Compulsory third party liability insurance – treatment and rehabilitation costs reimbursement – a few words about the Supreme Court resolution as of June 19, 2016 (file No.: III CZP 63/15) |
 Under strong judicial decisions of common courts, the injured with the aim of private medical treatment costs reimbursement claim had to prove, among all, the lack of ability of non-cost public medical care usage (see: the verdict of Regional Court in Warsaw as of July 14, 2010, file No.: XXV C 37/09, not published), as well as strong necessity of too long waiting period for the first visit to the specialist of public medical care (see: the verdict of Regional Court in Świdnica as of January 29, 2013, file No.: II Ca 926/12, not published). The Supreme Court also leant on such an interpretation of law provisions according to which it was the injured obligation to prove the necessity and aim of – in wide comprehension of these words – private medical treatment and rehabilitation cost reimbursement. The Insurance Commissioner put under question this point of view, underlining not justified interpretation according to which the injured had to prove such circumstances and as a consequence it hindered and even enabled private medical costs reimbursement claim.
|
| Described above courts standpoint under the newest resolution of the Supreme Court made up of 7 judges as of June 19, 2016 (file No.: III CZP 63/15) may be changed overall. Since according to the maxim of judgement:
|
| “the benefit given by insurer under agreement of binding third party liability insurance of mechanical vehicles holders covers also justified and special-purpose injured treatment and rehabilitation costs not reimbursed form public funds (Article 444 § 1 of the Civil Code)”
|
| The thesis analyse gives ground to find that – different than till now – the obligation of proving the lack or strong hindrance of public medical care usage possibility will not constitute the prerequisite creating the entitlement to occurre within the framework of private medical care costs reimbursement claim, because it will be sufficient to prove the grounds and aim of occurred costs pursuant to general provisions of law. As the abovementioned resolution lacks of written justification, the Supreme Court verdict motives are still not revealed, nonetheless in the light of cited thesis private medical costs reimbursement claim may become easier in practice.
|
| atty. trainee Michał Kurzela |
| http://www.sn.pl |