility of the Fund to the victim of the accident was established. According to the authors, the entry into force of this regulation on 31 December 2018 should eliminate from the market the phenomenon of justified claims being not settled in due time.\n\n","PeriodicalId":277138,"journal":{"name":"Prawo Asekuracyjne","volume":"172 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-03-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Prawo Asekuracyjne","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0013.5638","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The authors of this article, having analyzed the role of the Insurance Guarantee Fund in the compulsory insurance system, show the most significant differences in the liability of motor liability insurers and the IGF towards the injured. In their opinion, the identified differences in the liability principles and the differences in the interpretation of the applicable laws are the most frequent sources of competence disputes between insurance undertakings and the Fund, particularly about the competence of one of them in the claims settlement of victims of incidents involving unidentified perpetrators. On the one hand, these disputes are essentially held over formal issues, such as the existence or non-existence of insurance cover of the perpetrator and, on the other hand, over substantive ones, namely the recognition of the liability of either the IGF or the insurer in the circumstances of the event. Owing to their complex nature these disputes are frequently long-lasting, which results in the victims waiting for an extremely long time for their compensation. The authors emphasize that in the European Union the above problem has already been identified and was mostly regulated by the Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability. In Article 11 of the regulation it is stated that in the event of a dispute between the guarantee institution and the insurer, about determining who must compensate the victim, the Member States are required to designate one of those parties to be responsible in the first instance for paying the compensation to the victim without delay. The Insurance Guarantee Fund has repeatedly pointed to the negative effects of the lack of full implementation of this regulation to our national legislation. It consequently must have led to competence disputes and the need for conflict resolution in courts, at the expense of victims waiting long for being paid the compensation. Having recognized the importance of the above problems, the Polish legislator finally resolved this issue by the Act of 23 October 2018, amending the act on compulsory insurance, the Insurance Guarantee Fund and the Polish Motor Insurers’ Bureau in accordance with the directive. In the above amendment it has been indicated that in the event of a competence dispute the insurance undertaking is required to satisfy the justified claims, but at the same time the obligation has been imposed on the Fund to reimburse the paid compensation to the insurer, in the situation when the responsibility of the Fund to the victim of the accident was established. According to the authors, the entry into force of this regulation on 31 December 2018 should eliminate from the market the phenomenon of justified claims being not settled in due time.
机动车强制责任保险背景下保险保证基金与保险承诺责任的能力争议——实践与立法解决之道
本文的作者通过分析保险保证基金在强制保险制度中的作用,得出了机动车责任保险公司和IGF对受害人责任的最显著差异。它们认为,已查明的责任原则方面的差异和对适用法律的解释方面的差异是保险企业与养恤基金之间权限纠纷的最常见来源,特别是关于其中一方在解决涉及身份不明的肇事者的事件的受害者的索赔方面的权限问题。一方面,这些争端基本上是关于形式问题的,例如肇事者是否有保险,另一方面是关于实质性问题的,即承认IGF或保险人在事件情况下的责任。由于这些纠纷的复杂性,往往持续时间很长,导致受害者等待赔偿的时间很长。作者强调,在欧盟,上述问题已经被发现,并主要由欧洲议会和理事会2009年9月16日关于机动车使用民事责任保险的指令2009/103/EC进行监管,以及对此类责任保险义务的执行。该条例第11条规定,在担保机构和保险公司之间就确定谁必须赔偿受害人发生争议时,成员国必须指定其中一方立即负责向受害人支付赔偿。保险保证基金一再指出,缺乏充分执行这一规定对我国立法的不利影响。因此,它必然导致权限纠纷和需要在法庭上解决冲突,而牺牲了长期等待获得赔偿的受害者。在认识到上述问题的重要性后,波兰立法者最终通过2018年10月23日的法案解决了这一问题,根据该指令修改了强制保险法、保险保证基金和波兰汽车保险局。在上述修正案中已指出,在发生能力争议的情况下,保险公司必须满足合理的索赔要求,但与此同时,在基金对事故受害者负有责任的情况下,基金有义务向保险人偿还已支付的赔偿。根据作者的说法,该法规于2018年12月31日生效,将从市场上消除合理索赔未及时解决的现象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信