Doctrine of own acts

In this case, there was an accident between a car and a bicycle , and the cyclist was harmed. As is usually done, the cyclist first claimed extrajudicially to the insurer of the responsible vehicle for compensation for the injuries and damages suffered. The insurer responded by issuing a motivated compensation offer (that is, a formal and reasoned payment proposal), and in that offer, it accepted to pay an amount without applying any reduction for possible fault of the cyclist or for "shared fault."

The cyclist received that amount , but later went to court to seek more compensation (and also interest). There, the insurer changed its approach, in the trial it opposed claiming that the fault had been exclusive to the cyclist , or at least that there was concurrence of faults (fault of both) to reduce the amount. In the first instance, the cyclist's claim was dismissed and the Provincial Court confirmed that decision.

The Supreme Court (TS), however, corrects that approach. It applies the doctrine of own acts , which prevents acting contradictorily to the detriment of the other party. If the insurer, in responding to the mandatory claim of art.7 of the Law on civil liability and insurance in circulation, made a motivated offer assuming the compensation without reducing it for faults, it is bound by that position and cannot later maintain in the trial an exclusive fault or a concurrence of faults that had not been raised before. The TS emphasizes that this protects the good faith and the legal certainty . It only allows departing from that binding in very specific cases (such as fraud or the emergence of new relevant information not attributable to the insurer).

For all these reasons, the TS annuls the previous rulings and returns the matter to be resolved without considering the concurrence of faults.

If you feel harmed and in a position to demand responsibilities for any damage suffered due to a traffic accident, our professionals can assist you in exercising your claims.