{"warns":["Based on art. 11 LCAT; now art. 65 of the Insurance Act 2014. The 16.4.2018 Royal Decree now governs the model contract.","Motor liability: the 14.12.1992 or the 16.4.2018 model contract applies depending on the date of the facts. The facts predate the decision; check the text applicable on the date of the facts.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 1); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 35 LCAT; now art. 89 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 86–87 LCAT; now art. 150–151 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Tort liability: former Civil Code, art. 1382 et seq.; Book 6 applies only to facts after 1.1.2025. The facts predate the decision; check the text applicable on the date of the facts.","Based on art. 34 LCAT; now art. 88 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 35 §4 LCAT; now art. 89 of the Insurance Act 2014. The direct action (art. 86 LCAT) is now art. 150.","Also relies on the 14.12.1992 model contract; the 16.4.2018 Royal Decree now applies.","Based on art. 26 LCAT; the duty of disclosure is now governed by arts 80–81 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Concerns art. 19bis-11 §2, repealed by the Act of 31 May 2017; check the current provision (art. 29ter).","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 88); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts 34 and 35 LCAT; now arts 88 and 89 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (arts 1, 22 and 38); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 14); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Concerns the 2019 text of art. 2bis; check the current version of the provision.","Based on art. 41 LCAT; now art. 95 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 8 LCAT; now art. 62 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 7 and 11 LCAT; now arts. 60 and 65 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 78); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 11 LCAT; now art. 65 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts 34–35 LCAT; now arts 88–89 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts 19–21 LCAT; now arts 74–76 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 26 LCAT; the disclosure duty is now governed by arts. 80–81 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 1, A); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 26 LCAT; aggravation of risk is now governed by art. 81 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 34 and 86 LCAT; now art. 88 (limitation) and art. 150 (direct action) of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 34–35 LCAT; now art. 88–89 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 11 LCAT; now art. 65 of the Insurance Act 2014. Check the provision corresponding to art. 77 LCAT.","Based on art. 6 LCAT; the disclosure duty is now governed by arts. 58–61 of the Insurance Act 2014. Check the provision corresponding to art. 12 LCAT.","Based on arts 5 and 26 LCAT; now arts 58–61 and 80–81 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 26 LCAT; now arts. 80–81 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 19–21 LCAT; now arts. 74–76 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts 8 and 11 LCAT; now arts 62 and 65 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 4); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Motor liability: decided under the 1989 Act and the 14.12.1992 model contract. The 16.4.2018 model contract now applies; check the recourse provisions and ceilings. The facts predate the decision; check the text applicable on the date of the facts.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 52); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (arts 37, 39, 53 and 67); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 108 and 131); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 14.12.1992 model contract; the 16.4.2018 Royal Decree now applies: check the corresponding exclusion.","Based on art. 11 LCAT; now art. 65 of the Insurance Act 2014. For arts. 79 and 82 LCAT the judgment refers to arts. 143 and 146 of the 2014 Act: to be checked.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 58); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (arts. 14–15); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 8 and 88 LCAT; now art. 62 and, as the judgment itself notes, art. 152 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 8 and 86 LCAT; now art. 62 and 150 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 8 LCAT; now art. 62 of the Insurance Act 2014. For art. 88 LCAT, check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 8 and 11 LCAT; now arts. 62 and 65 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 37, 38, 51); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 7 §2 and 8 LCAT; now arts. 60 §2 and 62 of the Insurance Act 2014. For payment deadlines, decided under the 1992 Act (art. 67); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 89); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 44); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 95); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014. For the duty of disclosure: arts. 5–7 LCAT → arts. 58–61 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 13); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 123); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 67); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts 6–7 LCAT; now arts 59–60 of the Insurance Act 2014. The judgment cites art. 162 of that Act as the counterpart of art. 99 LCAT; to be checked.","Insurance contract: the Insurance Act 2014 is in force, but the 1992 Act (LCAT) applies to facts before 1.11.2014. The facts predate the decision; check the text applicable on the date of the facts.","Based on art. 34 and 35 LCAT; now art. 88 and 89 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 138bis-1); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 34 and 86 LCAT; now art. 88 and 150 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 45); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 44 LCAT; as the court notes, now art. 98 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 8 and 11 LCAT; now art. 62 and 65 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 86–87 LCAT; now arts. 150–151 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 37, 38 and 51 LCAT; as the court notes, now arts. 91, 92 and 105 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 34–35 LCAT; now arts. 88–89 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 34 §2 LCAT; now art. 88 §2 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 110/1); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 4 §1 and 103 LCAT; as the court notes, now arts. 57 and 166 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 2 and 86 LCAT; art. 86 is now art. 150 of the Insurance Act 2014; for art. 2, check the corresponding provision.","Based on arts. 8 and 87 LCAT; now arts. 62 and 151 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts 5–6 LCAT; now arts 58–59 of the Insurance Act 2014.","The 16.4.2018 Royal Decree now governs the model contract: check the recourse clause.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 29); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 8 LCAT; now art. 62 of the Insurance Act 2014. For payment deadlines, decided under the 1992 Act (art. 67); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 5 LCAT; now arts. 58–61 of the Insurance Act 2014. For art. 12 LCAT, check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 34–35 LCAT; now arts. 88–89 of the Insurance Act 2014. For arts. 106 and 110/1 LCAT, check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 88); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014. The 16.4.2018 Royal Decree now governs the model contract: check the recourse clause.","Based on art. 5 and 11 LCAT; now art. 58–61 and art. 65 of the Insurance Act 2014. The 16.4.2018 Royal Decree now governs the model contract.","Based on arts. 8 and 19–21 LCAT; now arts. 62 and 74–76 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 34 and 35 LCAT; now arts. 88 and 89 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 68-8); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 26 LCAT; now art. 80–81 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 5–7 and 11 LCAT; now arts. 58–61 and 65 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Insurance contract: decided under the 1992 Act (LCAT). The Insurance Act 2014 now applies (e.g. LCAT art. 8 → 62, 34 → 88, 41 → 95, 86 → 150). The facts predate the decision; check the text applicable on the date of the facts.","Based on arts. 5–6 and 34 LCAT; now arts. 58–59 and 88 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts 41 and 58 LCAT; art. 41 is now art. 95 of the Insurance Act 2014; check the provision corresponding to art. 58.","Based on art. 26 LCAT; now arts 80–81 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act; check the corresponding article of the 2014 Insurance Act.","Based on art. 23 of the Act of 11.6.1874 (art. 60 LCAT); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 11 LCAT; now art. 65 of the Insurance Act 2014. For art. 10 LCAT, check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 124); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 8 and 86–87 LCAT; now arts. 62 and 150–151 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act; today arts 62 and 65 of the 2014 Act.","Based on arts 35 and 87 LCAT; now arts 89 and 151 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 34 and 86 LCAT; now arts. 88 and 150 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 14.12.1992 model contract; the 16.4.2018 Royal Decree now applies: check the termination clause.","Based on art. 41 LCAT; now art. 95 of the Insurance Act 2014. Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 82); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under art. 8 of the 1992 Act; today art. 62 of the 2014 Act.","Based on arts 86–87 LCAT; now arts 150–151 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 41 LCAT; now art. 95 of the Insurance Act 2014. Art. 8 LCAT is now art. 62.","Based on arts. 6, 26 and 87 LCAT; now arts. 59, 81 and 151 of the Insurance Act 2014. For notice of recourse, decided under the 1992 Act (art. 88); check the corresponding provision. The 16.4.2018 Royal Decree now governs the model contract.","Decided under the 1992 Act; today arts 88 §2 and 89 §5 of the 2014 Act.","Based on arts. 8 and 87 LCAT; now arts. 62 and 151 of the Insurance Act 2014. For art. 89 §5 LCAT, check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 87 LCAT; now art. 151 of the Insurance Act 2014. For art. 78 §2 LCAT, check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 45 and 138bis-1); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act; today arts 74-76 of the 2014 Act.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 79); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 5 LCAT; now art. 58–61 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts 34, 35 and 86 LCAT; now arts 88, 89 and 150 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 14.12.1992 model contract; the 16.4.2018 Royal Decree now applies: check the corresponding cover provision.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 1 and 39); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 5–6 LCAT; now arts. 58–59 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 34 LCAT; now art. 88 of the Insurance Act 2014. Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 82); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 34 and 35 LCAT; now art. 88 and 89 of the Insurance Act 2014. For art. 58 and 66 LCAT, check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 34 LCAT; now art. 88 of the Insurance Act 2014. Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 88); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 114 and 121); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 38); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014. The Act of 27 March 1995 has been repealed.","Based on art. 8 and 41 LCAT; now art. 62 and 95 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 10); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 57); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 87 LCAT; now art. 151 of the Insurance Act 2014. Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 89); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts 34 and 35 LCAT; now arts 88 and 89 of the Insurance Act 2014. Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 67); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 11 and 26 LCAT; now art. 65 and 80–81 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 5–6 LCAT; now art. 58–61 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 86 LCAT; now art. 150 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 41 LCAT; now art. 95 of the Insurance Act 2014. The 16.4.2018 Royal Decree now governs the model contract.","Based on art. 6 LCAT (duty of disclosure); now art. 58–61 of the Insurance Act 2014. Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 2); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 34, 41 and 86 LCAT; now art. 88, 95 and 150 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 34 and 35 LCAT and its transitional provisions (arts. 148–149); now arts. 88 and 89 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 8, 34, 35 and 86 LCAT; now art. 62, 88, 89 and 150 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 34, 35 and 86 LCAT; now art. 88, 89 and 150 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 87 LCAT; now art. 150–151 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 34 §2 and 86 LCAT; now art. 88 §2 and 150 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 87 LCAT; now art. 150–151 of the Insurance Act 2014. For art. 88 LCAT (recourse), check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014. The 16.4.2018 Royal Decree now governs the model contract.","Based on art. 8 and 87 LCAT; now art. 62 and 150–151 of the Insurance Act 2014. For art. 67 LCAT, check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts 34 and 8 LCAT; now arts 88 and 62 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 11 and 87 LCAT; now art. 65 and 151 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act; today arts 151 (defences) and 80-81 (increase of risk) of the 2014 Act.","Also based on art. 35 LCAT; now art. 89 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 34, 35 and 41 LCAT; now arts. 88, 89 and 95 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 5 and 6 LCAT (duty of disclosure); now arts. 58–61 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 6 LCAT; the disclosure duty is now in art. 58–61 of the Insurance Act 2014. For art. 31 LCAT, check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 8 and 86–87 LCAT; now art. 62 and 150–151 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 138ter); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 19 and 21 LCAT; now art. 74–76 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 77); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 5 and 6 LCAT; now arts. 58–61 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 2); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (arts. 127 and 128); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 20–21 and 87 LCAT; now arts. 74–76 and 151 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 41 LCAT; now art. 95 of the Insurance Act 2014. For art. 89 LCAT, check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 14.12.1992 model contract; the 16.4.2018 Royal Decree now applies: check the corresponding clause.","Based on art. 34 and 6 LCAT; now art. 88 and 58–61 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 138bis-2 to 138bis-4); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 26 and 87 LCAT; now arts. 80–81 and 151 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 88); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014. The 16.4.2018 Royal Decree now governs the model contract.","Based on arts. 34, 35 and 86 LCAT; now arts. 88, 89 and 150 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (arts. 127-128); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 84); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 14.12.1992 model contract; the 16.4.2018 Royal Decree now applies: check the extension-of-cover clause.","Decided under the 1992 Act (arts. 82 and 85); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 26 LCAT (and art. 5–6); now art. 80–81 and art. 58–61 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (arts 97, 121 and 124); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1989 Act; check the current text and EU case law on the notion of \"use of vehicles\".","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 89 §5); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 20 and 52 LCAT; art. 20 now corresponds to art. 74–76 of the Insurance Act 2014; check the provision corresponding to art. 52.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 95); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014. Annulment for intentional non-disclosure: the disclosure duty is now art. 58–61 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 21 and 34 LCAT; now art. 76 and 88 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 7 §2 LCAT; now art. 58–61 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 8, 34 and 35 LCAT; now art. 62, 88 and 89 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 5 and 6 LCAT; now art. 58–61 of the Insurance Act 2014. Check the provision corresponding to art. 95 LCAT.","Based on art. 41 LCAT; now art. 95 of the Insurance Act 2014. For art. 88 LCAT, check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 5 and 6 LCAT; now art. 58–61 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 34 LCAT; now art. 88 of the Insurance Act 2014. Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 68); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 86 LCAT; now art. 150 of the Insurance Act 2014. For art. 89 LCAT, check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 2 §1); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","The court set aside art. 34 LCAT, now art. 88 of the Insurance Act 2014. Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 88); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Refers to art. 86 LCAT; now art. 150 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 5 LCAT; now arts. 58–61 of the Insurance Act 2014 (duty of disclosure).","Decided under the 14.12.1992 model contract; the 16.4.2018 Royal Decree now applies: check the recourse clause.","Based on art. 87 §1 LCAT; now art. 151 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 95); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 11 LCAT; now art. 65 of the Insurance Act 2014. Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 88); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014. The 16.4.2018 Royal Decree now governs the model contract.","Based on art. 41 LCAT; now art. 95 of the Insurance Act 2014. For art. 68 LCAT, check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 8 LCAT; now art. 62 of the Insurance Act 2014. For the direct action, art. 86 LCAT is now art. 150.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 95 and 121); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 85 and 89); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 5–7 LCAT; now arts. 58–61 of the Insurance Act 2014. The 16.4.2018 Royal Decree now governs the model contract.","Based on art. 26 LCAT (notification of aggravated risk); now art. 80–81 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 34 and 86 LCAT; now arts. 88 and 150 of the Insurance Act 2014. For art. 68 LCAT, check the corresponding provision.","Decided under the 14.12.1992 model contract; the 16.4.2018 Royal Decree now applies: check the vehicle-replacement clause.","Based on arts. 5–6 LCAT; now arts. 58–61 of the Insurance Act 2014. Check the provision corresponding to art. 37 LCAT.","Based on art. 6 LCAT; now arts. 58–61 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts 8 and 87 LCAT; now arts 62 and 151 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under art. 8 of the 1992 Act; today art. 62 of the 2014 Act. The Court of Cassation has since narrowed \"intentional\" (the damage must be intended).","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 82); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act; today see the 2014 Insurance Act, arts 58-61 (disclosure) and 74-76 (claim notification).","Based on art. 41 and art. 8 LCAT; now art. 95 and art. 62 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 86 LCAT (direct action); now art. 150 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 29 and 32); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 14–16); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 127–128); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 41 LCAT; now art. 95 of the Insurance Act 2014. For art. 88 LCAT, check the corresponding provision.","Based on art. 87 LCAT; now art. 151 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 6 and 24 LCAT; for the disclosure duty, now arts. 58–61 and 80–81 of the Insurance Act 2014: check the corresponding provisions.","On the disclosure duty, based on arts. 5–6 LCAT; now arts. 58–61 of the Insurance Act 2014. The provision corresponding to art. 88 LCAT should also be checked.","Based on art. 34–35 LCAT; now art. 88–89 of the Insurance Act 2014. Notification duty (art. 19 LCAT): now art. 74.","Based on art. 8 LCAT; now art. 62 of the Insurance Act 2014. For art. 3 LCAT, check the corresponding provision.","Based on art. 34, 35 and 86 LCAT; now art. 88, 89 and 150 of the Insurance Act 2014. For art. 68 LCAT, check the corresponding provision.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 101); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 5 and 26 LCAT; now arts. 58 and 81 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 5–6 LCAT (duty of disclosure); now art. 58–61 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 5 and 6 LCAT; now arts. 58 and 59 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 37); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 29 §2); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 21 and 11 LCAT; now arts. 76 and 65 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (arts 82 and 148); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 19–21 LCAT; now arts. 74–76 of the Insurance Act 2014. For art. 88 LCAT (recourse), check the corresponding provision of the 2014 Act.","Based on art. 5 LCAT; now arts. 58-61 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 6 LCAT (duty of disclosure); now arts. 58–61 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (arts 1 and 4); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 8 LCAT; now art. 62 of the Insurance Act 2014. The notification rules (arts. 19–21 LCAT) are now arts. 74–76.","Based on art. 6 LCAT; the disclosure duty is now in arts 58–61 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts 34 and 86–87 LCAT; now arts 88 and 150–151 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 34–35 and 86 LCAT; now arts. 88–89 and 150 of the Insurance Act 2014. For art. 89 LCAT, check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","The ruling concerns article 46 before the 1998–1999 amendments; article 46 §1, 6° has since been inserted: check the current text.","Based on arts. 5–6 LCAT; now arts. 58–61 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts 86–87 LCAT; now arts 150–151 of the Insurance Act 2014. For art. 89 LCAT, check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Article 29bis and the Guarantee Fund provisions have since been amended; check the current text.","Based on art. 5 LCAT; the disclosure duty is now in arts 58–61 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 5 and 26 LCAT; now arts. 58–61 and 80–81 of the Insurance Act 2014.","The ruling concerns article 4 §1 before the Act of 22 August 2002; check the current text and the 16.4.2018 Royal Decree.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 10 and 148); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (arts 1 and 39); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 5 LCAT; the duty of disclosure is now in arts. 58–61 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Article 29bis has since been amended (including by the Act of 19 January 2001); check the current text.","The ruling concerns the pre-1995 text of article 29bis; the passenger exclusion was removed by the Act of 13 April 1995.","The disclosure rules (arts 5 and 26 LCAT) are now in arts 58–61 and 80–81 of the Insurance Act 2014. For art. 43 LCAT, check the corresponding provision of the 2014 Act.","The 16.4.2018 Royal Decree now governs the model contract; the Guarantee Fund provisions are now in the Act of 21 November 1989.","Decided under the 1992 Act (arts. 30, 88 and 148); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","The Guarantee Fund provisions are now in the Act of 21 November 1989 (art. 19bis-11 ff.); the 16.4.2018 Royal Decree governs the model contract; check the current text.","Decided under the 1992 Act (arts. 14–17); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on arts. 5 and 8 LCAT; now arts. 58 and 62 of the Insurance Act 2014.","The 16.4.2018 Royal Decree now governs the model contract.","Decided under the 14.12.1992 model contract and art. 30 LCAT; the 16.4.2018 Royal Decree now applies: check the corresponding provisions, including in the Insurance Act 2014.","The ruling concerns the repealed Act of 1 July 1956; today art. 4 of the Act of 21 November 1989 (as amended by the Act of 22 August 2002) applies.","Based on art. 5 LCAT (duty of disclosure); now arts. 58–61 of the Insurance Act 2014.","The ruling concerns the text before the Act of 19 July 2000; check the current tax provision.","Based on art. 5–7 LCAT; the duty of disclosure is now in art. 58–61 of the Insurance Act 2014. Check separately the transitional rule corresponding to art. 148 LCAT.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 30, 88 and 148); check the corresponding provisions of the Insurance Act 2014. Art. 8 LCAT is now art. 62.","The ruling concerns article 14 as in force on 5 October 1991; check the current text.","Ruling from 2001; check the current text of article 12 (legal cohabitation).","Based on article 24 of the Act of 10.4.1971 as it stood before the law of 22.12.1989; for accidents after 9.1.1990, third-party assistance is a separate allowance calculated on the guaranteed average minimum monthly income.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 29–30); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 14.12.1992 model contract; the 16.4.2018 Royal Decree now applies: check the replacement-vehicle clause.","Based on art. 87 §2 LCAT; now art. 151 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 36); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Loss predating the 1992 Act (1991); today the insurer's defences against the injured party are governed by arts. 150-151 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (arts 127–128); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 88 and 148); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Motor liability: decided under the 1989 Act and the 14.12.1992 model contract. The 16.4.2018 model contract now applies; check the recourse provisions and ceilings. Article 29bis: text before 3.3.2001; before the 1994–1995 Acts, article 29bis did not exist. The facts predate the decision; check the text applicable on the date of the facts.","Decided under the former model contract applicable to a 1990 accident; the 16.4.2018 Royal Decree and the Insurance Act 2014 provisions on unpaid premiums now apply.","Decided under the 14.12.1992 model contract; the 16.4.2018 Royal Decree now applies: check the duration clause.","Insurance contract: 1874 Act or 1992 Act (LCAT). The LCAT entered into force on 21.9.1992 and applied to earlier contracts from 1.9.1994 at the latest (art. 148). The Insurance Act 2014 now applies. The facts predate the decision; check the text applicable on the date of the facts.","The motor liability part rests on the former model contract applicable to a 1991 accident; the 16.4.2018 Royal Decree now applies.","Decided under the former model contract applicable to a 1991 accident; the 16.4.2018 Royal Decree now applies: check the recourse clause.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 55); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Based on art. 26 LCAT; the duty of disclosure is now governed by arts. 80–81 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1992 Act (arts. 127–128); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the 1956 model contract; the 16.4.2018 Royal Decree now applies: check the vehicle-replacement clause.","Decided under the 1992 Act (art. 54); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the former motor liability model contract; the 16.4.2018 Royal Decree now applies: check the recourse clause.","Based on art. 87 LCAT; now art. 151 of the Insurance Act 2014. Decided under the 1992 Act (arts. 14 and 17); check the corresponding provision of the Insurance Act 2014.","Decided under the model policy of the time; the 16.4.2018 model contract now applies: check the recourse and suspension clauses.","The case predates the LCAT; art. 35 LCAT introduced suspension in favour of minors and incapacitated persons, now art. 89 of the Insurance Act 2014.","Motor liability: Act of 1.7.1956 or 1989 Act (in force since 6.5.1991); the model contract may be the text before the Royal Decree of 14.12.1992. The 16.4.2018 model contract now applies; check the recourse provisions and ceilings. The facts predate the decision; check the text applicable on the date of the facts.","Decided under the model policy of the 1956 Act era; suspension for non-payment of premium is now governed by the Insurance Act 2014 and the 16.4.2018 Royal Decree: check the applicable provision.","Based on a pre-LCAT policy clause; suspension for non-payment and the injured party's own right are now governed by the Insurance Act 2014: check the applicable provision.","Insurance contract: decided under the Act of 11.6.1874. The Insurance Act 2014 now applies; the corresponding provision and its content may have changed. The facts predate the decision; check the text applicable on the date of the facts.","Motor liability: decided under the Act of 1.7.1956 and the former model contract (the 1989 Act entered into force on 6.5.1991). The 16.4.2018 model contract now applies; check the recourse provisions and ceilings. The facts predate the decision; check the text applicable on the date of the facts.","Workplace accident: decided under the 1931 coordinated Acts; the Act of 10.4.1971 now applies. The facts predate the decision; check the text applicable on the date of the facts."],"items":[{"d":"2026-06-22","rol":"C.25.0381.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2026:ARR.20260622.3F.1","ch":"3F","res":"c","t":"motor","q":"le recours de l’assureur contre l’assuré n’est pas subordonné à la condition que le non-respect de la loi ou des règlements ait eu un lien causal avec l’accident","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court of Cassation held that the insurer's recourse under article 25, 3° b) of the model contract (driver not meeting the legal requirements) does not require a causal link between the breach and the accident. The causation requirement of article 11 LCAT concerns forfeiture for breach of a contractual duty, not recourse based on a statutory duty. The judgment that required such a link was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for driving without a licence, causation","law":"Model contract RD 14.12.1992, art. 24–25; LCAT art. 11","w":0,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2026-06-22","rol":"S.25.0053.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2026:ARR.20260622.3F.5","ch":"3F","res":"r","t":"work","q":"décider que le café était un lieu d’exécution du travail","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The employer had invited all staff to an after-hours party in a café; the employee, who was on leave that day, attended and died in an accident on his way home. The Liège Labour Court of Appeal found that the employer had created a framework limiting the employee's personal freedom by reason of the employment contract, so the café was a place of performance of work and the accident a commuting accident. The Court of Cassation dismissed the workplace-accident insurer's appeal, as this was a factual assessment.","k":"Workplace accident — commuting accident after a company party","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 8 §1","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2026-06-05","rol":"C.25.0057.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2026:ARR.20260605.1F.2","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"liability","q":"Aux termes de l’article 62, alinéa 2, de cette loi, l’assureur répond des sinistres causés par la faute, même lourde, du preneur d’assurance, de l’assuré ou du bénéficiaire, mais il peut toutefois s’exonérer de ses…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"An employee driving her employer's vehicle under the influence of alcohol caused an accident; the vehicle's motor liability and property damage insurer paid the employer and then sought recourse against her under a gross-negligence clause in the policy. The Liège Court of First Instance, on appeal, had refused recourse, holding that only subrogation under article 95 was available and that recourse under article 152 exists only in liability insurance. The Court of Cassation quashed the judgment on the insurer's appeal: neither article 56 nor article 152 of the Insurance Act 2014 prevents a clause in property insurance granting recourse against an insured other than the beneficiary for gross negligence specified in the contract.","k":"Property damage insurance — contractual recourse for gross negligence","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 56, 62 para. 2, 95, 152","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2026-06-05","rol":"C.25.0278.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2026:ARR.20260605.1F.1","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"damage","q":"méconnaît le principe de la réparation intégrale du dommage ainsi que l’obligation d’apprécier celui-ci in concreto","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The injured party challenged, against the insurer, the assessment of his permanent loss. The Court quashed on two points: when the court capitalises future loss, it must, at the victim's request, take future monetary changes into account, including for permanent personal and household incapacity; and rejecting a salary-based calculation on the ground that increased effort cannot be linked to pay, in favour of a flat rate of €25 per day, breaches the principles of full compensation and in concreto assessment. The Eupen Court of First Instance's appeal judgment was quashed on those heads of loss.","k":"Personal injury — assessment of permanent incapacity","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2026-04-30","rol":"C.24.0501.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2026:ARR.20260430.1N.11","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"29bis","q":"Een motorrijtuig is betrokken bij een verkeersongeval wanneer het enige rol heeft gespeeld, dit is wanneer het zonder hiervoor een noodzakelijk element te zijn geweest, een invloed heeft gehad op het verkeersongeval.","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A tanker-truck driver who had stepped out to watch his vehicle being washed was injured by another tanker at the washing site; that tanker's motor liability insurer paid under article 29bis and sought recourse against the other insurers. The Court upheld the finding that the victim's own truck was involved: a vehicle is involved if it played any role in the accident, even if not a necessary element, and no causal link is required. However, the share for which the victim is liable under ordinary law must be borne equally by the motor liability insurers of all vehicles involved, so the order that one insurer reimburse half of the payments was quashed.","k":"Article 29bis — vehicle involvement and sharing between insurers","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §§ 1 and 4; former Civil Code, art. 1251, 3°","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2026-04-23","rol":"C.25.0066.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2026:ARR.20260423.1N.9","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"limitation","q":"Uit het geheel van deze bepalingen volgt dat de vijfjarige termijn van artikel 88, § 1, tweede lid, Wet Verzekeringen een verjaringstermijn is die vatbaar is voor stuiting of schorsing.","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer argued that the five-year long-stop period from the event under article 88 §1 para. 2 of the Insurance Act 2014 is a forfeiture period that cannot be interrupted. The Court held that it is a limitation period capable of interruption or suspension and rejected that ground; the findings that the claim against the insurer was not time-barred and that ownership of an artwork was proven stand. The Antwerp Court of Appeal's judgment was otherwise quashed (on another ground not reproduced in the Juportal version) and the case sent to the Ghent Court of Appeal.","k":"Limitation — can the five-year long-stop period be interrupted","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 88 §1 and 89 §3","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2026-04-21","rol":"P.26.0324.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2026:ARR.20260421.2N.3","ch":"2N","res":"c","t":"motor","q":"Uit de samenlezing van de artikelen 22 en 24, 1°, WAM en artikel 38, § 5, Wegverkeerswet volgt dat artikel 38, § 5, Wegverkeerswet van toepassing is indien de rechter veroordeelt wegens het door artikel 22, § 1, WAM…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The criminal court had held that the aggravation for drivers holding a B licence for less than two years (mandatory disqualification and retest) does not apply to the offence of driving without motor liability insurance (art. 22 §1 of the Act of 21.11.1989). The public prosecutor's appeal was inadmissible because the defendant had received a suspended sentence. On the Procurator General's appeal in the interest of the law, however, the Court held that, reading articles 22 and 24, 1° of that Act together with article 38 §5 of the Road Traffic Act, the aggravation does apply, and quashed the judgment in the interest of the law only.","k":"Driving uninsured — disqualification and retest for novice drivers","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 22 §1 and 24, 1°; Road Traffic Act (16.3.1968), art. 38 §5; Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 442","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2026-04-17","rol":"2025/AL/509","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2026:ARR.20260417.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'évènement soudain peut consister en effort violent ou accru, un faux mouvement, une chute, une glissade même sans chute ou un mouvement brusque effectué pour éviter une chute, pour autant qu'il puisse être identifié…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the worker, who slipped on 25.1.2023 and grabbed a bar with his left arm to avoid falling, proved the sudden event. A sudden event may be an ordinary movement; a pre-existing condition is irrelevant; with no direct witness, the victim's sincere, consistent and uncontradicted statements suffice. The workplace-accident insurer's appeal was dismissed; the expert examination ordered by the tribunal was confirmed with a reworded mission, the case was sent back to the tribunal (art. 1068, para. 2, Judicial Code) and the insurer was ordered to pay costs; the existence of a workplace accident will be established only once the causal link with the injuries is verified.","k":"Workplace accident — sudden event, evolving but consistent statements","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 9; Civil Code, arts. 8.5 and 8.6; Judicial Code, art. 1068, para. 2","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2026-03-13","rol":"C.25.0020.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2026:ARR.20260313.1F.3","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"limitation","q":"Aux termes de l’article 89, § 3, de la loi du 4 avril 2014 relative aux assurances, si la déclaration de sinistre a été faite en temps utile, la prescription est interrompue jusqu’au moment où l’assureur a fait…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Brussels Court of Appeal had held that the claim against the insurers was not time-barred because notices of loss given before the three-year period expired had interrupted it, and that this effect was not limited to notices complying with article 74 §1. The Court of Cassation held that a notice given 'in good time' within the meaning of article 89 §3 of the Insurance Act 2014 is one given under the conditions of article 74 §1. The judgment was quashed on the insurers' appeal and the case sent to the Liège Court of Appeal.","k":"Interruption of limitation — timely notice of loss","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 74 §1 and 89 §3","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2026-02-27","rol":"C.25.0151.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2026:ARR.20260227.1F.1","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"home","q":"Il ne suit pas de cette disposition que seules les personnes démontrant leur présence dans ou à proximité des établissements visés à l’article 7 au moment du sinistre sont des tiers.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A fire in a sandwich shop damaged the landlords' building; the tenant's strict-liability insurer under the Act of 30 July 1979 refused to pay. The Liège Court of Appeal had dismissed the claim because the landlords had not shown that their loss was linked to a presence in or near the establishment, the loss arising solely from their capacity as owner-landlords. The Court of Cassation quashed on the landlords' appeal: article 8 para. 1 does not imply that only persons present in or near the establishment at the time of the loss are third parties.","k":"Strict fire liability — concept of third party","law":"Act of 30.7.1979, art. 7–8; Cass. 6.2.2025 (C.23.0349.F)","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2026-02-11","rol":"P.25.1261.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2026:ARR.20260211.2F.3","ch":"2F","res":"r","t":"subrogation","q":"Il s’ensuit que le délai de prescription de l’action civile exercée par la défenderesse contre les prévenus n’est pas régi par l’article 88, § 2, précité mais par les articles 2262bis du Code civil et 26 du titre…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"On 29 June 2010 a gas leak caused a house to explode; the property's fire insurer paid €34,906.71 to four injured parties and in 2024, as subrogee, claimed that amount from the defendants found criminally liable. They relied on the five-year limitation period of article 88 §2 of the Insurance Act 2014. The Court held that subrogation under article 95 relates to the insured's rights and actions against liable third parties, not to the injured party's own direct action against the insurer, so limitation is governed by article 2262bis of the Civil Code and article 26 of the preliminary title of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The defendants' appeals were dismissed.","k":"Subrogation — limitation of the insurer's claim against those liable","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 88 §2, 95, 150; former Civil Code, art. 2262bis; Code of Criminal Procedure, preliminary title, art. 26","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2026-02-06","rol":"C.25.0212.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2026:ARR.20260206.1F.4","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"damage","q":"viole les articles 1382 et 1383 de l’ancien Code civil","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"Ruling on compensation for a victim injured in an accident involving an insured vehicle, the Brussels Court of First Instance, on appeal, had allocated the interim payments made by the motor liability insurer first to compensatory interest and then to capital. The Court of Cassation quashed that ruling, since compensatory interest is part of the damages and such allocation compensates a non-existent loss; it also quashed the award of provisional-administration costs, based on a reading of the insurer's submissions inconsistent with their wording. The other grounds, including one against assessing the economic loss of a victim without a residence permit on the basis of the Belgian minimum wage, were rejected.","k":"Personal injury — allocation of interim payments to compensatory interest","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2026-01-29","rol":"C.24.0494.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2026:ARR.20260129.1N.6","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"procedure","q":"Uit het geheel van deze bepalingen volgt dat het Belgische recht bepaalt of en in welke mate het Belgisch Bureau tegen de bestuurder van een in België gewoonlijk gestald voertuig, die aansprakelijk is voor een…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"An accident in the Netherlands had been caused by the driver of a vehicle normally based in Belgium. The Court held, under article 19 of the Rome II Regulation and article 4 §4 of the Royal Decree of 11 July 2003, that Belgian law determines whether and to what extent the Belgian Motor Insurers' Bureau may exercise against the liable driver the rights the injured party has under Dutch law. The appeal, which argued that Dutch law governed that question, was dismissed; the East Flanders Court of First Instance's appeal judgment stands.","k":"Accident abroad — law governing the Belgian Bureau's recourse","law":"Regulation 864/2007 (Rome II), art. 19; Royal Decree of 11.7.2003, art. 4 §4; Hague Convention of 4.5.1971, art. 2, 6°","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2026-01-23","rol":"C.25.0068.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2026:ARR.20260123.1F.1","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"29bis","q":"l’exclusion qu’elle prévoit ne vise que les personnes qui ont voulu le dommage causé par l’accident","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A pedestrian who emerged from in front of a van stopped on a motorway hard shoulder was fatally struck by a lorry; the Liège Court of First Instance, on appeal, had applied the article 29bis exclusion because the victim should have realised that this would cause an accident with serious consequences. The Court of Cassation quashed on the claimants' appeal: the exclusion is to be construed strictly and only covers persons who intended the harm caused by the accident, which the judgment did not find. It also held that a procedural link had arisen with the insurer joined as guarantor, which had argued against the main claim, so the appeal against it was admissible.","k":"Article 29bis — victim who intended the accident and its consequences","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1 para. 6; Judicial Code, art. 17, 18, 1042, 1050","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2026-01-15","rol":"C.24.0470.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2026:ARR.20260115.1N.10","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"intent","q":"Opdat de verzekeraar op deze grond van dekking is bevrijd, is het noodzakelijk maar voldoende dat de verzekerde door zijn handelen of nalaten vrijwillig en bewust schade heeft willen veroorzaken.","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"On 19 January 2017 a tenant set fire to the rented building intending to commit suicide; the owner's fire insurer, as subrogee, claimed its payments from him, and the tenant argued that the same insurer covered his tenant's liability. The Ghent Court of Appeal had refused to apply the intentional-act exclusion because the tenant had not intended to cause harm within the insured risk. The Court of Cassation quashed on the insurer's appeal: it is necessary and sufficient that the insured wilfully and knowingly intended to cause harm, regardless of whether he intended its nature or extent; starting a fire in order to commit suicide is intentionally causing the loss.","k":"Intentional act — fire started with suicidal intent","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 62 para. 1","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2026-01-08","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2026:ARR.004","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Constitutional Court dismissed the action for annulment of article 22 of the Act of 3 May 2024 on compensation of victims of terrorism. The applicants challenged the cascade compensation scheme involving several insurers, compared with the single funds set up for medical accidents and large technological disasters. The Court held that the legislature could reasonably consider that a single fund would create administrative burdens and that the TRIP system relies on insurers' claims-handling expertise; the single point of contact mitigates the effects for victims, so the difference in treatment is reasonably justified.","k":"Terrorism victims — absence of a single public compensation fund","law":"Act of 3.5.2024, arts. 22 and 29 §5; Constitution arts. 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2026-01-08","rol":"C.24.0313.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2026:ARR.20260108.1N.9","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"29bis","q":"Uit de wetsgeschiedenis blijkt dat de uitsluiting van slachtoffers die het ongeval en zijn gevolgen hebben gewild, strikt moet worden uitgelegd en dat enkel de slachtoffers worden bedoeld die de bij het ongeval geleden…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A passenger in a car travelling at 60 km/h consciously opened the door, left the vehicle and was seriously injured; the Antwerp Court of First Instance, on appeal, had denied article 29bis compensation because he had intended the accident. The Court of Cassation quashed on the injured side's appeal (his administrator, his employer and its health-care fund): the exclusion is construed strictly and only covers victims who intended the harm suffered in the accident, and the judgment did not find that he intended the consequences.","k":"Article 29bis — passenger jumping from a moving car, intent as to consequences","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1 paras. 1 and 6; Cass. 7.10.2022 (C.22.0022.N)","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2026-01-08","rol":"C.24.0486.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2026:ARR.20260108.1N.7","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"damage","q":"Vergoedende interest maakt deel uit van de vergoeding die wordt toegekend voor het herstel van de door een fout of een tot aansprakelijkheid leidend feit veroorzaakte schade en strekt ertoe de bijkomende schade te…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"In proceedings against the insurer, the injured party argued that compensatory interest cannot compensate for currency depreciation. The Court held that such interest forms part of the compensation and covers the loss caused by delay, which includes both loss of interest and currency depreciation; if the court does not update the amount to the date of its decision, it must award compensatory interest for both. The appeal was dismissed; the East Flanders Court of First Instance's appeal judgment stands.","k":"Compensatory interest — covering currency depreciation","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-12-17","rol":"2024/AL/106","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2025:ARR.20251217.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The court dismissed the review action brought after the commuting accident of 28.1.2013: the progression of pain and functional loss was already certain at consolidation and is not a new medical fact. It upheld, however, the new subsidiary claim for aggravation allowances under article 9 of the Royal Decree of 10.12.1987: it suffices that the aggravation became definitive after the review period expired, even if it began during that period. The workplace-accident insurer was ordered to pay the statutory benefits on the basis of a permanent incapacity rate raised to 10% as of 23.2.2022, plus the costs of the appeal.","k":"Workplace accident — review action and post-review aggravation allowance","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 72; RD 10.12.1987, art. 9; Judicial Code, arts. 807 and 1042; Liège Labour Court of Appeal, 20.3.2017","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-12-08","rol":"S.20.0070.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2025:ARR.20251208.3F.6","ch":"3F","res":"r","t":"work","q":"Il s’ensuit que, conformément à l’article 14, alinéa 2, de la charte de l’assuré social, le délai de recours contre pareille décision ne commence pas à courir si la décision d’octroi ou de refus de prestations ne…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The workplace-accident insurer had declared the victim recovered without permanent incapacity; the victim claimed permanent incapacity benefits. The Court held that the three-year limitation period running from notification of the recovery decision (art. 69 of the Act of 10 April 1971) is a more favourable time limit within the meaning of articles 14 para. 2 and 23 of the Social Insured Persons Charter, and does not start to run if the decision lacks the information required by article 4 of the Royal Decree of 24 November 1997. The insurer's appeal was dismissed; the Liège Labour Court of Appeal's judgment stands.","k":"Workplace accident — defective recovery decision and time limit to challenge","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24 para. 1 and 69; Social Insured Persons Charter (11.4.1995), art. 14 and 23; Royal Decree of 24.11.1997, art. 4","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-12-04","rol":"C.24.0384.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2025:ARR.20251204.1N.6","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"motor","q":"Uit de wetsgeschiedenis blijkt dat de herinnering aan de aanvang van de termijn het voor de bestemmeling mogelijk moet maken het precieze tijdstip te bepalen waarop de schorsing of de opzegging uitwerking heeft.","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"For non-payment of the premium, the motor liability insurer had given the policyholder formal notice to pay 'within 15 days, i.e. before 16 January at 0.00', failing which cover would be suspended from 16 January 2020. The Court held, under article 70 of the Insurance Act 2014, that it is sufficient for the notice to make the start of the period known so that the policyholder can determine when the suspension takes effect, and to state the consequences of non-payment in terms the policyholder can understand, without any prescribed wording. The policyholder's appeal was dismissed; the Antwerp Court of First Instance's judgment stands.","k":"Motor liability — content of the formal notice for unpaid premium","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 69–70","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-12-01","rol":"C.24.0299.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2025:ARR.20251201.3N.6","ch":"3N","res":"r","t":"motor","q":"Met het begrip “terreinen die toegankelijk zijn voor een zeker aantal personen die het recht hebben om er te komen” worden de plaatsen bedoeld die, hoewel ze privaat zijn, blijvend toegankelijk zijn voor een welbepaalde…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"Following an accident on a quay in the port area, two insurers disagreed on whether article 29bis applied. The Court held that land accessible to a certain number of persons entitled to be there means places which, though private, are permanently accessible to a defined category of persons (employees, customers, suppliers); the port area, freely and permanently accessible to logistics workers holding an Alfapass card without specific invitation or permission, is such a place, so article 29bis applies. The appellant insurer's appeal was dismissed; the Antwerp Court of First Instance's appeal judgment stands.","k":"Motor liability — port area as land open to a certain category of persons","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 2 §1 para. 1 (before the amendment of 17.3.2024) and art. 29bis; Cass. 8.5.2023 (C.22.0268.N)","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-11-21","rol":"2023/AL/209","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2025:ARR.20251121.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"After the fatal workplace accident on 17.9.2014 of an undeclared worker employed by an uninsured employer, the court ordered Fedris to pay the victim's mother €2,818.80 in funeral costs and €28,789.03 as a dependant's annuity. The undertaker's invoice addressed to the mother and marked paid suffices to prove she bore the costs, even without a bank statement more than ten years later; absent any employment contract or declared wage, the basic remuneration was set by the category II scale of the collective agreement of joint committee 124. Claims for damages and for an equalisation allowance against Fedris were dismissed; the common-law damages claim against the employer remains with the criminal court seised; Fedris's recovery against the employer (art. 60 of the Act of 10.4.1971) is still to be quantified.","k":"Fatal workplace accident — uninsured employer, Fedris payments","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 10, 11, 15 §1, 20, 20bis, 34, 35, 38/1, 41, 46, 58 §1, 3°, 60 and 74; former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1383; Judicial Code, art. 579, 1°","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-11-20","rol":"2024/AB/659","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2025:ARR.20251120.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"« La Cour du travail de Bruxelles constate que la clause litigieuse constitue une discrimination directe fondée sur la grossesse »","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"A compulsory group sickness/disability policy taken out by an employer excluded first-year incapacity resulting from a pregnancy existing at enrolment. On a cease-and-desist action by the Institute for the Equality of Women and Men, the labour court of appeal found direct discrimination based on pregnancy, not required by the 2014 Insurance Act's principle of uncertainty of risk. The insurer was ordered to stop the practice, amend its general and special conditions and pay benefits for those periods where the other conditions are met; publicity measures were refused.","k":"Group disability insurance — pregnancy exclusion as discrimination","law":"Gender Act of 10.5.2007, art. 25; Insurance Act 2014, arts 5, 79, 92; CJEU 8.11.1990, Dekker","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-11-14","rol":"C.24.0507.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2025:ARR.20251114.1F.6","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"procedure","q":"Lorsqu'une autre personne succède aux droits et obligations résultant de la procédure entre le jour de la prononciation de la décision et celui de l'introduction du pourvoi et que cette succession est opposable au…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A patient appealed against the Mons Court of Appeal judgment of 23 February 2018, also directing the appeal against the doctor's liability insurer. The Court held that where, between the judgment and the appeal, another person succeeds to the rights and obligations arising from the proceedings and this is enforceable against the appellant, the appeal must be directed against and served on that person; following the transfer of the non-life portfolio authorised by the National Bank on 26 May 2020 and published in the Moniteur belge on 12 June 2020 (art. 17 of the Insurance Act 2014 and art. 106 of the Act of 13.3.2016), the insurer had lost standing. The appeal and the request for a common-judgment declaration against it were dismissed; the remaining ground, which challenged a factual finding of a continuing contractual relationship between doctor and patient, was inadmissible.","k":"Procedure — insurance portfolio transfer and standing in cassation","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 17; Act of 13.3.2016, art. 106 §1; Judicial Code","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-11-03","rol":"C.23.0109.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2025:ARR.20251103.3F.1","ch":"3F","res":"r","t":"home","q":"Le preneur d’assurance, copropriétaire indivis du bien assuré, qui souscrit une assurance contre le péril d’incendie dont les primes sont calculées sur la valeur totale du bien, agit pour le compte des autres…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"During divorce proceedings, one spouse had for several years paid alone the fire insurance premiums for the jointly owned building and claimed half from the other. The Court recalled that fire insurance taken out in his own name by an undivided co-owner in principle covers only his share, unless it follows from the insurance that he acted on behalf of the other co-owners, which is the case where premiums are calculated on the full value of the property. The appeal was dismissed: the Mons Court of Appeal lawfully held that the other spouse must bear half of the premiums.","k":"Fire insurance — scope of a policy taken out by a co-owner","law":"LCAT art. 1, B, a); Insurance Act 2014, art. 5, 17°, a); former Civil Code, art. 1121 and 1165; Cass. 12.4.2021 (C.20.0201.N)","w":2,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-10-23","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2025:ARR.136","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Constitutional Court held that article 19bis-14, § 5, of the Act of 21 November 1989, which allows the Guarantee Fund to recover its payment from the owner of an uninsured vehicle, is compatible with article 16 of the Constitution read with article 1 of the First Protocol to the ECHR. The duty to insure the vehicle rests solely on the owner; the fact that the driver knew the vehicle was uninsured or was convicted for driving it does not relieve the owner. The exception for intentional damage prevents disproportionate effects.","k":"Guarantee Fund — recourse against the owner of an uninsured vehicle","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 2 §1, 19bis-14 §§1 and 5, 22 §1; Constitution art. 16; Cass. 29.3.2006, 11.6.2019, 20.3.2024","w":1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-10-23","rol":"F.23.0082.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2025:ARR.20251023.1N.12","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"persons","q":"Krachtens artikel 160 Wet Verzekeringen is de levensverzekering een persoonsverzekering waarbij het zich voordoen van het verzekerd voorval alleen afhankelijk is van de menselijke levensduur en die wordt geacht…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The tax authority argued that pensions paid to former staff of an international organisation could not benefit from the exemption for pensions under an individual life insurance contract. The Court held that under article 160 of the Insurance Act 2014, life insurance is personal insurance in which the insured event depends solely on human lifespan and which pays a fixed amount, meaning an amount not dependent on the extent of the loss; lifelong payment, the lapse of survivors' benefits or indexation do not alter this. The State's appeal was dismissed; the Antwerp Court of Appeal's judgment stands.","k":"Life insurance — 'fixed amount' and taxation of a pension","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 160; Income Tax Code 1992, art. 39 §2","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-10-21","rol":"P.25.0356.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2025:ARR.20251021.2N.12","ch":"2N","res":"c","t":"motor","q":"Wanneer de burgerlijke partij na het verval van de strafvordering haar burgerlijke vordering op een ontvankelijke wijze instelt tegen de beklaagde of tegen de voor hem burgerrechtelijke aansprakelijke partij of…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"After the public prosecution lapsed, the injured party pursued the civil claim against the company civilly liable for the driver and the insurer that had voluntarily intervened; they argued that the injured party's vehicle fitted with a crash attenuator was an unforeseeable obstacle. The Limburg Criminal Court, on appeal, had placed the burden of proving this on them. The Court of Cassation quashed on the appeal of that company and the insurer: where the defendant or those answerable for him rely on a justification or excuse that is not devoid of credibility, the civil party must prove that it does not exist.","k":"Civil claim in criminal proceedings — burden of proof of a justification","law":"Code of Criminal Procedure, preliminary title, art. 4; general principle on the burden of proof in criminal matters; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 9","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-10-15","rol":"P.25.1040.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2025:ARR.20251015.2F.14","ch":"2F","res":"r","t":"procedure","q":"L’assureur, qui est intervenu volontairement, ne peut se pourvoir en cassation contre le ministère public s’il n’a pas été condamné aux frais de l’action publique.","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A driver had been convicted for failing to keep control of his vehicle; the expert evidence showed that the oil patch he relied on appeared after the accident. The Court dismissed his appeal, the decision being properly reasoned; the appeal of the motor liability insurer, which had intervened voluntarily, against the ruling on the criminal charge was inadmissible, because an insurer cannot appeal against the public prosecutor unless it was ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution. The withdrawals of the appeals against the stay of the civil claims were recorded.","k":"Insurer intervening in criminal proceedings — appeal against the criminal ruling","law":"Code of Criminal Procedure; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 9","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-10-09","rol":"C.24.0476.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2025:ARR.20251009.1N.12","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"limitation","q":"De kennisgeving van de beslissing van de verzekeraar moet gebeuren aan de benadeelde persoonlijk of aan de mandataris die de benadeelde heeft aangewezen om ze te ontvangen.","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"After an accident in 2008, the injured party's legal-expenses insurer sent the liability insurer the consolidation report and claim calculation on 28 June 2012, asking for payment into its own account; on 12 November 2012 the liability insurer disputed any causal link. The Court held that the insurer's decision to pay or refuse must be notified to the injured party personally or to an agent appointed to receive it, and that the appeal judge could infer from the letter of 28 June 2012 an express mandate of the legal-expenses insurer for that purpose. The interruption therefore ended on 12 November 2012 and the new five-year period expired in 2017; the injured party's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Direct action — addressee of the decision ending interruption of limitation","law":"LCAT art. 35 §§ 3–4 (now Insurance Act 2014, art. 89 §§ 3–5)","w":3,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-09-26","rol":"C.24.0488.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2025:ARR.20250926.1F.1","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"work","q":"Il s'ensuit que la subrogation de l'assureur-loi aux droits de la victime à laquelle il a octroyé des prestations prévues par la loi du 10 avril 1971 ne peut avoir pour effet d'imposer au tiers responsable et à son…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that the workplace-accident insurer is subrogated to the victim's rights only up to both its own payments and what the victim could have obtained under ordinary law, so the liable third party cannot bear more than the ordinary-law compensation. The judgment ordering the Guarantee Fund to pay the full recourse base (€845,080.08), without accounting for benefits already reimbursed up to 15.10.2001, was quashed on that point on the Fund's appeal. The dispute is between the workplace-accident insurer and the Fund.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — ordinary-law ceiling","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47; former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383; Cass. 8.10.2007","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-09-18","rol":"C.24.0139.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2025:ARR.20250918.1N.7","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"persons","q":"Een schadegeval in de zin van voormeld artikel is de gebeurtenis die een aanspraak op het vermogen van de verzekeraar doet ontstaan.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that, within the meaning of article 89 §3 of the Insurance Act 2014, the loss is the event giving rise to a claim against the insurer's assets; in an action based on contractual liability, the loss is the insurer's breach of contract. The life insurer's appeal, which argued that in life insurance the loss is always the insured's death, was dismissed and the Ghent Court of Appeal judgment stands.","k":"Life insurance — meaning of 'loss' for interrupting the limitation period","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 89 §3","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-09-12","rol":"C.24.0104.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2025:ARR.20250912.1F.2","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"29bis","q":"Au sens de l’article 29bis, § 1er, de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l’assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs, tant avant qu'après sa modification par la loi du 19 janvier…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court restated that a motor vehicle is involved in an accident under article 29bis if it played any role in it, which is a question of fact for the trial judge. The insurer of the vehicle that struck the victim sought to bring in the school bus's insurer; the Namur court found that the bus, which may already have moved on some hundred metres, was not involved, since the claiming insurer, which bore the burden of proof, had not removed the doubt. The appeal was dismissed; the dispute is between two insurers.","k":"Article 29bis — involvement of a vehicle (school bus)","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1; Cass. 13.6.2014","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-09-05","rol":"C.24.0173.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2025:ARR.20250905.1F.5","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"home","q":"En vertu de l’article 130, § 1er, alinéa 2, de la loi du 4 avril 2014 relative aux assurances, le contrat d’assurance ne peut appliquer, pour les risques catastrophes naturelles, une franchise supérieure à 610 euros par…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"For a building damaged by drought-induced ground subsidence, the Mons Court of Appeal awarded €36,701.44 (indexed to €43,504.42 using the ABEX index) for repairing cracks, but excluded micropile stabilisation works as aimed at preventing future damage. The Court held that the €610 cap linked to the consumer price index (art. 130 §1, para. 2, Insurance Act 2014) is only a maximum: the insurer may provide for a lower deductible linked to another index (here ABEX). The insureds' appeal was dismissed.","k":"Natural disaster cover — deductible cap and stabilisation works","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 130 §1, para. 2","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-06-23","rol":"C.25.0023.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2025:ARR.20250623.3F.3","ch":"3F","res":"c","t":"damage","q":"Le dommage matériel que subit la victime à la suite d’une incapacité permanente de travail consiste en une diminution de sa valeur économique sur le marché du travail, dont la nécessité de fournir des efforts accrus…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that the material loss from permanent incapacity is the reduction of the victim's economic value on the labour market, of which the need for increased effort is one manifestation. The Luxembourg court's judgment, which awarded loss of economic potential (€95,111.63 and €148,953.68) and increased effort (€14,491.71 and €7,592.26) separately, was quashed on that head on the liability insurer's appeal.","k":"Permanent incapacity — no separate award for increased effort","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-06-20","rol":"C.24.0166.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2025:ARR.20250620.1N.10","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"limitation","q":"De verzekeraar die, vooraleer hij de benadeelde betaalt, de door de verzekerde of verzekeringnemer verborgen gehouden grond van het verhaal ontdekt, kan zijn regresvordering tegen de verzekerde of verzekeringnemer…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court restated that the insurer's recourse against the insured is time-barred three years after payment, except in case of fraud; the fraud exception concerns concealing the ground for recourse from the insurer. An insurer that discovers that ground before compensating the injured party has three years from its payment. The policyholder's appeal, after it was found to have intentionally concealed the vehicle's usual driver, was dismissed; the insurer's recourse is not time-barred.","k":"Motor liability — limitation of recourse and the fraud exception","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 88 §3","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-06-17","rol":"2024/AN/93","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2025:ARR.20250617.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"De manière générale, l'expert doit diriger l'expertise en veillant à ce qu'elle se déroule de manière contradictoire à l'égard de toutes les parties. Le caractère contradictoire d'une expertise judiciaire est un…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the court-appointed expert breached the adversarial principle by telephoning the victim unilaterally before drafting the report. That principle is a general principle of law applying to every step of the expert procedure (art. 973 Judicial Code); absent a statutory nullity, the report is not annulled but excluded from the debate. The worker's appeal against the workplace-accident insurer was upheld, the report was set aside and a new medical expert was appointed before any ruling on the merits.","k":"Workplace accident — expert's unilateral contact, adversarial principle","law":"Judicial Code, art. 973; Act of 10.4.1971","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-06-11","rol":"P.25.0424.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2025:ARR.20250611.2F.10","ch":"2F","res":"r","t":"damage","q":"C’est le même préjudice qui se manifeste dans le temps, fût-ce avec une intensité variable.","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that permanent economic loss, even if calculated differently for the past and the future, is one and the same loss; the ban on double recovery and the health-insurance fund's preferential subrogation (art. 136 §2 of the Act coordinated on 14.7.1994) apply to an aggregated base. As the fund's benefits exceeded the total past and future permanent economic loss, the liability insurer owed nothing under that head; the victim's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Health-insurance fund subrogation — single permanent economic loss","law":"Act coordinated on 14.7.1994, art. 136 §2; former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-06-02","rol":"S.22.0022.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2025:ARR.20250602.3N.1","ch":"3N","res":"c","t":"persons","q":"Het recht op uitkeringen wegens arbeidsongeschiktheid, vastgelegd in een groepsverzekeringsovereenkomst gesloten door een werkgever ten voordele van de werknemers, is geen bij het sluiten van die…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that the right to supplementary disability benefits under a group insurance taken out by the employer is not fixed once and for all when the contract is concluded, but is a future effect of it for as long as benefits are due. Insurers' duty not to discriminate between women and men does not stem from the Act of 10 May 2007: it already existed, under article 119 EEC Treaty and Court of Justice case law, for insured events occurring since 17 May 1990. The insurer's appeal was dismissed as regards the employee and allowed as regards its claim against the employer; the equality institute's appeal on non-material damage was dismissed.","k":"Group insurance — gender equality in disability benefits","law":"EEC Treaty, art. 119; RD No 40 of 24.10.1967, art. 14; Act of 12.4.1965, art. 47ter; Act of 10.5.2007; CJEU Barber 17.5.1990; former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-05-12","rol":"C.24.0398.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2025:ARR.20250512.3F.3","ch":"3F","res":"c","t":"intent","q":"Il s'ensuit que seule la faute lourde personnelle de l'assuré peut être exclue de la couverture et que l'assuré qui n'a pas commis lui-même de faute lourde demeure couvert, même si un autre assuré a commis une faute…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that only the insured's own gross negligence may be excluded from cover (art. 62, para. 2, Insurance Act 2014), and an insured who did not personally commit gross negligence remains covered even if another insured did so in the same loss. After the total loss of a leased car, the insurer had refused own-damage cover because the driver was intoxicated, and the Liège court had dismissed the policyholder's claim without finding gross negligence on the policyholder's part. The judgment was quashed on the policyholder's appeal (amount claimed by the leasing company: €24,338.84).","k":"Gross negligence exclusion — only the insured's own fault","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 62, para. 2","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-05-09","rol":"F.24.0007.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2025:ARR.20250509.1N.6","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"persons","q":"Dat de begunstigde in plaats daarvan ervoor kiest om de reserves te herbeleggen en daarbij beperkt is tot de producten die hem in het kader van een reserveoverdracht door de verzekeraar worden aangeboden, doet daaraan…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that surrender of a life insurance contract under article 2.7.1.0.6 of the Flemish Tax Code means that the contract has ended and the beneficiary can freely dispose of the accumulated reserves. Actual payment of the reserves is not required; the beneficiary's choice to reinvest them in products offered by the insurer through a reserve transfer makes no difference. The beneficiary's appeal against the Flemish Region was dismissed. The dispute is a tax matter and the insurer was not a party.","k":"Life insurance — meaning of surrender for inheritance tax","law":"Flemish Tax Code, art. 2.7.1.0.6","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-03-27","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2025:ARR.052","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"As the care provider and its insurer disputed liability, the Medical Accidents Fund (FAM) made a provisional compensation offer and then, by subrogation, sued the doctor and the insurer; when the parents challenged the offer in court, the FAM sought to depart from its own opinion on liability. The Ghent Court of Appeal asked whether article 27 of the Act of 31 March 2010 infringed the right of access to a court. The Constitutional Court found no violation: the court is not bound by the FAM's position, the victim's access to court is subject to no condition, time limit or cost, and allowing argument on every element of the claim serves equality of arms.","k":"Medical accident — FAM departing from an accepted opinion","law":"Act of 31.3.2010, arts 4, 24, 27 and 30; Constitution, art. 13; ECHR, art. 6","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-03-27","rol":"C.24.0381.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2025:ARR.20250327.1F.4","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"procedure","q":"Il suit de ces dispositions, dans l’interprétation qu’elles reçoivent en France, que le montant de l’indemnité allouée par le juge à la victime ne produit intérêt au double du taux de l’intérêt légal jusqu’au jugement…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that, as French law is interpreted in France (articles L211-9 and L211-13 of the French Insurance Code), the compensation awarded by the court bears double statutory interest until the final judgment only if no offer was made before then; an incomplete or manifestly insufficient offer may be treated as no offer. The Luxembourg court, which applied double interest up to its own judgment without finding the offer of 26.5.2020 incomplete or insufficient, was quashed on the appeal of the Belgian Motor Insurers' Bureau as regards loss of earnings (€22,863.02 and €60,000), future medical costs (€42,436.39) and interest.","k":"Accident in France — double statutory interest conditions","law":"French Insurance Code, art. L211-9 and L211-13","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-03-14","rol":"C.23.0450.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2025:ARR.20250314.1N.8","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"contract","q":"Behoudens wettelijke of contractuele afwijking is er een oorzakelijk verband tussen het onzeker voorval en de schade aan iemands vermogen wanneer vaststaat dat zonder het onzeker voorval de schade zich niet zou hebben…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A steel plate on the road pierced a lorry's oil sump, and the engine was badly damaged after the driver kept driving despite warning lights. The appeal judge refused comprehensive cover, holding that, as property insurance, the equivalence-of-conditions theory did not apply and that the damage was caused by continued driving. The Court held that, absent a contrary statutory or contractual provision, there is causation where the loss would not have occurred as it did without the uncertain event, and that the mere classification as property insurance cannot exclude the equivalence theory; the judgment was quashed on the insured's appeal.","k":"Comprehensive motor cover — causal link between event and loss","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 5, 15°","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-03-10","rol":"C.24.0343.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2025:ARR.20250310.3F.2","ch":"3F","res":"r","t":"duties","q":"Il ne suit pas de ces dispositions que les hypothèses de déchéance visées à l’article 65, alinéa 1er, précité, ne seraient admissibles que dans des cas de faute lourde commise par le preneur au sens de l’article 62,…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that articles 62, para. 2, and 65, para. 1, of the Insurance Act 2014 do not imply that forfeiture for causally relevant breach of a specific contractual obligation is only allowed where the policyholder committed gross negligence. Forfeiture and the gross negligence exclusion are separate regimes. The policyholder's appeal, based entirely on the opposite view, was dismissed and the Liège Court of Appeal judgment stands.","k":"Forfeiture — not limited to gross negligence","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 62, para. 2, and art. 65, para. 1","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-02-28","rol":"C.24.0100.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2025:ARR.20250228.1N.9","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"subrogation","q":"Aan de voorwaarde dat de indeplaatsstelling gelijktijdig met de betaling geschiedt, kan de schuldeiser voldoen door, zelfs in een document van vóór de betaling, zijn voornemen aan te geven om de derde persoon in zijn…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that the requirement that contractual subrogation coincide with payment (art. 1250, 1°, former Civil Code) can be met by a receipt signed before payment that only takes effect upon actual payment; simultaneity concerns when the legal effect arises. The insurer that had paid the injured party €4,610.27 had obtained €4,709 (including €100 uncontested administrative costs) from the liable party's insurer; the latter's appeal was dismissed. The dispute is between two insurers.","k":"Contractual subrogation — simultaneity with payment","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1250, 1°","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-02-20","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2025:ARR.027","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"- Violation (articles 15, 20 et 46 de la loi du 10 avril 1971, interprétés en ce sens que les ascendants de la victime décédée des suites d'un accident du travail qui ne profitaient pas directement de la rémunération de…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The parents of a worker killed on a building site claimed non-pecuniary damages from the employer in criminal proceedings; as they did not directly benefit from the victim's pay, article 20 of the Act of 10 April 1971 barred them from an annuity from the workplace-accident insurer. The Liège Court of Appeal asked whether the employer's civil immunity under article 46 could be raised against them. The Constitutional Court held it disproportionate that these parents, who receive no flat-rate compensation and have no bearing on the employment relationship, should get no compensation at all: reading the law as allowing immunity against them breaches articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution, while reading it as not allowing immunity does not.","k":"Workplace accident — parents of a deceased worker and employer immunity","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts 15, 20 and 46; Const. Court 1.3.2001, no. 31/2001","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-02-14","rol":"C.23.0045.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2025:ARR.20250214.1N.7","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"damage","q":"De veronderstelling dat de benadeelde ook zonder lichamelijk letsel werkloos zou zijn geweest, belet het bestaan van deze schade niet.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that the material loss from reduced working capacity is the reduction of the victim's economic value on the labour market, and the assumption that the victim would have been unemployed even without the injury does not prevent this loss from existing. The Antwerp court's judgment, which rejected the claim for temporary and permanent incapacity for lack of income loss, was quashed on the victim's appeal against the insurer.","k":"Incapacity loss — victim who would have been unemployed anyway","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-02-13","rol":"C.22.0156.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2025:ARR.20250213.1F.3","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"motor","q":"La Cour de justice en a déduit que, « sauf arrangement contractuel contraire, le contrat d’assurance garagiste ne couvre que la responsabilité civile à laquelle peut donner lieu un véhicule automoteur porteur de la…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Relying on Benelux Court of Justice judgment A 2023/1/9 of 21 June 2024, the Court held that, absent a contrary clause, motor trade insurance covers only liability arising from a vehicle bearing the original trade plate, and the insurer may invoke against the injured party the fact that the vehicle bore a copy of that plate. The Hainaut court's judgment, which treated the use of a copy as an aggravation of risk that could not be invoked against injured third parties and held the insurer liable, was quashed on the liability insurer's appeal; the judgment was declared binding on the Guarantee Fund.","k":"Motor trade insurance — copied trade plate","law":"Benelux Common Provisions, art. 6 and 11 §1; LCAT art. 86–87; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 2 §1 and 16; Benelux Court 21.6.2024, A 2023/1/9","w":4,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-02-06","rol":"C.23.0349.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2025:ARR.20250206.1F.3","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"home","q":"Dès lors que cette loi ne précise pas ce qu’il y a lieu d’entendre par dommage corporel, ce terme doit être compris dans le sens que lui donne le droit commun.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that, since the Act of 30 July 1979 does not define bodily injury, the term has its ordinary-law meaning and covers harm to both physical and mental integrity. Article 8 does not imply that only persons proving they were in or near the establishment at the time of the loss are third parties; the preliminary question proposed by the insurer was not referred to the Constitutional Court. The strict-liability insurer's appeal was dismissed and the Mons Court of Appeal judgment stands.","k":"Compulsory fire/explosion liability — bodily injury and third parties","law":"Act of 30.7.1979, art. 7 §2 and 8, para. 1; RD 5.8.1991","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-01-31","rol":"C.21.0180.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2025:ARR.20250131.1N.7","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"subrogation","q":"De subrogatie in de rechten van de benadeelde heeft tot gevolg dat de indeplaatsgestelde de vordering van de benadeelde uitoefent met al haar kenmerken en toebehoren.","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court restated that subrogation allows the subrogated party to exercise the victim's claim with all its characteristics and accessories. The health-insurance fund, bringing a direct action against the insurer of the municipality held liable for its member's fall, had been subrogated at least in part before the member's own writ (28.10.2013). The judgment, which started the five-year limitation period when the fund learned of its own direct action without establishing when the member knew of his or her right, was quashed for inadequate reasoning on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Direct action — start of limitation for a subrogated health-insurance fund","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 88 §2 and art. 150","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2025-01-20","rol":"C.24.0206.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2025:ARR.20250120.3F.5","ch":"3F","res":"r","t":"motor","q":"Dès lors qu’il suit de ces énonciations qu’au moment où il est tombé à l’eau, le véhicule était en circulation dans un des lieux visés à l’article 2, § 1er, de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A stolen car was thrown into the Scheldt and a barge struck it; the Walloon Region, as custodian of the waterway, compensated the barge owner and claimed reimbursement from the Guarantee Fund. The Court upheld the Mons Court of Appeal's finding that the car, being in traffic in a place covered by article 2 §1 of the Act of 21 November 1989 when it fell into the water, was taking part in traffic, which justifies the Fund's intervention. As the judgment did not treat the loss as intentional, the Fund's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Guarantee Fund — stolen car ending up in the river","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 2 §1 and 19bis-11","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2024-12-12","rol":"24/54/A","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARGNT:2024:JUG.20241212.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Een werknemer van een garage die was gevallen nadat hij zijn voet op het chassis van een voertuig wou plaatsen, toont de ‘plotse gebeurtenis' van een arbeidsongeval aan. Het is volgens de rechtbank irrelevant dat het…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A garage worker fell while trying to place his foot on a vehicle's chassis; the workplace-accident insurer disputed that there was a workplace accident. The court held that the sudden event was established and that it is irrelevant that placing one's foot is an 'ordinary' movement often made outside work. It appointed a medical court expert to advise whether that sudden event caused the worker's injury; costs were reserved (interlocutory judgment).","k":"Workplace accident — sudden event, ordinary movement","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 9; Judicial Code, art. 962 ff.","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidsrechtbank Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2024-11-28","rol":"C.23.0357.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2024:ARR.20241128.1F.1","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"procedure","q":"Il s’ensuit que, même entre parties à la cause, en l’absence d’instance liée entre ces parties devant le premier juge, la demande introduite par l’une d’elles en vue d’obtenir la condamnation de l’autre pour la première…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that, under article 812, para. 2, of the Judicial Code, an intervention seeking an order against a party cannot be made for the first time on appeal and that, even between parties to the case, a claim for an order made for the first time on appeal, absent proceedings between them at first instance, is a prohibited forced intervention. The insureds, who had neither filed submissions nor appeared at first instance, first asked on appeal for the family liability insurer to cover the loss. The Liège Court of Appeal had also found that the policyholder intentionally failed to disclose his son's repeated offences before the policy was taken out; the insureds' appeal was dismissed.","k":"Family liability insurance — cover claimed for the first time on appeal","law":"Judicial Code, art. 807, 812, para. 2, and 813","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2024-11-26","rol":"P.23.0764.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2024:ARR.20241126.2N.28","ch":"2N","res":"c","t":"motor","q":"Uit deze bepalingen volgt dat de strafrechter die de beklaagde vrijspreekt voor de hem ten laste gelegde feiten en aldus oordeelt dat de beklaagde niet aansprakelijk is voor het ongeval, niet bevoegd is om het Fonds in…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that a criminal court that acquits the defendant, thereby finding the defendant not liable for the accident, has no jurisdiction to substitute the Guarantee Fund for the liable person and order it to compensate the loss. The Brussels criminal court had acquitted the defendant on the benefit of the doubt yet held the Fund liable to the injured party under article 19bis-11 §1, 7° of the Act of 21 November 1989 (unidentified vehicle). That decision was quashed without referral on the Fund's appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund — acquittal and unidentified vehicle","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 19bis-11 §1, 7° and 19bis-17; Preliminary Title, Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 3–4","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2024-10-25","rol":"C.23.0413.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2024:ARR.20241025.1N.2","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"persons","q":"Een rechtsvordering tot vergoeding van schade van de derde-begunstigde ten aanzien van de verzekeringnemer die is ontstaan uit een collectieve verzekeringsovereenkomst, waarbij de begunstigde de verzekeringnemer verwijt…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that a third-party beneficiary's damages claim against the policyholder under a collective insurance contract, alleging that the policyholder wrongly reclaimed from the insurer the policy capital (also qualifying as commission under an underlying commercial agency contract) when that agency ended, is not a claim arising from the commercial agency contract. It is therefore not subject to the limitation period of article 26 of the Act of 13 April 1995 (now art. X.24 Code of Economic Law). The policyholder's appeal was dismissed; the insurer was joined only so that the judgment would be binding on it.","k":"Collective insurance — limitation of the beneficiary's claim against the policyholder","law":"Act of 13.4.1995, art. 26 (now Code of Economic Law, art. X.24)","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2024-10-16","rol":"P.24.0704.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2024:ARR.20241016.2F.2","ch":"2F","res":"c","t":"damage","q":"Ce principe n’a cependant pas pour effet, même si la victime d’un fait illicite doit démontrer son dommage, de lui imposer, lorsqu’elle demande de calculer l’indemnisation de ses dommages personnel et ménager permanents…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that the judge may set aside the capitalisation method proposed by the victim and award a lump sum only by explaining why that method cannot be used and why the loss cannot be determined otherwise. The Walloon Brabant criminal court had required the victims to prove that their losses would arise in a linear way and had not found that capitalisation would lead to compensation exceeding the loss. The judgment was quashed as regards permanent personal and household loss on the victims' appeals against the liability insurer.","k":"Permanent personal and household loss — capitalisation or lump sum","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382; Civil Code, art. 8.4; Judicial Code, art. 870","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2024-09-30","rol":"C.23.0397.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2024:ARR.20240930.3N.5","ch":"3N","res":"r","t":"limitation","q":"De rechtsvordering vloeit voort uit de verzekeringsovereenkomst wanneer zij betrekking heeft op het bestaan van de overeenkomst en de daaruit voortvloeiende verplichtingen, zowel voor de contractanten als ten aanzien…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court recalled that a claim arises from the insurance contract when it concerns the existence of the contract and the obligations flowing from it, for the parties and for third parties, whatever its legal basis. By contrast, a claim in which the insured seeks compensation from the insurer on the basis of pre-contractual liability does not arise from the insurance contract, so the three-year limitation period of article 34 LCAT does not apply. The insurer's appeal was dismissed and the Antwerp Court of Appeal's judgment stands.","k":"Limitation — pre-contractual liability claim","law":"LCAT art. 34 §1","w":6,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2024-09-25","rol":"P.24.0560.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2024:ARR.20240925.2F.2","ch":"2F","res":"r","t":"damage","q":"En tant que méthode d’indemnisation d’un préjudice futur, la capitalisation se définit comme un calcul actuariel consistant à convertir en une somme l’ensemble des indemnités à échoir.","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The civil party challenged the criminal court's judgment (Luxembourg, Arlon division, on appeal) that rejected capitalisation in favour of a lump sum per point of incapacity. The Court held that the judge may assess damage ex aequo et bono if it explains why the victim's method cannot be accepted and finds that the damage cannot be determined otherwise, and that capitalisation requires a minimum equivalence between the annuity instalments and the annual loss. Refusing to accept a unilateral claim of an equal share of household tasks does not discriminate against men. The victim's appeal against the insurer was dismissed.","k":"Personal injury — lump sum instead of capitalisation","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383; Constitution, art. 10; Cass. 13.3.2024","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2024-09-20","rol":"C.21.0376.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2024:ARR.20240920.1N.1","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"29bis","q":"Hieruit volgt dat, om te beoordelen of een elektrische fiets al dan niet een voertuig is in de zin van artikel 1, punt 1, Richtlijn 2009/103/EG en bij uitbreiding een motorrijtuig in de zin van artikel 1 WAM, het van…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"In a dispute between two insurers, the Court applied the CJEU's judgment C-286/22 of 12 October 2023 given in this case: a bicycle whose motor only assists pedalling, and whose function allowing it to accelerate to 20 km/h without pedalling can only be activated after muscle power has been used, is not a motor vehicle within the meaning of article 1 of the Act of 21 November 1989 and article 1.1 of Directive 2009/103. That it can move without muscle power once the motor is running makes no difference. The limb concerning speed pedelecs required an examination of facts and was inadmissible; the appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — is an e-bike a motor vehicle","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 1, 29bis; Dir. 2009/103, art. 1.1; CJEU C-286/22, 12.10.2023","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2024-09-20","rol":"C.23.0330.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2024:ARR.20240920.1N.6","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"29bis","q":"De bestuurder, in de zin van voormeld artikel 29bis, § 2, WAM, is de persoon die het motorrijtuig bestuurt op het ogenblik van het ongeval, dat wil zeggen de persoon die, op dat ogenblik, het meesterschap over dat…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The victim was in the basket of an aerial work platform parked on the parking strip and partly overhanging the carriageway, operating the boom and basket; the appeal judgment held that he was not a driver within the meaning of article 29bis §2 because he was not taking part in traffic. The Court held that a traffic accident under article 29bis is one occurring on the public road or on land accessible to a number of persons and linked to road-traffic risks, and that the driver is the person who, at the time, controls the vehicle through mechanical means. A person exercising such control on the public road cannot be denied driver status; the judgment was quashed on the motor liability insurer's appeal.","k":"Article 29bis — traffic accident and notion of driver (aerial work platform)","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 1, 29bis §§1–2","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2024-09-06","rol":"C.23.0287.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2024:ARR.20240906.1N.2","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"damage","q":"Hij mag de schade naar billijkheid ramen, mits hij de redenen aangeeft waarom hij de door het slachtoffer voorgestelde berekeningswijze niet kan aannemen en tevens vaststelt dat de schade onmogelijk anders kan worden…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The 26-year-old victim asked for her 40% permanent personal incapacity to be capitalised on a fixed daily amount; the appeal judge assessed it ex aequo et bono at €90,000. The Court recalled that the judge may do so if it explains why the victim's method cannot be accepted and finds that the damage cannot be determined otherwise, the damage being assessed in concreto. The finding that pain and inconvenience would not show a minimum equivalence over the years justified the decision; the appeal, directed among others against insurers, was dismissed.","k":"Personal injury — permanent personal incapacity assessed ex aequo et bono","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2024-07-03","rol":"24/165/A","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARGNT:2024:JUG.20240703.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Een werknemer van een restaurant die zich tijdens zijn dienst opzettelijk van de keldertrap laat vallen, is geen slachtoffer van een arbeidsongeval. Een werknemer die een ongeval opzettelijk veroorzaakt, kan geen…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A restaurant employee claimed workplace-accident compensation after allegedly falling down the cellar stairs during his shift; the workplace-accident insurer had decided on 19.9.2022 that there was no workplace accident. The court found that the camera footage clearly showed the worker letting himself fall without any external factor, held that a worker who deliberately causes the accident cannot claim benefits under the Act of 10.4.1971, and confirmed the insurer's refusal. Because he sued despite having seen the footage and knowing his declaration was fraudulent, his claim was held vexatious and reckless; by way of exception to article 68 he was ordered to pay the costs (procedural indemnity of €163.98).","k":"Workplace accident — deliberately staged fall","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7, 9, 67 and 68","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidsrechtbank Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2024-06-27","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2024:ARR.074","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Violation (article 203, § 3, de la loi du 4 avril 2014, en ce qu'il ne rend pas la durée minimale obligatoire inscrite à l'article 203, § 1er, de cette loi applicable aux assurés qui ont souscrit une assurance…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Antwerp Court of Appeal asked whether article 203 §3 of the Insurance Act 2014 was constitutional in excluding from the mandatory minimum term of article 203 §1 (until age 65 or an earlier normal retirement age) disability income cover taken out as an ancillary to a main risk not covered for life (here, a life policy). The Constitutional Court noted that the ancillary cover may relate to a different risk from the main one, so the aim of aligning terms does not justify the exclusion, and that the insured has no real freedom of choice given the protection of article 203 §§1–2. The provision breaches articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution in so far as it does not apply the minimum term to such insureds.","k":"Disability income insurance — minimum term for ancillary cover","law":"Insurance Act 2014, arts 201 §1 and 203 §§1–3","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2024-06-27","rol":"C.22.0438.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2024:ARR.20240627.1N.7","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"damage","q":"Bijgevolg heeft de benadeelde recht op het bedrag dat noodzakelijk is om de zaak te laten herstellen of vervangen, in de regel zonder dat dit bedrag mag worden verminderd wegens de vetusteit van de beschadigde of…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"An entity whose property had been damaged claimed compensation from the Belgian Motor Insurers' Bureau; the police court dismissed the claim on the ground that damage calculated at replacement value must always be reduced for wear and tear. The Court held that a person whose property is damaged by a wrongful act is entitled to the amount needed to repair or replace it, as a rule without any deduction for wear and tear. The judgment was quashed on the injured party's appeal and the case referred to the Limburg police court.","k":"Property damage — deduction for wear and tear","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2024-06-24","rol":"C.23.0488.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2024:ARR.20240624.3F.5","ch":"3F","res":"r","t":"damage","q":"La perte d’une chance donne lieu à réparation lorsqu’il existe un lien de causalité entre la faute et la perte de la chance et que la chance est réelle.","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A company claimed that its lawyers had failed to seek revocation of a debtor's judicial reorganisation plan and sued the lawyers and two insurers for the loss of a chance to recover its claim. The Court held that loss of a chance is compensable only if it results from a fault, there is a causal link between the fault and the lost chance, and the chance was real. Since the Liège Court of Appeal found that a revocation action had no serious prospect of success, so no real chance was lost, the appeal was dismissed.","k":"Lawyer's liability — compensation for loss of a chance","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383; Act of 31.1.2009, art. 58","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2024-06-12","rol":"P.24.0239.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2024:ARR.20240612.2F.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"L'existence d'une obligation légale, réglementaire ou contractuelle n'exclut pas la survenance d'un dommage réparable au sens de l'article 1382 de l'ancien Code civil; toutefois, il en va autrement lorsque, selon le…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The workplace-accident insurer of the public employers whose staff were killed or injured in the Ghislenghien disaster of 31 July 2004 sought to recover, by way of subrogation, the benefits paid under the Act of 3 July 1967 from the accused companies; the Mons Court of Appeal, criminal division, had allowed the claim. The Court recalled that a statutory obligation does not rule out recoverable loss, unless the scheme of the law means the expense must remain definitively with the party bearing it. Firefighting is a statutory task of the municipalities with no right of recovery, and the general subrogation in article 14 §3 does not override those specific rules; the judgment was quashed as regards the civil claim against the companies and referred to the Mons Court of Appeal, differently composed.","k":"Public-sector workplace-accident insurer — recourse for firefighters' benefits","law":"Act of 3.7.1967 art. 14 §3; former Civil Code, art. 1382; New Municipal Act art. 135 §2; Act of 15.5.2007 arts. 11 and 178 §1","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2024-06-03","rol":"C.23.0167.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2024:ARR.20240603.3N.10","ch":"3N","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"De vraag rijst of een rechtspersoon, zoals een vereniging zonder winstoogmerk die occasioneel van een handelaar een pakketreis koopt voor haar leden, als reiziger bedoeld in de zin van artikel 3.6), Richtlijn…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A non-profit association that bought a package trip from a travel agency for its members turned to the insolvency insurer after the agency's bankruptcy; the Antwerp Court of Appeal treated it as a traveller under the Package Travel Act. The insurer argued that only natural persons can be travellers. The Court stayed the proceedings and asked the CJEU whether the notion of traveller in article 3.6 of Directive 2015/2302 covers a legal person, such as an association occasionally buying a package trip for its members; the merits were not decided.","k":"Package travel — insolvency insurance, is a legal person a traveller","law":"Act of 21.11.2017, art. 2, 6°; RD of 29.5.2018, art. 2, 3°; Dir. 2015/2302, art. 3.6; TFEU, art. 267","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2024-05-24","rol":"2024/AL/17","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2024:ARR.20240524.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La cour rappelle la différence entre le délai de prescription et le délai de recours. Délai de recours et délai de prescription ne se confondent pas nécessairement sur tous les plans dans les matières de sécurité…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The court found that the workplace-accident insurer's decision of 10.7.2009 (recovery without sequelae) lacked the compulsory information required by article 4 of the Royal Decree of 24.11.1997, which derogates from article 14 of the Social Insured Charter; the period for challenging it therefore never started and the victim's claim was admissible. However, the time limit for challenge and the limitation period are governed by different rules: the missing information has no effect on when the three-year limitation period of article 69 of the Act of 10.4.1971 starts, a question the court reserved. The expert examination ordered at first instance was confirmed (interlocutory ruling).","k":"Workplace accident — defective decision, appeal period and limitation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 69 and 72; Act of 11.4.1995 (Social Insured Charter), arts. 14 and 23; RD 24.11.1997, art. 4","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2024-05-17","rol":"C.23.0497.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2024:ARR.20240517.1F.2","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"duties","q":"Le juge apprécie le caractère intentionnel des omissions ou inexactitudes dans la déclaration à la lumière de toutes les circonstances de la cause.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Mons Court of Appeal had held a home insurance contract covering fire void because the policyholder declared a renovated chalet built in 1963 as a \"house\" less than ten years old and did not disclose an earlier arson attack. The Court held that whether omissions or inaccuracies in the declaration are intentional must be assessed in the light of all the circumstances of the case. A judgment that infers intent solely from findings that the policyholder could not have been unaware that these elements were decisive for the risk breaches articles 58 and 59; it was quashed on the insureds' appeal and the case referred to the Liège Court of Appeal.","k":"Home insurance — assessing intentional misrepresentation","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 58 para. 1 and 59 para. 1","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2024-05-17","rol":"C.23.0499.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2024:ARR.20240517.1F.4","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"damage","q":"Le juge évalue in concreto le préjudice causé par un fait illicite.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Walloon Brabant court of first instance, sitting on appeal, assessed the victim's permanent household loss by capitalisation; the insurer argued that this method was excluded because the evolution of the victim's family situation could not be determined. The Court recalled the right to full compensation and in concreto assessment, and held that it is for the judge to decide whether changes in the family situation allow an assessment per unit of time. The fact that the evidence does not show how the family situation will evolve does not in itself exclude capitalisation; the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Household loss — when capitalisation may be used","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2024-04-22","rol":"C.21.0433.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2024:ARR.20240422.3F.4","ch":"3F","res":"c","t":"damage","q":"Le juge évalue in concreto le préjudice causé par un fait illicite, en se plaçant au moment où il statue.","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"In a dispute between two insurers, the issue was the past and future material loss from the permanent incapacity of a victim who remained a part-time public-sector employee after the accident; the claimant insurer asked for public-sector pay indexation since consolidation in 2008 to be taken into account. The Court held that the victim must be put back in the position he would have been in without the fault, that the judge assesses the damage in concreto at the time of judgment, and that the loss may include lost earnings. The judgment that used pre-consolidation pay merely by reference to the general labour market was quashed as regards the awards of €76,213.58 and €107,513.18.","k":"Permanent incapacity — indexation of public-sector pay","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2024-03-29","rol":"C.23.0305.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2024:ARR.20240329.1F.3","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"damage","q":"Il peut recourir à une évaluation en équité du dommage à la condition qu’il indique les motifs pour lesquels il ne peut admettre le mode de calcul proposé par la victime et qu’il constate l’impossibilité de déterminer…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Hainaut court of first instance, sitting on appeal, compensated the victim's permanent personal, household and economic incapacities by lump sums rather than capitalisation, on the ground that his complaints were subjective and variable. The Court recalled that an ex aequo et bono assessment requires the judge to explain why the proposed calculation cannot be accepted and to find that the damage cannot be determined otherwise. Those reasons concerned the existence and nature of the damage, not its assessment, and could not justify a lump sum for damage held to be permanent; the judgment was quashed to that extent on the victim's appeal against the insurer.","k":"Permanent incapacity — reasons for a lump-sum award","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2024-03-27","rol":"P.24.0065.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2024:ARR.20240327.2F.9","ch":"2F","res":"r","t":"damage","q":"La réduction de capacité ne s’apprécie pas uniquement par rapport au métier exercé par la victime au moment de l’accident mais par rapport à l’ensemble des professions qu’elle est encore capable d’exercer de manière…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Namur criminal court, sitting on appeal, awarded compensation for a 10% economic incapacity because of the victim's increased effort at work, although no loss of income was shown. The Court held that permanent economic incapacity may be compensated without loss of income, that reduced capacity is assessed against all occupations the victim can still pursue, and that the judge may measure the loss of value on the labour market by increased effort alone. The appeals of the defendant and the insurer were inadmissible because they had not been served, and the victim's appeal was dismissed; the judgment stands.","k":"Economic incapacity — increased effort and loss of value","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383; Constitution, art. 149; Cass. 22.6.2017","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2024-03-20","rol":"P.24.0064.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2024:ARR.20240320.2F.13","ch":"2F","res":"r","t":"motor","q":"C’est au juge du fond qu’il appartient d’apprécier souverainement si, dans la réalité des choses, l’infraction doit être imputée à celui qui a réalisé matériellement le délit, ou si elle doit l’être à une autre personne.","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The owner had been convicted because his wife drove an unregistered and uninsured vehicle on which trade plates had not been fitted; he argued that he had not driven it himself. The Court held that article 1, 11° of the Royal Decree of 20 July 2001 defines putting a vehicle into circulation without identifying who is answerable for it, which is for the trial judge to decide. Article 22 §1 of the Act of 21 November 1989 requires an owner who has not insured the vehicle himself to check the insurance before allowing another person to use it; the conviction of the owner who failed to check that the plates were fitted was upheld and the appeal dismissed.","k":"Uninsured, unregistered vehicle — owner's liability","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 22 §1; RD of 20.7.2001, art. 1, 11° and 2 §1; Cass. 29.3.2006","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2024-03-20","rol":"P.22.0088.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2024:ARR.20240320.2F.15","ch":"2F","res":"c","t":"damage","q":"Mais le jugement n’alloue, pour ce poste du dommage, que la somme de cinq cents euros, au motif que le demandeur aurait pu, dans un esprit d’économie et afin de limiter ses frais, jumeler ces déplacements avec d’autres…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"The criminal court (Luxembourg, Arlon division, on appeal) accepted that the victim had produced a detailed and credible list of journeys all linked to the accident, yet awarded €500 instead of the €581.70 claimed because he could have combined trips or used public transport. The Court held this breached the principle of equivalence between damage and compensation; it also held that offsetting the procedural indemnities breached article 162bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure, since the civil party had not lost: the appeal had been brought by the insurer, which was ordered to compensate him. The judgment was quashed on those two points and the appeal otherwise dismissed.","k":"Full compensation — travel costs and procedural indemnity","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382; Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 162bis; Cass. 13.6.2016","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2024-03-15","rol":"C.23.0124.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2024:ARR.20240315.1F.3","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"damage","q":"Il suit de l’article 136, § 2, alinéa 4, de la loi relative à l’assurance obligatoire soins de santé et indemnités, qui prévoit en termes généraux que la subrogation de l’organisme assureur dans les droits du…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The health-insurance fund sought to recover from the liable parties' insurers the \"hospital twelfths\" it had paid under the Hospitals Act; the Brussels Court of Appeal dismissed the claim because the beneficiary, who did not have to pay them, had no claim against the liable third party for that item. The Court held that subrogation under article 136 §2 para. 4 of the Act of 14 July 1994 covers all benefits granted, whether paid to the beneficiary or directly to care institutions, and that such twelfths are recovered under rules laid down by the King pursuant to article 136 §5. The judgment was quashed as regards healthcare costs on the fund's appeal and the case referred to the Mons Court of Appeal.","k":"Health-insurance fund subrogation — hospital twelfths","law":"Act of 14.7.1994, art. 136 §2 para. 4 and §5; Hospitals Act, art. 87; RD of 11.6.2003, art. 2","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2024-03-13","rol":"P.22.0117.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2024:ARR.20240313.2F.1","ch":"2F","res":"r","t":"damage","q":"En tant que méthode d’indemnisation d’un préjudice futur, la capitalisation se définit comme un calcul actuariel consistant à convertir en une somme l’ensemble des indemnités à échoir.","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The criminal court (Luxembourg, Arlon division, on appeal) found that the household and economic losses of a 48-year-old victim with wrist sequelae were variable and evolving, rejected capitalisation and awarded a lump sum of €720 per point (€6,480 for household incapacity). The Court held that capitalisation requires a minimum equivalence between the annuity instalments and the annual loss, and that the judge may refuse it where that equivalence cannot be established and the method would award more than the loss. Since the judgment set out the concrete circumstances that made capitalisation impossible, the victim's appeal against the defendant and the insurer was dismissed.","k":"Capitalisation — equivalence requirement and lump sum","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2024-01-25","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2024:ARR.016","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Non-violation (article 88, § 1er, alinéa 1er, deuxième phrase, de la loi du 4 avril 2014, en ce qu'il soumet les actions relatives aux réserves d'assurances-vie acquises à un délai de prescription de trente ans)","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Brussels Court of Appeal asked whether article 88 §1 of the Insurance Act 2014 (formerly art. 34 §1 LCAT), by applying a 30-year limitation period to claims concerning acquired life-insurance reserves, breached the equality principle to the detriment of insurers. The Constitutional Court found no violation: the general period is three years and applies to the capital at risk; the long period covers only acquired reserves, which are by nature long-term and of great financial importance, and strikes a balance between the interests of those involved in the contract. It does not disproportionately restrict insurers' rights.","k":"Life insurance — 30-year limitation period for acquired reserves","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 88 §1; Const. Court 22.10.2020, no. 140/2020","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2024-01-12","rol":"C.23.0238.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2024:ARR.20240112.1F.1","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"contract","q":"L’obligation imposée à l’assureur de rédiger les clauses en termes clairs et précis n’implique ni celle de modifier le libellé des termes existants pour tenir compte de l’évolution de la technologie ni celle d’indiquer…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured argued that the damage caused by pouring AdBlue into the fuel tank and then starting the car fell within the \"accident\" cover and that the term was not drafted clearly in the light of technological change; his legal-expenses insurer joined the appeal. The Court held that the duty to draft clauses in clear and precise terms does not require the insurer to update existing wording to reflect technological change or to state whether every particular situation is covered. Since the Liège Court of Appeal found that \"accident\" had a clear ordinary meaning, adopted by the claimants themselves, and that these events were not fortuitous, the contra proferentem rule did not apply; the appeal was dismissed.","k":"Vehicle damage insurance — notion of accident and clarity of terms","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 23; Code of Economic Law, art. VI.37; Cass. 8.10.2021","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2023-10-25","rol":"2022/RG/1081","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2023:ARR.20231025.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"« La déclaration de vol faite par l'appelant est dépourvue de la vraisemblance requise »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The insured reported that his car had been stolen during a stay in Paris. The court recalled that the insured must prove the theft actually occurred, that his account must be not only sincere but plausible, and that reporting the loss to the insurer and filing a police complaint do not shift the burden of proof. As contradictions about the purpose of the trip, the handover of a mobile phone and relatives' statements remained unexplained, the theft was not proven and dismissal of the claim was upheld.","k":"Vehicle theft — proof that the theft occurred","law":"Civil Code, art. 8.4; Judicial Code, art. 870","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège (3e ch. C)","m":"full"},{"d":"2023-10-18","rol":"2021/AU/46","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2023:ARR.20231018.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"« Le critère est justifié par les principes qui régissent tout contrat d'assurance, à savoir que le risque assuré doit survenir après l'adhésion au contrat »","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"The widow of an employee sought damages from the employer because the group income protection policy it had taken out excluded incapacity linked to a pre-existing condition arising in the first year of membership. The labour court of appeal held that the employer had only undertaken to enrol the employee in the group policy, not to guarantee an income in all cases. The exclusion is a direct distinction based on health, but is justified by the principle that the insured risk must arise after enrolment and by the legitimate aim of preventing fraud; there was no discrimination or failure to make reasonable accommodation. The judgment was reversed and the claims dismissed.","k":"Group income protection insurance — pre-existing condition exclusion","law":"Anti-discrimination Act of 10.5.2007, arts 4, 9, 18, 28; former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège (div. Liège)","m":"full"},{"d":"2023-10-18","rol":"P.22.1781.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2023:ARR.20231018.2F.1","ch":"2F","res":"r","t":"motor","q":"Ainsi, de la seule circonstance que l'assureur reste tenu d'indemniser la personne lésée, il ne peut se déduire, en ce qui concerne le rapport juridique existant entre l'assureur et l'assuré ou le preneur d'assurance,…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The rider and the owner of a moped whose actual speed exceeded the maximum speed of the class for which it was insured had been convicted of driving without insurance; they relied on the existence of the contract and the insurer's duty to compensate third parties. The Court held that the fact that the insurer cannot raise defences against the injured party (art. 16) does not mean that, as between insurer and insured, the liability is covered by insurance complying with the Act, so the offence stands. The exception in article 22 §1 para. 2 applies only to the keeper and the driver, not to the owner; the appeals were dismissed.","k":"Uninsured-driving offence — cover not matching the vehicle class","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 2 §1, 16 and 22 §1","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2023-09-29","rol":"C.23.0014.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2023:ARR.20230929.1F.1","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"liability","q":"Il suit du rapprochement de ces dispositions que le dommage au sens de l’article 142 est celui qui, prévu au contrat, est causé à la personne lésée par une faute de l’assuré.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"An insurer appealed against a Mons Court of Appeal judgment given in favour of an insurance brokerage firm and two individuals; commentators read the ruling in terms of the notion of loss in a broker's professional liability insurance. Reading articles 5, 15°, 141 and 142 of the Insurance Act 2014 together, the Court held that damage within the meaning of article 142 is the damage, provided for in the contract, caused to the injured party by the insured's fault; cover applies to such damage occurring during the policy period and extends to claims made after the contract ends. The insurer's appeal, based on a different legal view, was dismissed.","k":"Professional liability insurance — notion of covered damage","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 5, 15°, 141 and 142 §1","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2023-09-22","rol":"C.23.0044.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2023:ARR.20230922.1F.10","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"limitation","q":"Il suit du tout que, lorsque l’assureur est informé de la volonté de la personne subrogée dans les droits de la personne lésée, qui s’en est elle-même abstenue, d’obtenir l’indemnisation du préjudice, la prescription de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The health-insurance fund, subrogated to the victim's rights, brought the direct action against the liable parties' insurers; the Liège Court of Appeal held it time-barred because the victim had not interrupted the limitation period by bringing a direct action herself. The Court held that the subrogated body may exercise all rights the beneficiary had at the time of subrogation and that, once the insurer is informed of the subrogated party's intention to obtain compensation, limitation of its action is interrupted until the insurer notifies its decision to pay or refusal in writing. The judgment was quashed on the fund's appeal and the case referred to the Mons Court of Appeal.","k":"Direct action — interruption of limitation by the subrogated party","law":"LCAT art. 34 §2, 35 §4 and 86; Act of 14.7.1994, art. 136 §2 para. 4","w":7,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2023-09-21","rol":"C.22.0462.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2023:ARR.20230921.1N.2","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"limitation","q":"Uit de wetsgeschiedenis van voormeld artikel 88 § 2, blijkt dat de kennisgeving door de verzekeraar van zijn beslissing om te vergoeden of van zijn weigering, opdat deze een einde zou maken aan de stuitende werking,…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"Liability being undisputed, the insurer agreed by letter of 27 April 2011 to the injured party's €20,999 statement; the injured party then claimed further items, the insurer asked for supporting documents, and proceedings were only issued on 24 April 2018. The Brussels court of first instance, on appeal, held that the letter had ended the interruption and the claim was time-barred. The Court held that the insurer's notice of its decision to pay or refuse must be clear and unequivocal, so that the injured party can reasonably infer that the insurer has definitively ended negotiations; the judgment that did not examine this was quashed on the injured party's appeal.","k":"Interruption of limitation — clarity of the insurer's decision","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 88 §2 and 89 §5","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2023-09-21","rol":"C.22.0406.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2023:ARR.20230921.1N.4","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"motor","q":"Hieruit volgt dat het Gemeenschappelijk Waarborgfonds op grond van deze wetsbepaling niet in de rechten treedt van de benadeelde aan wie het een betaling heeft verricht die niet verschuldigd was, zelfs indien de…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Guarantee Fund had compensated the victims of an accident involving an uninsured quad bike on land where insurance was not compulsory, and then sought recourse against the liable persons and their family liability insurer. The Court rejected the grounds claiming statutory subrogation under article 19bis-14 §1 of the Act of 21 November 1989, since the Fund paid without being obliged to, and reliance on article 19bis-18, which concerns only the motor liability insurer and not a family liability insurer. It quashed the judgments, however, insofar as they refused conventional subrogation based on the settlement and receipts signed by the victims, which does not require the debtor's consent.","k":"Guarantee Fund — undue payment and subrogation","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 2 §1, 19bis-11 §1, 19bis-14 §1 and 19bis-18; former Civil Code, art. 1250, 1°","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2023-09-18","rol":"C.22.0368.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2023:ARR.20230918.3F.5","ch":"3F","res":"c","t":"damage","q":"L’arrêt attaqué, qui indemnise le dommage résultant de l’incapacité personnelle temporaire de la demanderesse sur la base d’un forfait quotidien de 28 euros, indemnise le dommage résultant de son incapacité personnelle…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"Where the Medical Accidents Fund compensates the victim under ordinary law, the court must assess the loss in concreto. The Liège Court of Appeal had cut the daily basis for permanent personal incapacity from €28 to €25 on the general ground that suffering eases after consolidation, without checking whether this applied to the victim. On the victim's appeal, the Court quashed the judgment as to past permanent personal loss, future permanent non-pecuniary loss and costs, but upheld the flat-rate assessment of the permanent household loss.","k":"Medical accident — assessment of the loss in concreto","law":"Act of 31.3.2010, art. 4, 1°; former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2023-09-08","rol":"C.22.0372.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2023:ARR.20230908.1F.6","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"motor","q":"Il suit de ces dispositions que le fonds commun de garantie n’est pas tenu d’indemniser de son préjudice personnel, fût-il subi par répercussion, le conducteur d’un véhicule automoteur impliqué dans un accident de la…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Guarantee Fund need not compensate the personal loss, even ricochet loss, of an involved driver who drove knowing that the compulsory insurance obligation had not been met. Here the mother driving the uninsured vehicle claimed from the Fund her own loss arising from her children's serious injuries, and the Namur court of first instance, sitting on appeal, had ordered the Fund to pay. On the Fund's appeal, the Court quashed that judgment; articles 19bis-11 and 19bis-13 also apply to compensation under article 29bis.","k":"Guarantee Fund — ricochet loss of the uninsured driver","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 19bis-11 §1, 8°, 19bis-13 §2, 29bis; RD 11.7.2003, art. 21, 2°","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2023-06-01","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2023:ARR.086","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The insurers' trade association and several insurers sought annulment of article 2 of the Act of 29 October 2021 interpreting article 124 §1 d) of the Insurance Act 2014, under which the contraction of a large mass of ground caused wholly or partly by a prolonged drought falls within the natural-disaster cover of fire insurance for simple risks. The Constitutional Court held that the provision gives the article the meaning the legislature intended from the outset and which it could reasonably bear; it is a genuine interpretative provision, which justifies its retroactive effect. The plea based on the regions' powers over agricultural calamities also failed, since the duty to cover stems from the interpreted article 124. The actions were dismissed.","k":"Natural disasters — drought-related subsidence, interpretative law","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 124 §1 d); Act of 29.10.2021, art. 2","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2023-05-31","rol":"P.22.1561.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2023:ARR.20230531.2F.4","ch":"2F","res":"c","t":"motor","q":"S’il devait en être jugé autrement, l’assureur se verrait privé du droit de contredire utilement, en degré d’appel, la décision mettant la responsabilité de l’accident à charge de l’assuré, ce qui limiterait indûment…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The presumption of innocence does not prevent a convicted driver and his motor liability insurer from arguing, in the civil claim, that the accident was caused solely by the other driver, even though that driver was acquitted. The Walloon Brabant criminal court, on appeal, had refused to examine the acquitted driver's fault, citing article 6.2 ECHR. On the insurer's appeal, the Court quashed the judgment insofar as it ruled on the insurer's appeal against the civil decisions, as otherwise the insurer's right to a fair trial would be unduly restricted.","k":"Motor liability — fault of an acquitted driver and presumption of innocence","law":"ECHR, art. 6.2; former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2023-05-08","rol":"C.22.0268.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2023:ARR.20230508.3N.3","ch":"3N","res":"c","t":"motor","q":"Onder het begrip “terreinen die toegankelijk zijn voor een zeker aantal personen die het recht hebben om er te komen” worden de plaatsen bedoeld die, hoewel ze privaat zijn, blijvend toegankelijk zijn voor een…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"“Grounds accessible to a certain number of persons entitled to go there” are places which, although private, are permanently accessible to a defined category of persons, such as staff, customers, suppliers or visitors. The insurer argued that the road works site could only be entered with permission and was reserved for site traffic. Because the Brussels Court of Appeal merely asserted that the site was such a ground, the Court quashed the judgment for lack of reasons on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — 29bis: road works site and article 2 places","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 2 §1, 29bis §1; Constitution, art. 149; Cass. 10.12.2013; Cass. 23.9.2010","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2023-05-04","rol":"C.22.0448.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2023:ARR.20230504.1F.6","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"damage","q":"Le juge évalue in concreto le préjudice causé par un fait illicite.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The court assesses the loss in concreto; it may resort to an assessment ex aequo et bono only if it explains why it rejects the victim's method of calculation and finds that the loss cannot be determined otherwise. The Hainaut court of first instance, on appeal, merely found it “difficult” to determine the victim's economic value, although it had itself set out his training and work history. On the victim's appeal, the Court quashed the judgment as to the award for permanent economic incapacity and costs.","k":"Damages — permanent economic incapacity, assessment ex aequo et bono","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1382-1383","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2023-04-21","rol":"C.22.0226.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2023:ARR.20230421.1N.1","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"duties","q":"Hieruit volgt dat een schadegeval dat de verzekerde moet melden aan de aansprakelijkheidsverzekeraar, vereist dat hij weet of moet weten dat hij voor schade veroorzaakt aan de benadeelde aansprakelijk kan gesteld worden.","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"In liability insurance, the insured's duty to notify the claim arises when he knows or ought to know that he may be held liable for the loss caused to the injured party. The Antwerp Court of Appeal had held that there is a claim only once the injured party suffers loss and holds the insured liable. On the insurers' appeal, the Court quashed that judgment.","k":"Liability insurance — when the duty to notify the claim arises","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 74 §1","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2023-04-20","rol":"C.18.0554.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2023:ARR.20230420.1F.5","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"damage","q":"L'employeur public, qui, ensuite de la faute d'un tiers, doit continuer à payer à l'un de ses agents la rémunération et les charges grevant la rémunération en vertu d'obligations légales ou réglementaires qui lui…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"A public employer that must keep paying salary without receiving work may claim compensation from the liable party; however, the invalidity allowance paid to an EU official is not consideration for work and is therefore not recoverable loss under article 1382 of the former Civil Code. In the European Union's recourse action against the liable party's insurer, that ground was rejected. The Namur court of first instance's judgment was nonetheless quashed insofar as it limited the subrogated recourse to €77,809.99, because it ended the compensable period on 30.9.2010 while finding that the official retired on 1.10.2012.","k":"Public employer's subrogated recourse — invalidity allowance of an EU official","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1382-1383; EU Staff Regulations, art. 53 and 78; Cass. 16.2.2018","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2023-03-20","rol":"2021/RG/654","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2023:ARR.20230320.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"alt","s":"A tractor, left by its driver still in gear, ran over a 6-year-old child in a fenced private pasture. The court held that the movement resulted from a driving error, not a working-tool manoeuvre, and that the injuries were typical of a traffic accident, so the risk fell under motor liability cover. The judgment was reversed and the business liability insurer released, with the victims bearing its costs. Article 29bis did not apply on private land, but the motor insurer was liable under ordinary tort law and ordered to pay advances of €309,502 to the child and €64,054.30 to the parents; an expert was appointed.","k":"Farm tractor accident — motor or business liability cover","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 2 §1, 3, 29bis; Benelux Court of Justice, 23.10.1984; model contract RD 14.12.1992, art. 1","w":8,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège (3e ch. B)","m":"full"},{"d":"2023-03-17","rol":"C.22.0250.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2023:ARR.20230317.1N.4","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"liability","q":"Krachtens artikel 152, tweede lid, Verzekeringswet is de verzekeraar op straffe van verval van zijn recht van verhaal verplicht de verzekeringnemer of, in voorkomend geval, de verzekerde die niet de verzekeringnemer is,…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"On pain of forfeiting its recourse, the insurer must notify its intention to seek recourse as soon as it knows the facts on which that decision rests; this duty arises when it learns the precise circumstances of the accident allowing it to assess whether the insured caused the loss and whether recourse is warranted. The Ghent Court of Appeal had held timely a notice sent on 12.1.2018, the insurer having learned the main driver's identity on 27.9.2017, given the time needed for administrative processing and the absence of any harm to the insured's interests. The Court dismissed the insured's appeal.","k":"Liability insurance — timely notice of the intention to seek recourse","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 152(2); Cass. 16.4.2021","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2023-03-09","rol":"C.22.0123.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2023:ARR.20230309.1F.3","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"damage","q":"Pour déterminer l’indemnité relative à un tel dommage, le juge doit se placer au moment où il statue.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The court assesses in concreto the loss the insurer must pay under article 29bis, as at the date of its judgment. The Hainaut court of first instance, on appeal, had awarded a flat-rate sum for permanent economic incapacity because the victim was a student at consolidation and only started working years later, rejecting a capitalisation based on his salary at the time of judgment. On the victim's appeal, the Court quashed the judgment as to permanent economic incapacity, interest and costs.","k":"29bis — assessing the loss at the date of judgment","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; former Civil Code, art. 1382-1383","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2023-03-07","rol":"P.22.1738.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2023:ARR.20230307.2N.13","ch":"2N","res":"r","t":"motor","q":"Het overleggen door een beklaagde, na de vaststelling dat een motorrijtuig zonder de vereiste WAM-verzekering in het verkeer werd gebracht, van een niet-gedateerd internationaal motorrijtuigverzekeringsbewijs met een…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The burden of proving the offence of driving uninsured lies in principle with the prosecution, but a defendant who claims that valid motor liability insurance covered the vehicle must make that claim plausible, and the court assesses the evidential value of the documents. The defendant produced, after the accident, an undated international insurance card, but had herself stated the next day that she had forgotten to pay the premium. The Court dismissed her appeal: the court could find that the document was issued after the premium was later paid, and taking out insurance afterwards does not erase the offence.","k":"Motor liability — proof of the offence of driving uninsured","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 2 §1, 22 §1; Cass. 29.9.2020","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2023-03-01","rol":"2022/RG/63","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2023:ARR.20230301.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"Sued by her lawyer for fees, the insured joined her legal expenses insurer seeking indemnity. The court held that the transfer of the non-life portfolio to another insurer, published in the Belgian Official Gazette, was binding on the insured (art. 17 of the Insurance Act 2014), and that the insurer had agreed to pay only within the policy limits. The policy covered only claims against a third party for property or bodily damage; as the insured had claimed only non-pecuniary loss before the assize court, the indemnity claim failed. The order for the insured to pay her lawyer €17,920.78 was upheld.","k":"Legal expenses insurance — portfolio transfer and claim for non-pecuniary loss only","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 17; Judicial Code, art. 17","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège (3e ch. C)","m":"full"},{"d":"2023-02-09","rol":"C.22.0180.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2023:ARR.20230209.1F.7","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"procedure","q":"Il résulte de ces dispositions que l’appel ne peut être reçu qu’après que le juge qui s’est déclaré compétent ou qui a été désigné comme compétent a rendu un jugement définitif sur la recevabilité ou sur le fondement de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"An appeal against a decision on jurisdiction may only be brought together with the appeal against the final judgment. The police court, seised of a claim under article 29bis, declined jurisdiction because the event was not a road traffic accident and referred the case to the court of first instance; its remarks on article 29bis were merely reasons. Since the Liège court of first instance, on appeal, held the appeal admissible, the Court quashed its judgment on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Article 29bis claim — appeal against a declining of jurisdiction","law":"Judicial Code, art. 1050(2), 1055, 601bis; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2023-02-08","rol":"2021/RG/306","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2023:ARR.20230208.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"« c'est l'atteinte à la capacité ménagère de la victime qui doit être indemnisée – dommage personnel – la composition de son ménage et sa situation conjugale ne sont pas déterminantes »","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"alt","s":"A person whose sciatic nerve was damaged by an injection at birth was being compensated by the liability insurer of the insured, whose liability was not disputed. The court rejected the insurer's flat-rate offer and capitalised permanent personal incapacity (€27 a day at 100%, prospective tables, 1% technical rate, constant annuity; an indexed annuity was refused). For future household incapacity it used a single base of €15 a day regardless of household composition, since what is protected is the victim's own capacity. The judgment was partly varied and appeal costs set off.","k":"Bodily injury — capitalising permanent losses (nerve damage at birth)","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382; Indicative Table 2020","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège (3e ch. C)","m":"full"},{"d":"2023-02-07","rol":"2021/RG/526","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2023:ARR.20230207.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"alt","s":"A young worker left paraplegic by an accident recognised as a workplace accident was compensated, under a settlement, at 72% by the liable third party's insurer, with the workplace-accident insurer pursuing subrogated recourse. The court capitalised permanent losses using the latest prospective tables (2023) and a 1% technical rate, and held that unskilled family help affects household loss by 50%. The workplace-accident insurer's recourse is compared globally for economic loss and head by head for other losses; the victim keeps a residual claim for third-party assistance. The judgment was partly varied and appeal costs set off.","k":"Paraplegia after a workplace accident — tort damages and the workplace-accident insurer's recourse","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46–47; Indicative Table 2020","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège (3e ch. A)","m":"full"},{"d":"2023-01-24","rol":"P.22.0778.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2023:ARR.20230124.2N.2","ch":"2N","res":"c","t":"liability","q":"Krachtens artikel 141 Wet Verzekeringen is Hoofdstuk 3 van Titel III van deel 4 van deze wet met als titel “Aansprakelijkheidsverzekeringen” van toepassing op de verzekeringsovereenkomsten die ertoe strekken de…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"Under article 141 of the Insurance Act 2014, liability insurance covers the insured against claims for compensation arising from the occurrence of loss; own-damage (comprehensive) cover is property insurance aimed at preserving a specific item. The criminal court, on appeal, had classified as liability insurance the “own-damage provision” in a vehicle lease, under which the lessor bore the risk of damage to or loss of the vehicle. On the appeal of the lessor, as civil party, the Court quashed the judgment.","k":"Vehicle lease — an own-damage clause is not liability insurance","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 141; Cass. 29.4.2011","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2023-01-12","rol":"C.21.0379.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2023:ARR.20230112.1F.4","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"29bis","q":"La circonstance que le véhicule automoteur impliqué n'est pas conçu, ou ne l'est pas uniquement, pour le transport de personnes ou de choses sur des routes ou des terrains mais pour servir, exclusivement ou non, d'engin…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The fact that the involved motor vehicle is also designed to serve as a machine and was being used as such at the time of the accident does not prevent it from being regarded as taking part in traffic; if it causes damage in a manner characteristic of vehicles in traffic, the damage is caused in traffic. The Liège Court of Appeal had refused to treat the event as a traffic accident because the injuries could also have arisen from a fall at home or in sport. On the victim's appeal, the Court quashed the judgment, which had not found that the damage was not caused in that characteristic manner.","k":"29bis — vehicle used as a machine still taking part in traffic","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1(1)","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-12-23","rol":"C.22.0145.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20221223.1N.6","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"29bis","q":"Hieruit volgt dat artikel 29ter WAM, zoals ingevoerd bij de vermelde wet van 31 mei 2017, voorziet in een aangepaste vergoedingsregel en bijgevolg geen interpretatieve wetsbepaling is.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"Article 29ter of the Act of 21 November 1989, introduced by the Act of 31 May 2017, is not interpretative but lays down an adapted compensation rule; the former article 19bis-11 §2 therefore still governs an accident that occurred in 2014. The injured party under that provision is not limited to the innocent victim, and the possible liability of an involved driver does not prevent his successor, who continued the proceedings after his death, from claiming his loss from the motor liability insurers. The court of first instance at Dendermonde, on appeal, had required proof that the deceased's vehicle was certainly not liable; the Court quashed that judgment on the successor's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — responsible vehicle unknown: former art. 19bis-11 §2","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, former art. 19bis-11 §2 and art. 29ter; Act of 31.5.2017","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-12-22","rol":"C.22.0082.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20221222.1F.3","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"contract","q":"Ce consentement, exprès ou tacite, requiert la connaissance effective ou, à tout le moins, la possibilité de prendre d’une manière effective connaissance des clauses sur lesquelles il doit porter.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"Consent requires knowledge of the accepted terms or, at least, a real opportunity to read them before the contract is concluded. The Liège Court of Appeal had held binding the general terms, which limited cover to treatment costs, temporary incapacity after a 30-day waiting period and permanent incapacity above 15%, because the special conditions referred to them and the insured could have obtained them from his broker. On the insured's appeal, the Court quashed the judgment, as those findings did not show a real opportunity to read the terms.","k":"Incorporation of general terms — real opportunity to read them","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1108","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-12-12","rol":"S.20.0062.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20221212.3F.2","ch":"3F","res":"c","t":"work","q":"Cette disposition s’applique à toute lésion dont l’existence est invoquée dans le cadre de la procédure en reconnaissance de l’accident du travail et de l’incapacité de travail qui en résulte mais non à la demande…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The presumption in article 9 of the Act of 10 April 1971 (an injury is presumed to result from an accident once the injury and a sudden event are proved) applies to injuries relied on in proceedings to recognise the workplace accident and the incapacity, but not to a claim for an aggravation allowance under article 9 of the Royal Decree of 10 December 1987, brought after the revision period has expired. The Liège Labour Court of Appeal had applied the presumption to the aggravation claim and framed the expert's task accordingly. On the workplace-accident insurer's appeal, the Court quashed the judgment; under article 68 the insurer still bears the costs.","k":"Workplace accident — no presumption of causation for the aggravation allowance","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 9, 68 and 72; RD 10.12.1987, art. 9(1)","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-12-08","rol":"C.21.0169.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20221208.1F.6","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"home","q":"Il s’ensuit qu’à partir du 1er novembre 2014, l’article 121, § 7, est applicable à l’indemnité qui n’est pas versée dans les délais visés au paragraphe 2, cette indemnité fût-elle due en réparation d’un sinistre survenu…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"Under article 331 §3 of the Insurance Act 2014, article 121 applies to contracts in force on 1 November 2014; from that date, any indemnity not paid within the time limits therefore bears interest at twice the statutory rate (art. 121 §7), even where the loss occurred earlier. The Mons Court of Appeal had refused double interest on that ground and had rejected the claim based on rebuilding rather than repair by raising, of its own motion and without hearing the parties, the effect of an earlier judgment. On the insured's appeal, the Court quashed the judgment, except as to the €10,032.14 in safety costs.","k":"Fire insurance — double interest for a loss predating the 2014 Act","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 121 §7 and 331 §3","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-12-07","rol":"2021/RG/920","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2022:ARR.20221207.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"« Le choix des tables stationnaires permet de conserver des bases tangibles et vérifiées, sans spéculer sur l'évolution future de la durée de vie »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"For the permanent economic loss of a victim blinded at 21, the liable party's insurer (80% liability) offered a flat €87,600. The court held that modest schooling and limited work experience do not justify a flat-rate method and that the income base can be set by reference to the guaranteed average minimum monthly income (€1,500 net); it capitalised using stationary Jaumain tables and a 1% technical rate. The insurer was ordered to pay €20,107.91 for past loss (after the health-insurance fund's subrogation) and €391,807.32 for future loss; the sums owed to the fund were upheld.","k":"Bodily injury — capitalising 100% economic incapacity","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382; coordinated health-insurance Act of 14.7.1994, art. 136 §2; Indicative Table 2020","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège (3e ch. C)","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-12-07","rol":"P.22.0186.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20221207.2F.5","ch":"2F","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"L'appelant doit justifier d'un intérêt pour pouvoir interjeter appel ; l'intérêt existe en présence d'une décision qui lui cause un grief ; un tel intérêt existe notamment, en règle, lorsque l'appel tend à la…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The police court had ordered the insurer of the defendant's vehicle to bear the losses of the civil parties, including the Guarantee Fund; the insurer's lawyer had not disputed at first instance that the vehicle was involved. The appeal court held the insurer's appeal inadmissible for lack of interest, because the facts had not been contested and no disavowal procedure (not available in criminal courts) had been brought. The Court of Cassation held that an appeal seeking to correct an error made at first instance shows a sufficient interest and that the presumption of counsel's authority can be rebutted by any lawful means; the judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — insurer's interest in appealing and counsel's authority","law":"Judicial Code, arts 17, 440, 848–850; Constitutional Court, 16.7.2020, no. 108/2020","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-11-28","rol":"2021/RG/351 ve 2021/RG/402","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2022:ARR.20221128.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"alt","s":"An owner who sold his buildings kept free use of one of them until 31.12.2017; it burned down on 26.8.2017 from an undetermined cause. The court held that article 1733 of the former Civil Code did not apply, there being no lease, but that the occupant was contractually liable under his duty to return the building, having failed to prove absence of fault, towards the buyers (€119,407.30) and their subrogated insurer. The seller's multi-risk insurer did not have to cover this liability: the policy was taken out as owner, that interest ended with the sale, and the occupant's new interest was not insured. The insurer owes only €14,500 for contents; the broker, who failed to tell the insurer of the change in status, must indemnify the seller against all orders against him.","k":"Fire — liability of a seller who stayed on as occupant, and insurance cover","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 60, 111 §1; former Civil Code, art. 1147, 1733; broker liability","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège (3e ch. B)","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-11-24","rol":"C.21.0306.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20221124.1F.4","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"home","q":"Dès lors qu'il ne fait pas grief à l'arrêt d'admettre la validité d'une clause d'exclusion qui n'est pas autorisée par l'article 127, § 2, c), de la loi du 4 avril 2014 sur les assurances, le moyen, qui, en tant qu'il…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A school body claimed from its insurers for natural-disaster damage to its swimming pool; the court of appeal held, on its reading of the clause and the way the premium was calculated, that the pool, whatever its use, fell within the category of luxury items excluded from cover. The Court of Cassation noted that article 127 §2 c) of the Insurance Act 2014 allows luxury items such as swimming pools to be excluded from natural-disaster cover, and that the ground, which did not complain that the court had upheld an unauthorised exclusion, lacked interest on that point. The judgment gave the policy the effect it legally has between the parties and found that the insurers had proved the exclusion; the insured's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Natural disaster cover — swimming pool excluded as a luxury item","law":"Insurance Act 2014, arts 124 and 127 §2 c)","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-11-14","rol":"C.22.0141.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20221114.3F.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Celui qui, par sa faute, a causé un dommage à autrui est tenu de le réparer et la victime a droit à la réparation intégrale du préjudice qu'elle a subi (1). (1) Cass. 16 avril 2015, RG C.13.0305.F, Pas. 2015, n° 254,…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The parents of an injured child claimed from the insurer compensation for temporary and permanent personal incapacity on a higher daily basis. The appeal judgment applied €28 per day (€34 in hospital) for the temporary period and €24 for the permanent loss, relying on the indicative table absent exceptional circumstances. The Court of Cassation held that, by not stating the specific circumstances justifying those bases, the judge breached the duty to assess the loss in concreto; the judgment was quashed to that extent.","k":"Personal injury — assessment in concreto of non-pecuniary loss (child)","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382; Cass. 16.4.2015; Cass. 27.5.2016","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-11-10","rol":"C.21.0510.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20221110.1F.6","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"liability","q":"Il incombe par conséquent à l’assureur de prouver que les éléments constitutifs de l’infraction sont réunis et, si le défendeur invoque une cause de justification non dépourvue de tout élément de nature à lui donner…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Where the insurer has compensated persons injured by an offence under article 143(2)-(3) of the Insurance Act 2014 and seeks reimbursement from the insured before the civil court, the claim is based on that offence; the insurer must prove the elements of the offence and, if the insured raises a justification that is not devoid of credibility, its absence. The Liège Court of Appeal had found a failure to keep control of the vehicle (art. 8.3 Highway Code), held the justification relied on wholly lacking in credibility, and required the insured only to produce evidence lending it credibility; it also noted that the insurer's power to pay is not conditional on a prior liability judgment. The Court dismissed the insured's appeal.","k":"Liability insurance — reimbursement claim after payment under art. 143: burden of proof","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 143(2)-(3); Highway Code (RD 1.12.1975), art. 8.3","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-11-09","rol":"2021/RG/799","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2022:ARR.20221109.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A claim brought by the victim's company against the operator's liability insurer eleven years after the accident was time-barred. Under the 2014 Act, mere negotiations do not interrupt limitation; only notifying the insurer of the wish to be compensated does, until the insurer replies in writing.","k":"Direct action — limitation and negotiations","law":"Insurance Act 2014 art. 88 §2, 89 §5; former Civil Code, art. 2262bis","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-11-04","rol":"C.22.0133.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20221104.1N.5","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"limitation","q":"Bij een rechtstreekse vordering van de benadeelde tegen de aansprakelijkheidsverzekeraar van zijn advocaat wegens het door laatstgenoemde niet tijdig instellen van een vordering in rechte, is het schadeverwekkend feit…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The injured party's direct action against the insurer is time-barred five years after the event giving rise to the loss; where the lawyer's liability stems from failing to bring proceedings in time, that event is the moment the original claim became time-barred. The Antwerp Court of Appeal, while finding that the direct action against the motor insurer had been time-barred since 20.5.2008, placed the triggering event at the police court judgment of 19.5.2016 that revealed this to the client, and held the summons of 28.5.2019 to be in time. On the insurer's appeal, the Court quashed the judgment.","k":"Direct action against a lawyer's liability insurer — start of the limitation period","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 88 §2 and 150","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-11-03","rol":"C.21.0407.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20221103.1F.5","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"intent","q":"La faute intentionnelle, qui suppose la volonté de causer un dommage résultant de la réalisation d’un risque couvert par le contrat d’assurance, autorise l’assureur à refuser sa garantie, non seulement pour ce dommage,…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"An intentional loss requires the will to cause a loss resulting from the occurrence of a covered risk; it allows the insurer to refuse cover for that loss and for losses necessarily linked to it, but not for a loss distinct from the one the insured meant to cause. The insured, aged eighteen, had thrown a stone towards a group and caused a person to lose an eye; the criminal court found unintentional, not intentional, wounding. The Liège Court of Appeal had upheld the insurer's refusal, treating the act as intimidation whose effects the insured had wanted; on the insured's appeal, the Court quashed the judgment, as the loss of the eye was not necessarily linked to that fright.","k":"Private liability insurance — scope of an intentional loss","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 62(1)","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-10-27","rol":"C.21.0312.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20221027.1F.4","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"duties","q":"Pour le surplus, en retenant, parmi les faits dont il déduit la fausseté de la déclaration du demandeur dans une intention frauduleuse, les contradictions affectant ses explications, le juge d’appel ne fait pas peser…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"By counting the contradictions in the insured's explanations among the facts from which it infers that an accident declaration was false and made with fraudulent intent, the court does not place on the insured the burden of proving the absence of fraud. The rules on proof by presumption are foreign to the court's assessment, based on the facts before it, of whether a declaration to the insurer was fraudulently false. The Court dismissed the insured's appeal against the judgment of the Liège court of first instance sitting on appeal.","k":"Fraudulent false claim declaration — contradictory explanations and burden of proof","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1349 and 1353; Civil Code, art. 8.1, 9° and 8.29","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-10-18","rol":"P.22.0742.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20221018.2N.8","ch":"2N","res":"r","t":"motor","q":"De in artikel 22, § 1, WAM bepaalde vereiste van eigendom staat niet eraan in de weg dat de rechter dit misdrijf toerekent aan de natuurlijke persoon die in rechte of in feite de ware verantwoordelijke is voor het…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"Article 22 §1 of the Act of 21 November 1989 punishes the owner who puts or allows a vehicle into traffic without liability cover complying with the Act. The ownership requirement does not prevent the court from attributing the offence to the natural person who is, in law or in fact, truly responsible for the corporate owner's compliance and who, through personal conduct, is guilty of the offence committed by the company. The Court dismissed the appeal of the manager convicted although the vehicle belonged to the company.","k":"Motor liability — uninsured company vehicle: liability of the manager","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 2 §1 and 22 §1","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-10-12","rol":"P.22.0543.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20221012.2F.5","ch":"2F","res":"r","t":"damage","q":"Dès lors que ce même jugement ordonne une nouvelle expertise médicale à l’égard du défendeur, partie civile, le tribunal a, de manière implicite mais certaine, réservé tant son droit d’y être assisté par un…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"In the dispute between the liable defendant's insurer and the injured public employee, the findings of the employer's administrative health service are a factual presumption for the court to weigh, and the court is not bound to prefer the lower rate set by the court expert. The Court upheld the judgment assessing the temporary economic loss of the victim, declared permanently unfit for his job, at the full net salary lost less pension, and found no double compensation of the same loss. Since the court that orders a new expert examination has not exhausted its jurisdiction over medical adviser's fees, the subrogated insurer's €920 claim was admissible; the motor liability insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability insurer — calculation of loss and medical adviser's fees","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1382; Act of 14.7.1994, art. 136 §2; Judicial Code, art. 19 and 807","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-10-04","rol":"P.22.0773.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20221004.2N.8","ch":"2N","res":"r","t":"motor","q":"Het besturen van een vervangingsvoertuig staat er evenwel niet aan in de weg dat de bestuurder van dat voertuig een motorrijtuig bestuurt waarvan de burgerrechtelijke aansprakelijkheid waartoe het aanleiding kan geven,…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"Article 22 of the Act of 21 November 1989 punishes the driver of a vehicle whose liability is not covered in accordance with the Act, if he knows of the lack of cover. Article 56 of the model contract extends, on its own terms, the cover of the insured vehicle to a replacement vehicle; however, driving a replacement vehicle does not rule out that the driver is driving a vehicle without the legally required cover. The defendant argued that the cover had been temporarily transferred to his own car; the Court held that the ground, even if well founded, could not lead to cassation and dismissed the appeal.","k":"Motor liability — replacement-vehicle cover and the offence of driving uninsured","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 2 §1 and 22; model contract, art. 56; Cass. 21.6.2011","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-09-16","rol":"C.21.0400.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20220916.1N.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Lorsque l'employeur public met prématurément à la pension un employé en incapacité permanente de travail par la faute d'un tiers, la pension d'invalidité qu'il verse à son employé ne constitue pas un dommage pour le…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Belgian State claimed from the insurer of the liable third party the invalidity pension paid to a civil servant retired early after a permanent incapacity caused by that third party's fault. The Court of Cassation held that the invalidity pension paid by a public employer is not a loss for the pension debtor. The State's statutory subrogation (art. 14 §3 of the public-sector workplace-accident act and art. 160 §1 of the Act of 21.12.1994) covers the sums owed as compensation for the employee's own loss; the State's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Public employer's subrogation — invalidity pension","law":"Former Civil Code, arts 1382–1383; Act of 21.12.1994, art. 160 §1; public-sector workplace-accident act, art. 14 §3","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-09-14","rol":"2021/RG/588","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2022:ARR.20220914.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insured claimed compensation from her insurer for the theft of her vehicle; in 2016 the insurer had notified its refusal of cover both to the insured's broker and to the agency she had appointed to follow up the claim. The court recalled that any action arising from the insurance contract is time-barred after three years (Insurance Act 2014, art. 88 §1) and that, under article 89 §3, notice of refusal to the insured's declared agent starts a new three-year period from the following day; a settlement offer made with full reservation is neither a change of position nor a waiver. The writ of 5.11.2020, when proceedings had to be brought before 15.11.2019, was late: the action was declared inadmissible as time-barred and the judgment reversed.","k":"Vehicle theft — new three-year limitation period after notice of refusal","law":"Insurance Act 2014, arts. 88 §1 and 89 §3","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-09-12","rol":"2021/RG/262","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2023:ARR.20230905.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"« il suffit que, dans une intention frauduleuse, l'assuré n'ait pas exécuté une des obligations énoncées aux articles 74 et 75, ce qu'il appartient à l'assureur d'établir »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"Having reported the theft of his home-cinema equipment to the police, the insured later added many more devices, a watch, wine and cash (first €4,237, then €50,000), producing contradictory and altered invoices. The court found serious, precise and consistent indications that he intended to mislead the insurer about the extent of the loss. Under art. 76 §2 of the Insurance Act 2014, the insurer may refuse cover entirely, even if some items were genuinely stolen and without proving any prejudice; the judgment was reversed and the claim dismissed.","k":"Home burglary — fraudulent inflation of the loss","law":"Insurance Act 2014, arts. 74 §2 and 76 §2; Cass. 28.10.2019","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège (3e ch. B)","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-09-09","rol":"C.21.0461.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20220909.1N.6","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"home","q":"De loutere weigering van de verzekeraar om dekking te verlenen is geen reden die buiten zijn wil om de sluiting van de expertise of de raming van de schade belet.","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"A mere refusal of cover by the insurer is not a reason beyond its control preventing the close of the expert assessment or the valuation of the loss, so it does not suspend the time limits (art. 121 §3, 4° of the Insurance Act 2014); that ground was rejected. However, the double-interest penalty in article 121 §7 applies only if the late payment is due to the insurer's fault or negligence. Because the Antwerp Court of Appeal had treated a refusal of cover made in good faith but later found unjustified as sufficient, the Court, on the insurer's appeal, quashed the judgment as to double interest and costs.","k":"Fire insurance — payment deadlines and double interest","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 121 §2, 5° and 6°, §3, 4° and §7; Cass. 7.1.2013","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-06-29","rol":"2021/RG/144","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2022:ARR.20220629.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"« Il appartient à l'assureur, qui refuse sa garantie, d'établir la mauvaise foi du preneur d'assurance. […] l'assureur peut se fonder sur des présomptions graves, précises et concordantes. »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The court found that the insured owner knowingly failed to tell its fire insurer about the health and safety problems notified by the authorities since 2009 and the building's long vacancy, so as to avoid a premium increase or refusal of cover. Bad faith must be proved by the insurer, but serious, precise and consistent presumptions suffice. Since art. 81 §3 c of the Insurance Act 2014 provides a statutory forfeiture, the insurer rightly refused to cover the arson fire; the appeal was dismissed.","k":"Fire insurance — intentional failure to declare an aggravated risk","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 81 §3 c","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège (3e ch. C)","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-06-29","rol":"2021/RG/141 2021/RG/185","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2022:ARR.20220629.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The policyholder had concealed from the insurer that the insured building was subject to an uninhabitability order and was in a dangerous, dilapidated state. The court found an intentional breach of the duty to disclose spontaneously the known risk-assessment factors and declared the contract void under article 59 of the Insurance Act 2014. The policyholder's claim for performance of the contract and appointment of an expert, and the occupying company's claim against the insurer, were dismissed; the judgment was upheld and both claimants bear the costs.","k":"Fire insurance — concealed uninhabitability order, nullity of the contract","law":"Insurance Act 2014, arts. 58-59","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-06-24","rol":"2016/AR/988","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2022:ARR.20220624.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Selon la SC Fédérale Assurance (assureur du sous-traitant), l'appel de l'entrepreneur principal est irrecevable en ce qu'il est dirigé contre elle dès lors qu'il n'existait pas de lien d'instance entre ces parties en…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The main contractor sought an indemnity from the subcontractor's liability insurer for the sums it was ordered to pay the building owner; the insurer argued that the appeal was inadmissible against it because it had not been formally named as respondent in the notice of appeal. The court found that a procedural link existed at first instance and, following the Court of Cassation's judgment of 6.1.2022, that a party to whom the appellant wished the notice of appeal to be served is a party to the appeal even if not named as respondent; the appeal was admissible. On the merits the insurer was ordered to cover €79,827.38 (replacement of the parquet floor, loss of use and removal costs linked to the 2006 loss) less the €2,500 deductible, the skylight item being excluded as a 2009 loss outside the cover period.","k":"Construction liability — joining the subcontractor's insurer on appeal and cover","law":"Judicial Code arts 1053, 1054 and 1056, 4°; Cass. 6.1.2022; policy arts 30 and 31","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-06-24","rol":"C.21.0439.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20220624.1F.1","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"limitation","q":"Lorsque la partie qui a fait la déclaration de sinistre ne peut exercer elle-même l’action en indemnisation, la notification par l’assureur de sa décision ne met fin à l’interruption de la prescription que si elle est…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"Where the claim was notified in time, the limitation period is interrupted until the insurer has communicated its decision in writing; if the person who notified the claim cannot bring the indemnity action personally, the notification ends the interruption only if it is addressed to the party who can bring that action. Here the insured, whose building had burnt down, had been admitted to a collective debt settlement and it had been finally decided that only the debt mediator could pursue the claim. The Mons Court of Appeal judgment, which treated notice of the refusal to the insured as valid, was quashed and the case referred to the Brussels Court of Appeal.","k":"Fire insurance — end of interruption of limitation and addressee of the insurer's decision","law":"LCAT art. 35(3) (Insurance Act 2014, art. 89(3))","w":3,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-06-03","rol":"C.21.0153.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20220603.1F.1","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"liability","q":"La circonstance que le preneur d’assurance, victime d’un dommage dont l’assuré est responsable, est une partie au contrat d’assurance n’exclut pas sa qualité de personne lésée.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The driver, injured when her passenger pulled the handbrake, sued the liability insurer covering the passenger as an insured. The Court held that the fact that the policyholder, harmed by damage for which the insured is liable, is a party to the contract does not exclude her status as an injured party with a direct right of action. It also accepted that the claim against the passenger under former Civil Code art. 1382 interrupted limitation against the insurer as well (art. 89(4) of the 2014 Act) and that res judicata is assessed under the law in force when the decision was given; the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Liability insurance — policyholder as injured party","law":"Insurance Act 2014, arts 55, 89(4), 150; Judicial Code, arts 3, 24","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-05-25","rol":"72/2022","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2022:ARR.072","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"const","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"On 23 April 2014 a car collided with a tram; liability was split equally and the transport operator, liable in solidum, compensated the car owner's entire loss. It then claimed half from the car's driver and the car's motor liability insurer; since the owner had no own-damage cover, the court considered that the exclusion in article 3 §1(4), 1° made the claim against the insurer unfounded. On a question from the French-speaking Brussels Court of First Instance, the Constitutional Court held that the provision does not violate articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution: the distinction rests on a relevant criterion and, since the co-liable party can recover the corresponding share from the at-fault driver (or set off the fault against an owner who was driving), being unable to claim from the insurer has no disproportionate effects.","k":"Motor liability — insured-vehicle damage exclusion and co-liable party's recourse","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 3 §1(4), 1°; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle — CC 72/2022","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-05-25","rol":"74/2022","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2022:ARR.074","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"The insurers' trade association and several insurers asked for suspension of article 2 of the Act of 29 October 2021 interpreting article 124 §1(d) of the Insurance Act 2014 on landslides and subsidence under natural disaster cover. The Constitutional Court rejected the request because no risk of serious harm that is difficult to repair was shown. The association's alleged harm is purely moral and would disappear on annulment; the insurers gave no concrete data showing that immediate application would threaten their survival. Final civil judgments based on the provision could, moreover, be withdrawn under article 16 of the Special Act of 6 January 1989 if it were annulled.","k":"Natural disaster cover — request to suspend the interpretative Act","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 124 §1(d); Act of 29.10.2021, art. 2; Special Act of 6.1.1989, art. 16","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle — CC 74/2022","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-05-24","rol":"P.22.0048.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20220524.2N.1","ch":"2N","res":"c","t":"motor","q":"Uit de samenhang van de voormelde wetsbepalingen volgt dat in geval van niet-betaling van de premie voor de verzekering tot dekking van de burgerrechtelijke aansprakelijkheid van het motorrijtuig, de bestuurder ervan…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court recalled that putting into circulation a vehicle whose cover is suspended for non-payment of the premium is the offence in art. 22(1) of the Act of 21.11.1989, even where the suspension cannot be raised against the injured third party. However, read together, arts 69–71 of the 2014 Insurance Act mean that the driver is punishable only once cover has been suspended on expiry of the period set in the formal notice. The criminal appeal judgment (Bruges) that found the offence proven without checking whether the former insurer's cover was suspended on the date of the facts was partly quashed on the defendant's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — unpaid premium and the offence of driving uninsured","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts 2(1), 22(1); Insurance Act 2014, arts 69–71; Cass. 20.1.1999","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-05-18","rol":"P.22.0116.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20220518.2F.4","ch":"2F","res":"r","t":"procedure","q":"L’article 812, alinéa 2, du Code judiciaire exclut qu’en l’absence d’instance liée entre deux parties devant le premier juge, l’une d’elles introduise contre l’autre, pour la première fois en degré d’appel, une demande…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The civil party asked for the liability insurer, which had intervened voluntarily but against which she had made no claim at first instance, to be ordered to pay jointly with the young offender and the person civilly liable. The Court held that, absent proceedings between them at first instance, one party may not bring a claim for an order against the other for the first time on appeal (Judicial Code art. 812(2)), and the insurer's right to contest the injured party's claim does not change this. The appeal against the insurer was dismissed; the appeal against the other defendants was premature and inadmissible.","k":"Liability insurance — claim against the insurer first raised on appeal","law":"Judicial Code, art. 812(2); Insurance Act 2014, art. 143","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-05-12","rol":"C.20.0587.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20220512.1N.4","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"duties","q":"Uit de samenhang van deze bepalingen volgt dat de in artikel 75 Wet Verzekeringen bedoelde schadebeperkingsverplichting enkel geldt voor de vergoedingsgerechtigde verzekerde.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The duty to take all reasonable steps to prevent and mitigate the consequences of the loss (art. 75 of the 2014 Insurance Act) rests only on the insured entitled to the indemnity. The appeal court had attributed to the insured company the fault of the lorry driver carrying out transport on its behalf, as its auxiliary, and had reduced the insurer's payment under art. 76(1). That judgment was quashed on the insured's appeal and the case referred to the East Flanders court of first instance sitting on appeal.","k":"Indemnity insurance — duty to mitigate and auxiliaries","law":"Insurance Act 2014, arts 75, 76(1)–(2)","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-05-12","rol":"C.21.0030.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20220512.1N.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Celui qui réclame des dommages et intérêts doit établir l'existence d'un lien de causalité entre la faute et le dommage tel qu'il s'est réalisé, ce qui suppose que, sans la faute, le dommage n'eût pu se produire tel…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"The policyholder had taken out, with an insurer not authorised in Belgium, a unit-linked life policy (single premium of €230,000) and sued the intermediaries for breach of their duty to advise. The Court upheld the judgment dismissing that claim for lack of causation, since the loss stemmed from the fall in value of the securities rather than from the insurer's lack of authorisation. It also dismissed the insurer's appeal: article 34 §1 LCAT is a special statute within article 1304 of the former Civil Code, so a nullity claim based on relative nullity is time-barred after three years, whereas one based on absolute nullity has a ten-year limitation period.","k":"Life insurance — limitation of the nullity claim; intermediary liability","law":"LCAT art. 34 §1; former Civil Code, arts 1304, 2262bis §1, 1382; Cass. 10.9.2015","w":6,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-05-10","rol":"2020/RG/1049","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2022:ARR.20220510.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The fire insurer of the owner of a hunting lodge, lent free of charge to horse riders, brought a direct action under article 150 of the Insurance Act 2014 against the riders' liability insurers. The court rejected the limitation defence: under article 89 §5, the injured party's wish to be compensated, communicated to the insurer by any means, interrupts the limitation period without any formal requirement, until the insurer gives a written decision to pay or refuse. On the merits, the borrower's duty to return the property is an obligation of result, but serious, precise and consistent presumptions showed that the fire had a cause external to the riders (a gas water heater); the claim was dismissed, the judgment reversed and the contribution claims between insurers became moot.","k":"Fire — subrogated insurer's direct action, limitation and external cause","law":"Insurance Act 2014, arts. 88 §2, 89 §5 and 150; former Civil Code (loan for use, duty to return)","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-04-29","rol":"C.21.0303.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20220429.1F.2","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"limitation","q":"La connaissance par la personne lésée de son droit envers l’assureur est celle qu’aurait toute personne normalement prudente et diligente dans les mêmes circonstances, et non celle qu’elle a effectivement.","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The buyer of a building sold at auction, damaged by the former director of the bankrupt company, sued the bankruptcy trustee personally and the trustee's liability insurer; the claim had been held time-barred. The Court held that the injured party's knowledge of its right against the insurer under art. 88(2) of the 2014 Insurance Act is the knowledge a normally prudent and diligent person would have had in the same circumstances, not its actual knowledge. The finding that the injured party knew the identity of the person liable when filing the criminal complaint was a matter of fact; the appeal was dismissed.","k":"Direct action — knowledge of the claim against the insurer and start of limitation","law":"Insurance Act 2014, arts 88(2), 150; former Civil Code, art. 2262bis(1)","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-04-28","rol":"C.21.0360.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20220428.1N.2","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"home","q":"Uit de samenhang van deze bepalingen volgt dat de in de rechten van een verzekerde gesubrogeerde zaakverzekeraar geen subrogatoir verhaal kan uitoefenen tegen een andere verzekerde wiens verzekerbaar belang door…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The comprehensive (omnium) insurer, subrogated to the rights of the company that took out the policy, sought reimbursement from the driver who had caused the accident while intoxicated; the appeal court had ordered the driver to pay, treating him as a third party within art. 95 of the 2014 Insurance Act. The Court held that a holder of an insurable interest designated as insured under the contract is an insured, and that a subrogated property insurer cannot bring a subrogated claim against another insured whose interest is covered by the same contract. The judgment was quashed on the driver's appeal.","k":"Comprehensive motor cover — subrogated recourse against the insured driver","law":"Insurance Act 2014, arts 5(17)(a), 95(1)","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-04-21","rol":"F.21.0026.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20220421.1N.9","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"persons","q":"Uit het geheel van deze wetsbepalingen volgt dat een door de erflater in de verzekeringsovereenkomst aangewezen begunstigde ingevolge de schenking aan hem van alle rechten uit die verzekeringsovereenkomst, niet langer…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The policyholder had given the designated beneficiaries all rights under the life insurance contracts. The Court held that, following this gift, the beneficiary was no longer a third party to the contract but a policyholder and party to it; sums paid to him on the death were therefore no longer subject to inheritance tax under art. 2.7.1.0.6(1) of the Flemish Tax Code. The Flemish Region's appeal was dismissed; the dispute was between the tax authority and the beneficiary, and the insurer was not a party.","k":"Life insurance — gift to the beneficiary and inheritance tax","law":"Flemish Tax Code, art. 2.7.1.0.6(1)","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-04-20","rol":"2020/RG/931","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2022:ARR.20220420.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"alt","s":"The family liability insurer, which did not dispute liability, was compensating a teenager bitten by a stallion in 2008 and her parents, but contested several heads. The court upheld €2,500 non-pecuniary damages for each parent (the insurer offered €1,000), given the long and heavy course of treatment; it capitalised permanent personal and household incapacity (average base of €12 a day at 100%) and aesthetic damage. With no information on her career path, permanent economic loss was awarded as a flat sum. The judgment was partly varied and appeal costs set off.","k":"Bodily injury — horse bite, parents' non-pecuniary loss and capitalisation","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382; Indicative Table","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège (3e ch. C)","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-04-04","rol":"2021/AB/55","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2022:ARR.20220404.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La valeur probante d'une attestation produite en application de l'article 961/1, CJ, est laissée à l'appréciation souveraine du juge qui doit tenir compte à cet égard de tous les éléments utiles à l'estimation de leur…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The employee claimed a commuting accident on 2 June 2018; the workplace-accident insurer refused cover. Having twice stated, in the accident declaration of 12 June 2018 and the information form of 8 August 2018, that there had been no witness, she later produced a third party's written statement dated 14 November 2018 (art. 961/1 Judicial Code). The court recalled that the probative value of such a statement is for the judge to assess freely, but its credibility was destroyed here by the employee's own statements made before any dispute arose; the discrepancy about the vehicle and the late medical finding added to the doubt. Absent serious, precise and consistent presumptions (art. 8.1.9° Civil Code), the commuting accident was not established and hearing the witness was refused. The insurer's appeal succeeded and the claim was dismissed; under art. 68 of the Act of 10.4.1971 costs and expert fees stayed with the insurer.","k":"Commuting accident — credibility of witness statement, burden of proof","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 8 §1 para. 2 and art. 68; Judicial Code, arts. 961/1-961/3; Civil Code, art. 8.1.9°; Cass. 28.6.2018","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-03-24","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2022:ARR.049","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A workplace-accident victim who had retired saw his allowance reduced under the Royal Decree of 12 December 2006 and paid by Fedris instead of the workplace-accident insurer; the Antwerp Labour Court of Appeal (Hasselt division) asked whether this limited cumulation was compatible with articles 10, 11 and 23 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court noted that since 1 January 2007 the reduction stems from the Royal Decree, not from article 42bis of the Act of 10 April 1971, which merely empowers the King and is not unconstitutional as such. As it has no power to review a Royal Decree, the Court held that the question fell outside its jurisdiction; it is for the competent court to check whether the King exceeded the delegated power.","k":"Workplace accident — combining benefits with a retirement pension (no jurisdiction)","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 42bis; RD 12.12.2006; Const. Court 17.4.2008, no. 64/2008","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-03-18","rol":"C.20.0291.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20220318.1F.8","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"contract","q":"Il s'ensuit que le contrat d'assurance couvrant la responsabilité de l'assuré qui exerce une activité réglementée sans satisfaire aux conditions d'accès à celle-ci n'a un objet illicite que si la couverture de ce risque…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"The liability insurer of a contractor who carried out renovation work without meeting the conditions for access to the profession argued that the contract had an unlawful object and that the risk had been misdescribed. The Court held that such a contract has an unlawful object only if the cover tends to maintain a situation contrary to public policy or to obtain an unlawful advantage; moreover, it had not been shown that the insured knew the activity was unlawful. The insurer's appeal failed on that point, but the judgment was quashed insofar as it ordered the insurer to pay €58,390.78 and €2,944 to a party that had not cross-appealed against the dismissal of its claim at first instance.","k":"Liability insurance — regulated activity without access to the profession and unlawful object","law":"Former Civil Code, arts 1128, 1131–1133; Insurance Act 2014, art. 91","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-03-16","rol":"2021/RG/616 (metinde 2021/RG/126)","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2022:ARR.20220316.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The tenant had declared no claims in the previous five years, concealing claims and a cancellation with earlier insurers. The first judge found no intent and applied art. 60 §3; the court of appeal instead found an intentional omission, since prior claims history was a rating factor for all risks under the home cover. The contract was held void under art. 59 as regards the home cover and the fire claim was dismissed; no effect on the private-life liability cover was shown.","k":"Home insurance — intentional concealment of prior claims, nullity","law":"Insurance Act 2014, arts. 58, 59, 60 §3","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège (3e ch. C)","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-03-07","rol":"C.21.0384.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20220307.3N.2","ch":"3N","res":"c","t":"duties","q":"Risicoverzwaring in de zin van voormelde wetsbepaling onderstelt dat nieuwe of gewijzigde omstandigheden intreden waardoor de kans toeneemt dat het verzekerde schadegeval zich realiseert.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The appeal court had held that turning an insured restaurant into a swingers' club was an aggravation of risk that had to be notified, partly because the division into rooms could hamper firefighting, and had released the fire insurer. The Court held that an aggravation of risk under art. 26(1) LCAT requires new or changed circumstances that increase the likelihood of the insured event occurring; circumstances that can only increase the consequences or extent of a loss are not an aggravation. The judgment was quashed on that point on the insureds' appeal and the case referred to the Antwerp Court of Appeal.","k":"Fire insurance — concept of aggravation of risk","law":"LCAT art. 26(1); Cass. 25.6.1987","w":9,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-03-02","rol":"2020/RG/1053","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2022:ARR.20220302.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insured claimed compensation from her insurer for a fire in her building; the insurer argued that the fire had been set intentionally by the insured. The court recalled that under article 62 of the Insurance Act 2014 the insurer owes no cover to anyone who intentionally caused the loss, that the burden of proving intent lies with the insurer (Civil Code, Book 8, art. 8.4, para. 2) and that such proof may rest on serious, precise and consistent presumptions. As the expert report established that the fire was deliberate and attributable to the insured, the appeal was dismissed and the judgment upheld; the insured bears the costs of both instances.","k":"Fire insurance — intentional fire, burden of proof","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 62; Civil Code, Book 8, art. 8.4","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-02-15","rol":"P.21.1572.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20220215.2N.10","ch":"2N","res":"c","t":"legal","q":"Volgens artikel 1022, eerste lid, Gerechtelijk Wetboek kent de rechter de rechtsplegingsvergoeding toe aan de in het gelijk gestelde partij en dus niet aan de rechtsbijstandsverzekeraar.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The civil party, whose claim had largely succeeded, had been refused the procedural indemnity (€2,400) and reimbursement of expert costs because her legal expenses insurer was covering her costs. The Court held that under Judicial Code art. 1022 the procedural indemnity is awarded to the successful party, not to the legal expenses insurer, and a different arrangement between insurer and policyholder does not change this. The judgment was quashed to that extent on the civil party's appeal, as against the defendant and the insurer that had intervened voluntarily.","k":"Legal expenses insurance — who is entitled to the procedural indemnity","law":"Judicial Code, art. 1022(1); Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 162bis(1)","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-02-03","rol":"12/2022","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2022:ARR.012","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"On 25 July 2006 the driver of an uninsured car belonging to someone else collided with a motorcyclist; he was acquitted, on the benefit of the doubt, of driving without insurance. The Guarantee Fund, having paid the victims €392,305.78, brought a subrogation claim against him. On questions from the Hainaut Police Court (Charleroi division), the Constitutional Court held that articles 19bis-14 and 33bis as amended and inserted by the Act of 31 May 2017 (recourse against the owner who failed to insure, for accidents from 22 June 2017) are constitutional. However, the former article 19bis-14 violates article 16 of the Constitution, read with article 1 of Protocol No. 1, insofar as it applies to a driver acquitted of the lack-of-insurance charge: the debt also stems from the owner's failure to insure, and the Fund has a direct claim against the owner.","k":"Guarantee Fund recourse — non-owner driver of an uninsured vehicle","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 19bis-14 and 33bis; Act of 31.5.2017; Constitution, arts. 10, 11 and 16; ECHR Protocol No. 1, art. 1","w":1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle — CC 12/2022","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-02-03","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2022:ARR.017","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Hasselt police court asked whether former article 19bis-11 §2, by requiring full compensation where the driver at fault in a multi-vehicle accident cannot be identified, regardless of the injured party's own fault (such as not wearing a seat belt), discriminated against insurers, who can plead shared liability in an ordinary tort claim. The Constitutional Court found no violation: the legislature could choose an automatic compensation scheme for this category of accidents, and it is logical and consistent that the victim's possible fault does not prevent automatic compensation.","k":"Motor liability, art. 19bis-11 §2 — injured party's own fault and automatic compensation","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, former art. 19bis-11 §2","w":10,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-01-27","rol":"2019/SO/16","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2022:ARR.20220127.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"In criminal proceedings concerning a fatal workplace accident with injured workers, the court held that, absent intentional fault or a written warning from a competent official, the employer, its managers and, by extension, its liability insurer enjoy the immunity of article 46 of the Act of 10.4.1971: the civil claim of a worker compensated under that Act is inadmissible against them, but remains admissible against the liable third party for loss not covered by workplace-accident insurance. The employer's workplace-accident insurer's claim against the third party was admitted for a provisional €1; apportionment of liability and the effect of article 46 on contribution recourse were reserved. Another insurer's subrogated claim was reserved for lack of evidence of subrogation and payments.","k":"Workplace accident — civil immunity (art. 46) and insurers' claims in criminal proceedings","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46; Act of 3.7.1978, art. 18; former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-01-27","rol":"C.21.0106.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20220127.1N.1","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"subrogation","q":"De stuiting van de verjaring door degene die zich in zijn rechten laat subrogeren, geschiedt enkel in het voordeel van de gesubrogeerde als ze dateert van vóór en niet van na de subrogatie.","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The health-insurance fund sought reimbursement, by subrogation, from the hospital held liable for benefits paid to the victim. The Court held that under art. 136(2) of the coordinated Act of 14.7.1994 the fund is subrogated at the time and to the extent of each payment, separately for each distinct payment; an interruption of limitation by the subrogor (criminal complaint as civil party, writ of summons) benefits the subrogee only if it predates the subrogation. The Antwerp Court of Appeal judgment holding the fund's entire claim not time-barred was quashed on the hospital's appeal; no private insurer was a party.","k":"Subrogation — timing of the health-insurance fund's subrogation and interruption of limitation","law":"Coordinated Act of 14.7.1994, art. 136(2), fourth para.; former Civil Code, arts 2244, 2262bis(1); Cass. 22.9.2008","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-01-27","rol":"C.21.0212.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20220127.1N.5","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"29bis","q":"Een motorrijtuig is betrokken in de zin van deze wetsbepaling wanneer het enige rol heeft gespeeld in het verkeersongeval, dit is wanneer het zonder hiervoor een noodzakelijk element te zijn geweest, een invloed heeft…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A passenger who said she fell while boarding a stationary bus had her article 29bis claim rejected on the ground that she had not proved she fell while boarding and that the bus had played no role. The Court recalled that a motor vehicle is involved within art. 29bis(1) once it has played any role in the accident, i.e. had an influence on it without being a necessary element; no causal link between its presence and the occurrence of the accident is required. The judgment was quashed on the victim's appeal and the case referred to the Leuven court of first instance sitting on appeal.","k":"Article 29bis — involvement of a stationary bus","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis(1); Cass. 13.6.2014; Cass. 28.4.2011; Cass. 3.10.2008","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-01-24","rol":"C.21.0047.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2022:ARR.20220124.3N.6","ch":"3N","res":"r","t":"work","q":"Uit het geheel van deze wetsbepalingen volgt dat indien de schade door de samenlopende fouten van zowel een derde als de werkgever, zijn aangestelde of lasthebber is veroorzaakt, de omstandigheid dat de schade door een…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The workplace accident resulted from the concurrent faults of a third-party company and of the employer (through its prevention adviser), which enjoys immunity under art. 46. The Court held that the fact that the damage arose from a workplace accident does not affect the liable third party's duty to compensate in full, under ordinary law, the faultless victim and those entitled through the victim, nor its duty to reimburse in full the workplace-accident insurer's outlays to which it is subrogated under art. 47. The third party's appeal was dismissed; the dispute was not between insurer and insured but against the liable third party.","k":"Workplace accident — third party liable concurrently with the employer","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts 46(1)–(2), 47; former Civil Code, arts 1382–1383; Cass. 8.11.2021","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2022-01-18","rol":"2015/RG/49","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2022:ARR.20220118.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"alt","s":"The victim, with an 80% permanent household incapacity and needing third-party help twice a day, sought a lump-sum (capitalised) award for future loss; the liability insurer offered an annuity. The court held that an indexed, revisable annuity was appropriate and that awarding an annuity rather than capital does not in itself deprive the victim of free disposal of the compensation. The insurer was ordered to pay €63,932.80 for past household loss and indexed monthly annuities of €317.20 (household) and €610 (third-party help); having lost on res judicata, the appellant recovered only 70% of her appeal costs.","k":"Personal injury — annuity for household loss and third-party assistance","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège (3e ch. A)","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-12-24","rol":"C.19.0463.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2021:ARR.20211224.1F.1","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"procedure","q":"Dans la mesure où il invoque la violation de l’article 26 de la loi du 2 août 2002 relative à la surveillance du secteur financier et aux services financiers, tel qu’il est applicable aux faits, sans indiquer en quoi…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The client, who had asked his broker only for liability cover, complained after his vehicle was stolen that the broker had not informed him about theft cover. The Court of Appeal had held that the duty to inform covers only what the insured legitimately does not know, that the client had not shown he requested theft cover, and that the broker was not required to seek out and propose such cover of its own motion. The Court found that decision legally justified and dismissed the client's appeal.","k":"Insurance intermediary — scope of the duty to inform and advise","law":"Act of 27.3.1995 on insurance intermediation; Act of 2.8.2002, art. 26","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-12-20","rol":"S.21.0041.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2021:ARR.20211220.3N.10","ch":"3N","res":"c","t":"work","q":"In dat geval maakt de meest gerede partij het geschil aanhangig bij de arbeidsrechtbank en geeft daarbij kennis van het standpunt van Fedris.” Uit deze wetsbepaling volgt dat indien Fedris de bekrachtiging weigert van…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The compensation agreement between the workplace-accident insurer and the victim, setting permanent incapacity at 8%, had not been ratified by Fedris; the Ghent Labour Court of Appeal nonetheless treated that rate as a binding acknowledgement. The Court held that under art. 65 of the Act of 10.4.1971 an agreement not ratified by Fedris has no effect, is merely a draft, is not binding as law between the parties, and any unilateral commitment preceding ratification can always be challenged. The judgment was quashed insofar as it set the rate at 8%, on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Workplace accident — compensation agreement not ratified by Fedris","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 65; former Civil Code, art. 1134; Cass. 4.2.1943","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-12-15","rol":"P.21.0922.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2021:ARR.20211215.2F.2","ch":"2F","res":"r","t":"procedure","q":"Sauf dérogation résultant d’une loi spéciale, les dispositions du Code judiciaire relatives à l’intervention ne sont pas applicables aux juridictions pénales.","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Belgian Motor Insurers' Bureau had summoned a third party's insurer before the criminal court for a declaration of common judgment, relying on the compensation obligation in art. 29bis; the appeal judge held the summons inadmissible. The Court recalled that, absent a special statute, the Judicial Code provisions on intervention do not apply in criminal courts, and that the art. 29bis obligation, which exists without any liability or offence on the insured's part, falls outside the criminal court's jurisdiction. That the claim was merely protective made no difference; the Bureau's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Article 29bis — summons for a common judgment against an insurer in criminal proceedings","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; Judicial Code, arts 811–814; Cass. 22.1.2003; Cass. 19.10.2005","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-11-26","rol":"C.21.0037.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2021:ARR.20211126.1F.3","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"liability","q":"Cette disposition implique que, pour ne pas perdre son droit de recours, l'assureur notifie clairement et sans ambiguïté à l'intéressé son intention d'exercer le recours.","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Under art. 88(2) LCAT the insurer must, on pain of losing its right of recourse, notify the policyholder or insured of its intention to exercise recourse as soon as it knows the facts justifying it. The Court held that the notice must be clear and unambiguous but is subject to no particular form and, being a unilateral juridical act requiring receipt, may be proved by any lawful means; the written-evidence rule of former Civil Code art. 1341 does not apply. The insured's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Insurer's recourse — notice of intention to exercise recourse and proof","law":"LCAT art. 88(2); former Civil Code, art. 1341","w":11,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-11-08","rol":"C.21.0011.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2021:ARR.20211108.3N.1","ch":"3N","res":"c","t":"limitation","q":"Hieruit volgt dat de stuiting van de verjaring slechts eindigt op het ogenblik dat de verzekeraar zijn wil om de schade te vergoeden duidelijk en ondubbelzinnig ter kennis brengt van de benadeelde.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The limitation period for a direct action against the Belgian Motor Insurers' Bureau, acting as insurer, was in dispute: the police court held that the Bureau's sending of its medical adviser's conclusions with a request for a quantified claim made known its willingness to compensate and ended the interruption. The Court held that arts 34(2) and 35(4) LCAT are mandatory rules protecting the injured party and that the interruption ends only when the insurer clearly and unambiguously communicates its willingness to compensate; those letters were not enough. The judgment was quashed and the case referred to the Antwerp police court.","k":"Direct action — end of the interruption of limitation","law":"LCAT arts 34(2), 35(4); Cass. 18.6.2012","w":12,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-11-08","rol":"C.20.0108.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2021:ARR.20211108.3N.10","ch":"3N","res":"c","t":"work","q":"Hieruit volgt dat de werkgever zijn burgerrechtelijke immuniteit ten aanzien van de getroffene van het arbeidsongeval en diens rechthebbenden uit artikel 46, § 1, Arbeidsongevallenwet kan tegenwerpen aan de derde, door…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The faults of the victim, the employer and a third-party company had contributed equally to the damage; the third party and its liability insurer, ordered to pay two thirds of the loss of the victim and of the workplace-accident insurer, had obtained on appeal an order that the employer reimburse half of those payments under former Civil Code art. 1382. The Court held that the employer may raise its civil immunity under art. 46(1) of the Act of 10.4.1971 against a third party who contributed to the accident and seeks recourse after paying the victim, those entitled through the victim or the workplace-accident insurer, even where that recourse is based on art. 1382. The Antwerp Court of Appeal judgment was quashed to that extent on the employer's appeal.","k":"Workplace accident — employer's immunity against recourse by a liable third party","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts 46(1), 47; former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-11-05","rol":"C.20.0343.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2021:ARR.20211105.1F.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"La perte d'une chance est un dommage spécifique qui consiste en la perte certaine d'un avantage probable (1). (1) Cass. 10 septembre 2020, RG C.19.0357.F, Pas. 2020, n° 518; en matière contractuelle: Cass. 28 janvier…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The heirs claimed from the insurer, ex haerede, compensation for each year of life the deceased could have enjoyed had his cancer been diagnosed in 2011. The Court recalled that loss of a chance is the certain loss of a probable advantage, and that a person who loses a certain advantage cannot claim that separate head of loss. Since the loss of any chance of survival had materialised, the appeal court could limit the ex haerede non-pecuniary award to the period between the harmful event and death; the heirs' appeal was dismissed.","k":"Late cancer diagnosis — loss of a chance and ex haerede non-pecuniary loss","law":"Former Civil Code, arts 1382–1383; Cass. 10.9.2020; Cass. 6.12.2013","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-10-25","rol":"2018/AB/827","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2021:ARR.20211025.19","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Le vide juridique créé par l'absence de dispositions légales et réglementaires déterminant le délai dans lequel le MEDEX doit convoquer la victime d'un accident du travail et prendre les décisions qui lui incombent peut…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"No statutory deadline requires MEDEX to summon a public-sector workplace-accident victim and decide; the gap is filled by the reasonable-time principle. MEDEX's prolonged inaction was a fault, and the State was ordered to pay €500 in damages, set on an equitable basis.","k":"Workplace accident (public sector)","law":"Loi 3.7.1967; principles of good administration (reasonable time)","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-10-21","rol":"C.20.0567.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2021:ARR.20211021.1N.1","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"duties","q":"Krachtens artikel 26, § 1, eerste lid, Wet Landverzekeringsovereenkomst, zoals van toepassing, heeft de verzekeringnemer de verplichting in de loop van de overeenkomst en onder de voorwaarden van artikel 5 de nieuwe…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The policyholder's intermediary had faxed the insurer that the insured building was let again as a 'drinking café (bar??)', while concealing that it was actually run as a brothel or private club with rooms for rent. The Court held that under art. 26(1) LCAT the policyholder must spontaneously, fully and accurately inform the insurer of new circumstances likely to cause a significant and lasting aggravation of risk, and that the insurer is as a rule not required to verify them. The Brussels Court of Appeal judgment finding no duty of inquiry on the insurer stood; the policyholder's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Fire insurance — notifying aggravation of risk and no duty on the insurer to verify","law":"LCAT art. 26(1), first para.; Cass. 27.4.2018","w":9,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-10-08","rol":"C.21.0070.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2021:ARR.20211008.1F.2","ch":"1F","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Conformément à l’article 23 de la loi du 4 avril 2014 relative aux assurances, les conditions générales, particulières et spéciales, les contrats d’assurance dans leur ensemble, ainsi que toutes les clauses prises…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"Theft cover for the stolen car depended on a clause requiring an anti-theft system for 'target vehicles ≥ €30,000', without stating which value applied. The Liège Court of Appeal, relying on the parties' common intention, used the value declared when the policy was taken out (€47,338.51 excl. VAT) and rejected the more favourable reading based on the market value at the time of the theft. The Court held that under art. 23 of the 2014 Insurance Act and art. VI.37 of the Code of Economic Law, where the meaning of a clause is doubtful the interpretation most favourable to the policyholder prevails in all cases; the judgment was quashed on the insured's appeal and the case referred to the Mons Court of Appeal.","k":"Vehicle theft cover — ambiguous clause construed in the policyholder's favour","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 23; Code of Economic Law, art. VI.37","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-10-06","rol":"2019/Rg/405","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2021:ARR.20211006.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The insured had taken out, through a broker, a policy requiring an approved anti-theft alarm; as the alarm had been out of order for years, the insurer refused to pay the claim. The insured withdrew the action against the insurer and alleged that the broker had breached its duty to inform and advise. The court recalled that this duty is a best-efforts obligation and that the burden of proving a breach lies with the client; the requirement was clearly stated in the special conditions and the client could not ignore that a required alarm must be in working order; the broker has no duty to inspect the building. The claim against the broker was dismissed and the judgment upheld.","k":"Broker's liability — alarm requirement and duty to inform","law":"Broker's duty to inform and advise (best-efforts obligation); spontaneous disclosure of the risk","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-10-01","rol":"C.19.0307.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2021:ARR.20211001.1F.1","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"work","q":"Ces dispositions interdisent le cumul des indemnités en matière d’accident du travail, jusqu’à concurrence de leur montant, avec les réparations prévues par le droit commun ou l’article 29bis précité pour le même…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"The victim, a public-sector employee, received permanent incapacity benefits under the Act of 3.7.1967; the court sitting on appeal had also ordered the liable party's insurer to pay €43,010 and €64,276.50 for past and future increased effort, and €100,000 for loss of a chance of income as a musician and sound engineer outside the public sector. The Court recalled that material loss from permanent incapacity consists of reduced economic value and, where relevant, the need for increased effort; even if calculated without regard to that effort, benefits under the 1967 Act cannot be combined, up to their amount, with ordinary-law or article 29bis compensation for that loss. On the insurer's appeal, the awards for increased effort and the related basis of recourse were quashed; the €100,000 stood, as loss of income outside the public sector is not covered by the 1967 Act.","k":"Public-sector workplace accident — increased effort and the ban on double compensation","law":"Act of 3.7.1967, arts 14(2), 14bis(2); Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; former Civil Code, arts 1382–1383; Cass. 22.6.2017; Cass. 11.6.2007","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-09-30","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2021:ARR.124","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : Les articles 24 et 30 de la loi du 28 avril 2003 « relative aux pensions complémentaires et au régime fiscal de celles-ci et de certains avantages complémentaires en matière de sécurité sociale…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"After the insurance company managing a pension commitment was put into liquidation, the Antwerp Labour Court of Appeal asked whether articles 24 and 30 of the Supplementary Pensions Act of 28 April 2003 (pre-2014 version), which require the organiser to make good deficits against acquired reserves and the minimum return whatever their origin, were constitutional. The Constitutional Court found no violation: the aim is to protect members' pension rights; the organiser is liable only up to the deficit at exit, may recover from the pension institution, and freely chose to set up a pension commitment.","k":"Supplementary pension — making good deficits after the insurer's liquidation","law":"Act of 28.4.2003 (LPC), arts 2, 5 §1, 24 and 30","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-09-30","rol":"C.20.0360.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2021:ARR.20210930.1N.2","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"work","q":"Uit de samenhang van deze bepalingen volgt dat de subrogatoire vordering uit artikel 47 Arbeidsongevallenwet betrekking heeft op vergoedingen die de arbeidsongevallenverzekeraar aan het slachtoffer en zijn…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The workplace-accident insurer sought from another insurer the amounts it had paid the victim above the statutory benefits under a supplementary policy (the excess); the appeal judges applied art. 47 of the Act of 10.4.1971 to that claim and dismissed it. The Court held that the subrogated action under art. 47 covers benefits paid under the Workplace Accidents Act and not amounts paid on top of them under a supplementary policy; the judgment was quashed insofar as it dismissed the workplace-accident insurer's claim. The dispute was between two insurers.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer — art. 47 subrogation and payments under a supplementary policy","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts 46(2), 47","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-09-20","rol":"C.20.0552.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2021:ARR.20210920.3F.3","ch":"3F","res":"c","t":"limitation","q":"Il suit de cette disposition que l’interruption de la prescription suppose que la personne lésée puisse déterminer avec certitude, à la réception de la communication écrite de l’assureur, si ce dernier indemnisera son…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The interruption of the limitation period for the injured party's direct action against the insurer ends only if, on receiving the insurer's written communication, the injured party can determine with certainty whether the insurer will compensate the loss; the trial court assesses this on the facts, while the Court of Cassation reviews whether that conclusion was lawfully drawn. The insurer had sent a settlement offer of 960 euros on 15 June 2012, made without admission of liability and reserving full discretion if the amount were disputed, and paid that sum on 11 December 2012. The Court held that it could not lawfully be inferred that this letter ended the interruption and, on the appeal of the injured party's heirs, quashed the appeal judgment of the Liège court of first instance.","k":"Direct action — end of the interruption of the limitation period","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 89 §5","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-09-17","rol":"C.21.0029.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2021:ARR.20210917.1F.1","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"29bis","q":"Il s’ensuit que, lorsque la victime a commis une faute en relation causale avec son dommage, l’assureur d’un des véhicules impliqués qui indemnise la victime n’est subrogé dans ses droits à l’égard du tiers responsable…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer of the liable driver that compensated, under article 29bis, a victim who was at fault (80 per cent responsible for his own loss) cannot be subrogated to the victim's rights against the liable third party, but it may bring a contribution claim under article 1251, 3°, of the former Civil Code, in equal shares, against those liable because of the involvement of the other vehicles, up to the share the victim would have had to bear under ordinary law. It may therefore claim from the owner of the involved rail vehicle half of that 80 per cent share paid under article 29bis, even though the rail vehicle's driver was not at fault. The rail-vehicle owner's appeal was dismissed; the appeal judgment of the French-speaking Brussels court of first instance stands.","k":"Article 29bis — contribution claim between those liable to compensate","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; former Civil Code, art. 1251, 3°; Cass. 22.6.2017; Cass. 28.9.2017","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-09-17","rol":"C.20.0254.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2021:ARR.20210917.1F.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Celui qui, par sa faute, a causé un dommage à autrui est tenu de le réparer et la victime a droit, en règle, à la réparation intégrale du préjudice qu'elle a subi; celle-ci doit être replacée dans la situation qui…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The motor liability insurer brought a recourse action against its insured, who joined his broker, the person who had filled in the insurance proposal, seeking indemnity. The judge found two concurrent faults in equal shares (the insured's knowingly false answers on his record, the broker's failure to check them) but held that the insured could claim from the broker only after paying his own 50% share. The Court of Cassation held that the insured exercises his own right based on the broker's fault, so the indemnity applies, up to the broker's share, to every sum paid; the judgment was quashed.","k":"Broker liability — indemnity against the insurer's recourse","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382; Cass. 25.4.2019","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-09-14","rol":"2016/AR/2030","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2021:ARR.20210914.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"A police-zone employee was injured on a defective driveway kept by a third party, whose liability under article 1384(1) of the former Civil Code had been established by an interim judgment. The public employer's insurer sought to recover its outlays from the liable party's liability insurer. The court held that the insurance voluntarily taken out by the public employer is not reinsurance but indemnity insurance, so the insurer is subrogated to the employer's rights under article 95 of the Insurance Act 2014. Although the employer's recourse is limited to net salary, the additional contributions it paid can be claimed as its own rights, so the gross amount is recoverable. The liability insurer was ordered to pay €38,121.29 plus compensatory interest.","k":"Public employer's workplace-accident insurer — subrogation and gross amount","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 95; Act of 3.7.1967, art. 14 §3; former Civil Code, art. 1384(1); Const. Court no. 75/2020","w":-1,"c":"Hof van beroep Brussel","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-09-02","rol":"2020/AN/124 2020/AN/125","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2021:ARR.20210902.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Le juge n'est pas tenu par l'accord des parties tel que visé par l'article 24 alinéa 2 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents travail, lorsque cet accord ne réunit pas les conditions prévues à peine de nullité par…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a judge is not bound by a settlement signed by the parties but not approved by Fedris and lacking the conditions of article 65; since the description of residual injuries did not match the consolidation report and consolidation itself was doubtful, the settlement was set aside and an expert appointed to assess the consequences of the commuting accident. As to the base wage, because the accident occurred during a career break (crédit-temps), the normal full-time contractual hours (38) remain the reference: article 36 §1, not article 37bis, applies, giving €27,022.51. The victim's appeal was upheld and the workplace-accident insurer's appeal partly upheld.","k":"Workplace accident — settlement not approved by Fedris and base wage","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 24, 34, 36 §1, 37bis and 65","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-06-30","rol":"2020/RG/218","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2021:ARR.20210630.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer brought a subrogated recourse against the liable third-party company, which argued that the victim was working undeclared (no DIMONA declaration) at the time of the accident and that the loss of illicit income is not compensable. The court held that this argument can only concern a claim for lost income (temporary economic incapacity); impairment of working capacity (20% permanent economic incapacity) is a loss in itself, which the judge assesses freely. The third party was ordered to pay the insurer €35,414.92 in medical costs and €30,000 for permanent economic loss, less €35,261.95 already paid.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's subrogated recourse — undeclared worker","law":"Act of 10.4.1971 (subrogation); former Civil Code, art. 1382; Cass. 14.5.2003","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-06-22","rol":"P.21.0429.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2021:ARR.20210622.2N.22","ch":"2N","res":"c","t":"motor","q":"Uit deze bepaling volgt dat de houder en de bestuurder van een motorrijtuig alleen strafbaar zijn als zij daadwerkelijk weten dat dit voertuig niet is verzekerd.","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that, under article 22 §1 of the Act of 21 November 1989, the keeper and the driver of a motor vehicle are punishable only if they actually know that the vehicle is uninsured; it is not enough that they could have known. The East Flanders criminal court's appeal judgment was quashed insofar as it convicted the defendant of driving uninsured on the ground that he could have known. The appeal was otherwise dismissed, since a driver who uses a vehicle without a valid roadworthiness certificate is also punishable.","k":"Driving an uninsured vehicle — knowledge requirement","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 22 §1; RD of 15.3.1968, arts 24 §1 and 26","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-06-15","rol":"2019/RG/95","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2021:ARR.20210615.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"A patient who fractured his wrist falling from a roof blamed the operating surgeon and sued the surgeon's liability insurer. The court held that where the victim already had a loss before the harmful event, only the new loss or the aggravation of the existing loss is compensable; the consequences of the fall are not the insurer's burden. The insurer's appeal was partly upheld and the award was set on an equitable basis (expenses €707.53, temporary non-pecuniary loss €2,224.50, pain and suffering €63, €3,300 each for permanent personal and economic incapacity); the victim's cross-appeal was dismissed and he bore the appeal costs.","k":"Medical negligence — only the aggravation is compensated","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-06-07","rol":"C.20.0245.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2021:ARR.20210607.3F.1","ch":"3F","res":"c","t":"motor","q":"Il ne suit pas de cette disposition que le propriétaire d'un des véhicules impliqués dans l'accident ne puisse être indemnisé comme personne lésée qu'à la condition de prouver que le conducteur de ce véhicule n'est pas…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"Where several vehicles are involved and it cannot be established which one caused the accident, compensation for the injured party is shared equally among the insurers of those vehicles, except those whose liability is beyond doubt not engaged. The Court held that this provision does not mean that the owner of one of the involved vehicles can be compensated as an injured party only if it proves that its own driver was not liable. The appeal judgment of the Liège court of first instance, which dismissed the owner's claim because its driver might have been at fault, was quashed to that extent on the owner's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — accident with no identifiable causing vehicle (art. 19bis-11 §2)","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 19bis-11 §2; Cass. 24.11.2016; Cass. 26.4.2018","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-05-25","rol":"P.21.0270.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2021:ARR.20210525.2N.1","ch":"2N","res":"c","t":"work","q":"Het in deze bepaling omschreven cumulatieverbod houdt in dat het slachtoffer van de voor het ongeval aansprakelijke derde slechts vergoeding van de lichamelijke schade kan eisen wanneer de volgens het gemeen recht…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"A workplace-accident victim may claim compensation for bodily injury from the liable third party only to the extent that the ordinary-law award exceeds the benefits under the Workplace Accidents Act; the Court held that this comparison is made item by item, not on the totals, and rejected the liability insurer's ground to the contrary. The appeal judgment of the Dutch-speaking Brussels criminal court was nonetheless largely quashed on both appeals: it failed to answer the insurer's defence on the matrimonial property regime and the victim's request for a reservation for loss of pension rights, and it disputed the need for third-party help during temporary incapacity, which the parties had agreed on.","k":"Workplace accident — no-double-recovery rule against the liable third party","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46 §2; former Civil Code, arts 1382–1383; Judicial Code, art. 1138, 2°","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-04-26","rol":"2020/RG/643","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2021:ARR.20210426.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"« la charge de la preuve incombe à l'assureur tant en matière de déchéance que d'exclusion »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The car left the road while driven by the insured's son, who measured 0.77 mg/l of exhaled air; the insurer refused cover under a clause that applied if the insured knew or could have known of the driver's condition and that condition influenced the loss. The court classed the clause as a forfeiture rather than an exclusion, but held that in either case the insurer bears the burden of proving all its conditions, a contrary reading being contrary to art. 65 of the Insurance Act 2014. The father, a passenger, could have known of his son's condition but for his own drunkenness, and causation was proven: the refusal was upheld and the appeal dismissed.","k":"Own-damage cover — drink-driving clause, burden of proof and causation","law":"Insurance Act 2014, arts. 62 para. 2 and 65 para. 1; Cass. 13.9.2010","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège (3e ch. B)","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-04-21","rol":"2020/FA/249","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2021:ARR.20210421.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The leasing contract required the lessee to insure the vehicle for motor liability and material damage; by endorsement, the insurer undertook to notify the lessor of any cancellation, suspension or termination of the policy. The insurer failed to notify the termination; the vehicle was later written off in an accident and the lessor claimed its full loss from the insurer under article 1382 of the former Civil Code. The court ruled that the loss is the loss of a chance to avoid a detriment, compensable only if definitive, which is not shown while the lessor still has a contractual recourse against the lessee. The remaining issues (valuation, interest, costs) were reserved.","k":"Leased vehicle — insurer's failure to notify termination, loss of chance","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382; case law on loss of chance","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-04-16","rol":"C.20.0151.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2021:ARR.20210416.1N.5","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"motor","q":"Hieruit volgt dat de kennisgeving door de verzekeraar van zijn voornemen om verhaal in te stellen eveneens ziet op de grond van het verhaal en dat de verzekeraar vervallen is van zijn recht van verhaal wanneer hij dit…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer must notify the policyholder or the insured of its intention to seek recourse as soon as it learns of the facts on which that decision is based, failing which the right of recourse is forfeited. The Court held that the notice must also cover the ground of the recourse, and that the insurer forfeits its recourse if it exercises it on a ground other than the one it notified in time. The insurer had given timely notice of recourse based on alcohol intoxication and cocaine use, but later discovered intentional misrepresentation when the policy was taken out and did not notify that ground separately; the appeal judgment of the Dutch-speaking Brussels court of first instance, which allowed recourse on that ground, was quashed on the insured's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — notice of intended recourse and its ground","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 152, para. 2","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-04-14","rol":"P.20.1225.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2021:ARR.20210414.2F.1","ch":"2F","res":"c","t":"damage","q":"La Cour ne peut avoir égard au mémoire en réponse d'un défendeur qui a été communiqué à l'avocat à la Cour représentant le demandeur, dont il n'apparaît pas qu'il ait été aussi communiqué au demandeur en personne,…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"The victim appealed against the judgment of the Brussels criminal court, sitting on appeal, setting the compensation payable by the motor liability insurer. The Court of Cassation quashed the ruling on temporary household-work loss because the reasoning put the victim's contribution to the household shared with his mother at both 35% and 30%, which is contradictory. For permanent household-work loss, it held that the duty to separate past from future loss applies only where damage is assessed by capitalisation and has no purpose where a lump-sum (forfaitaire) assessment is used; the appeal was dismissed on that point.","k":"Personal injury — assessment of household-work loss","law":"former Civil Code, arts 1382–1383; Constitution, art. 149; Cass. 14.6.1995","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-04-12","rol":"C.20.0201.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2021:ARR.20210412.3N.1","ch":"3N","res":"c","t":"home","q":"Uit de omstandigheid dat een mede-eigenaar van een onverdeeld onroerend goed in het kader van een in zijn eigen naam afgesloten brandverzekeringsovereenkomst met betrekking tot het geheel van dit goed, premies betaalt…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"Fire insurance taken out by a co-owner of undivided property in his own name in principle covers only his share and does not benefit the other co-owners, unless the policy shows that the policyholder acted on their behalf. The Court held, however, that where that co-owner pays premiums for the whole property calculated on its full value, it follows that the parties stipulated cover for the other co-owners as well. The Ghent Court of Appeal judgment, which halved the indemnity because the insurer's consent had not been shown, was quashed on the appeal of the co-owners who had not taken out the policy.","k":"Fire insurance — cover for the other co-owners","law":"LCAT, arts 1 B a), 22 and 38 para. 1; former Civil Code, arts 1122 and 1165","w":13,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-03-30","rol":"P.20.1273.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2021:ARR.20210330.2N.8","ch":"2N","res":"r","t":"procedure","q":"Uit de samenhang van deze bepalingen volgt dat een burgerlijke partij die niet zelf de strafvordering op gang heeft gebracht, niet kan worden veroordeeld tot het betalen van een rechtsplegingsvergoeding aan een…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The prosecution had been brought by the public prosecutor and the civil party had joined it; its civil claim against the voluntarily intervening insurer was dismissed on the merits. The Court held that article 1021 of the Judicial Code does not apply in criminal matters and that, reading article 162bis, para. 2, of the Code of Criminal Procedure together with article 153 §5 of the Insurance Act 2014, a civil party that did not itself initiate the prosecution cannot be ordered to pay a procedural indemnity to an intervening insurer against which it wrongly brought a claim; this does not breach the equality principle. The insurer's appeal was dismissed; the appeal judgment of the Antwerp criminal court (Mechelen division) stands.","k":"Insurer intervening in criminal proceedings — procedural indemnity","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 153 §5; Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 162bis para. 2; Judicial Code, art. 1021; Constitutional Court, 18.2.2009, no. 28/2009","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-03-10","rol":"2019/RG/1214","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2021:ARR.20210310.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The victims, struck as pedestrians in 2007 by a driver found solely liable, had their direct action against the motor liability insurer become time-barred through their lawyer's fault; they sued the lawyer's professional liability insurer. The first-instance court had awarded 95% of the loss as a loss of chance. The court of appeal held that, since liability was established by a final criminal judgment and the victims were vulnerable road users, the chance of winning the lost proceedings was 100%: the loss-of-chance doctrine did not apply and the loss was compensated in full. The loss was assessed as of 2015, when the police court would have ruled but for the lawyer's fault. The insurer's cross-appeal was nonetheless partly upheld: permanent economic incapacity was compensated by a lump sum of €20,000 instead of capitalisation and some medical expenses were reduced; appeal costs were split.","k":"Lawyer's liability — time-barred direct action, loss of chance","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382; Insurance Act 2014, art. 150; Indicative Table 2012","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-02-18","rol":"C.18.0606.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2021:ARR.20210218.1F.1","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"motor","q":"Ni cet article 7 ni aucun autre article de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 ne déroge au droit que l’article 14 de la loi du 25 juin 1992 reconnaît à l’assureur de suspendre la garantie et de résilier le contrat pour défaut…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that neither article 7 nor any other provision of the Act of 21 November 1989 derogates from the insurer's right, under article 14 LCAT, to suspend cover and terminate the contract for non-payment of the premium. Article 5, para. 3, of the Royal Decree of 13 February 1991, under which an insurer that issues the green card without waiting for the premium waives suspension and termination while the certificate is valid, is therefore unlawful for lack of statutory authority. The appeal judgment of the French-speaking Brussels court of first instance, which held the termination as of 21 November 2013 ineffective and required the insurer to cover the accident of 22 January 2014, was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — termination for unpaid premium and green card","law":"LCAT, art. 14; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 7; RD of 13.2.1991, art. 5 para. 3; Constitution, art. 159","w":14,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-01-28","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2021:ARR.015","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 2bis, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 « relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs », tel qu'il a été inséré par l'article 43…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Ghent court asked whether article 2bis of the Act of 21 November 1989, inserted by article 43 of the Act of 2 May 2019, which exempts motor vehicles not exceeding 25 km/h under mechanical power (other than class A mopeds) from compulsory motor liability insurance, was discriminatory. The Constitutional Court held that article 2bis, first paragraph, breaches articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution: the exemption depends only on maximum speed and ignores the vehicle's mass; the rapid development of these new vehicles does not justify it, since it makes precisely their mass and accident risk unpredictable.","k":"Motor liability — insurance exemption for motor vehicles not exceeding 25 km/h","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts 1, 2 §1 and 2bis; Act of 2.5.2019, art. 43","w":15,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-01-27","rol":"2019/RG/1080","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2021:ARR.20210127.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"« n'a pas été victime d'un accident de la circulation au sens de l'article 29bis […] ni d'un accident de roulage au sens de l'article 46, § 1er, 6° »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"A ground worker on a fenced pavement worksite was knocked down by a tracked excavator driven by a colleague; he sued the employer's liability insurer in tort. The court found that neither the worker nor the machine was taking part in traffic and that the injuries, though compatible with a vehicle impact, were not characteristic of a traffic accident. It was neither a traffic accident under article 29bis nor a road accident under article 46 §1, 6° of the 1971 Act; the appeal was dismissed and the claim rejected.","k":"Construction machine accident — not a traffic accident","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46 §1, 6°; Judicial Code, art. 643, 660","w":1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège (3e ch. C)","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-01-27","rol":"2017/RG/681","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2021:ARR.20210127.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The insured, who claims the disability annuity provided by his policy following an illness, challenged by written submissions, during the insurer's appeal on the merits, the 2012 judgment which, by agreement of the parties, had instructed the expert to assess disability under the accident scale (BOBI). The insurer argued that an agreed judgment cannot be appealed (art. 1043 Judicial Code). The court held that an agreement 'before judgment on the merits and with all rights reserved' on an expert measure is not an agreement on the outcome of the dispute: the appeal was admissible and well founded on this point. Since the policy provides that in case of illness disability is set by medical decision, the expert's remit was amended accordingly and the expert invited to continue; the merits were reserved.","k":"Disability annuity — expert's remit and appeal against an 'agreed' judgment","law":"Judicial Code, arts. 1043, 972 and 973 §2; policy terms (BOBI / medical decision)","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-01-22","rol":"C.19.0625.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2021:ARR.20210122.1N.12","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"motor","q":"Uit artikel 13 WAM volgt niet dat de verzekeraar of haar schaderegelaar verplicht is een met redenen omkleed antwoord te geven omtrent de aansprakelijkheid en de schade binnen de termijn van drie maanden, indien de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Articles 13 and 14 of the Act of 21 November 1989 require the insurer or its claims representative to provide, within three months of the claim, either a reasoned offer of compensation or a reasoned reply where liability or the loss is disputed. The Court held that no duty to give a reasoned reply arises where liability or the application of article 29bis is not disputed and the loss is undisputed and quantified. For an accident on 22 May 2015, the claim was made on 1 July 2015 and the representative, which disputed neither liability nor the loss, paid €1,389.68 on 18 December 2015; the injured party's appeal against the Antwerp Court of Appeal judgment, which applied the sanction regime of article 13, was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — reasoned offer or reply within three months","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts 13, 14 and 29bis","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-01-13","rol":"P.20.1094.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2021:ARR.20210113.2F.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Le juge du fond apprécie en fait l'existence d'un dommage causé par un acte illicite et le montant destiné à le réparer intégralement; il peut recourir à une évaluation ex aequo et bono s'il indique la raison pour…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The civil party asked for capitalisation, against the defendant and his voluntarily intervening insurer, of the future loss arising from 6% personal incapacity and 3% economic and household incapacity. The Court held that capitalisation requires a minimum equivalence between the annuity instalments and the annual loss; the judge may refuse it where that equivalence cannot be established and the method would award more than the loss. Since the criminal court found no loss of income and only subjective after-effects, its equitable assessment was lawful; the victim's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Personal injury — capitalisation of future loss and equitable assessment","law":"Former Civil Code, arts 1315, 1382–1383; Cass. 19.2.2020; Cass. 25.4.2019; Cass. 27.5.2016","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2021-01-07","rol":"C.20.0306.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2021:ARR.20210107.1F.6","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"limitation","q":"Les échanges entre la personne lésée et l'entreprise d'assurances qui font suite à la demande d'intervention de la personne lésée constituent, au sens de cette disposition, des pourparlers, à moins que la personne lésée…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"Under article 8bis §5, para. 4, of the Act of 30 July 1979, the limitation period is interrupted against the insurer by any negotiations between it and the injured party. The Court held that exchanges following the injured party's claim count as negotiations unless the injured party must infer from the insurer's statements that it rules out any settlement of the claim. The insurer had replied on 28 February 2014 to the loss notification of 9 April 2013 that, subject to cover, it wished to assess the damage jointly; the Liège Court of Appeal judgment, which held that this was not a negotiation, was quashed on the injured party's appeal.","k":"Compulsory fire liability insurance — limitation interrupted by negotiations","law":"Act of 30.7.1979, art. 8bis §5 para. 4","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-12-17","rol":"C.19.0334.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2020:ARR.20201217.1F.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"L'employeur public qui, ensuite de la faute d'un tiers, doit, en vertu de ses obligations légales ou réglementaires, continuer à payer à l'un de ses agents sa rémunération et les charges qui la grèvent sans recevoir de…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer of a police zone, subrogated to its insured's rights, sued the motor liability insurer of the person who caused the accident that left a police inspector unable to work, relying on article 1382 of the Civil Code. The appeal judgment excluded the social programming bonus from the claim. The Court of Cassation held that this bonus, paid in return for work performed during the year, is remuneration, and paying it without receiving work is a recoverable loss for the public employer; the judgment was quashed to that extent.","k":"Public employer's loss — social programming bonus","law":"Former Civil Code, arts 1382–1383; Cass. 18.10.2018; Cass. 26.1.2017","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-12-16","rol":"2019/RG/792","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2020:ARR.20201216.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"« L'assuré doit veiller à ses propres intérêts et ne peut, sous le prétexte d'un manquement par le courtier à son devoir d'information, reporter sur celui-ci les conséquences dommageables de la négligence dont il ferait…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The policy made theft cover conditional on fitting an approved tracking system within seven days and proving a valid subscription; the insured fitted none. The court held that, by paying premiums, the insured had accepted the special and general conditions, that the clause was clear and not unfair, that it was a forfeiture requiring causation, which was shown here with sufficient likelihood, and that the insurer had no duty to check compliance. The €70,086.75 award was reversed; the claim against the broker also failed, as the duty to inform does not cover what a simple reading of the policy reveals.","k":"Vehicle theft — required tracking system not fitted, forfeiture","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 65; Code of Economic Law, arts. VI.37, VI.82","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège (3e ch. C)","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-12-11","rol":"C.20.0155.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2020:ARR.20201211.1N.3","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"subrogation","q":"Uit wat voorafgaat volgt dat de verzekeraar die gesubrogeerd is in de rechten van zijn verzekerde, slechts een rechtsvordering tegen de aansprakelijke derde kan instellen wanneer de verzekerde zelf een rechtmatig belang…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A subrogated insurer may sue the liable third party only if the insured itself has a legitimate interest in claiming compensation from that party. The insured's chalet, built without a permit and not eligible for regularisation, had burned down and the insured rebuilt it with the indemnity received; the Ghent Court of Appeal held that the claim sought, if indirectly, to perpetuate an unlawful situation, so there was no legitimate interest and the subrogated insurer's action was inadmissible. The Court found that decision lawful and dismissed the insurer's appeal.","k":"Subrogated insurer's claim — the insured's legitimate interest","law":"LCAT, art. 41 para. 1 (now Insurance Act 2014, art. 95 para. 1); Judicial Code, art. 17","w":16,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-12-09","rol":"2020/RG/768","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2020:ARR.20201209.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Where the insurer asks clear and precise health questions, their relevance to the risk assessment is presumed. Intentional concealment makes the contract void, and no causal link between the concealed condition and the cause of death is required.","k":"Duty of disclosure — intentional omission (life/funeral insurance)","law":"Insurance Act 2014 art. 59","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-12-07","rol":"2020/RG/105","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2020:ARR.20201207.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The insurer refused cover because the car lacked the after-theft tracking system required by the special conditions. The court treated this requirement as a forfeiture clause: under article 65 of the Insurance Act 2014 the insurer must prove a causal link between the breach and the loss, which it failed to do since the car was stolen and then set on fire. The fire was covered under the theft cover; the €62,871.60 award (after contractual monthly depreciation) was upheld on other grounds and the insured's cross-appeal (replacement car, no depreciation) was dismissed.","k":"Comprehensive motor cover — stolen and burnt car, anti-theft system","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 65; Civil Code, Book 8, art. 8.4; Judicial Code, art. 870","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-12-07","rol":"2019/RG/795","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2020:ARR.20201207.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insured, whose house burned down, was suspected of arson, placed under psychiatric observation, and the criminal file was closed without prosecution; the insurer refused cover under article 62 of the Insurance Act 2014. The court found it unproven that the insured set the fire and held that, even if she had, an intentional act requires a free and conscious will. The psychiatrist appointed by the prosecutor concluded that at the time she was in a state of serious mental imbalance profoundly impairing her control over her actions; the burden of disproving that alleged justification lies on the insurer. The insurer's appeal was dismissed, the duty to provide cover confirmed, and the amount of the indemnity reserved.","k":"Fire insurance — intentional act, burden of proof and mental capacity","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 62; Cass. 26.10.2011; Cass. 23.2.2017","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-11-25","rol":"P.20.0670.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2020:ARR.20201125.2F.1","ch":"2F","res":"r","t":"limitation","q":"Ces dispositions ne sont dès lors pas applicables à la demanderesse : en effet, il ressort des constatations du jugement qu'elle n'agit pas en vertu d'un droit propre né du contrat d'assurance entre la prévenue et son…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer that had compensated the owner of the damaged vehicle joined the criminal proceedings as a subrogated civil party against the defendant and argued that the limitation period had been interrupted under article 89 §§4–5 of the Insurance Act 2014 by its timely approach to the defendant's liability insurer. The Court held that those provisions concern only the limitation of the injured party's direct claim against the liable person's insurer and do not apply to an insurer suing under article 1382 of the Civil Code, not by virtue of a direct right arising from the insurance contract but through subrogation after paying its own insured. The appeal judgment of the Hainaut criminal court (Mons division), which held the claim time-barred under article 2262bis of the Civil Code, stands; the insurer's appeal, admissible thanks to the one-month extension under Royal Decree no. 2 of 9 April 2020, was dismissed.","k":"Subrogated property insurer — limitation and art. 89 §§4–5","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 89 §§4–5; former Civil Code, arts 2262bis and 1382; Royal Decree no. 2 of 9.4.2020, art. 1; Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 423","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-11-18","rol":"P.19.1316.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2020:ARR.20201118.2F.1","ch":"2F","res":"c","t":"damage","q":"Afin d'évaluer le dommage professionnel subi par la victime d'un accident de la circulation qui bénéficie de versements faits en vertu d'un contrat d'assurance pour la perte résultant d'une incapacité professionnelle,…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The defendant, held liable for a traffic accident of 7 June 2007, asked that the payments the victim received under a private accident-insurance contract for loss of income be deducted from the loss-of-earnings award. The Court held that it must be examined whether such payments have a legal cause distinct from the offence of unintentional injury and whether they are not intended to make good the harm caused by it; the contractual nature of the payments and the insurer's waiver of any subrogated recourse do not rule out that they were meant to compensate the accident damage. The appeal judgments of the Eupen criminal court were partly quashed on the defendant's appeal, which also succeeded on the technical interest rate, set more favourably than requested, and on the deduction from care-home costs, based on a hypothetical situation.","k":"Traffic accident — deducting private accident-insurance benefits from damages","law":"Former Civil Code, arts 1382–1383; Judicial Code, art. 1138, 2°","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-11-16","rol":"2019/RG/1254","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2020:ARR.20201116.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"« une vraisemblance suffisante d'une cause de sinistre non couverte pouvant être considérée comme satisfaisante »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The first judge dismissed the claim because the policy showed a different risk address; the Court of Appeal found this was merely an administrative change of address. As the loss fell within the insured peril, the insurer had to prove the exclusion. However, the insured replaced the fitting without telling the insurer, took no photographs and did not keep it (general conditions art. 31.3, restating art. 110, para. 1 of the Insurance Act 2014); this fault eases the burden of proof, so sufficient likelihood of an excluded cause is enough. The expert report, weather records and the insured's implausible account made frost sufficiently likely; the claim was dismissed on other grounds. The insurer's settlement offer was not an admission of cover.","k":"Water damage — exclusion proof eased by the insured's conduct","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1315; Insurance Act 2014, art. 110; general conditions, art. 12.7 (frost)","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège (3e ch. B)","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-10-29","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2020:ARR.143","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Lawyers sought annulment of articles 5 to 8, 11 and 23 of the Act of 22 April 2019 on making legal protection insurance more accessible (conditions for the tax reduction, insurer's coverage of lawyers' fees capped at amounts set by the King, lawyers' duty to disclose whether they commit to that scale, two-yearly evaluation report). The Constitutional Court dismissed the action. The sixth plea, objecting that the evaluation covers only lawyers, was rejected because the measures in articles 8 §2 and 11 concern lawyers exclusively; the other pleas also failed.","k":"Legal protection insurance — annulment action against the Act of 22 April 2019","law":"Act of 22.4.2019, arts 5–8, 11 and 23","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-10-26","rol":"C.18.0064.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2020:ARR.20201026.3F.1","ch":"3F","res":"c","t":"damage","q":"Les intérêts compensatoires font partie intégrante des dommages-intérêts alloués en réparation du dommage causé par l'acte illicite ; ils réparent le préjudice supplémentaire résultant du paiement différé de l'indemnité…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Ruling on the bodily-injury claim of a passenger in an uninsured vehicle, the appeal court had allowed the advance payments made by the Guarantee Fund to be allocated first to compensatory interest and then to the principal, on the ground that the case fell under article 29bis rather than articles 1382 and 1383 of the Civil Code. The Court held that article 29bis does not depart from the ordinary concept of recoverable loss, that compensatory interest is an integral part of damages and compensates the delay in paying the indemnity due from the date of the loss, and that allocating advances first to that interest under article 1254 results in compensating a non-existent loss. The Liège court of first instance's appeal judgment was quashed to that extent on the Fund's appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund — allocating advance payments to compensatory interest (29bis)","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §§1 and 5; former Civil Code, arts 1382–1383 and 1254","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-10-22","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2020:ARR.138","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"La Cour, sous réserve de l'interprétation mentionnée en B.11, rejette le recours.","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The bar associations sought annulment of the Act of 9 April 2017 which, in article 156 of the Insurance Act 2014, guarantees free choice of lawyer in any 'judicial proceedings' and in arbitration but not in mediation. In light of the Court of Justice's judgment of 14 May 2020, the Constitutional Court found the exclusion of judicial and out-of-court mediation unjustified, but dismissed the action subject to interpretation: 'judicial proceedings' in article 156, 1° also covers mediation conducted with an accredited mediator (Judicial Code arts 1723/1–1737). Free choice of counsel is thus guaranteed in mediation.","k":"Legal protection insurance — free choice of lawyer in mediation","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 156, 1° (Act of 9.4.2017, art. 2); Directive 2009/138/EC, art. 201(1)(a); CJEU 14.5.2020; Judicial Code, arts 1723/1–1737","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-10-22","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2020:ARR.140","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 88, § 1er, de la loi du 4 avril 2014 « relative aux assurances » ne viole pas les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution.","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Policyholders argued that a unit-linked (branch 23) life insurance contract was void for defective consent; the Brussels French-language Enterprise Court asked whether the three-year limitation period in article 88 of the Insurance Act 2014, much shorter than the general-law periods (former Civil Code arts 1304 and 2262bis), was discriminatory. The Constitutional Court held that article 88 §1 does not breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution: the period runs from knowledge of the triggering event, the five-year absolute limit does not apply in case of fraud, and articles 88 and 89 form a specific regime balancing the interests of the parties to an insurance contract without making the action impossible.","k":"Limitation of actions arising from an insurance contract — nullity of a unit-linked life policy","law":"Insurance Act 2014, arts 56, 88–89; former Civil Code, arts 1304 and 2262bis","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-10-06","rol":"P.20.0505.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2020:ARR.20201006.2N.12","ch":"2N","res":"r","t":"motor","q":"Uit het voorgaande volgt dat de eigenaar die een aanhangwagen waarvoor de verzekeringsplicht geldt, in het verkeer brengt zonder het voorafgaandelijk sluiten van een WAM-verzekering strafbaar is.","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that an owner who puts into circulation a trailer subject to compulsory insurance without first taking out the cover required by the Act of 21 November 1989 is punishable, whether or not the trailer is coupled to an insured towing vehicle. Article 3 §1, para. 6, of the Act means only that, where the towing vehicle's and the trailer's insurance overlap or the trailer is uninsured, the towing vehicle's insurance covers liability arising from use of the coupled trailer. Noting that the Benelux Convention provides for no different cover, the Court dismissed the owner's appeal; the appeal judgment of the East Flanders criminal court (Dendermonde division) stands.","k":"Uninsured trailer — owner's criminal liability","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts 1, 2 §1, 3 §1 para. 6 and 22 §1; RD of 19.10.1995, art. 1","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-10-02","rol":"C.19.0085.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2020:ARR.20201002.1N.4","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"contract","q":"Uit deze wetsbepalingen en hun samenhang volgt dat de verzekeringsondernemingen ertoe gehouden zijn een bijzonder vermogen aan te houden als waarborg voor de naleving van de verplichtingen die op hen rusten voor de…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"Insurance undertakings must at all times cover their technical provisions with at least equivalent covering assets, which form a special estate. The Court held that including an asset in that special estate does not prevent a third-party creditor from taking a mortgage on it, but that the privilege of policyholders and beneficiaries over the special estate ranks ahead of that mortgage. The bank's appeal was dismissed against the Brussels Court of Appeal judgment holding that it could not set off its loan claim against the balance of an account entered in the permanent inventory of a life insurer placed in liquidation after its licence was withdrawn, from which it had debited €645,594.96.","k":"Insurer's special assets — policyholders' privilege and bank set-off","law":"Insurance Supervision Act (Controlewet Verzekeringen), arts 16–18 as applicable; RD of 22.2.1991, art. 10 §9, 3°; Mortgage Act, art. 12","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-09-29","rol":"P.20.0435.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2020:ARR.20200929.2N.8","ch":"2N","res":"r","t":"motor","q":"Die strafbaarheid verdwijnt niet indien na een dergelijk feit alsnog een verzekeringsovereenkomst wordt gesloten en de verzekeraar een bewijs als bedoeld door artikel 7 WAM uitreikt met een geldigheidsdatum die ingaat…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A driver who knowingly drives a motor vehicle on the public highway or on land open to the public or to certain persons, without liability cover under a contract complying with the Act of 21 November 1989 and not suspended, is punishable. The Court held that the offence does not disappear where an insurance contract is concluded after the event and the insurer issues a certificate valid from the date of the event. The driver, stopped on 5 July 2018 without a valid certificate, obtained the next day proof of a premium advance and a green card valid from 5 July 2018; her appeal against the Dutch-speaking Brussels criminal court's appeal judgment was dismissed.","k":"Driving uninsured — cover taken out afterwards with retroactive effect","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts 2 §1, 7 and 22 §1","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-09-23","rol":"P.20.0114.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2020:ARR.20200923.2F.8","ch":"2F","res":"c","t":"work","q":"Il s'ensuit que la victime ou ses ayants droit ne peuvent exiger une indemnisation des dommages corporels suivant le droit commun que dans la mesure où l'indemnité calculée en droit commun est supérieure aux indemnités…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A workplace-accident victim may claim from the liable third party only the difference between the ordinary-law award and the statutory benefits paid by the workplace-accident insurer. The Court held that, for that comparison, the insurer's payments are taken gross, including social contributions, whereas the ordinary-law loss is in principle assessed on net pay, and the net calculation applies to all lost earnings, not merely to the difference. The appeal judgment of the Liège criminal court (Huy division), which also assessed the ordinary-law loss gross and applied a 70 per cent coefficient only to the balance, was quashed as to economic loss on the appeal of the liable defendant.","k":"Workplace accident — calculating the balance owed by the liable third party (gross/net)","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts 43, 46 §2 para. 2 and 47; RD of 21.12.1971, arts 31–32; former Civil Code, arts 1382–1383","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-09-22","rol":"P.20.0452.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2020:ARR.20200922.2N.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"L'irrecevabilité partielle d'un pourvoi qui découlerait de l'accueil partiel, par la décision attaquée, de la demande formulée par le demandeur ne saurait justifier un désistement sans acquiescement dudit pourvoi ; en…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The appeal judgment, given by default against the defendant and after full hearing against the intervening insurer, ordered them jointly to pay the civil party a provisional €1 and €4,377.17, half of the expert costs. The Court held that, since the intervening insurer's position on the civil claim is indivisibly linked to the defendant's, the civil party had to wait until the ordinary period for opposition expired (art. 424 Code of Criminal Procedure). The appeal lodged within that period was wholly inadmissible, and the partial withdrawal was not granted.","k":"Civil party's appeal in cassation — intervening insurer and defendant in default","law":"Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 424","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-09-17","rol":"C.18.0294.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2020:ARR.20200917.1F.3","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"intent","q":"Cette disposition exclut que l’assureur s’exonère de sa garantie pour des cas de faute lourde de l’assuré déterminés en termes généraux.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The general contractor's operational liability insurer refused cover on the basis of gross-negligence cases such as 'accepting work when you should have been aware that you lacked the necessary competence', which the Liège Court of Appeal had accepted. Sitting in plenary session, the Court held that article 8, para. 2, LCAT bars an insurer from excluding cover for cases of gross negligence defined in general terms, and that the injured party may claim the cost of repairing the property without any deduction for wear and tear. The judgment, which applied a 44 per cent wear-and-tear coefficient to the cost of rebuilding a house that collapsed after excavation works and dismissed the claims against the insurer, was quashed on the appeals of the owners, the architect and the architect's insurer.","k":"Liability insurance — gross-negligence exclusion in general terms; wear-and-tear deduction","law":"LCAT, art. 8 para. 2; former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":17,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-09-14","rol":"C.19.0162.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2020:ARR.20200914.3F.3","ch":"3F","res":"c","t":"motor","q":"Conformément à l'article 19bis-11, § 2, de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs, si plusieurs véhicules sont impliqués dans l'accident et…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"Where several vehicles are involved and it cannot be established which one caused the accident, compensation is shared equally among the drivers' liability insurers, except those whose liability is beyond doubt not engaged. The Court held that this provision does not mean that only the injured party may rely on it. The appeal judgment of the Hainaut court of first instance, which denied that benefit to the insurer subrogated to its insured's rights on the ground that it was not itself an injured party, was quashed insofar as it ruled on that insurer's claim against the two other liability insurers.","k":"Motor liability — subrogated insurer relying on art. 19bis-11 §2","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 19bis-11 §2","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-09-07","rol":"C.19.0632.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2020:ARR.20200907.3N.7","ch":"3N","res":"c","t":"duties","q":"Uit de samenhang tussen deze bepalingen volgt dat, wanneer de overeenkomst strekt tot verzekering van verschillende risico's en de verzwijging of de onjuiste mededeling enkel van invloed is geweest op de beoordeling van…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"When taking out home insurance, the insured had fraudulently concealed that the building was a wooden chalet erected without planning permission in an agricultural zone and incapable of regularisation; the Antwerp Court of Appeal annulled the whole contract. The Court held that where a contract covers several risks and the concealment affected the assessment of only some of them, nullity must be confined to the risks on which the insurer was misled. The judgment annulling the entire contract without checking whether the concealment affected all insured risks was quashed on the insured's appeal and the case referred to the Brussels Court of Appeal.","k":"Duty of disclosure — partial nullity where several risks are covered","law":"Insurance Act 2014, arts 58, 59 and 66; Cass. 9.6.2006","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-09-02","rol":"2017/RG/1074","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2020:ARR.20200902.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The fire insurer, having paid its insured €353,244.27, brought a subrogated action under article 95 of the Insurance Act 2014 against the company owning the neighbouring building where the fire started and against its directors. The court held that the res judicata defence based on the judgment that had dismissed the insured's own claim against the same defendants could not be raised against the subrogated insurer, since it arose after payment. However, as the origin of the fire remained unknown, no fault by the owner (arts. 1382-1383) was established and the attribution of the disturbing event required under article 544 (neighbourhood nuisance) was not shown. The claim was dismissed on the merits and the insurer ordered to pay costs.","k":"Fire insurer's subrogated action — res judicata and neighbourhood nuisance","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 95; former Civil Code, arts. 544, 1382-1383 and 1386; Cass. 22.6.1988","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-08-18","rol":"2019/AL/302","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2020:ARR.20200818.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Le simple fait de montrer comment une personne se déplace en rue ou le fait qu'elle exerce une activité parallèle n'est pas une donnée relative à la santé. La communication de données d'un détective privé doit avoir…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The employer (a municipality) and its insurer had filed a private detective's report and footage to challenge the worker's residual injuries. The court held that the detective must comply with his duty to inform (Act of 19.7.1991) at the latest when recording the data, that the insurer's medical adviser is a third party, and that his report describing the footage before the victim could respond shows the evidence was obtained unfairly; the alleged fault (malingering) is out of proportion to the breach of privacy. The exclusion of the evidence ordered by the tribunal was upheld, the appeal dismissed and the case sent back for the expert examination to continue.","k":"Workplace accident — private-detective evidence and privacy","law":"Act of 19.7.1991, arts. 2, 5, 8, 9 and 11; Act of 8.12.1992, art. 9; C. jud., arts. 1017(2) and 1068","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-07-17","rol":"2019/RG/1023","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2020:ARR.20200717.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"« il peut être considéré avec la vraisemblance requise que le sinistre ne se serait pas produit tel qu'il s'est réalisé in concreto si E-CO CLEAN s'était conformée à son obligation contractuelle »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The leased car lacked the TT4 or TT5 post-theft system required by the policy; it was stolen with a key found in the empty house and never recovered. The court classed the requirement as a forfeiture and, since a negative fact was involved, accepted proof of causation on the balance of likelihood: a post-theft system would at least have made the car's disappearance harder. As an earlier final judgment had held that the insurer would never have covered this risk, the €27,744.50 claim was dismissed and the insurer's liability limited to refunding the theft premium of €1,957.74 (art. 7 §3 para. 2 LCAT).","k":"Vehicle theft — no TT4/TT5 system, premium refund only","law":"LCAT arts. 7 §3 para. 2, 11","w":18,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège (3e ch.)","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-06-18","rol":"C.19.0299.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2020:ARR.20200618.1N.22","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"persons","q":"Hieruit volgt dat onder “een tijdelijke invaliditeit van een maand of meer” zowel een algehele als een gedeeltelijke tijdelijke invaliditeit van een maand of meer moet worden verstaan.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"Where an accident is caused by an unidentified vehicle, the Guarantee Fund in principle compensates only bodily injury, unless the injury is significant, which the statute defines as including \"temporary incapacity of one month or more\". The Court held that, since the statute draws no distinction, this covers both total and partial temporary incapacity; the Antwerp court of first instance had limited it to 100% incapacity. The judgment that on this ground dismissed the Flemish Region's third-party claim against the Fund for the victim's vehicle damage was quashed to that extent.","k":"Guarantee Fund — unidentified vehicle, significant bodily injury","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts 19bis-11 §1, 7° and 19bis-13 §3; RD of 11.7.2003, art. 23 §1","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-06-17","rol":"2015/RG/890","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2020:ARR.20200617.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"alt","s":"A tenant who fell from a staircase whose handrail had collapsed recovered two-thirds of his loss from the landlords and their liability insurer. The court held that, under shared liability, the health-insurance fund subrogated under art. 136 §2 of the Act of 14.7.1994 recovers ahead of the victim from the base reduced by the liability split; as its outlays exceeded that base, the victim's claims for his own co-payments and hospital supplements were dismissed. The 10% permanent personal and economic incapacities were, however, capitalised, and the recovery of medical-adviser fees on behalf of the legal-expenses insurer under a nominee arrangement was allowed at €1,550 (two-thirds).","k":"Personal injury — health-insurance fund's preferential subrogation under shared liability","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382; Act of 14.7.1994, art. 136 §2; Cass. 9.2.2015","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-06-05","rol":"C.18.0432.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2020:ARR.20200605.1F.1","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"29bis","q":"Pour qu'il y ait accident de la circulation au sens de ces dispositions légales, il faut qu'il y ait participation à la circulation, laquelle s'entend de l'usage par un véhicule d'une voie de communication en vue de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A passenger boarding a bus that was stopped on the public road, on her way to work, slipped on an unidentified substance and broke her wrist. The Court held that a road traffic accident requires participation in traffic, meaning the use by a vehicle of a public way to carry a person or goods from one place to another, and that the passenger's loss need not also be connected with that participation. The transport operator's appeal against the judgment treating the event as a road traffic accident under article 29bis and article 601bis of the Judicial Code was dismissed.","k":"Article 29bis — fall while boarding a bus as a road traffic accident","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1; Judicial Code, art. 601bis","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-06-04","rol":"C.19.0066.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2020:ARR.20200604.1N.11","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"intent","q":"Deze bepaling sluit uit dat de verzekeraar zich van zijn verplichtingen kan bevrijden voor de gevallen van grove schuld die in algemene bewoordingen zijn gesteld.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The liability insurer's general conditions defined excluded \"gross negligence\" as any breach of laws, rules or customs, citing only by way of example \"the manifest failure to collect taxes or levies\"; the Ghent Court of Appeal held the clause void and did not deprive the insured, who handled a municipality's finances, of cover. The Court held that article 62(2) of the Insurance Act 2014 prevents an insurer from escaping liability for cases of gross negligence defined in general terms. It declined to refer the requested preliminary question, since the Constitutional Court cannot rule on a statute's breach of another statute; the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Gross negligence exclusion — clause drafted in general terms","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 62(2); Cass. 16.3.2018; Cass. 29.6.2009","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-06-04","rol":"C.19.0386.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2020:ARR.20200604.1N.17","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"home","q":"Hieruit volgt dat het verhaal van derden in de zin van deze bepaling niet slaat op aansprakelijkheid van de verzekerde op grond van artikel 544 Burgerlijk Wetboek en een subrogatoire vordering van de verzekeraar van de…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The injured party's fire insurer, by subrogation, sued the business from which the fire had spread and that business's insurer covering third-party recourse; the Antwerp Court of Appeal held that the Assuralia inter-insurer agreement barred the claim even though liability also rested on article 544 of the Civil Code (nuisance between neighbours). The Court held that third-party recourse within the agreement covers only liability under articles 1382 to 1386bis of the Civil Code, so a subrogated claim based on article 544 is not excluded. The judgment was quashed on the appeal of the injured party's insurer.","k":"Fire — third-party recourse agreement and article 544","law":"Assuralia fire-explosion third-party recourse agreement (1.1.1999), arts 2–3; former Civil Code, arts 544 and 1382–1386bis","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-05-28","rol":"72/2020","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2020:ARR.072","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"In a 13 December 2007 accident involving two cars and a tram, the appeal court found that no fault had been proven; one driver and her insurer claimed compensation under article 19bis-11 §2 from the other car's insurer and the transport operator. On a question from the French-speaking Brussels Court of First Instance, the Constitutional Court held that article 19bis-11 §2, as applicable before the Act of 31 May 2017, violates articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution if read as excluding rail-bound vehicles. It is constitutional if 'vehicles' covers motor vehicles whether or not rail-bound and, for rail-bound ones, the duty to compensate lies with their owner, a solution consistent with the new article 29ter.","k":"Former art. 19bis-11 §2 — rail-bound vehicles (trams)","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 19bis-11 §2, 29bis and 29ter; Act of 31.5.2017; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle — CC 72/2020","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-05-28","rol":"C.19.0234.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2020:ARR.20200528.1N.14","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"motor","q":"Uit het geheel van deze wetsbepalingen volgt dat de WAM-verzekeraar slechts dekking verleent voor de burgerrechtelijke aansprakelijkheid waartoe het door hem verzekerde motorrijtuig aanleiding geeft in hoofde van een…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A lorry belonging to a road-maintenance contractor flicked up a cobblestone from the worksite, damaging a car; the Bruges court of first instance ordered the lorry's motor liability insurer to pay, on the basis of a traffic-rule breach by the contractor. The Court held that a motor liability insurer covers only the civil liability arising, for the insured, from the vehicle it insures. The judgment ordering the insurer to pay without finding that the use of the lorry gave rise to the liability was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — cover limited to use of the insured vehicle","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts 1(4), 2 §1 and 3 §1","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-05-07","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2020:ARR.061","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"After an accident on 30 April 2005, an occupant of the vehicle found liable, who could not prove he was not its driver, claimed compensation under article 29bis from that vehicle's insurer; the Charleroi police court asked whether requiring proof of passenger status was discriminatory. The Constitutional Court held that article 29bis of the Act of 21 November 1989 does not breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution: this public-policy compensation cannot be awarded to someone who fails to prove that he was not the driver of the liable vehicle and that he was a vulnerable road user (in line with Cass. 24.4.2009); the burden of proof lies on the claimant.","k":"Article 29bis — proof of vulnerable-user status when the driver cannot be identified","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; former Civil Code, art. 1315; Cass. 24.4.2009, C.07.0120.N","w":1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-03-03","rol":"P.19.1212.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2020:ARR.20200303.2N.5","ch":"2N","res":"r","t":"procedure","q":"Artikel 153, § 5, van de wet van 4 april 2014 betreffende de verzekeringen bepaalt dat, wanneer het geding tegen de verzekerde is ingesteld voor het strafgerecht, de verzekeraar door de benadeelde of door de verzekerde…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"In criminal proceedings concerning a red-light offence, the defendant's motor liability insurer intervened voluntarily and, having lost, was ordered to pay the procedural indemnity. The Court held that because article 153 §5 of the Insurance Act 2014 lets an insurer join or intervene before the criminal court on the same terms as before a civil court, a losing intervening insurer may be ordered to pay the procedural indemnity under article 1022 of the Judicial Code. The appeals of the defendant and of the insurer were dismissed.","k":"Insurer intervening in criminal proceedings — procedural indemnity","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 153 §5; Judicial Code, art. 1022; Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 162bis; Cass. 7.5.2013","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-02-28","rol":"C.19.0335.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2020:ARR.20200228.1F.1","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"motor","q":"S'il suit de ces dispositions que les contrats d'assurance couvrant la responsabilité civile de véhicules participant à un rallye automobile ne peuvent exclure de leur couverture que les dommages causés aux véhicules…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A rally participant sought compensation from another participant and that participant's motor liability insurer for damage suffered during a liaison stage; the Liège court of first instance held that the waiver of recourse he had signed covered the whole event, liaison stages included. The Court held that although the Act of 21 November 1989 allows rally cover to exclude only damage to other participants' vehicles during speed trials, it does not prohibit a waiver-of-recourse clause that is extraneous to the insurance contract. The participant's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Rally — waiver-of-recourse clause and motor liability","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts 2 §1, 4 §2 and 8(1) and (3) (version before repeal by art. 347 of the Insurance Act 2014)","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-02-28","rol":"C.19.0358.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2020:ARR.20200228.1F.4","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"damage","q":"Le juge évalue in concreto le préjudice causé par un fait illicite.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The victim sought capitalisation of her 15% permanent personal incapacity and permanent loss of housekeeping capacity; the Liège Court of Appeal awarded a lump sum because the loss might change if a prosthesis were fitted later. The Court held that the judge must assess the loss in concreto as at the date of judgment and may take later events into account only if they are certain, not hypothetical. The judgment resting on a hypothetical development was quashed on these two heads of loss, on the victim's appeal against the insurer, and the case referred to the Mons Court of Appeal.","k":"Permanent loss — lump sum based on hypothetical developments","law":"Former Civil Code, arts 1382–1383; Cass. 27.5.2016; Cass. 23.10.2009","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-02-25","rol":"P.19.1121.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2020:ARR.20200225.2N.8","ch":"2N","res":"c","t":"liability","q":"Wanneer de verzekerde door zijn fout het overlijden van het slachtoffer heeft ver-oorzaakt, doet de schade van de rechtsopvolgers en degenen die door het overlij-den schade bij terugslag lijden, voor op het ogenblik van…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A doctor had been convicted of negligently causing a patient's death; the doctor's liability insurance ran from 1.1.2007 to 31.12.2010, and the patient died on 5.2.2013. The Ghent Court of Appeal held the insurer liable, finding that the loss arose in 2009-2010, when the victim could link the complaints to the earlier errors. The Court held that where the insured's fault caused death, the loss of the heirs and of those harmed by the death arises at the moment of death, and the insurer is liable only if that moment falls within the policy period; the judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal, together with the inseparable claims against the other insurers.","k":"Liability insurance — when the loss occurs in a death case","law":"LCAT art. 78 §1; Insurance Act 2014, art. 142 §1","w":19,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-02-10","rol":"C.19.0372.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2020:ARR.20200210.3N.7","ch":"3N","res":"c","t":"29bis","q":"De bestuurder, in de zin van voormeld artikel 29bis, is de persoon die het motorrijtuig bestuurt op het ogenblik van het ongeval, dat wil zeggen de persoon die, op dat ogenblik, het meesterschap over dat motorrijtuig…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"An employer's lorry driver twisted his ankle while climbing down from his tractor unit to unload; the Hasselt police court treated him as a driver excluded from article 29bis, holding that he remained in control of the vehicle until he had finished getting out. The Court held that a driver under article 29bis is the person who, at the time of the accident, controls the vehicle through the mechanical means used to steer it, and loses that status as soon as he no longer controls it. The judgment was quashed on the appeal of the employer's insurer against the motor liability insurer.","k":"Article 29bis — lorry driver stepping out of the cab, driver status","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1 and §2","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-02-07","rol":"C.19.0309.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2020:ARR.20200207.1F.2","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"subrogation","q":"L'absence de décision sur la faute imputée au préposé du commettant et sur le lien de causalité entre cette faute et le dommage causé à un autre préposé du même commettant ne prive pas d'intérêt le moyen qui critique la…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"Two workers of the same employer were on a building site when one was hit by a vehicle driven by the insured; the motor liability insurer, having compensated him under article 29bis, brought the subrogated recourse of article 29bis §4 against the employer, relying on article 1384(3) of the former Civil Code and a fault of the other worker. The Luxembourg Court of First Instance, sitting on appeal, held that damage caused by one employee to another is not damage to a third party within that provision. The Court of Cassation held that the fact that the victim is also an employee of the same employer does not in itself deprive him of the presumption of vicarious liability under article 1384(3); the judgment was quashed on that point on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Article 29bis — subrogated insurer relying on the employer's vicarious liability","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §4; former Civil Code, art. 1384(3)","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-02-05","rol":"P.19.0843.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2020:ARR.20200205.2F.3","ch":"2F","res":"c","t":"29bis","q":"Le passager d'un véhicule qu'il quitte pour rejoindre à pied l'avant de ce véhicule perd cette qualité et devient, partant, piéton.","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"People who had stayed on the carriageway after a first collision were injured in a second one; the defendant's motor liability insurer, alleging contributory fault on their part, appealed alone. The Court held that a passenger who leaves the vehicle and walks to its front becomes a pedestrian and does not lose that status by sitting on the bonnet; where the insurer appeals alone, the judgment against it and the insured is not res judicata as against the insurer, and the appeal judge must examine apportionment of liability. The Brussels criminal court's judgment was quashed, on the insurer's appeal, as regards the civil claims against it.","k":"Pedestrian status and appeal by the insurer alone","law":"RD of 1.12.1975 (Highway Code), arts 2.46 and 42; Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 202; Judicial Code, art. 23; Cass. 29.9.1999","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-01-30","rol":"C.18.0559.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2020:ARR.20200130.1N.3","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"motor","q":"Uit de samenhang tussen deze wetsbepalingen volgt dat de verzekeraar van een in een ongeval betrokken voertuig aan wie een verzoek wordt gericht op grond van artikel 19bis-11, § 2, WAM, een met redenen omkleed antwoord…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"Where several vehicles are involved and it cannot be established which one caused the accident, compensation is shared equally among the motor liability insurers concerned under an automatic compensation scheme. The Court held that an insurer receiving a claim on that basis must give a reasoned reply to the points raised, as required by article 14 §1 of the Act. The Brussels court of first instance's judgment rejecting the injured party's claim for the flat-rate sum under article 14 §2, on the ground that he alone was liable, was quashed to that extent on his appeal.","k":"Motor liability — reasoned reply to a claim under article 19bis-11 §2","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 14 §§1–2 and art. 19bis-11 §2 (version then applicable)","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-01-27","rol":"C.19.0090.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2020:ARR.20200127.3N.10","ch":"3N","res":"r","t":"limitation","q":"De rechtsvordering vloeit voort uit de verzekeringsovereenkomst wanneer zij betrekking heeft op het bestaan van de overeenkomst en de daaruit voorvloeiende verplichtingen, zowel voor de contractanten als ten aanzien van…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The policyholders blamed the insurer for errors in concluding and performing a life insurance contract that led to heavy portfolio losses; the Ghent Court of Appeal held that their claim arose from the insurance contract and was subject to the three-year limitation period of the LCAT. The Court held that a claim arises from the insurance contract when it concerns the contract's existence and the obligations flowing from it, for the parties and for third parties alike, whatever its legal basis. The policyholders' appeal was dismissed.","k":"Life insurance — claim arising from the contract and limitation","law":"LCAT art. 34 §1","w":6,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-01-22","rol":"P.19.0967.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2020:ARR.20200122.2F.2","ch":"2F","res":"c","t":"damage","q":"En son quatrième alinéa, l'article 136, § 2, susdit institue, en faveur de l'organisme assureur, une subrogation de plein droit au bénéficiaire à concurrence des prestations octroyées et pour la totalité des sommes dues…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"Defendants ordered in criminal proceedings to compensate the civil party asked for the benefits paid to him by his health-insurance fund to be deducted; the Brussels Court of Appeal refused, holding that the fund had paid its own debt and made no subrogation claim. The Court held that article 136 §2 of the Act coordinated on 14 July 1994 bars cumulating those benefits with ordinary damages for the same loss and gives the fund automatic statutory subrogation, so the judge could not refuse to give it effect. The awards for temporary economic loss (€54,834.03), past permanent economic loss (€134,840.07) and future economic incapacity (€384,741.07) were quashed on the defendants' appeal.","k":"Health-insurance fund benefits — statutory subrogation and deduction","law":"Act coordinated on 14 July 1994, art. 136 §2","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-01-21","rol":"P.19.0528.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2020:ARR.20200121.2N.11","ch":"2N","res":"c","t":"procedure","q":"Het enkele feit dat een voertuig gewoonlijk gestald is in België en ook gewoonlijk wordt gebruikt in België heeft niet tot gevolg dat dit voertuig in België is geregistreerd of ingeschreven.","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A driver living and working in Belgium had been convicted of driving his Polish-registered car without insurance or a roadworthiness test; the Dendermonde criminal court held that the car was in fact normally based in Belgium. The Court held that under article 1.4 of Directive 2009/103/EC the territory where a vehicle is normally based is that of the State whose registration plate it bears, whether permanent or temporary, and that the Belgian technical regulations do not apply to a vehicle driven under a foreign plate. The convictions under article 2 of the Act of 21 November 1989 and for lack of a roadworthiness test were quashed on the defendant's appeal.","k":"Uninsured driving offence — foreign-registered vehicle","law":"Directive 2009/103/EC, art. 1.4; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 2; RD of 13.2.1991, art. 2; RD of 15.3.1968, arts 2 and 24","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-01-09","rol":"C.19.0119.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2020:ARR.20200109.1N.11","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"subrogation","q":"Hieruit volgt dat het regresrecht van de Unie op grond van subrogatie beperkt is tot de rechten die het slachtoffer zelf en zijn rechtverkrijgenden naar Belgisch recht hadden kunnen laten gelden tegen de aansprakelijke…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The General Secretariat of the Council of the EU, having paid benefits to an official who had become unable to work, brought a subrogated claim against the liable party's insurer. The Court held that under article 85a of the Staff Regulations the Union's recourse is limited to the rights the victim and those entitled through him could have asserted under Belgian law against the liable party and its insurer, and that the view that the Union's payments compensate the loss and fall definitively on the liable party and its insurer is wrong. Without a preliminary reference, the Union's appeal was dismissed.","k":"EU official — limits of the Union's subrogated recourse","law":"EU Staff Regulations, art. 85a; CJEU 9.9.2004, C-397/02","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2020-01-08","rol":"2018/RG/158","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2020:ARR.20200108.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The company car was stolen from a Paris street; the policy required an integrated TT4/CJ2 system with driver recognition, but the car had only a lower-grade system. The court found the alleged waiver unproven in writing, classed the requirement as a forfeiture under art. 65 of the Insurance Act 2014 and held causation shown on the balance of likelihood, since the required system would have alerted the monitoring centre and allowed immobilisation. The broker, who had warned the client of the requirement, had no duty to check the alarm's technical features; the judgment was reversed and the claims against the insurer and broker dismissed.","k":"Vehicle theft — approved anti-theft system missing, broker's liability","law":"Insurance Act 2014, arts. 64, 65","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-12-18","rol":"2018/RG/106","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2019:ARR.20191218.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The car, lent by the insured to a friend, was allegedly stolen in Vienna; the insurer refused cover because no approved tracking system was fitted, and the insured also sued the broker's liability insurers. The court held that once the insurer raised serious grounds for suspicion, the insured had to supply further proof, which he failed to do (vague complaint, imprecise witness statements, the second key): the theft was not proven. Without a proven theft, any fault by the broker caused no loss; the judgment was reversed and the claim dismissed.","k":"Vehicle theft — serious doubts, theft not proven","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, art. 870","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-12-18","rol":"2018/RG/108","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2019:ARR.20191218.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Farm operators brought a direct action under article 150 of the Insurance Act 2014 against the liability insurer of a young neighbour who, they alleged, had watered the cattle from a container holding nitrogen residue and poisoned the herd. The court found the claimants' account implausible; even if true, it showed no fault by the young man, who helped spontaneously and could not suspect that a toxic liquid had been left unlabelled in a water container: the fault lay with the claimants. The judgment was reversed and the claim dismissed; the insurer's counterclaim for €1,516.31 in investigator costs was granted because the claim rested on statements that did not match reality.","k":"Direct action against liability insurer — proof of loss and fault","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 150; former Civil Code, art. 1382; Judicial Code, art. 1017","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-12-18","rol":"P.19.0084.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2019:ARR.20191218.3","ch":"2F","res":"r","t":"damage","q":"Pour être réparable, le dommage consistant dans la perte économique et le préjudice ménager découlant du décès doit être certain et non simplement hypothétique ou éventuel.","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The legal cohabitant of a person killed in the accident claimed economic loss and loss of housekeeping support from the defendant and the defendant's intervening insurer; the Namur criminal court held, given the short cohabitation, the lack of a common child or property investment and the parties' ages, that it was not shown the relationship would have lasted more than 24 months after the death. The Court held that the loss must be certain in principle but not in extent, and that the judge's assessment of how certain the loss is over time does not amount to taking account of later events unrelated to the fault. It also upheld the suspension of interest from 1.1.2016 to 27.9.2017 because the delay was due to the civil party; her appeal was dismissed.","k":"Death of a cohabiting partner — certainty of the loss","law":"Former Civil Code, arts 1382–1383","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-12-10","rol":"P.19.0879.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2019:ARR.20191210.2N.7","ch":"2N","res":"c","t":"motor","q":"Artikel 21, eerste lid, 6°, Voorafgaande Titel Wetboek van Strafvordering bepaalt dat voor overtredingen, andere dan die na omzetting van een wanbedrijf in een overtreding, de strafvordering verjaart door verloop van…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"After an accident in a nightclub car park open to the public, the driver had been fined €10, among other things, for not having the proof of insurance required by article 7 of the Act of 21 November 1989 (article 23). The Court held that the nature of the article 23 offence depends on the penalty imposed: a fine below €26 is a police penalty, so the offence is a petty offence subject to the six-month limitation period, which had expired. The conviction on that count alone was quashed without referral; the rest of the appeal, including the challenge to the car park's public character, was dismissed.","k":"Driving without proof of insurance — nature of the offence and limitation","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts 7 and 23; Road Traffic Act, art. 29 §2; Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arts 21 and 25","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-12-05","rol":"2008/RG/1791","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2019:ARR.20191205.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"A care worker assaulted by a resident of a care centre, together with the workplace-accident insurer, sued the minor responsible and her parents. The court held that the award for increased effort during temporary incapacity forms part of the workplace-accident insurer's subrogation base, that all benefits it paid must be compared globally with the economic loss under general law, and that the 13.07% social contribution cannot be charged to those liable. As the base (€23,435.60) was lower than the amount claimed (€120,125.93), the insurer recovered the general-law amounts.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — recourse base and social contribution","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382; Act of 10.4.1971 (subrogation)","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-12-03","rol":"2015/RG/25","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2019:ARR.20191203.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The court treated the policy requirement to fit additional anti-theft systems as a forfeiture clause; the insurer must prove causation, but since a negative fact is involved, proof of likelihood suffices. According to the expert, the systems could not be disabled on the spot and would at least have made the vehicle's disappearance harder, so the loss would not have occurred as it did. The insured's claim was dismissed; the claim for a refund of premiums was moot as no annulment of the contract had been sought.","k":"Vehicle theft — required anti-theft systems and causation","law":"LCAT art. 11 (Insurance Act 2014, art. 65); clause A3433","w":20,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-11-27","rol":"2018/RG/1053","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2019:ARR.20191127.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer brought a subrogated action against the surgeon who, weeks after the accident, operated on the victim and allegedly committed an error aggravating the injury. The court found the action admissible: article 47 of the Act of 10.4.1971, read broadly as the Court of Cassation did on 13.1.2014, allows proceedings against anyone who contributed to the loss. However, the medical evidence on file showed that the operation and the related hospital stay were not attributable to the accident, and the insurer produced no prima facie evidence of a causal link between the surgery and the accident. A further expert examination was refused and the claim was dismissed on the merits.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's subrogated action against a surgeon","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47; Cass. 13.1.2014; Judicial Code, art. 972","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-11-25","rol":"C.19.0051.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2019:ARR.20191125.3N.3","ch":"3N","res":"c","t":"intent","q":"Hieruit volgt dat enkel de persoonlijke grove fout van de verzekerde uit de dek-king gesloten kan worden en de verzekerde die zelf geen grove fout heeft begaan, gedekt blijft, ook al heeft een andere verzekerde met…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The vehicle owner's own-damage insurer refused cover under the policy's intoxication exclusion because the owner's son had been driving under the influence; the Brussels court of first instance upheld the refusal after finding a causal link between the intoxication and the accident. The Court held that under article 62(2) of the Insurance Act 2014 only the insured's own gross negligence can be excluded, so an insured who did not commit gross negligence remains covered even if another insured did so in respect of the same loss. The judgment, which made no finding of gross negligence by the owner himself, was quashed on his appeal.","k":"Gross negligence — only the insured's personal fault excludes cover","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 62(2)","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-11-25","rol":"C.18.0408.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2019:ARR.20191125.3N.6","ch":"3N","res":"r","t":"limitation","q":"Opdat de verjaring van de vordering bedoeld in artikel 34, § 2, Wet Land-verzekeringsovereenkomst wordt gestuit, is niet vereist dat de verzekeraar ken-nis krijgt van de wil van de benadeelde om rechtstreeks van hem…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"In the injured party's direct action against the liable party's insurer, the insurer argued that interruption of the limitation period required it to know that the injured party wanted to be compensated directly by it. The Court held that under article 35 §4 LCAT the period is interrupted as soon as the insurer learns of the injured party's wish to obtain compensation, without any need for knowledge of a wish to be paid directly by the insurer; requiring that would add a condition to the statute. The insurer's appeal against the Ghent Court of Appeal's interlocutory judgment was dismissed.","k":"Direct action — condition for interrupting the limitation period","law":"LCAT art. 34 §2 and art. 35 §4","w":21,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-11-25","rol":"C.18.0565.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2019:ARR.20191125.3N.9","ch":"3N","res":"r","t":"procedure","q":"Noch uit artikel 85, lid 1, b, Verordening 833/2014(1), noch uit de in het middel vermelde bepalingen van het Haags Verkeersongevallenverdrag volgt dat de verjaring van het vorderingsrecht van een orgaan dat prestaties…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A Dutch social-insurance body, relying on its direct right, sued the Belgian Motor Insurers' Bureau to recover benefits paid following a road accident; the Bureau argued that limitation was governed by the law of the State where the harmful event occurred. The Court held that neither article 85(1)(b) of Regulation 883/2004 nor the Hague Traffic Accidents Convention subjects that limitation to the law of the State where the harmful event occurred; under the CJEU's Dak judgment the nature and scope of the body's rights are governed by the law of its own State, and the Convention does not apply to claims by social-security bodies. The Bureau's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Foreign social-insurance body's recourse — law governing limitation","law":"Regulation 883/2004, art. 85(1)(b); Hague Traffic Accidents Convention (1971), arts 1, 2, 3 and 8; CJEU 2.6.1994, C-428/92 (Dak)","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-11-14","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2019:ARR.182","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"La Cour rejette la demande de suspension.","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A lawyer and his firm sought the suspension of article 8 §2 of the Act of 22 April 2019 on making legal protection insurance more accessible, which limits the lawyers' fees and costs borne by the insurer to amounts set by the King. The Constitutional Court rejected the request: the alleged harm is financial and therefore in principle reparable; the economic loss from turning away clients unwilling to pay the excess stems from the lawyer's own choice, not the provision; and the King's power cannot be read as allowing an excessive cap on fees. Harm alleged on behalf of third parties is hypothetical and not personal.","k":"Legal protection insurance — request to suspend the cap on lawyers' fees","law":"Act of 22.4.2019, art. 8 §2; Special Act of 6.1.1989, art. 20, 1°","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-10-28","rol":"C.18.0586.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2019:ARR.20191028.1","ch":"3F","res":"r","t":"duties","q":"Pour que l'assureur puisse décliner sa garantie conformément à l'article 21, § 2, de la loi, il suffit que, dans une intention frauduleuse, l'assuré n'ait pas exécuté une des obligations énoncées aux articles 19 et 20.","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"After a fire destroyed cowsheds and cattle, the insured concealed from the insurer that part of the herd was subject to a slaughter order and was later convicted, among other things, of fraud against the insurer; the Liège Court of Appeal held that the insurer could refuse cover for the whole loss and recover what it had paid. The Court held that for the insurer to refuse cover under article 21 §2 LCAT it is enough that the insured fraudulently failed to perform one of the duties in articles 19 and 20, with no need for prejudice to the insurer. The appeal by the insured's heirs was dismissed.","k":"Fraudulent claim notification — cover refused without proof of prejudice","law":"LCAT arts 19, 20 and 21 §§1–2 (now Insurance Act 2014, arts 74–76)","w":22,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-10-28","rol":"C.19.0013.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2019:ARR.20191028.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Celui qui, par sa faute, a causé un dommage à autrui est tenu de le réparer et la victime a droit, en règle, à la réparation intégrale du préjudice qu'elle a subi; le juge évalue in concreto le préjudice causé par un…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A victim who was unemployed on the day of the accident cannot be regarded as having suffered no occupational loss for that reason alone; the material loss is the reduction of the person's economic value on the labour market. A court may assess the loss on an equitable lump-sum basis only if it explains why it rejects the victim's method of calculation and finds that the loss cannot be determined otherwise. The appeal judgment that used a lump sum because none of the tax assessments covered a full working year was quashed, on the victim's appeal, as regards permanent economic loss.","k":"Personal injury — economic loss of an unemployed victim","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-10-24","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2019:ARR.155","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : - Les articles 34, 36 et 37bis, §§ 1er et 2, de la loi du 10 avril 1971 « sur les accidents du travail » violent les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution, dans l'interprétation selon laquelle…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Bruges labour court asked which pay should be used to calculate the temporary incapacity benefit of a worker injured in a part-time job while also employed full-time by another employer. The Constitutional Court held that articles 34, 36 and 37bis of the Act of 10 April 1971 breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution if read as fixing the benefit, under article 37bis §1, solely on the part-time pay. Article 37bis is an exception for workers employed exclusively part-time; where a full-time job is combined, articles 34 and 36 §1 apply and the part-time pay is supplemented by a hypothetical wage, a reading that is constitutional.","k":"Workplace accident — temporary incapacity benefit when part-time and full-time jobs are combined","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts 34, 36 §1 and 37bis §§1–2; RD no. 39 of 31.3.1982","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-10-18","rol":"C.18.0543.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2019:ARR.20191018.1","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"contract","q":"En vertu de l'article 14, alinéa 2, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre, applicable, le contrat d'assurance peut prévoir que la garantie ne prend cours qu'après le paiement de la première…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"Under article 14, paragraph 2, LCAT, the contract may provide that cover only starts once the first premium has been paid. The Brussels Court of Appeal, however, read the general and special conditions as meaning that the contract took effect on 10 October 2011, before the provisional premium was paid on 12 July 2012. The Court of Cassation found that reading compatible with the contract's wording and dismissed the insurer's appeal, which argued that no indemnity was due because the first premium had not been paid.","k":"Start of cover — payment of the first premium","law":"LCAT art. 14(2)","w":14,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-09-13","rol":"C.19.0080.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2019:ARR.20190913.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Hormis le cas de stipulation à son profit, un tiers ne peut demander à son bénéfice l'exécution d'obligations résultant d'une convention, et il ne peut invoquer le caractère obligatoire d'une convention à laquelle il…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The victim had signed as 'read and approved' the expert report drawn up by her own insurer, finding the car a total loss and proposing compensation; the appeal court held her bound by that agreement in her claim against the Guarantee Fund. The Court held that a third party cannot rely on the binding force of a contract to which it is not a party in order to limit its own obligations: the Fund could not invoke a settlement concluded with an insurer that was not the liable party's insurer. The judgment was quashed on the victim's appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund — settlement between victim and her own insurer","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1165","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-09-04","rol":"2018/AL/713","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2019:ARR.20190904.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Le texte de l'article 25 de la loi du 10/04/1971 qui traite du cas d'une rechute en incapacité temporaire après la consolidation, en présence d'une incapacité permanente est clair et prévoit comme condition d'octroi…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The victim, consolidated with 3% permanent incapacity, had stopped his trade, was being paid by his health-insurance fund and then suffered a relapse into total temporary incapacity from 10.07.2014 to 31.03.2016. The court held that article 25 of the Act of 10.4.1971 applies only where the victim, at the time of the aggravation, actually works in the occupation into which he was redeployed and is temporarily unable to continue it; a victim who is inactive, paid by the health-insurance fund or working for another employer cannot rely on it. The workplace-accident insurer's appeal succeeded and the order to compensate that period was overturned; only the permanent partial incapacity benefits are due.","k":"Workplace accident — relapse after consolidation, conditions of article 25","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 22, 23 and 25","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-06-24","rol":"C.18.0359.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2019:ARR.20190624.3","ch":"3F","res":"c","t":"work","q":"Il suit de la combinaison de ces dispositions qu'en cas d'accident de la circulation impliquant un véhicule automoteur lié à une voie ferrée, l'assureur-loi qui a indemnisé la victime est subrogé dans les droits que…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The workplace-accident insurer that compensated employees injured in the Buizingen rail accident of 15 February 2010, recognised as a commuting accident, sought subrogated recourse against the owner of the train; the Brussels Court of First Instance, sitting on appeal, had dismissed the claim on the ground that section 48ter allows recourse only against an insurance undertaking or the Guarantee Fund. The Court of Cassation held that, read together, section 48ter of the Act of 10 April 1971 and section 29bis(1), second paragraph, of the Act of 21 November 1989 subrogate the workplace-accident insurer to the rights the victim could have exercised against the owner of a rail-bound vehicle. The judgment was quashed and the case referred to the Walloon Brabant Court of First Instance.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer — section 29bis subrogation after a rail accident","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, s. 48ter; Act of 21.11.1989, s. 29bis(1), second paragraph","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-06-20","rol":"C.18.0239.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2019:ARR.20190620.2","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"duties","q":"L'obligation de remboursement mise à charge de l'assureur ne porte que sur la totalité des primes payées après la survenance des circonstances nouvelles ou des modifications de circonstances de nature à entraîner une…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The policyholder had failed to report, during the contract, a significant and lasting aggravation of the risk; where the insurer proves it would never have covered the aggravated risk, its liability is limited to refunding premiums. The Mons Court of Appeal had ordered the insurer to refund all premiums received since the contract began. The Court of Cassation held that the refund covers only the premiums paid after the aggravating circumstances arose, quashed the judgment on the insurer's appeal and referred the case to the Liège Court of Appeal.","k":"Aggravation of risk — scope of premium refund","law":"LCAT art. 26(1) and (3)(b)","w":23,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-06-11","rol":"P.19.0120.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2019:ARR.20190611.3","ch":"2N","res":"r","t":"motor","q":"Deze bepaling stelt de eigenaar van een motorrijtuig strafbaar wanneer hij het motorrijtuig niet zelf heeft verzekerd, maar het gebruik ervan door een ander heeft toegelaten zonder te hebben nagegaan of die verzekerd is…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A leasing company had been convicted under section 22(1) of the Act of 21 November 1989 for letting the leased vehicle be driven uninsured; it argued that the contract required the lessee to insure it and that registration requires proof of insurance. The Court of Cassation recalled that an owner who has not insured the vehicle itself is liable if it allows its use without checking that the user is insured or, at least, without obtaining sufficient assurances. The Ghent criminal court, sitting on appeal, was entitled to find that the company, which had not put the lessee on notice to produce proof of insurance within a month, had failed to carry out that check; the appeal was dismissed.","k":"Uninsured vehicle — leasing owner's duty to check","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, s. 22(1), first paragraph","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-06-05","rol":"P.19.0247.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2019:ARR.20190605.2","ch":"2F","res":"c","t":"procedure","q":"L'appel du prévenu ne profite pas à l'assureur de sa responsabilité civile, appelé à la cause ou intervenu volontairement lorsqu'en vertu de l'article 14 de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The police court had convicted the defendants of involuntary manslaughter and bodily harm and ordered their liability insurer, which had intervened voluntarily, to pay a provisional sum to the injured parties jointly with them; only the defendants appealed, and the criminal court on appeal acquitted them and released the insurer from the case. The Court of Cassation held that the defendant's appeal does not benefit an insurer that did not itself lodge an admissible appeal: the judgment, final as against the insurer, irrevocably settles its relationship with the victims. The judgment was quashed, without referral, insofar as it ruled on the civil claims against the insurer.","k":"Motor liability insurer — effect of the defendant's appeal","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, s. 14; Code of Criminal Procedure, arts. 202–203; Judicial Code, art. 1138(2)","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-05-31","rol":"C.18.0528.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2019:ARR.20190531.3","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"contract","q":"Krachtens artikel 1, A, Wet Landverzekeringsovereenkomst, zoals hier van toepassing, is de verzekeringsovereenkomst een overeenkomst, waarbij een par-tij, de verzekeraar, zich er tegen betaling van een vaste of…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured's car had been taken without permission, for short-term use, by a family member living under the same roof (joyriding); the policy excluded theft committed by or with the complicity of the insured's household members. The Court of Cassation recalled that the parties are free to define in the contract what is covered and what is excluded, and held that the Antwerp Court of Appeal had lawfully treated the clause as an exclusion delimiting the cover and found the loss uncovered. The insured's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Theft cover — exclusion for joyriding by a household member","law":"LCAT art. 1(A)","w":24,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-05-27","rol":"S.17.0058.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2019:ARR.20190527.4","ch":"3N","res":"r","t":"work","q":"Uit deze bepalingen volgt tevens dat bij gebreke aan deze wettelijke verplichting te voldoen en met uitzondering van die gevallen waar een wettige weigeringsre-den voorhanden is, de rechter met toepassing van de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"Under section 52 of the Act of 10 April 1971, the workplace-accident insurer must give the beneficiaries a copy of the policy, the claim file and related documents; failing that, the court may order the document to be produced under articles 877 et seq. of the Judicial Code. The insurer argued that the report drawn up by its inspector after the accident was reported was merely an internal document of personal notes. The Court of Cassation held that the report forms part of the claim file and is a document within the meaning of section 52, and dismissed the insurer's appeal against the Antwerp Labour Court of Appeal.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer — disclosure of the inspection report","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, s. 52; Judicial Code, arts. 877–882","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-05-07","rol":"2016/RG/867","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2019:ARR.20190507.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"After her husband's death the borrower had to keep repaying two mortgage loans because no outstanding-balance insurance had ever been taken out; she sued both the insurer and the broker. The court dismissed the claim against the insurer: no request had been made to it for the new loans, no policy was concluded and no premium paid, and no causal fault on its part was shown. The broker, who took no steps to arrange the policies requested, was held liable; but the borrowers, who completed no form and paid no premium without ever querying it, were also at fault. Liability was split 50/50 and the case was reopened to quantify the loss.","k":"Outstanding-balance insurance — broker liable, insurer not","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382; Insurance Act 2014, arts. 88 §2 and 150; Judicial Code, art. 812","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-05-07","rol":"2016/RG/1329","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2019:ARR.20190507.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A private individual who handed €300,000 to a lawyer for an 'international financial operation' and was never repaid relied on the dishonesty insurance taken out by the Bar. The court dismissed the claim: the mutual insurance association sued had transferred the rights and obligations under the policy to another company in 2009, and that irregularity was not a clerical error that could be corrected; moreover, absent a proven stipulation for the benefit of third parties, the injured party cannot compel the Bar to call on the cover. The transaction also fell outside the practice of the legal profession. The first-instance judgment was upheld.","k":"Bar 'dishonesty' insurance — third party's right to claim","law":"Judicial Code, arts. 794 and 812; former Civil Code, art. 1166; Cass. 28.1.1975","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-04-04","rol":"2018/rG/259","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2019:ARR.20190404.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"In a dispute between the contractor and the church council over repairs to a storm-damaged bell tower, the council sought indemnity from its insurer for additional masonry works. The court held that the insurer is liable only for material damage caused by the storm, not for repairs driven by construction choices and traditional materials; it was not sufficiently shown that these works were a compensable consequence of the loss. The indemnity claim was dismissed for that item and reserved for the others (scaffolding, technical adviser, costs).","k":"Storm insurance — additional works outside the covered loss","law":"Policy general conditions (storm cover); former Civil Code, art. 1356 (admission)","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-04-02","rol":"P.18.1209.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2019:ARR.20190402.1","ch":"2N","res":"r","t":"motor","q":"Uit deze bepalingen volgt dat tot het behoud van de dekking \"overeenkom-stig de wet\", de verzekeringnemer ook in de loop van de overeenkomst elke risi-coverzwaring moet aangeven en diens bedrieglijke of verwijtbare…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"Changes significantly aggravating the risk had been made to the vehicle without being reported to the insurer; the Dutch-language criminal court of Brussels, sitting on appeal, convicted the company of putting an uninsured vehicle into circulation and the driver of driving it. The defendants argued that the insurance remained in force despite the unreported aggravation and that the offence required termination by the insurer. The Court of Cassation held that, to keep cover \"in accordance with the law\", the policyholder must report any aggravation of risk during the contract, that a fraudulent or culpable failure to do so is punishable according to the person's capacity as owner, keeper or driver under section 22(1) of the Act of 21 November 1989, and that no termination by the insurer is required; the appeals were dismissed.","k":"Uninsured driving offence — undisclosed aggravation of risk","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, s. 22(1); LCAT art. 26","w":25,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-03-14","rol":"C.18.0056.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2019:ARR.20190314.8","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"liability","q":"Il suit de ces dispositions qu'il incombe à l'assureur de rapporter la preuve de la notification à l'intéressé de son intention d'exercer le recours.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"Under article 88, paragraph 2, LCAT, an insurer seeking recourse must, on pain of losing that right, notify the policyholder or insured of its intention as soon as it knows the facts justifying it, and the burden of proving that notice lies on the insurer. The Namur Court of First Instance, sitting on appeal, found that the registered letter had been sent to a wrong address but still accepted proof of notice because the letter had not been returned and should therefore be deemed received. The Court of Cassation held that this reversed the burden of proof; on the appeal of the person facing recourse, it quashed the judgment and referred the case to the Hainaut Court of First Instance.","k":"Insurer's recourse — proof of notice of intent to claim recourse","law":"LCAT art. 88(2); Judicial Code, art. 870; former Civil Code, art. 1315(2)","w":11,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-03-14","rol":"C.18.0307.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2019:ARR.20190314.10","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"subrogation","q":"Il s'ensuit que, lorsque, à la date de la subrogation, le délai de prescription de l'action directe contre l'assureur n'a pas pris cours à l'égard de la personne lésée, il n'a pas davantage pris cours à l'égard de la…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"An insurer had paid its insured an advance of €25,000 on 12 September 2005 and, as subrogee, brought a direct action against the liable party's insurer. The Mons Court of Appeal accepted that, for the insured, the limitation period only began on 15 June 2010, when he learned the identity of the liable party's insurer, yet held that it had started earlier for the subrogated insurer and found the claim time-barred. The Court of Cassation held that a subrogee exercises the injured party's action with all its characteristics and accessories: if the period has not started for the injured party at the date of subrogation, it has not started for the subrogee either. The judgment was quashed to that extent and the case referred to the Liège Court of Appeal.","k":"Direct action — start of the limitation period for a subrogee","law":"LCAT art. 34(2) and art. 86(1)","w":26,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-03-06","rol":"2017/RG/1081","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2019:ARR.20190306.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Knocked down in 2009 by a man being chased by security guards, the victim first approached the offender's private-life liability insurer in 2016. The court held the direct action time-barred: the five-year period runs from the offence and the victim, who had a lawyer, did not show she learned of her right against the insurer only later; making the period run from when cover appears effective would add a condition to the law. A letter from the insured's lawyer to the court expert did not interrupt the limitation period.","k":"Direct action — start of the five-year limitation period","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 88 §2 and art. 150","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-03-01","rol":"2017/RG/1288","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2019:ARR.20190301.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"Badly scalded in 1995, aged two, by hot coffee spilled by her grandmother, the victim sued the grandmother's family liability insurer. The court held that the permanent aesthetic loss, rated 5/7, is both aesthetic and moral and that nothing prevents capitalising a non-pecuniary loss where it is constant; the capitalisation refused at first instance was granted. The insurer was ordered to pay, among other items, €101,175 for past permanent aesthetic loss, €8,431.27 in expenses and €5,852 for temporary non-pecuniary loss; art. 1254 of the Civil Code does not apply in tort, so advances are deducted from the principal.","k":"Personal injury — capitalisation of permanent aesthetic loss","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1382 and 1254","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-02-22","rol":"2014/IC/97","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2019:ARR.20190222.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"In the civil part of an assault case, the victim claimed from the defendant, in his own name, the medical adviser and expert costs paid by his legal expenses insurer. The court accepted the nominee agreement under which the insured recovers these sums on behalf of the subrogated insurer, as lawful absent fraud on the law or prejudice to the debtor, and granted the claim in line with the 50/50 apportionment of liability. The insurer's protective intervention became moot; the defendant's request for payment by instalments was refused for lack of evidence.","k":"Legal expenses insurer — subrogation and nominee (prête-nom) agreement","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382; Cass. 25.11.1993","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège (ch. correctionnelle — sivil hüküm)","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-02-15","rol":"C.18.0444.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2019:ARR.20190215.3","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"liability","q":"De benadeelde heeft bijgevolg in de regel slechts een eigen recht tegen de verzekeraar wanneer de verzekerde aansprakelijk is voor de door de benadeelde geleden schade en in de mate van deze aansprakelijkheid, en de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A building owner brought a direct action against the liability insurer of the structural engineering firm that had acted as a subcontractor; the Ghent Court of Appeal, while finding that the owner had no claim of its own against that firm, upheld the direct action because the firm's liability was established. The Court of Cassation held that, under article 150 of the Insurance Act 2014, the injured party cannot assert against the insurer more or other rights than against the liable person, so the direct action generally requires an enforceable claim against the insured. The judgment was quashed, on the insurer's appeal, insofar as it ruled on the direct action, and the case was referred to the Brussels Court of Appeal.","k":"Direct action — need for an enforceable claim against the insured","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 150(1)","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-02-15","rol":"C.18.0401.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2019:ARR.20190215.1","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"contract","q":"Aan het vereiste van voormeld artikel 4 WMPC is niet voldaan wanneer voor de bepaling van de omvang van de dekking door een verzekeringsovereenkomst de bijzondere voorwaarden louter verwijzen naar de algemene…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Antwerp Court of Appeal had held that the insured was sufficiently informed of the storm-damage exclusion in the general conditions by the mere reference to them in the special conditions. The Court of Cassation held that the extent of cover is one of the main characteristics of an insurance product and that the duty to provide fair and useful information under former article 4 of the Act of 6 April 2010 on market practices is not met where the special conditions merely refer to the general conditions to define the cover. The judgment was quashed on the insured's appeal and the case referred to the Brussels Court of Appeal.","k":"Storm damage exclusion — informing the consumer","law":"Act of 6.4.2010 on market practices, former art. 4","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-02-14","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2019:ARR.024","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : - L'article 4 du titre préliminaire du Code de procédure pénale, en tant qu'il consacre le principe général du droit de l'autorité de chose jugée du pénal sur le civil, interprété en ce sens que…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"In a claim brought by the Belgian Guarantee Fund against a municipality and others, the party convicted in the criminal trial could not, before the civil court, rely on evidence produced by a third party to the criminal proceedings that refuted the criminal findings. The Constitutional Court held that article 4 of the Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure, so interpreted, breaches articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution read with article 6 ECHR; read as allowing the convicted party to rely on that evidence, it is constitutional. The possibility of reviewing the criminal decision does not cure the defect.","k":"Guarantee Fund claim — binding effect of criminal judgment and third-party evidence","law":"Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act of 17.4.1878), art. 4; ECHR art. 6; Constitution, arts 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-02-11","rol":"2017/RG/1056","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2019:ARR.20190211.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A couple who, on their intermediary's advice, invested in unit-linked (branch 23) life-insurance policies that performed poorly sued the intermediary and, by direct action, its professional-liability insurer. The court upheld the dismissal, as no breach causally linked to the loss was established; the direct action against the insurer therefore failed too. The plea that the notice of appeal was void was rejected and the appellants were ordered to pay costs.","k":"Insurance intermediary — advice on a unit-linked (branch 23) investment","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1315 (burden of proof); intermediary's duty to advise","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-02-06","rol":"2017/RG/576","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2019:ARR.20190206.31","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The patient sought production of the claim notification the doctor had sent to his liability insurer; the first judge had ordered it under penalty. On the insurer's third-party opposition, the court held that the civil action rests on the offence of unintentional bodily harm, so articles 877–882 of the Judicial Code on document production do not apply; moreover, an insured's statement to his insurer benefits from the right to silence and confidentiality. The insurer need not produce the document; the request to hear the doctor was inadmissible at this stage.","k":"Medical liability — disclosure of the claim notification to the insurer","law":"Judicial Code arts. 871 and 877–882; Cass. 2.6.1981","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-01-28","rol":"C.18.0395.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2019:ARR.20190128.2","ch":"3F","res":"r","t":"liability","q":"En vertu de l’article 3, 2°, de l'arrêté royal du 12 janvier 1984 déterminant les conditions minimales de garantie des contrats d'assurance couvrant la responsabilité civile extracontractuelle relative à la vie privée,…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"Following a fire caused by a child, two insurers disputed whether the child was an insured under the mother's family liability (RC vie privée) policy. The Liège Court of Appeal held that the child no longer lived with his mother at the time of the fire and that her receipt of family allowances did not mean she maintained him, so the mother's insurer owed no cover. The Court of Cassation held that it does not follow from article 3, 2°, of the Royal Decree of 12 January 1984 that a child lives in the policyholder's household merely because a court order granted the policyholder primary residence and fixed the child's domicile there, and dismissed the other insurer's appeal.","k":"Family liability insurance — 'living in the policyholder's household'","law":"Royal Decree of 12.1.1984, art. 3, 2°","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-01-24","rol":"C.18.0067.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2019:ARR.20190124.1","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"motor","q":"L'autorité de la chose jugée au pénal ne fait pas obstacle à ce que, lors d'un procès civil ultérieur, une partie ait la possibilité de contester les éléments déduits du procès pénal, lorsqu'elle n'a pas été partie à…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Guarantee Fund had compensated the victim under section 29bis and sought reimbursement from the insurer of the towing vehicle, arguing that even if the trailer was not validly insured, the towing vehicle's insurance had to cover the accident. The Brussels Court of First Instance, sitting on appeal, held that the Fund, having intervened voluntarily in the criminal proceedings where the trailer's lack of insurance was finally established, could no longer dispute it. The Court of Cassation held that the Fund, which could not have appealed in cassation against the criminal decision releasing it from the case for lack of standing or interest, had not been able freely to defend its interests there, so the criminal res judicata could not be relied on against it; the judgment was quashed on the Fund's appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund — effect of a criminal judgment on later civil proceedings","law":"General principle of criminal res judicata; Judicial Code, art. 17; ECHR, art. 6(1); Act of 21.11.1989, s. 29bis","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-01-22","rol":"P.18.0937.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2019:ARR.20190122.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Le renvoi après cassation replace les parties, dans les limites du renvoi, dans la situation dans laquelle elles se trouvaient devant le juge qui a rendu la décision attaquée (1). (1) Cass. 13 décembre 1988, RG 2075,…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court accepted that the court on referral, which must assess the loss as at the date of its own decision, may update the capitalisation calculation to that date; that ground failed. However, the court had refused a deduction of negative compensatory interest that the victim did not dispute, breaching the principle that parties define the dispute, and had not answered the plea that the parties had agreed a 2% capitalisation rate. On the appeals of the voluntarily intervening insurer and the civilly liable party, the judgment was quashed.","k":"Personal injury — capitalisation after cassation, negative interest","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383; Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 434–435; Judicial Code, art. 1138, 2°; Constitution, art. 149","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2019-01-11","rol":"2014/IC/145","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2019:ARR.20190111.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"The State, owner of a public vehicle exempt from insurance, had compensated its officer under article 29bis and sought subrogated recovery from the German insurers of the liable driver. The court held that the equitable reduction of article 1386bis benefits only the insured, not the insurers, and that the basis of the recourse is assessed globally, not head by head. The insurers were ordered jointly to pay €10,839.55 (subrogation), €22,095.09 (salary) and €1,575, with interest; the year-end bonus was recoverable, holiday pay was not.","k":"Recourse of the State as 29bis payer — insurers of a mentally ill driver","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §4; former Civil Code, art. 1382, 1386bis; Act of 3.7.1967, art. 14 §3; Cass. 22.9.2000","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège (ch. correctionnelle — sivil hüküm)","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-12-10","rol":"2017/RG/721","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2018:ARR.20181210.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The insured's building burned down in 2012 and his home insurer filed a criminal complaint suspecting arson. He turned to his legal expenses insurer, which unambiguously refused cover by letter of 6.12.2012; proceedings were brought on 4.3.2016. The court held that the claim had interrupted the limitation period, but the insurer's written refusal ended the interruption and started a new three-year period, which was neither suspended nor interrupted. From the refusal, the insured had a present interest in suing, if only as a protective measure while the criminal investigation was pending. The action was time-barred; the insured's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Legal expenses insurance — fresh limitation period after written refusal","law":"LCAT art. 34–35; Judicial Code, art. 18","w":27,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-12-06","rol":"173/2018","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2018:ARR.173","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"const","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"In a two-car accident on 15 June 2014 where liability could not be apportioned, the injured party received half of the loss from the other driver's insurer; his own motor liability insurer refused to pay the other half under article 19bis-11 §2. On questions from the Liège Police Court, the Constitutional Court held that article 19bis-11 §2, before its repeal by the Act of 31 May 2017, read as allowing the owner of a damaged vehicle to claim that damage from his own motor insurer to the extent provided, does not violate articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution, read with article 6(1) ECHR. Article 33bis, which applies amendments only to accidents after their entry into force, is also constitutional: the accident date is a reasonable criterion.","k":"Former art. 19bis-11 §2 — own insurer and transitional rule","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 3, 19bis-11 §2 and 33bis; Act of 31.5.2017, arts. 15 and 25; Constitution, arts. 10–11; ECHR, art. 6(1)","w":1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle — CC 173/2018","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-12-06","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2018:ARR.172","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La Cour, dit pour droit : L'article 19bis-11, § 2, de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs, avant son abrogation par l'article 15 de la…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"After a multi-vehicle accident in which the vehicle at fault could not be identified, the owner of a damaged vehicle claimed from his own motor liability insurer under former article 19bis-11 §2. The Constitutional Court held that this provision, read as allowing the owner to claim against his own insurer, does not breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution. The difference from an owner found liable, who cannot recover his own vehicle damage from his insurer (art. 3 §1), is justified by the distinct nature of the automatic compensation scheme and liability insurance.","k":"Motor liability — compensation from one's own insurer when fault cannot be determined (art. 19bis-11 §2)","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 3 §1 and former art. 19bis-11 §2","w":10,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-11-16","rol":"2017/RG/648","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2018:ARR.20181116.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"alt","s":"A young self-employed worker injured when a timber frame fell on him sued the liability insurer of the party held 90% liable. The court capitalised his 40% permanent economic incapacity on the basis of his potential on the general labour market, raising the base income by 0.5% a year, and held that the health-insurance fund's subrogation cannot reach future loss relating to a period after its payments ended. The insurer was ordered to pay €112,514.31 for future economic loss and €39,375 for permanent household incapacity; the unsupported claim for an automatic gearbox was dismissed and appeal costs were set off.","k":"Personal injury — capitalised economic loss and health-fund deduction","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382; Act of 14.7.1994 (subrogation); Cass. 22.9.2008","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-11-15","rol":"C.17.0492.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2018:ARR.20181115.4","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"damage","q":"Le préjudice qui résulte, pour les ayants droit de la victime d'un accident mortel, de la privation des revenus de celle-ci consiste en la privation de la partie de ces revenus dont ils tiraient ou auraient pu tirer un…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"After a fatal accident, the widow claimed in her own name and for her minor daughter; the Namur Court of First Instance, sitting on appeal, found the mother's own loss of income lower than her public-sector survivor's pension but awarded the child separate compensation. The Court of Cassation held that the loss consists of the share of the deceased's income from which the dependants derived or could have derived a personal benefit, that the mother's and the child's losses are distinct, and that the pension paid to the mother does not make good the child's loss; the insurer's argument on that point was rejected. However, the judgment was quashed insofar as it used contradictory personal-share rates of 20% and 15% to assess the household loss from 13 October 2033, when the child will stop living with her mother, and the case was referred to the Hainaut Court of First Instance.","k":"Fatal accident — dependants' loss of income and household loss","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-11-13","rol":"2017/AM/112","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2018:ARR.20181113.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"En application de l'article 70 de la loi du 10 avril 1971, qui vise l'action en paiement du chef de l'accident du travail, fondée sur une autre cause, toute action en paiement, introduite suite à l'accident du travail,…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The widow of a municipal employee who suffered a heart attack in a 1986 workplace accident and died in 2008 claimed a death allowance. Her action of 2.2.2012 against the municipality's optional insurer had been declared inadmissible on 16.10.2013, as public-sector claims must target the employer; the first court then held her action of 15.10.2015 against the municipality time-barred. Art. 20 of the Act of 3.7.1967 refers to the grounds of interruption in the Act of 10.4.1971, whose art. 70 makes any action for payment brought following a workplace accident interrupt limitation, whatever its legal basis and defendant: limitation being interrupted until 16.10.2013, the action against the municipality was in time. The widow can only claim the post-revision death allowance; an expert was appointed on the causal link between death and accident.","k":"Public-sector workplace accident — action against the insurer interrupting limitation","law":"Act of 3.7.1967, arts. 3, 2°, c) and 20; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 70; RD 13.7.1970, art. 5ter; Cass. 12.5.1976; Cass. 7.12.1992","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-11-08","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2018:ARR.154","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : Les articles 1er, 2 et 46 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail ne violent pas les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution en ce que les mandataires et les préposés de l'employeur…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A person on a Flemish individual vocational training placement (IBO) suffered a workplace accident; the employer's agents and employees invoked the civil immunity of article 46 of the Act of 10 April 1971. The Constitutional Court held that articles 1, 2 and 46 do not breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution by denying them that immunity: the trainee has no employment contract with the employer, who pays no social-security or workplace-accident fund contributions for the trainee, so the situations differ.","k":"Workplace accident — individual trainee and civil immunity of the employer's agents","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts 1, 2 and 46 §1; Flemish Government Decree of 5.6.2009, arts 90 et seq.","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-11-06","rol":"2017/AL/762","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2018:ARR.20181106.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"courrier du 09/01/2017, l'expert a en effet interpellé le tribunal sur la possibilité d'utiliser dans le cadre de l'expertise le rapport d'un détective privé et des images vidéo communiquées par l'assureur - loi. La…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The expert had asked the tribunal whether he could use a private detective's report and video footage supplied by the workplace-accident insurer; ruling under article 973 §2 of the Judicial Code, the tribunal ordered the examination to continue. The court declared the victim's appeal inadmissible: article 963 excludes any ordinary appeal against decisions taken between the order appointing the expert and the filing of the final report, and the fact that the tribunal addressed a point of law (admissibility of evidence) does not change the nature of the decision. Appeal costs were nevertheless charged to the insurer.","k":"Workplace accident — appeal against a ruling made during the expert examination","law":"C. jud., arts. 963, 972bis and 973 §2; Cass. 24.1.2013","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-11-02","rol":"C.17.0393.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2018:ARR.20181102.3","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"work","q":"Het in deze wetsbepaling omschreven cumulatieverbod betekent dat de ge-troffene of zijn rechthebbenden slechts vergoeding voor lichamelijke schade mo-gen eisen volgens het gemeen recht wanneer de volgens het gemeen…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"A public-sector employee injured in a road accident claimed common-law damages from two insurers on the liable side. They argued that the rule against double recovery in section 14bis of the Act of 3 July 1967 also applied to lost income from a secondary self-employed activity not covered by that Act. The Court of Cassation held that the rule allows a common-law claim for bodily injury only for the amount exceeding the statutory compensation, but does not apply to losses the Act does not cover; that ground was rejected. The judgment was nevertheless quashed insofar as it ruled on the claim for third-party assistance (the reasoning on that point is not published), and the case was referred to the Antwerp Court of First Instance.","k":"Public-sector workplace accident — limits of the rule against double recovery","law":"Act of 3.7.1967, s. 14bis; Act of 21.11.1989, s. 29bis","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-10-29","rol":"C.18.0212.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2018:ARR.20181029.2","ch":"3F","res":"c","t":"limitation","q":"Il s'ensuit que, lorsque l'action récursoire a pour objet le remboursement de paiements successifs effectués par l'assureur à une partie lésée par la faute de l'assuré, c'est la date de chacun de ces paiements qui…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer made successive payments between 1996 and 2012 to the victims of an accident caused by its insured; by a writ of 1 June 2001 it claimed from the insured a provisional 275,000 francs out of an estimated total of 1,500,000 francs, and in 2015 increased its claim to €19,273.85. The Hainaut Court of First Instance, sitting on appeal, held that the 2001 writ also interrupted the limitation period for later payments. The Court of Cassation held that, where recourse concerns successive payments, each payment starts its own three-year period, and a writ cannot interrupt a period that has not yet begun; on the insured's appeal, the judgment was quashed and the case referred to the Namur Court of First Instance.","k":"Insurer's recourse — limitation period for successive payments","law":"LCAT art. 34(3); former Civil Code, art. 2244","w":6,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-10-24","rol":"2017/RG/30","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2018:ARR.20181024.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The insured, who cut short a holiday because of her father-in-law's health, claimed reimbursement of the trip. The court found that the general conditions, including the exclusions, formed part of the contract through the signed booking confirmation. The father-in-law was already in hospital at departure and the medical report showed a general deterioration rather than an unforeseeable complication, so the exclusion for illness existing when cover began applied. The appeal was dismissed.","k":"Travel cancellation and assistance insurance — pre-existing illness exclusion","law":"Policy general conditions, art. 3 (exclusions); Judicial Code, art. 775","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-10-19","rol":"C.18.0082.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2018:ARR.20181019.5","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"duties","q":"Uit de samenhang tussen deze bepalingen volgt dat een beding van verval van de verzekeringsdekking nietig is wanneer het elke dekking uitsluit van het in de verzekeringsovereenkomst omschreven risico.","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A horizontal-drilling contractor's business liability policy covered damage to underground cables and pipes only if the insured had requested the utility plans before starting work; water pipes were damaged on 31 August and 7 September 2010. The Ghent Court of Appeal declared the clause void because it emptied the insured risk of its substance, and held the loss covered. The Court of Cassation held that, under articles 11 and 77 LCAT read together, a forfeiture clause is void only if it excludes all cover for the risk described in the contract; as the appeal judges had not checked this, the judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal and the case referred to the Antwerp Court of Appeal.","k":"Business liability insurance — forfeiture clause emptying the cover","law":"LCAT arts. 11 and 77","w":28,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-10-18","rol":"C.17.0506.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2018:ARR.20181018.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"L'employeur public qui, ensuite de la faute d'un tiers, doit, en vertu de ses obligations légales ou réglementaires, continuer à payer à l'un de ses agents sa rémunération et les charges qui la grèvent sans recevoir de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A public employer that must keep paying an employee's salary without receiving work, after a commuting accident caused by an insured person, may claim its own loss from the liable party's insurer, and that right is not limited to the compensation due to the victim under general law. In that dispute, decisions of the administrative health service are mere factual presumptions, which the insurer may rebut by any means. The insurer's appeal against the judgment instructing the expert to assess incapacity under the criteria of the Act of 3 July 1967 was dismissed.","k":"Public employer — own loss claimed from the liable party's insurer","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383; Act of 3 July 1967","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-10-12","rol":"C.18.0086.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2018:ARR.20181012.5","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"duties","q":"Krachtens artikel 81, § 3, b), tweede alinea, Wet Verzekeringen 2014 is de prestatie van de verzekeraar, als een schadegeval zich voordoet en de verzeke-ringnemer de in § 1 bedoelde verplichting niet is nagekomen,…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Under a fire policy, the policyholder had not reported an aggravation of the risk. The Court of Cassation held that, under article 81(3)(b), second paragraph, of the Insurance Act 2014, an insurer that proves it would never have covered the aggravated risk is liable only to refund all premiums paid, and that this limitation does not depend on an amendment or termination of the contract under article 81(1). The insured's appeal against the Ghent Court of Appeal was dismissed.","k":"Fire insurance — undisclosed aggravation, premium refund","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 81(1) and (3)(b), second paragraph","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-10-11","rol":"136/2018","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2018:ARR.136","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"The bar associations sought annulment of the Act of 9 April 2017 amending article 156, 1° of the Insurance Act 2014 on free choice of lawyer in legal expenses insurance, insofar as that free choice was extended to arbitration but not to mediation. The Court found that CJEU case law does not make it certain whether the right applies to mediation under articles 1723/1 to 1737 of the Judicial Code, which has features of both amicable settlement and court proceedings (an approved agreement has the effect of a judgment). Before ruling on the merits, it asked the CJEU whether 'judicial proceedings' in article 201(1)(a) of Directive 2009/138/EC include out-of-court and court-ordered mediation (case C-667/18).","k":"Legal expenses insurance — free choice of lawyer in mediation","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 156, 1°; Act of 9.4.2017; Directive 2009/138/EC, art. 201(1)(a); Judicial Code, arts. 1723/1–1737","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle — CC 136/2018","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-10-05","rol":"C.18.0145.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2018:ARR.20181005.4","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"damage","q":"Bij zaakschade heeft het slachtoffer recht op de vervangingswaarde van zijn vernielde zaak.","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Flemish Region claimed compensation from the Belgian Motor Insurers' Bureau for damage to public-domain property on the basis of the as-new value, without any deduction for wear; the Mechelen Court of First Instance, sitting on appeal, had applied such a deduction. The Court of Cassation held that, for damage to property, the victim is entitled to the replacement value, i.e. the amount needed to acquire a similar item, equal to the actual value of the destroyed item, and that belonging to the public domain makes no difference, even where pre-existing damage did not affect the item's use. The Region's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Damage to public-domain property — replacement value and wear deduction","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1383","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-09-17","rol":"S.17.0034.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2018:ARR.20180917.1","ch":"3F","res":"c","t":"work","q":"Il suit de ces dispositions que l'assureur-loi n'est, en règle, pas tenu de prendre en charge les frais et honoraires du conseil technique de cette partie.","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal had ordered the workplace-accident insurer to pay the fees of the technical adviser who assisted the victim during the expert examination against the insurer's medical adviser, citing their causal link with the accident and article 6 ECHR. The Court of Cassation held that equality of arms requires that each party can be assisted by a technical adviser, with legal aid if needed, but does not require those fees to be borne by another party. Under sections 46(2) and 68 of the Act of 10 April 1971 and article 1018 of the Judicial Code, the workplace-accident insurer is in principle not liable for them; the judgment was quashed to that extent on the insurer's appeal and the case referred to the Mons Labour Court of Appeal.","k":"Workplace accident — victim's technical adviser's fees","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, ss. 46(2) and 68; Judicial Code, art. 1018; ECHR, art. 6(1)","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-09-10","rol":"C.18.0073.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2018:ARR.20180910.2","ch":"3N","res":"c","t":"duties","q":"Uit de samenhang tussen deze bepalingen volgt dat wanneer in een en de-zelfde overeenkomst verschillende risico's worden verzekerd en de verzwijging of de onjuiste mededeling enkel van invloed is geweest op de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"Under a policy insuring several buildings against fire, the dilapidated and vacant condition of one of them at inception had been concealed; the Antwerp Court of Appeal, treating the premium as single and indivisible, annulled the whole contract and ordered the insured's bankruptcy trustee to repay the indemnity paid for that building. The Court of Cassation held that, under articles 6(1) and 12(1) and (3) LCAT, where several risks are insured under one contract and the concealment or misrepresentation affected the assessment of only some of them, nullity is limited to the cover of the risks about which the insurer was misled. The judgment was quashed on the trustee's appeal and the case referred to the Ghent Court of Appeal.","k":"Multi-property policy — nullity limited to the misrepresented risk","law":"LCAT art. 6(1) and art. 12(1) and (3); Cass. 9.6.2006","w":29,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-09-07","rol":"2017/RG/198 ve 2017/RG/224","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2018:ARR.20180907.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"« des intérêts compensatoires au taux légal moins 1% seront accordés sur les indemnités actualisées au jour du présent arrêt »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"Injured when a retaining wall collapsed on him during his neighbour's excavation, the victim sued the neighbour's liability insurer, which disputed liability, cover and the method of assessment. The court held that the 2011 judgment, which awarded advances and ordered an expert report, had not exhausted the first judge's jurisdiction; that permanent non-pecuniary loss is capitalised at €25 a day on a life-annuity basis for an 80-year-old man, not on fixed annuities, at a 1% technical rate; and that updated awards carry compensatory interest at 5% until 31.12.2009 and at the legal rate minus 1% thereafter. Temporary non-pecuniary loss was set at €18,596; having lost on liability and cover at both levels, the insurer bore the costs of both instances.","k":"Personal injury — capitalisation for an elderly victim and interest on updated awards","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1382 and 1384(1); Judicial Code, art. 19","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-08-24","rol":"2013/AN/169","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2018:ARR.20180824.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Les frais de conseil technique dans le cadre d'une epxertise judiciaire ne font pas partie des dépens et ne sont pas un dommage indemnisable dans le cadre de la loi sur les accidents du travail. Le droit au procès…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The court ordered the workplace-accident insurer to compensate the victim for the workplace accident of 9 January 2012 (periods of total temporary incapacity, consolidation on 10 September 2012 with 5% permanent incapacity, set base wages). It rejected, however, the claim for the fees of the medical adviser who assisted the victim during the expert examination: those fees are neither costs of the proceedings nor compensable damage under the Act of 10.4.1971, and the right to a fair trial does not require them to be borne beyond the legal-aid rules (C. jud., arts. 664 and 665), which the victim had not invoked.","k":"Workplace accident — technical adviser's fees and fair trial","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 68; C. jud., arts. 664, 665 and 1018; former Civil Code, art. 1382; ECHR, art. 6","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-06-28","rol":"C.17.0631.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2018:ARR.20180628.8","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"29bis","q":"Uit de samenhang tussen deze bepalingen volgt dat de WAM-verzekeraar die op grond van artikel 29bis WAM de uitgaven vergoedt van de arbeidsongeval-lenverzekeraar die in de rechten van het slachtoffer is getreden, deze…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A police officer was injured when a vehicle hit him while he was carrying out checks on a cycle path; the vehicle's motor liability insurer reimbursed, under article 29bis, the expenses of the subrogated workplace-accident insurer and then claimed them back from the liability insurer of the officer, who was found solely liable for the accident. The appeal judgment allowed that claim. The Court held that, read together, article 29bis and the workplace-accident legislation mean that a motor liability insurer covering the workplace-accident insurer's expenses cannot recover them from the liable victim or the victim's liability insurer; the judgment was quashed on that point on the latter insurer's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — recovering article 29bis payments from a liable victim","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; Act of 10.4.1971, arts 48bis, 48ter","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-06-15","rol":"2017/RG/174","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2018:ARR.20180615.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"A patient operated on with Lasik although the technique was contra-indicated for his severe myopia, and left nearly blind, sued the doctor's professional liability insurer. The court held that, absent proof that the pre-existing condition alone would have put him in the same state at the same time, damages cannot be reduced in proportion to that condition; permanent non-pecuniary loss was capitalised at €20 a day and household loss at €15 a day, and the 100% economic incapacity was compensated at €2,000 per point, i.e. €200,000. Disability allowances were not deducted, as they were not shown to be advances reclaimed by subrogation; the judgment was reversed and the insurer bore the costs of both instances.","k":"Medical negligence — pre-existing condition does not reduce damages","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-05-28","rol":"C.17.0586.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2018:ARR.20180528.1","ch":"3F","res":"c","t":"limitation","q":"Par dispositions légales particulières, on entend celles qui soumettent la prescription de l'action résultant du droit propre que la personne lésée possède contre l'assureur à un délai différent de celui dudit article…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The court of appeal had held time-barred, applying the two-year period in article 30.1 of the Act of 16 February 1994, the injured parties' direct action against the tour organiser's liability insurer for a death and injuries suffered during a trip. The Court held that the 'specific statutory provisions' referred to in article 88 §2 of the Insurance Act 2014 are those that subject the direct action to a different limitation period; article 30.1 is not one of them, so the five-year period of article 88 §2 applies. The judgment was quashed on the injured parties' appeal.","k":"Direct action — limitation period and package-travel legislation","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 88 §2; Act of 16.2.1994, art. 30.1","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-05-07","rol":"C.17.0588.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2018:ARR.20180507.6","ch":"3F","res":"c","t":"subrogation","q":"Le paiement avec subrogation emporte dans cette mesure le transfert de la créance du subrogeant au subrogé. [resmî özet]","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"Payment with subrogation transfers the claim to the subrogated party to that extent. The Mons Court of Appeal had refused to deduct, from the damages owed by the party held vicariously liable, €25,000 paid by the special fund for victims of intentional violence and €6,250 paid by the victims' family liability insurer for the same loss. The Court of Cassation quashed that part: an insurer that has paid is subrogated up to the amount paid (art. 41 LCAT, art. 95 Insurance Act 2014), so that sum cannot be awarded to the victims a second time; the case was referred to the Liège Court of Appeal.","k":"Subrogation — deducting payments made by the family liability insurer","law":"LCAT art. 41; Insurance Act 2014 art. 95; former Civil Code, art. 1249; Act of 1.8.1985 art. 39 §1","w":16,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-05-03","rol":"C.17.0095.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2018:ARR.20180503.2","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"procedure","q":"De wetten die de bestanddelen van het feit dat aan de basis ligt van de bur-gerlijke, delictuele of quasi-delictuele aansprakelijkheid, alsook de wijze en de omvang van de schadevergoeding bepalen, zijn politiewetten in…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The workplace-accident insurer, subrogated to the victim's rights, had brought a direct action against the liable party's foreign liability insurer for a loss that occurred in Belgium; the Ghent Court of Appeal dismissed it because English law does not recognise a direct action and the Belgian provision granting one was not yet in force at the time of the accident. The Court held that article 127 §1 of the Private International Law Code does not govern whether a direct action exists for a tort committed before the Code came into force, but that statutes creating a direct action, like those defining the elements of liability and compensation, are mandatory rules within the meaning of former article 3, first paragraph, of the Civil Code and apply to acts committed in Belgium. The judgment was quashed on the workplace-accident insurer's appeal.","k":"Direct action — private international law and mandatory rules","law":"Private International Law Code, arts 99, 106, 127 §1; former Civil Code, art. 3, first paragraph","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-04-27","rol":"C.16.0292.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2018:ARR.20180427.1","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"duties","q":"Il suit de ces dispositions que l'obligation légale et conventionnelle du preneur de déclarer, en cours de contrat, les circonstances nouvelles ou les modifications de circonstances qui sont de nature à entraîner une…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Brussels Court of Appeal had found that the insured building was used solely as a dwelling and was therefore covered by the policy. The Court held that the policyholder's duty to declare, during the contract, new circumstances causing a significant and lasting aggravation of the risk covers only circumstances known to the policyholder, not those of which they were unaware, even if they should have known. The insurer's appeal, based on commercial use and an undeclared aggravation, was dismissed.","k":"Building insurance — duty to declare an aggravation of risk","law":"LCAT, arts 5 and 26 §1","w":30,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-04-26","rol":"54/2018","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2018:ARR.054","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"The workplace-accident insurer, having paid €504,420.54 to the dependants of a worker killed by a train on a site near a railway, sought reimbursement from the train's uninsured owner under Article 29bis and article 48ter of the Act of 10 April 1971; the owner argued that article 48ter only allows action against a motor liability insurer. On a question from the Dutch-speaking Brussels Police Court, the Constitutional Court held that article 48ter, read as excluding a subrogation claim against the owner of a rail-bound motor vehicle, violates articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution, while the opposite reading is constitutional. That reading matches the full parallel with Article 29bis intended by the legislature; the owner can recover from the party liable under ordinary law (art. 29bis §4) and, if insured, the claim lies against its insurer.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse against a rail vehicle owner","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 48ter; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1(2) and §4; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle — CC 54/2018","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-04-26","rol":"C.17.0578.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2018:ARR.20180426.12","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"motor","q":"Artikel 29ter WAM, zoals ingevoerd bij artikel 23 van de wet van 31 mei 2017 tot wijziging van de wet van 21 november 1989 betreffende de verplichte aansprakelijkheidsverzekering motorrijtuigen, bepaalt: \"§ 1.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that article 29ter, introduced by the Act of 31 May 2017, is not an interpretative provision but an adapted compensation rule, so former article 19bis-11 §2 still governs the earlier accident. Compensation under that provision rests on the statute, not on the insurance contracts; equal sharing applies only between insurers, and the injured party may claim full compensation from each insurer except those whose insured is certainly not liable. The appeal of the two motor liability insurers ordered to compensate the injured parties was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — multi-vehicle accident, art. 19bis-11 §2 and 29ter","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 19bis-11 §2 (former), 29ter; Act of 31.5.2017; Cass. 14.12.2017","w":1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-04-16","rol":"C.13.0008.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2018:ARR.20180416.1","ch":"3N","res":"c","t":"subrogation","q":"Uit wat voorafgaat volgt dat de buitencontractuele aansprakelijkheidsvorde-ring die een indeplaatsgestelde verzekeringsinstelling tegen het Gewest instelt, verjaard is indien zij wordt ingesteld meer dan vijf jaar na de…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A health-insurance fund that had paid its members injured in a road accident sued, as subrogee, the Flemish Region and the liability insurer of a co-liable municipality; that insurer in turn claimed indemnity from the Region. The Court held that a tort claim against the Region becomes time-barred five years from 1 January of the year of the fault, unless the injured party learned of the damage and the liable party's identity only later; since a subrogee exercises the claim with all its features, time runs for it when it runs for the victim, and the fund's own late knowledge of the liable party is irrelevant. The judgment ordering the Region to pay the fund €5,299.25 was quashed; the ground against the insurer's indemnity claim was rejected, since for such a claim time runs from 1 January of the year in which the right to claim indemnity arose.","k":"Subrogation — limitation of recourse against a Region","law":"State Accounting Acts (coord. 17.7.1991), art. 100, first paragraph, 1°; Act of 16.1.1989, art. 71 §1; Act of 14.7.1994, art. 136 §2","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-03-28","rol":"2017/RG/258","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2018:ARR.20180328.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"« a volontairement caché à l'intimée l'aggravation du risque due à la culture illégale de cannabis […] a agi dans une intention frauduleuse en sorte que le refus de garantie est fondé »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The building insured as a home was being used for illegal cannabis cultivation. Relying on serious, precise and consistent presumptions (suspicious bags, covered windows), the court held that the owner could not have been unaware of this use, which significantly and lastingly aggravated the fire risk, and that he concealed it with fraudulent intent. The refusal of cover was upheld and the insurer recovered the €3,000 advanced for protective measures; the appeal was dismissed.","k":"House fire — cannabis cultivation, concealed aggravation of risk","law":"LCAT art. 26","w":31,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège (3e ch. B)","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-03-28","rol":"2017/RG/334","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2018:ARR.20180328.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insured, whose stables and cattle burned, concealed from the insurer that some of the animals were subject to an official slaughter order, for which he was criminally convicted of fraud. With fraudulent intent established, the insurer may invoke forfeiture for the whole loss under article 21 §2 LCAT, recover the sums already paid and refuse the balance, without having to break down the loss to assess the impact of the false statement. The heirs' appeal was dismissed.","k":"Fire insurance — fraudulent claim declaration and forfeiture","law":"LCAT arts. 19–21","w":32,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-03-26","rol":"2016/RG/833","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2018:ARR.20180326.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The policyholder already intended to set fire to his building when the policy was taken out (he was criminally convicted of arson and forgery) and concealed it: the court found fraudulent silence and upheld the insurer's plea of nullity of the contract. The co-owning spouse's claim for the insurance indemnity, based on that contract, therefore failed. The policyholder was also ordered to reimburse the insurer €19,081.06 in expert and technical-adviser costs.","k":"Fire insurance — intent to commit arson and nullity of the contract","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1109 and 1116 (fraud); Cass. 16.11.2001","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-03-26","rol":"2016/RG/103","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2018:ARR.20180326.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A fire in a holiday chalet let to tenants originated from a stove flue installed by the owner himself contrary to good practice. The court held that the clause excluding damage resulting from a construction error of which the insured, unknowingly, is himself the author was clear and enforceable: the general conditions had entered the contract through the broker and the insurer had fulfilled its duty to inform. The refusal of cover was justified; the tenant's insurer's claim against the owner (€1,105 plus expert costs) was granted.","k":"Home insurance — construction-defect exclusion and duty to inform","law":"Exclusion clause in the general conditions; Act of 6.4.2010, art. 4 (consumer information); distinguished from art. 8 LCAT","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-03-19","rol":"2016/AL/766 et 2017/AL/23","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2018:ARR.20180319.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La circonstance que le stress ait été une composante habituelle du travail n'exclut en rien qu'il puisse être retenu au titre d'événement soudain. Il est indifférent au stade de la détermination dans le temps et dans…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"After a month of mounting pressure ahead of a deadline, the worker suffered a stroke following the stress of the day before that deadline. The court held that stress being a normal part of the job and lasting nearly a month does not prevent it from being a sudden event; the stress of 31 October 2007 was so established. The first expert report, based on inaccurate or unreliable facts, was set aside and a new expert appointed; the court recalled that the presumption of causation is rebutted only if the stress had no influence whatsoever, even partial, on the stroke.","k":"Workplace accident — work stress and stroke, sudden event","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 9; C. jud., art. 1068","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-03-16","rol":"2016/AB/1090","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2018:ARR.20180316.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"Under a collective hospitalisation policy, the insurer proposed to exclude all costs linked to gender dysphoria for an insured who had undergone gender-reassignment surgery. The labour court of appeal held that after successful surgery there is no pre-existing condition amounting to a certain, uninsurable event; the anti-discrimination and insurance statutes apply together, and the exclusion was direct discrimination based on gender identity. The cease-and-desist order was upheld, €1,300 non-pecuniary damages were awarded provisionally and publicity measures refused. According to the Juportal note, the judgment was partly quashed by the Court of Cassation on 11.5.2020.","k":"Hospitalisation insurance — gender-reassignment exclusion as discrimination","law":"Gender Act of 10.5.2007, arts 20, 23, 25; Insurance Act 2014","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof Brussel","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-03-16","rol":"C.17.0428.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2018:ARR.20180316.4","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"intent","q":"Ces dispositions excluent que l'assureur s'exonère de sa garantie pour des cas de faute lourde de l'assuré déterminés en termes généraux.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"An architect's professional liability insurer relied on a gross-negligence clause covering 'knowingly failing to comply with mandatory legal provisions, including safety requirements' to claim forfeiture of cover and sought recourse against her; the Liège Court of Appeal found gross negligence because she had not appointed a safety coordinator or secured the staircase that caused the loss. The Court held that articles 8, second paragraph, and 11 LCAT prevent an insurer from escaping liability for cases of gross negligence defined in general terms; such cases must be specified expressly and exhaustively. The judgment was quashed on the insured's appeal.","k":"Professional liability insurance — gross-negligence clause in general terms","law":"LCAT, arts 8, second paragraph, and 11","w":33,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-03-16","rol":"C.17.0240.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2018:ARR.20180316.3","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"procedure","q":"En considérant que l'article 29bis de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 est applicable à l'action des défendeurs victimes contre la demanderesse assureur du véhicule, au motif que cette disposition constitue une « loi…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Victims of an accident in Morocco involving a Belgian-registered vehicle sued the vehicle's insurer under article 29bis; the Brussels court of first instance, sitting on appeal, treated it as an overriding mandatory rule applying regardless of the Moroccan law designated by the Hague Convention. The Court held that, under articles 3 and 9 of the Hague Convention of 4 May 1971 and article 2 of the Private International Law Code, subject to article 10 of the Convention, the designated law governs both liability and the victim's claim against the insurer, and article 29bis cannot apply through article 20 of the Code. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — accident abroad, Hague Convention and article 29bis","law":"Hague Convention of 4.5.1971, arts 3, 9, 10; Private International Law Code, arts 2, 20; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-03-16","rol":"C.17.0200.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2018:ARR.20180316.2","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"procedure","q":"L'arrêt, qui retient ainsi l'existence d'une faute extracontractuelle du second défendeur au motif que le manquement à son obligation d'information et de conseil précède la conclusion du contrat d'assurance entre un…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A client who had invested €125,000 in a 'class 23' life insurance product recommended by his broker sued the broker and the insurer covering the broker's liability; the Liège Court of Appeal found that the broker had committed a non-contractual fault (culpa in contrahendo) by breaching the pre-contractual duty to inform, ordered the insurer to pay €50,790.36 and to indemnify the broker. The Court held that the breach was a failure to perform an obligation under the brokerage contract, not a non-contractual fault; an agent is liable to the other contracting party only if it breaches the general duty of care. The judgment was quashed on those points on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Insurance intermediary — nature of a breach of the duty to inform","law":"Former Civil Code, arts 1382–1383; Act of 27.3.1995, art. 12bis §3","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-03-14","rol":"2017/RG/6","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2018:ARR.20180314.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"A regional-government employee travelling as a minibus passenger was injured in a road accident on 6.12.2005 and compensated as a vulnerable road user. In 2015 the public employer sought about €17,000 in salary payments from the vehicle's motor liability insurer through a direct action as injured party. The court accepted that the employer's letter of 27.6.2007 interrupted limitation, but found that the insurer's letter of 10.7.2007 did not refuse cover and merely asked for proof of the injuries, and that the employer understood the insurer was handling the claim. The five-year period ran from 10.7.2007 and had expired when proceedings began; the employer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Direct action — public employer's claim time-barred","law":"LCAT art. 34 §2; former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":6,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-03-07","rol":"2016/RG/1400","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2018:ARR.20180307.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The tenant's rental-liability insurer sought recourse against the landlord's fire insurer, arguing that the fire was caused by a primary electrical defect in the building's installation. Relying on the expert report, the court found that the fire started in a junction box inaccessible to the tenant, who was therefore not at fault, rebutting the presumption of article 1733 of the former Civil Code. The landlord's insurer was ordered to pay €29,760.29 and its counterclaim dismissed.","k":"Tenant's fire liability — recourse between insurers","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1721 and 1733; Cass. 10.2.1994","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-03-07","rol":"2017/RG/40","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2018:ARR.20180307.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Injured by a cow on her partner's farm, the victim and her health-insurance fund sued the farmer's liability insurer, which argued that she was a family member of the insured and therefore excluded. As the policy did not define \"family\" and neither common usage nor other legislation equates de facto cohabitants with married or legally cohabiting couples, the court refused to treat the victim as a family member. The insurer's appeal was dismissed and the appointment of a medical expert upheld.","k":"Liability insurance — is a de facto partner a \"family member\"?","law":"Interpretation of the insurance contract; Judicial Code art. 572bis; Act of 10.4.1971 (by comparison)","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-02-27","rol":"2017/AM/64","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2018:ARR.20180227.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Selon une jurisprudence bien établie, une chute, étant par nature un événement limité dans le temps dont le caractère soudain ne peut être contesté, constitue l'événement soudain au sens des articles 7 et 9 de la loi du…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A shop employee lost consciousness and fell at work on 2 November 2013; the workplace-accident insurer refused cover, arguing that the fall was due solely to an internal condition (an epileptic seizure). The Fund (Fedris) sued the insurer, and the first court recognised a workplace accident and appointed an expert. The court recalled that a fall is a sudden event whatever its cause, that the Act does not require a cause external to the body, and that this debate belongs to the rebuttal of the presumptions: under art. 9, the insurer must show that the injury is attributable exclusively to a cause other than the accident; under art. 7, that the risk was in no way linked to the employment contract. The available text breaks off at this point; the outcome of the insurer's appeal is not in it.","k":"Workplace accident — fall during an epileptic seizure: sudden event and rebuttal of presumptions","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7, 9 and 63 §1; Cass. 7.1.1991; Cass. 13.5.1996","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-02-26","rol":"2016/RG/1387","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2018:ARR.20180226.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insured notified a fall in the woods causing a knee sprain six months after the event; the insurer argued it owed benefits only from receipt of the notification. The court held that this contractual sanction is contrary to the mandatory article 21 §1 LCAT and that the insurer proved no loss caused by the delay. The medical dispute between the parties must be resolved through the amicable medical expertise provided for in the policy.","k":"Personal accident insurance — late notification of the claim","law":"LCAT arts. 19–21; general conditions arts. 24 and 27","w":32,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-02-22","rol":"C.17.0302.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2018:ARR.20180222.8","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"procedure","q":"Er bestaat geen algemeen rechtsbeginsel van de leer van het schijnmandaat en van de goede trouw [resmî özet]","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court recalled that there is no general principle of law of apparent agency, but that a person can be bound by the act of an unauthorised representative where the appearance of sufficient authority is attributable to them and the third party could reasonably rely on it. A broker's use of an insurance proposal form filled in by the prospective policyholder can create the appearance that the broker represents the insurer; neither article 4 LCAT nor the Act of 27 March 1995, under which a broker is not tied to any particular insurer, prevents this. The insurer's appeal against the Ghent Court of Appeal judgment was dismissed.","k":"Insurance broker — apparent authority binding the insurer","law":"LCAT art. 4 §§1 and 2; Act of 27.3.1995 art. 1, 6°; former Civil Code, art. 1998","w":34,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-02-20","rol":"2017/RG/7","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2018:ARR.20180220.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The comprehensive motor insurer relied on a private detective's report commissioned on suspicion of a staged loss. The court excluded it: the detective had not disclosed his identity, the purpose of the inquiry or whether answers were compulsory, in breach of the Acts of 19.7.1991 and 8.12.1992, and the report was obtained unfairly; unreliable evidence must always be excluded. The unilateral expert report did not show a deliberate accident either. The insurer's appeal was dismissed and the order to pay €13,790 upheld.","k":"Comprehensive motor cover — suspected staged loss and detective report","law":"Act of 19.7.1991 (private detectives); Act of 8.12.1992 (privacy); Antigone case law","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-02-19","rol":"2017/AH/54","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2018:ARR.20180219.16","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A trainee on an individual vocational training placement (IBO) was injured; the employer had taken out, as required by the Flemish Government decree, a common-law policy imposing on the insurer the same duties as a workplace-accident insurer. The insurer argued that the health-insurance fund could not sue it directly and had to turn to the employer. The Labour Court rejected this: subrogated under article 136 §2 of the coordinated health-insurance Act, the fund may claim the medical costs it reimbursed directly from the private insurer. The first-instance judgment was reversed and the insurer ordered to pay €135.78 plus costs.","k":"Vocational trainee — health-insurance fund's recourse against the private insurer","law":"Coordinated Health Insurance Act of 14.7.1994, art. 136 §2; Flemish Government Decree of 5.6.2009, art. 95; Act of 10.4.1971; Cass. 30.11.2009","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-02-16","rol":"C.16.0344.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2018:ARR.20180216.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"L'employeur public, qui, ensuite de la faute d'un tiers, doit continuer à payer à l'un de ses agents la rémunération et les charges grevant la rémunération en vertu d'obligations légales ou réglementaires qui lui…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A public employer that must keep paying an employee injured in a road accident caused by a third party may claim compensation from the liable party's insurer, provided those payments are not meant to remain definitively at its charge. However, the invalidity allowance under article 78 of the EU Staff Regulations, paid for total permanent invalidity leading to retirement, is not the counterpart of work the employer would have received but for the accident, and is therefore not a recoverable loss. The European Union's appeal was dismissed.","k":"EU official's invalidity allowance — employer's claim against the insurer","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383; EU Staff Regulations, art. 53 and 78; Cass. 18.11.2011; Cass. 24.1.2013","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-02-08","rol":"C.15.0458.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2018:ARR.20180208.1","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"motor","q":"Krachtens artikel 19bis-11, § 1, 3°, WAM kan elke benadeelde van het Ge-meenschappelijk Waarborgfonds de vergoeding verkrijgen van de schade die door een motorrijtuig is veroorzaakt wanneer geen enkele…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A driver crashed into crash barriers after an unidentified van cut in front of him; the Flemish Region claimed the cost of the barriers from the Guarantee Fund. The Court held that the fortuitous event in article 19bis-11 §1, 3° is assessed in relation to the driver of the vehicle that caused the accident; since no fortuitous event was shown for the van driver, that provision did not apply. Where the vehicle is unidentified, the Fund's duty is limited to bodily injury; as the Constitutional Court ruled on 6 July 2017 that article 19bis-13 §3 does not breach the equality principle, the Region's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Guarantee Fund — fortuitous event and unidentified vehicle","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 19bis-11 §1, 3° and 7°, 19bis-13 §3; RD of 11.7.2003, art. 23 §1; Constitutional Court 6.7.2017","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-02-07","rol":"17/2018","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2018:ARR.017","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"After an accident caused by a drunk moped rider, the motor liability insurer, which had paid out €40,670, sought recourse against its insured under articles 24 and 25 of the model contract; the insured argued that he had never expressly agreed to that right. The Antwerp Police Court (Mechelen division) asked whether it is discriminatory that, in motor insurance, the recourse right flows directly from the model contract and the insured bears the burden of proving a derogation, unlike in other liability insurance. The Constitutional Court declined jurisdiction: the difference stems not from articles 10 §1 and 88 LCAT, article 1315 of the Civil Code or article 870 of the Judicial Code, but from the model contract annexed to the Royal Decree of 14.12.1992, which it cannot review; under article 159 of the Constitution that is for the referring court.","k":"Motor insurer's recourse — model contract and burden of proof (no jurisdiction)","law":"LCAT arts. 10 §1 and 88; Model contract RD 14.12.1992, arts. 24–25; Cass. 9.3.2007; Constitution, art. 159","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle — CC 17/2018","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-02-07","rol":"2016/RG/1290","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2018:ARR.20180207.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"After a fire in an unoccupied building whose fire policy had been cancelled, the owner and his children sued the broker for not having arranged a new policy. The court dismissed the claim: it was not shown that the broker had been instructed to find a new insurer, and the owner knew the value of this non-compulsory cover. The subrogated claim of the neighbouring building's insurer under article 544 of the former Civil Code succeeded: the owner was ordered to pay €5,322.50.","k":"Uninsured fire — broker's liability and nuisance","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 544 and 1384; broker's duty to advise","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-02-05","rol":"2016/RG/1420","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2018:ARR.20180205.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The insured relied on his criminal acquittal on a charge of false theft declaration; the court held that the insurer, not having been a party to the criminal proceedings, could contest the findings in the civil case. The second key never handed over, the failure to recover the vehicle found abroad or to tell the insurer, the missing purchase invoice and seller's identity, and an anonymous witness statement were serious and consistent presumptions that the theft report was false. Theft was not proven and the appeal was dismissed.","k":"Vehicle theft — staged car-jacking and effect of a criminal acquittal","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1315; Cass. 7.3.2008 (res judicata of criminal judgments)","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-02-02","rol":"2016/RG/1000","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2018:ARR.20180202.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The health-insurance fund's subrogated claim against the municipality held liable for a fatal pedal-boat accident is time-barred: the subrogee cannot rely on an interruption effected by the subrogor after subrogation. However, the fund's own direct claim under article 1382 of the former Civil Code is admissible and founded, the five-year period of article 2262bis running from the date the fund learned the identity of the liable party. The municipality was ordered to pay €5,524.71.","k":"Health-insurance fund's recourse — limitation and subrogation","law":"Act of 14.7.1994, art. 136 §2; former Civil Code, arts. 1382 and 2262bis","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-02-01","rol":"10/2018","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2018:ARR.010","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"A public social-welfare centre employee was hit by a third party's car while commuting; the centre's workplace-accident insurer, having reimbursed the employer for medical costs, continued gross salary and social contributions, sought repayment from the liable party's insurer by subrogation under article 95 of the Insurance Act 2014. The liable party's insurer argued that the Court of Cassation's case law on continued salary discriminates between public and private sectors. On a question from the West Flanders Police Court (Kortrijk division), the Constitutional Court held that articles 1382–1383 of the Civil Code and article 95 of the 2014 Act do not violate articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution: a private employer can sue under articles 52 §4 and 75 of the Act of 3 July 1978 and article 1382; any difference in amount stems from the pay regimes, not from the provisions at issue.","k":"Subrogation — public employer's continued salary and the liable party's insurer","law":"former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1383; Insurance Act 2014, art. 95; Act of 3.7.1978, arts. 52 §4 and 75; Cass. 4.2.2014 (P.13.0992.N); Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle — CC 10/2018","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-01-19","rol":"C.17.0429.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2018:ARR.20180119.2","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"limitation","q":"Cette disposition n'exclut pas que la prescription d'une telle action puisse être interrompue par une reconnaissance de dette au sens de l'article 2248 du Code civil.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"After a fire on 27 July 2003, the insureds sued their insurer and the Liège Court of Appeal held the claim not time-barred. The Court held that article 35 §3 LCAT (interruption until the insurer's written decision where the claim was notified in time) does not exclude interruption of the limitation period by an acknowledgment of debt under article 2248 of the Civil Code, and that interruption may recur provided each act takes place before the running period expires. The complaint that sending a duplicate of the indemnity decision had been treated as interrupting was inadmissible because article 2248 was not cited; the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Fire insurance — interruption of limitation by acknowledgment of debt","law":"LCAT, arts 34 §1 and 35 §3; former Civil Code, arts 2242 and 2248","w":12,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2018-01-09","rol":"16/1215/A","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARANT:2018:JUG.20180109.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Prothesen en orthopedische toestellen, zoals deze in de Arbeidsongevallenwet zijn bepaald, beogen het slachtoffer in zijn restfuncties zo optimaal mogelijk te laten functioneren. De begrippen prothesen en orthopedische…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Hasselt Labour Tribunal held that bathroom adaptations made to suit the disability of a municipal employee left paraplegic by a workplace accident, with 80% permanent incapacity and 10% third-party assistance, constitute a prosthesis within the meaning of article 28, the concepts of prosthesis and orthopaedic appliance being construed broadly. Following the Court of Cassation, the tribunal found that the list of home adaptations in article 35 of the Royal Decree of 21.12.1971 is not exhaustive and that the prosthesis was necessary, since the victim must largely manage his own daily needs (toilet, hygiene). The claim of the public disability agency that had funded the works was upheld: the employing municipality was ordered to pay EUR 4,143.22 with interest; the insurer that had been sued was dismissed from the case.","k":"Workplace accident — bathroom adaptation treated as a prosthesis","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 28; RD 21.12.1971, art. 35; Court of Cassation case law (garage-door opener)","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-12-20","rol":"2016/RG/1307","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2017:ARR.20171220.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The family-liability insurer of a minor who set a fire, and of his father, having paid the victim, sought contribution from the mother's family-liability insurer. The court held that half the loss falls on the minor and the other half on the parents in equal shares; the mother's insurer was ordered to pay one quarter of the payments (€30,829.59 of €123,318.38). As the minor no longer lived with his mother, he was not an insured under her policy.","k":"Family liability insurance — contribution between insurers","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1353; Cass. 19.11.2014 (P.14.1139)","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-12-14","rol":"2016/AA/287","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2017:ARR.20171214.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Wanneer de deelname aan een interbedrijvenvoetbaltornooi sterk wordt aangemoedigd via interne communicatie en verslaggeving, drie leidinggevenden aanwezig waren bij de voetbalwedstrijd, en de eigen ploegbaas deelnam,…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Ruling after cassation, the court held that a sports injury sustained during an inter-company football tournament was a workplace accident. As participation was strongly encouraged through internal communication, three managers attended the match and the victim's own team leader played, the victim was under the employer's virtual authority; a moral obligation to join this team-building activity restricted his personal freedom. Because the accident was made possible by the performance of the employment contract and the working environment, it occurred by reason of that performance. The workplace-accident insurer's appeal was dismissed, the interlocutory judgment confirmed and the case sent back to the first judge.","k":"Workplace accident — injury at an inter-company football tournament","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 7; Cass. 25.10.2010; Cass. 9.11.2015","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-12-14","rol":"C.17.0236.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2017:ARR.20171214.3","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"motor","q":"Uit de bedoeling van de wetgever om slachtoffers van ongevallen waarin verscheidene voertuigen betrokken zijn en waarvoor niet kan vastgesteld worden welk voertuig voor het ongeval aansprakelijk is, vergoeding van hun…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"In an accident involving several vehicles where it could not be established which one caused it, the Limburg court of first instance, sitting on appeal, applied article 19bis-11 §2, finding that the injured party's possible fault could not be ruled out either. The Court inferred from the legislature's aim of guaranteeing compensation for victims that equal sharing cannot be invoked against them and applies only between the insurers of the vehicles involved. The insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — equal sharing under art. 19bis-11 §2 not enforceable against the injured party","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 19bis-11 §2 (former)","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-12-14","rol":"C.17.0338.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2017:ARR.20171214.4","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"motor","q":"De benadeelde kan bijgevolg van iedere verzekeraar van een bij het ongeval betrokken voertuig, met uitzondering van hen wiens verzekerde ongetwijfeld niet aansprakelijk is, het geheel van de door hem geleden schade…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"Two vehicles collided at a junction on 2 March 2012 and it could not be established which driver had run the red light or who was at fault; the Limburg court of first instance, sitting on appeal, limited the other vehicle's insurer to half of the loss under article 19bis-11 §2. The Court held that equal sharing applies only between insurers and that the injured party may claim its entire loss from the insurer of each vehicle involved, except those whose insured is certainly not liable. The judgment was quashed on the injured company's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — claiming the full loss under art. 19bis-11 §2","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 19bis-11 §2 (former)","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-12-14","rol":"C.16.0296.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2017:ARR.20171214.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"L'objet de la demande est le résultat factuel poursuivi par le demandeur dans sa demande; le juge saisi d'une demande en réparation du dommage résultant d'un avantage non acquis ou d'un désavantage subi, qui accorde une…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The claimants sought from their contracting party, whom they accused of contractual failures, the full amount (€1,358,111.76) they would have obtained in their claim against a city and a province; the defendant's liability insurer had been joined as a party. Sitting in plenary session, the Court held that a court seized of a claim for the lost benefit does not alter the subject-matter of the claim by awarding, with due respect for the rights of defence, compensation for the loss of a chance. The appeal judgment that considered it had no power to do so was quashed on the claimants' appeal and the ruling was declared binding on the insurer.","k":"Professional liability — loss of a chance raised by the court","law":"Judicial Code, art. 774 and 1138, 2°; former Civil Code, art. 1147–1151 and 1382–1383","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-12-13","rol":"2016/RG/967","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2017:ARR.20171213.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The legatee's claim against the professional-liability insurer of the lawyer who acted as provisional administrator is upheld in principle: estate funds had been transferred to other heirs before any accounting. As no fault of the notary was shown, the lawyer's insurer's claim against the notary's liability insurer is dismissed. Since the loss could not be quantified, the court ordered the production of documents and reopened the proceedings.","k":"Lawyer's and notary's professional liability — claims against insurers","law":"Professional liability of lawyers and notaries; Judicial Code (production of documents)","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-12-13","rol":"2016/RG/1122","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2017:ARR.20171213.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The lawyer instructed to challenge the arrears claimed by the mortgage lender and to oppose the enforcement proceedings failed to examine the file diligently and did not lodge the appeal. The court ordered the lawyer's liability insurer to pay the client a provisional €94,000; the insurer's cross-appeal was dismissed. The proceedings were reopened on the head of loss relating to the outstanding-balance insurance.","k":"Lawyer's professional liability — insurer ordered to pay","law":"Lawyer's professional liability; Cass. 5.6.2008; Cass. 17.12.2009; Cass. 15.3.2010","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-12-11","rol":"2016/RG/378","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2017:ARR.20171211.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"« Il s'en suit que l'appelante ne rapporte pas la preuve qui lui incombe »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The insurer sought repayment, as money not owed, of €10,066.24 paid for the theft, arguing that the recovered car must have been driven with a key while the insured still held both keys. The court held that, as claimant, the insurer had to prove that no theft occurred and bore the risk of failing to do so; doubt remained, since the car could have been towed away or the key taken and returned during the night. The insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Vehicle theft — reclaiming a paid indemnity and burden of proof","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1315; undue payment","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-12-11","rol":"2016/RG/351","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2017:ARR.20171211.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The cost (€27,562.13) of fully demolishing a building that had partly collapsed onto the street, and of protecting the neighbouring building, qualifies as salvage costs under article 52 LCAT: a reasonable measure to prevent a loss covered by the building-liability section of the policy. The exclusions for dilapidated buildings or demolition works do not apply, because the claim is not for damage to the insured property. The judgment was reversed and the insurer ordered to pay.","k":"Home insurance — preventive demolition as salvage costs","law":"LCAT art. 52; general conditions arts. 31 and 39","w":36,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-12-08","rol":"C.17.0101.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2017:ARR.20171208.2","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"contract","q":"Il suit des articles 58, § 1er et 60 de la loi du 6 avril 2010 relative aux pratiques du marché et à la protection du consommateur que pour être soumis à l'obligation faite par l'article 60 précité d'insérer une clause…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured's building had been destroyed by fire on 2 February 2012; in a statement to the insurer's investigator, the insured agreed to close the file for a set amount. The Liège Court of Appeal had annulled that agreement as a sale of services lacking a withdrawal clause. The Court of Cassation held that the duty to include a withdrawal clause (arts. 58 and 60 of the Act of 6 April 2010) concerns sales of goods or services by a business to a consumer, and that a settlement (art. 2044 Civil Code) is not such a contract; the judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Fire insurance — settlement of the claim and withdrawal clause","law":"Act of 6.4.2010 arts. 58 §1 and 60; former Civil Code, art. 2044","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-12-04","rol":"2016/RG/1323","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2017:ARR.20171204.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"After his car was stolen, the insured received only €6,895.91 from the insurer, which applied the proportional rule because the declared value was below the catalogue value; he claimed that his broker had breached its duty to inform and advise, a claim the commercial court had dismissed. The Court of Appeal recalled that the duty to advise is the very essence of insurance intermediation (Act of 27.3.1995, art. 12bis §3; now arts. 273–275 of the Insurance Act 2014) and required the broker to verify the declared value and warn the policyholder of the proportional rule in case of underinsurance; relying on the value carried over from the previous policy was not the conduct of a normally prudent and diligent broker. The broker was held liable for the loss; debates were reopened on whether the additional premium that a correct value would have entailed should be deducted.","k":"Broker's duty to advise — underinsurance and the proportional rule","law":"Act of 27.3.1995, art. 12bis §3; Insurance Act 2014, arts. 273–275; Directive 2002/92/EC","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-11-30","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2017:ARR.136","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : Les articles 2, 7°, et 5, 2°, de la loi du 31 mars 2010 relative à l'indemnisation des dommages résultant de soins de santé ne violent pas les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution.","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A patient sought compensation from the Medical Accidents Fund (FAM) for a no-fault medical accident; the Huy court asked about the definitions of 'abnormal damage' (art. 2, 7°) and 'sufficiently serious damage' (art. 5, 2°) in the Act of 31 March 2010. The Constitutional Court held that these provisions do not breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution: the legislature may limit the Fund's intervention to damage above a severity threshold to keep its budget sustainable, and may apply a quantitative test to people in work and a qualitative test (art. 5, 3°) to others, without disproportionately affecting the latter's rights.","k":"Medical accident — abnormal damage and severity threshold (FAM)","law":"Act of 31.3.2010, art. 2, 7° and art. 5, 2°–3°; Constitution, arts 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-11-28","rol":"2017/RG/204","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2017:ARR.20171128.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"A credit intermediary had agreed with the lender to investigative duties heavier than under the general law; when the borrower used forged documents, it had to cover the borrower's defaults. Its professional liability insurer refused cover under a clause excluding liability arising from duties beyond the general law, including forged-document cases. The court held that the loss stemmed from a contractual commitment exceeding general-law liability and so fell outside the cover; the alleged nullity of that commitment on privacy grounds should have been raised against the lender, not the insurer. The appeal was dismissed, with €1,320 appeal costs.","k":"Professional liability (credit intermediary) — exclusion of duties beyond the general law","law":"Consumer Credit Act of 12.6.1991, art. 64; policy exclusion clause","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-11-27","rol":"C.15.0345.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2017:ARR.20171127.1","ch":"3F","res":"c","t":"damage","q":"Ces deux systèmes d'indemnisation ne peuvent être cumulés que dans la mesure où l'indemnité prévue par le statut ne suffit pas pour assurer, par application dudit article 29bis, la pleine réparation du préjudice subi.","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"An EU official injured in a road accident claimed compensation for permanent material loss from the motor liability insurer under article 29bis; the Brussels court of first instance, sitting on appeal, refused to deduct the invalidity allowance paid under article 78 of the Staff Regulations, treating it as consideration for past work, and ordered the insurer to pay €283,599.82 and €91,747.37. The Court held that the allowance replaces salary during incapacity, so it does not have a distinct purpose from ordinary-law compensation (including under article 29bis) and may be cumulated with it only to the extent that it falls short of full compensation. The judgment was quashed as to those amounts on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Article 29bis — cumulating an EU official's invalidity allowance with compensation","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; EU Staff Regulations, arts 73 and 78","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-11-17","rol":"C.16.0126.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2017:ARR.20171117.2","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"home","q":"Il suit de ces dispositions qu'en cas d'assurance contre l'incendie en valeur à neuf, l'assuré qui ne reconstruit, ne reconstitue ou ne remplace pas le bien sinistré a droit, par dérogation à l'article 39 précité, à une…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A chalet built without proper planning consent and due for demolition burned down; the Liège Court of Appeal held that, since it still had a definite economic value on the date of the loss, the insurable interest remained and the contract had not lapsed. The Court upheld that ruling, the insurable interest in indemnity insurance being the insured's interest in the uncertain harmful event not occurring. It added that under new-for-old fire insurance an insured who does not rebuild is entitled, by way of exception to article 39, to at least 80% of that value; the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Fire insurance — insurable interest in an unlawful building and new-for-old value","law":"LCAT, arts 1 A and G, 37, 39, 51, 53 and 67 §3, 1°","w":37,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-11-13","rol":"2014/RG/706","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2017:ARR.20171113.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"« Le mécanisme d'indemnisation est fixé dans le contrat en appliquant des coefficients de dépréciation forfaitaires »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The insurer refused payment, disputing proof of a theft by break-in. In light of the expert report and the file, the court found nothing casting doubt on the reported theft and reversed the first-instance judgment. Compensation was calculated with the contract's flat-rate depreciation coefficients (60% in total): €22,514.47 × 40% = €9,005.79, with interest from 4.3.2013. The insurer's deduction for pre-existing scratches was rejected as having no contractual basis.","k":"Vehicle theft — proof and flat-rate depreciation","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1315; contractual depreciation coefficients","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-11-09","rol":"2016/RG/550","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2017:ARR.20171109.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"alt","s":"Having lost her husband in the accident, the respondent claimed from the liability insurer both permanent personal incapacity and a separate permanent non-pecuniary loss. The court held that, with no objectively established injury distinct from the grief caused by the loss of her husband, the two heads could not be assessed separately and had to be compensated globally on an equitable basis; it nonetheless refused the insurer's proposal to cut the award to €12,500 under the 2012 indicative table and set it at €20,000. Both appeals were partly upheld: the €37,946.13 award was reduced to €31,866.52, less advances, and appeal costs were set off.","k":"Injured surviving spouse — permanent personal loss and bereavement","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons (16e ch.)","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-11-09","rol":"C.17.0094.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2017:ARR.20171109.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Par avantages au sens de l'art. 299 du Code civil, il y a lieu d'entendre, d'une part, toutes les donations entre époux et, d'autre part, les avantages constituant simultanément les droits de survie, à savoir les…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The policyholder died after the divorce; the insurer refused to pay the ex-wife, named as beneficiary, under two mortgage protection policies, arguing that divorced spouses lose marital benefits (Civil Code, art. 299). The Court held that a beneficiary designation in a life or mortgage protection policy is a benefit within article 299 only if it can be characterised as an indirect gift; the appeal court lawfully found that the designation, linked to home loans and funded from the joint account, was an act of provident planning. The insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Mortgage protection insurance — divorced spouse as beneficiary","law":"LCAT art. 108 and 131; former Civil Code, art. 299","w":38,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-11-08","rol":"2016/RG/1153","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2017:ARR.20171108.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"« il suffisait à l'assureur de l'interroger sur l'étendue de son patrimoine immobilier, ce qu'il n'a pas fait »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The policy covered criminal defence for intentional offences only in the event of acquittal. The court held that the limitation period therefore starts only once the acquittal becomes final, and that a refusal sent at the investigation stage did not start it for the fees of the trial defence; the claim was not time-barred. No intentional non-disclosure could be held against the insured, since the insurer had not asked about his real estate. The insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Legal expenses insurance — criminal defence costs of an acquitted insured, limitation","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 88 §1; policy special conditions, arts 4 and 6","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-11-06","rol":"2016/RG/1104","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2017:ARR.20171106.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"In insurance taken out on behalf of another by the lessee of a leased car, the lessee has standing and interest to sue; the inadmissibility ruling was reversed. The insurer refused cover because not all keys were handed over after the theft; forfeiture requires a causal link between the breach and the occurrence of the loss, which was not shown for a breach occurring after the loss. The insurer must provide theft cover to the leasing company as owner and pay €1 on account for the registration tax; claims for the price of a new car and loss of use were rejected.","k":"Theft of a leased car — handing over keys and forfeiture","law":"LCAT art. 11, 37, 38; former Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, art. 17","w":20,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-11-06","rol":"2016/RG/1047","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2017:ARR.20171106.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The insured, whose car was set on fire while stored at a garage after a road accident, claimed under the fire cover; the first court had dismissed the claim, finding that various elements cast doubt on the plausibility of the loss. The Court of Appeal recalled that the insured must prove that the loss meets the contractual definition of the covered risk, while an insurer claiming to be released from its obligation must justify its refusal (former Civil Code, art. 1315). The case law relied on by the insurer, which accepts the insured's statement as sufficient proof unless elements cast doubt on it, concerns theft cover, whereas this dispute arises under fire cover. The court reopened the debates for the parties to address the contractual definition of the covered risk, the insured's proof and the legal or contractual basis for the refusal; it did not rule on the merits.","k":"Vehicle fire insurance — burden of proving the loss","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1315","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-11-06","rol":"C.17.0007.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2017:ARR.20171106.1","ch":"3N","res":"c","t":"motor","q":"Artikel 19bis-11, § 2, WAM omvat een wettelijk vergoedingsstelsel ten voordele van een benadeelde persoon, ongeacht zijn hoedanigheid of de aard van de door hem geleden schade, ten aanzien van de verzekeraars die de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"In an accident where the vehicle at fault could not be identified, the injured party claimed from its own motor liability insurer, under article 19bis-11 §2, compensation solely for damage to its own vehicle; the East Flanders police court (Ghent division) dismissed the claim because article 8, 1° of the model contract excludes damage to the insured vehicle. The Court held that article 19bis-11 §2 creates a statutory compensation scheme independent of liability, whatever the injured party's status or the nature of the loss, so limitations belonging to the liability-based scheme (article 3 of the Act and article 8, 1° of the model contract) do not apply. The judgment was quashed on the injured party's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — damage to the insured vehicle under art. 19bis-11 §2","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts 3 §1, 19bis-11 §2 (former); model contract RD 14.12.1992, art. 8, 1°","w":39,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-11-03","rol":"2012/AR/3178","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2017:ARR.20171103.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"« La direction du litige est non seulement un droit mais également un devoir pour l'assureur de responsabilité »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The clause excluding damage to neighbouring property where no pre-works survey was made was recharacterised as a forfeiture clause, since refusal rested on a breach of a contractual duty; the insurers failed to prove causation between the omission and the damage. As cover was due, the liability insurer had to take up the insured's defence and intervene in the interim proceedings or at least attend the expert examination. The insured project owner's appeal was upheld in principle and the hearing reopened on quantum and costs.","k":"Contractors' all risks — exclusion recharacterised as forfeiture","law":"LCAT art. 11, 79, 82; former Civil Code, art. 544; Cass. 20.9.2012; Cass. 13.2.2017","w":40,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-11-03","rol":"C.15.0337.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2017:ARR.20171103.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"L'employeur public qui, ensuite de la faute d'un tiers, doit, en vertu de ses obligations légales ou réglementaires, continuer à payer à l'un de ses agents la rémunération et les charges qui la grèvent sans recevoir de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The French Community had kept paying the salary of a teacher at a subsidised private school who was injured during a lesson through the fault of a minor pupil for whom the second appellant was answerable, and claimed its own loss from her and her insurer. The Court held that a public authority suffers its own loss when it pays salary without receiving work, and that this right also applies where, as subsidising authority, it pays the salary subsidy of a teacher it does not employ. The appeal of the insurer and the person answerable for the pupil was dismissed.","k":"Public authority — teacher's salary claimed from the liable party","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383; Act of 29 May 1959; Cass. 7.11.2014","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-10-16","rol":"2012/AH/203","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2017:ARR.20171016.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"After an expert examination, the court set the permanent incapacity rate at 0% from the consolidation date (15 June 2009) and ordered the victim to repay the advances the workplace-accident insurer had paid on a 3% basis, €539.99, with judicial interest. The victim's request for a preliminary question to the Constitutional Court, based on unequal treatment between private-sector workers (no 'decision' by the insurer, which only pays advances) and public servants (an administrative decision), was refused: the situations are not comparable and the payment of advances is a settlement proposal, not a decision. The victim's appeal was dismissed and the insurer's cross-appeal upheld.","k":"Workplace accident — repayment of advances and equal treatment","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 68; Charter of the Socially Insured, art. 17; Cass. 11.6.2007; Cass. 19.4.2012","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-10-13","rol":"C.16.0334.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2017:ARR.20171013.2","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"damage","q":"Dès lors que le calcul du demandeur ne tenait pas compte de l'évolution de sa cellule familiale dans le temps, le jugement attaqué, qui considère que la capacité ménagère du demandeur « sera amenée à évoluer, compte…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Injured in a road accident on 23 August 2005, the victim asked the liable party's insurer to have permanent loss of housekeeping capacity calculated by capitalisation; the Namur court of first instance, sitting on appeal, awarded a lump sum, noting that the household (three children) would change over time and that there were too many uncertain variables. The Court found that the victim's calculation ignored how the family unit would evolve and held the lump-sum award legally justified. The victim's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Compensation — lump-sum award for loss of housekeeping capacity","law":"Former Civil Code, arts 1315 and 1382; Judicial Code, art. 870","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-10-13","rol":"C.15.0472.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2017:ARR.20171013.1","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"home","q":"L'article 58, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre, applicable au litige, dispose que dans la mesure où l'indemnité due à la suite de la perte ou de la détérioration d'un bien n'est…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The distribution of funds deposited by the insurer after two fires in 1995 was disputed between the insureds, creditors and the insurer; the Mons Court of Appeal treated as preferential, under article 58 LCAT, the claim of a bank whose mortgage was registered after the loss. The Court held that only preferential or mortgage creditors whose registration predates the loss may rely on the allocation of the indemnity according to rank. The judgment, which had also altered a decision not under appeal and awarded more than was claimed, was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Fire insurance — allocation of the indemnity to mortgage creditors","law":"LCAT, art. 58; Mortgage Act of 16.12.1851, art. 10; Judicial Code, arts 1068 and 1138, 2°","w":41,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-10-09","rol":"2017/AA/44","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2017:ARR.20171009.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"De arbeidsongevallenverzekeraar moet instaan voor alle medische kosten die nodig zijn en in causaal verband staan met het arbeidsongeval en de opgelopen letsels. Dat medische kosten worden gemaakt vόόr of na het moment…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer must bear all medical costs that are necessary and causally linked to the accident and the injuries; whether they are incurred before or after consolidation is irrelevant. Physiotherapy and acupuncture costs are reimbursable as medical costs even if the treatment brought no satisfactory result, and no prior authorisation from the insurer was required. The court dismissed both the victim's appeal and the insurer's cross-appeal, confirmed the judgment and added that physiotherapy and acupuncture costs from 22 August 2010 onwards are also half borne by the insurer; for lack of documents that item was provisionally set at €1.","k":"Workplace accident — medical costs after consolidation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 28 and 68; Cass. 12.12.2005","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-10-04","rol":"2016/RG/743","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2017:ARR.20171004.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insured, suffering water infiltration from her neighbour's sewer, invoked the \"water damage\" and \"legal protection\" covers of her home policy; the insurer closed the file for lack of \"quantifiable damage\", and she had to sue the neighbour and the neighbour's insurer. The court held that, quantifiable or not, the damage obliged the insurer from the claim notification onwards to do everything to find and stop the cause of the leak; its inaction alone justified the insured's legal action. Her defence costs fall on the insurer, if not under the legal protection cover then as a sanction for breach of its \"water damage\" obligations; the distinction between protection for the future and for the past is meaningless. The insurer's appeal was dismissed; the insured's claim for damages for a vexatious appeal failed for want of proven loss.","k":"Legal expenses insurance — insurer's inaction and defence costs","law":"Home policy (water damage and legal protection covers); sanction for the insurer's breach of its contractual obligations","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-10-04","rol":"2016/RG/752","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2017:ARR.20171004.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer refused to cover a loss (roof and timber frame) on the ground that the policy had been suspended and then terminated for non-payment of premium. Arts. 14 and 15 LCAT require a formal notice by bailiff or registered letter before suspension or termination; the insurer sent its registered letters to the wrong address, an employee having entered the risk location as the insured's address in the new policy, and they were returned. Suspension and termination were ineffective through the insurer's sole fault; the insured's later knowledge of the letters during the proceedings was irrelevant, and any inattention on her part could not alter the procedure set by mandatory law. The broker committed no causal fault. The policy was held to be in force; the insurer must pay a provisional €15,000, the remainder being reserved; the claim against the broker was dismissed.","k":"Non-payment of premium — notice sent to the wrong address and termination","law":"LCAT arts. 14–15","w":42,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-10-03","rol":"2016/RG/640","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2017:ARR.20171003.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"A road haulier brought a direct action against the professional liability insurer of the bar's lawyers, complaining that his lawyer had failed to file tax appeals in time for three tax years; the first court had dismissed the claim. The Court of Appeal found fault (no administrative complaint for 1998, no judicial appeal for 1997, a premature appeal for 1999) and held that the mandate covered all three years. Applying the loss-of-chance doctrine (Cass. 21.10.2013), it assessed item by item the chances of success in the tax dispute; moral damage and lawyer's fees were rejected for lack of causation. The insurer was ordered to pay €16,952.90 with interest and the costs of both instances.","k":"Lawyer's professional liability — loss of chance claimed against the insurer","law":"Loss of chance: Cass. 5.6.2008, Cass. 17.12.2009, Cass. 21.10.2013; Judicial Code, art. 1385undecies","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-10-02","rol":"2016/RG/731","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2017:ARR.20171002.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The family liability insurer had compensated the victim and her parents on the basis of the civil liability of the mother, held liable for her son (over 16) convicted of rape and indecent assault, and sought recourse against him; the first court had dismissed the claim. The Court of Appeal held that the author of an intentional act is excluded from cover (art. 8 LCAT), that the insurer had reserved a right of recourse in its general conditions and had notified its intention by registered letter as soon as it learned of the facts, as art. 88 LCAT requires (Cass. 11.1.2010: a minor who acts intentionally is an insured within that article). Contesting guilt before the criminal court as the mother's insurer was not a waiver of recourse. After deducting time-barred payments and within the limits of art. 7 of the Royal Decree of 12.1.1984, he was ordered to pay €22,549.38 with interest; payment in instalments was refused.","k":"Family liability insurance — recourse against the child who acted intentionally","law":"LCAT arts. 8 and 88; RD 12.1.1984, art. 7; Cass. 11.1.2010","w":43,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-09-28","rol":"C.17.0006.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2017:ARR.20170928.9","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"29bis","q":"Diegene die tot vergoeding van het slachtoffer overgaat, heeft op grond van artikel 1251, 3°, Burgerlijk Wetboek, een regresvordering tegen de andere aansprakelijkheidsverzekeraars voor wat hij boven zijn deel betaalt…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"On 17 October 2009 a driver who had got out of his immobilised car on the motorway was struck by another vehicle and treated as a vulnerable road user; the insurer that compensated him under article 29bis claimed its entire outlay from the insurer of that victim's car, the victim being solely liable, and the Limburg court of first instance, sitting on appeal, allowed this. The Court held that where several vehicles are involved the insurers compensate the victim and in principle bear the burden in equal shares; if the victim alone is liable, the paying insurer cannot use the article 29bis §4 recourse but may, under article 1251, 3° of the Civil Code, recover an equal share from the other insurer. The order exceeding half was quashed.","k":"Article 29bis — recourse between insurers after paying a liable victim","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §§1, 4 and 5; former Civil Code, art. 1251, 3°","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-09-15","rol":"C.16.0411.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2017:ARR.20170915.4","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"home","q":"Il suit de cette disposition que, lorsque le contrat d'assurance soumet le paiement de l'indemnité à l'obligation pour l'assuré qui en est le propriétaire de reconstruire le bâtiment incendié, celui-ci perd le droit à…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The owner of a building that burned down on 10 August 1984 sold it unrebuilt in 1987 to his daughter and son-in-law, who rebuilt it; the policy required the indemnity to be used for rebuilding and, failing that, covered only the value of the demolition materials. The Brussels Court of Appeal awarded €44,239.09 to the insured's heir, holding it irrelevant that the buyers had rebuilt and that the insurer could not reasonably rely on the clause more than thirty years later. The Court held that where the contract makes payment conditional on rebuilding, an insured who sells the building without rebuilding loses the right to the indemnity, and that refusing to apply the clause without finding an abuse of rights disregards the binding force of the contract. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Fire insurance — duty to rebuild and sale of the building","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1134, first paragraph; Act of 10.6.1874, art. 36","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-09-14","rol":"C.16.0273.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2017:ARR.20170914.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"Quiconque prétend qu'une personne ayant causé un dommage se trouve dans un état grave de déséquilibre mental ou de débilité mentale la rendant incapable du contrôle de ses actions, de sorte qu'elle est responsable sur…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The injured parties brought a direct action against the liability insurer, arguing that the insured was liable under article 1386bis of the Civil Code (mental disorder), while the insurer relied on the insured's intentional act. The Court held that every person is presumed able to control their actions, so the injured party must first prove that the insured was unable to do so at the time; the risk of doubt does not lie with the insurer. The injured parties' appeal was dismissed.","k":"Direct action — mental disorder, intentional act and burden of proof","law":"LCAT art. 8 and 86; former Civil Code, art. 1315 and 1386bis; Judicial Code, art. 870","w":44,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-09-06","rol":"2016/RG/551","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2017:ARR.20170906.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insured sought payment from her fire insurer for her share of a chalet destroyed by fire; the insurer refused cover on the ground of arson and sought recourse for the sums paid to the co-owner. The court found it proven that she had set fire to kitchen paper in order to burn down the chalet; her unproven attempts to put it out and her intoxication did not remove the deliberate character of the act, and the prosecutor's decision not to prosecute did not prevent the application of insurance law. This was an intentional act, not gross negligence (art. 8 LCAT). The insured's claim was dismissed and the insurer, which had complied with the notification requirement of art. 88(2) LCAT, obtained an order for repayment of €28,768.85 with interest.","k":"Fire insurance — insured's arson and insurer's recourse","law":"LCAT art. 8(1) and art. 88(2)","w":45,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-07-06","rol":"88/2017","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2017:ARR.088","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"const","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"An identified car, forced to change lanes by an unidentified vehicle, skidded into crash barriers; the Flemish Region's claim against the Guarantee Fund for the barrier damage was rejected because, where the vehicle is unidentified, the Fund covers only bodily injury. On a question from the Court of Cassation, the Constitutional Court held that article 19bis-13 §3, which allows the Crown to limit the Fund's intervention in that case to bodily injury (except where bodily injuries are serious), does not violate articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution, including insofar as it denies a secondary injured party compensation for property damage. The high risk of fraudulent claims where the vehicle is unidentified, and the resulting financial burden on the Fund, justify this, also for secondary injured parties.","k":"Guarantee Fund — unidentified vehicle and property damage","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 19bis-11 §1, 7° and 19bis-13 §3; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":35,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle — CC 88/2017","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-06-28","rol":"2016/RG/111","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2017:ARR.20170628.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The policyholder had taken out accidental-death cover on his wife's life; he killed her and their daughter and then himself. The insurer argued that the sole beneficiary was the surviving spouse, who had forfeited cover by his intentional act. Ruling on remand after the Court of Cassation's judgment of 3.3.2014, the Liège Court of Appeal held that, although the clause was drafted as an \"exclusion\", only the author of the intentional act forfeits cover (arts. 3 and 8 LCAT); the daughter, second-ranking beneficiary, alive when the insured died and uninvolved in the act, was entitled to the capital, which passed into her estate. The policyholder's children from a first marriage, as heirs of their half-sister, were awarded 6/8 of the sum; debates were reopened on the remaining 2/8. Article 106 LCAT on beneficiary designation applies only to life insurance, not to accidental death cover.","k":"Accidental death insurance — intentional act and order of beneficiaries","law":"LCAT arts. 3, 8, 11 and 106; Cass. 3.3.2014; former Civil Code, arts. 750–751","w":46,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-06-22","rol":"84/2017","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2017:ARR.084","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"const","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"In a two-car accident where liability could not be apportioned, one driver's own motor liability insurer refused to pay the half of the loss not covered by the other insurer, relying on article 3 of the Act of 21 November 1989, which allows damage to the insured vehicle to be excluded. On a question from the Hainaut Police Court (Charleroi division), the Constitutional Court held that article 3, read as letting the insurer refuse to compensate damage to its own insured's vehicle when called on under article 19bis-11 §2, violates articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution, while the opposite reading is constitutional. In liability insurance the exclusion rests on the insured's own fault; in an automatic scheme where no fault is proven, the contractual link cannot justify a refusal.","k":"Article 19bis-11 §2 — own motor insurer and damage to the insured car","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 3 and 19bis-11 §2; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":35,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle — CC 84/2017","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-06-22","rol":"C.15.0080.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2017:ARR.20170622.6","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"29bis","q":"Il suit de ces dispositions que l'assureur qui a indemnisé une victime ou un ayant droit de celle-ci est subrogé dans leurs droits contre le tiers responsable en droit commun et que ce dernier est toute personne autre…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A mother and her son were injured as pedestrians in the same accident; the mother was convicted of unintentionally injuring her son. The vehicle's insurer, which had compensated the son under article 29bis, brought a subrogated recourse claim against the mother and her family liability insurer; the Hainaut court of first instance, sitting on appeal, held that the mother, being both a victim and a beneficiary, could not be a 'liable third party' under article 29bis §4. The Court held that an insurer that has compensated the victim is subrogated against the third party liable under ordinary law, meaning anyone other than the insured, involved in the accident, whose fault caused the compensated loss. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Article 29bis — subrogated insurer's recourse against the victim's mother","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §§1, 2, 4 and 5","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-06-22","rol":"C.16.0282.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2017:ARR.20170622.8","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"damage","q":"Lorsque, ensuite de la réduction de sa capacité de travail, la victime doit fournir des efforts accrus pour accomplir ses tâches professionnelles normales, ce dommage doit être apprécié en fonction de l'atteinte portée…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A public hospital's optional workplace-accident insurer, subrogated to the hospital's rights, claimed €79,942.83 in salary paid to a doctor unable to work from the liable party's insurer. The Brussels court of first instance, sitting on appeal, required the public employer to prove a concrete loss (such as hiring a replacement) and assessed the permanent loss as a lump sum because the victim kept his income through increased effort. The Court held that a public employer who must keep paying salary and charges without receiving work need not prove a separate loss, that reduced working capacity means a loss of economic value on the labour market, and that continued pay does not rule out compensation for increased effort. The judgment was quashed on the subrogated insurer's appeal.","k":"Compensation — public employer's loss and increased effort","law":"Former Civil Code, arts 1382–1383; LCAT, art. 41; Act of 3.7.1967, art. 14 §3","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-06-20","rol":"2014/AB/1065","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2017:ARR.20170620.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"-Op grond van art 178 van de wet van 4-4-2014 betreffende de verzekeringen, komt het recht van afkoop toe aan de verzekeringnemer en kan de schuldeiser dit recht niet uitoefenen. Na aanvaarding van de begunstigde is…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The employer sought to recover a damages claim against its former employee-director arising from a sponsorship contract (fixed at EUR 500,000 in an interlocutory ruling) out of his group-insurance reserves, relying on the parties' agreement of 19.9.2013 as proof that the surrender right had been exercised. Under art. 178 of the Insurance Act 2014 the rights of surrender and reduction belong to the policyholder, cannot be exercised by his spouse or creditors and, once the beneficiary has accepted, require the beneficiary's consent; this mandatory provision (art. 56), interpreted strictly, cannot be circumvented through an employer-employee agreement. Enforcement moreover falls to the attachment judge. The claim was admissible but unfounded; both sides' additional claims (loss above EUR 500,000, vexatious litigation) were dismissed and costs split.","k":"Life/group insurance — creditor cannot exercise surrender","law":"Insurance Act 2014, arts. 3, 56 and 178; RD 14.11.2003, art. 17; Judicial Code, art. 1498; Act of 3.7.1978, art. 18","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Brussel","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-06-15","rol":"2016/RG/173","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2017:ARR.20170615.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"« La fenêtre ne doit pas être totalement démolie pour qu'il soit considéré que le vol a eu lieu avec effraction »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"Absent a contractual definition, 'break-in' is read in its ordinary sense and under article 484 of the Criminal Code: the window need not be destroyed; pry marks on a window left in tilt position suffice. As the theft involved a break-in, article 39 of the general conditions barred the insurer from refusing cover on the ground that the window was not properly shut. Because the insurer had destroyed the original documents it received, the loss was assessed ex aequo et bono at €15,000, with interest from 30.10.2013.","k":"Home theft — break-in through a tilted window","law":"LCAT art. 11 (Insurance Act 2014, art. 65); Criminal Code, art. 484; general conditions, art. 39","w":20,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-06-15","rol":"2016/RG/410","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2017:ARR.20170615.19","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A pedestrian fell on a municipal pavement when her foot caught under a small tree stump at its edge; she sued the municipality's liability insurer and the tree's owner. The court confirmed the dismissal of the owner from the case and held the municipality liable as custodian of the defective pavement; as the stump's visibility was not established, no fault was attributed to the pedestrian, doubt being resolved against the insurer, which bore the burden of proof. Liability was placed entirely on the insurer's insured; in the absence of medical evidence the court reserved its decision on the €10,000 claim and the expert request and awarded €1 provisionally.","k":"Liability insurance — tree stump on the pavement, custodian's liability","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1384, para. 1","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-06-15","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2017:ARR.077","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : - Interprété comme ne conférant pas à la Communauté française le droit d'obtenir, de la personne qui est responsable d'un accident sur le chemin du travail causé à un enseignant travaillant au…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A teacher at a subsidised school was injured in a commuting accident; the French Community, which pays the salary subsidies, claimed from the liable party's liability insurer the amounts paid during the incapacity. The Constitutional Court held that former Civil Code article 1382, read as denying the subsidising authority the reimbursement granted to a public employer, breaches articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution: the loss is identical, since pay was provided without work in return. Read as granting that right to the Community, article 1382 is constitutional.","k":"Commuting accident — subsidising authority's recourse against the liable party","law":"Former Civil Code, arts 1382–1383; Act of 29.5.1959, arts 25–27, 29, 36 §1; Act of 3.7.1967, art. 14 §3; Cass. 7.11.2014","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-06-15","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2017:ARR.079","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : - Interprété comme ne conférant pas à la Communauté française le droit d'obtenir, de la personne qui est responsable d'un accident sur le chemin du travail causé à un enseignant travaillant au…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Following judgment no. 77/2017 of the same day, the Court here answered the Hainaut police court (Mons). The French Community claimed from the insurer of the person liable for a commuting accident the salary subsidies paid to a teacher in subsidised education. Read as denying the subsidising authority the right of reimbursement recognised for a public employer, former Civil Code article 1382 breaches articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution, the loss being identical in both capacities; read as granting that right, it is constitutional. The subrogation under article 14 §3 of the Act of 3 July 1967 does not justify the difference.","k":"Commuting accident — subsidising authority's recourse (second ruling)","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382; Act of 29.5.1959, arts 25–27, 29, 36 §1; Act of 3.7.1967, art. 14 §3; Const. Court no. 77/2017","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-06-12","rol":"2016/RG/225","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2017:ARR.20170612.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The person who insured the chalet destroyed by fire as 'owner of the building' was not its owner: the property had been gifted to her daughter in 2004. The court recalled that in indemnity insurance the insurable interest is assessed in the insured's person, found no certain intention to insure on the daughter's behalf in the documents, and held that the policyholder, having neither a usufruct nor an economic interest in preserving the building, was not an insured; the contract was void for lack of interest as regards the building and the claims of mother and daughter on that point were dismissed. The policyholder's claim for the contents, which she owned, was upheld in principle, the insurer failing to prove an intentional fire. Proceedings were reopened on the amount and on premiums.","k":"Fire insurance — insurable interest, building versus contents","law":"LCAT art. 37, 38, 51; Cass. 4.3.2013","w":47,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-06-06","rol":"2016/RG/561","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2017:ARR.20170606.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"« l'assureur ne peut pas invoquer une déficience dans la déclaration du risque pour refuser totalement, ou même partiellement, son intervention, dès lors que l'expert de la compagnie a visité les lieux »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The insurer alleged arson, an unlawful cause and failure to declare a flame-heating activity. The court found the intentional act unproven and noted that the insurer's expert had visited the premises before inception, so the insured could reasonably believe it was fully covered: the omission could not be held against it, and the insurer owed the agreed benefit without reduction. It was ordered to pay the bankruptcy trustee €491,405.56 with interest from 13 August 2013; business interruption loss was reserved.","k":"Business fire — alleged intentional act and blameless misdeclaration","law":"LCAT arts. 5, 6, 7 §2, 8, 67; former Civil Code, art. 1131","w":48,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons (ch. civ.)","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-05-22","rol":"2016/AA/209","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2017:ARR.20170522.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Once the period of temporary incapacity has been fixed by a final judgment, the health-insurance fund's recourse against the workplace-accident insurer to have those consequences determined differently is unfounded. The argument that the fund was not a party to that case and that the judgment is not binding on it is contrary to article 63 of the Act of 10 April 1971; since the insurer had informed the fund of the proceedings, the fund's inaction does not justify running the same case twice before the same court. In the alternative, the court noted that two independent experts had reached identical conclusions. The fund's appeal was dismissed and it was ordered to pay costs.","k":"Workplace accident — health-insurance fund recourse and res judicata","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63; Coordinated Act of 14.7.1994, art. 136 §2","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-05-16","rol":"P.16.0964.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2017:ARR.20170516.3","ch":"2N","res":"r","t":"motor","q":"Krachtens artikel 22, § 1, eerste lid, WAM worden de eigenaar of de houder van het motorrijtuig dat zij in het verkeer brengen of toelaten dat het in het ver-keer wordt gebracht op de in artikel 2, § 1, bedoelde…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The East Flanders criminal court, sitting on appeal, found that the policyholder had fraudulently or culpably concealed or misstated the risk and that the vehicle had been driven without cover, and convicted the defendants. The Court held that the owner, keeper and driver of a vehicle put on the road in the places referred to in article 2 §1 without liability cover complying with the Act are punishable whether or not they are the policyholder; the keeper and driver are punishable only if they know that cover is lacking. The defendants' appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — offence of driving uninsured and who is liable","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts 2 §1 and 22 §§1–2","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-05-16","rol":"P.15.0781.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2017:ARR.20170516.2","ch":"2N","res":"r","t":"procedure","q":"Hieruit volgt dat de verzekeraar die tot gedwongen tussenkomst wordt opgeroepen het debat kan weigeren, wanneer zijn recht van verdediging niet wordt gevrijwaard, meer bepaald wanneer zijn recht van verdediging wegens…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"In criminal proceedings concerning an accident on a building site, the defendant and the company civilly liable joined the insurer as a forced intervener, but only after the criminal court had finally ruled on the insured's guilt and the expert examination had been completed. The Court held that an insurer joined in this way may refuse to take part where an earlier decision has jeopardised its rights of defence, and that decision cannot be invoked against it; the intervention claim was therefore inadmissible. It also confirmed that the criminal court has no jurisdiction over a defendant's indemnity claim against a co-defendant, and dismissed the appeals.","k":"Forced intervention of the insurer before the criminal court","law":"LCAT, art. 89 §5 (Insurance Act 2014, art. 153 §5); Judicial Code, art. 812; Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 4","w":49,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-05-04","rol":"C.16.0187.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2017:ARR.20170504.3","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"motor","q":"L'autorité de la chose jugée en matière répressive ne s'attache qu'à ce qui a été certainement et nécessairement jugé par le juge pénal concernant l'existence des faits mis à charge du prévenu, en prenant en…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Guarantee Fund, having paid €9,071.16 to a passenger injured in an uninsured driver's car, sought by subrogation half of that amount from the driver's heirs. The Hainaut Court of First Instance, sitting on appeal, dismissed the claim on the ground that the police court's conviction of the driver for traffic offences alone implicitly excluded the offence of unintentional injury. The Court of Cassation held that the res judicata effect of a criminal judgment covers only what the criminal court certainly and necessarily decided, and that the judgment did not imply that no unintentional injury had been committed; the decision was quashed on the Fund's appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund recourse — effect of the criminal judgment on the civil claim","law":"Res judicata of criminal judgments in civil proceedings; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 19bis-14; Cass. 7.12.2009","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-04-26","rol":"2016/RG/312","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2017:ARR.20170426.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"Disagreeing on whether the vehicle was repairable after an accident, the insured and his comprehensive insurer had referred the matter to an arbitrator; the first court annulled the award for breach of the rights of defence and appointed an expert, who found the vehicle a total loss. The court recognised the standing of the insured, who leased the vehicle, and ordered the insurer to pay the agreed value of €110,852.94 plus a flat €1,250 for storage costs, less the €35,000 already paid. The registration tax and technical adviser's fees were refused; as the appeal was partly successful, appeal costs were shared.","k":"Comprehensive motor cover — annulled arbitral award and agreed value","law":"Judicial Code, art. 1701; general policy conditions","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-04-20","rol":"2015/RG/385","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2017:ARR.20170420.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"During extracurricular activities organised by the municipality, a 10-year-old child seriously injured a playmate's face by hitting him with a piece of wood. The victim's parents sued the family liability insurer of the perpetrator's parents and the municipality's insurer. The court confirmed that the parents' presumption of fault in upbringing was not rebutted and that minimal supervision by staff would have prevented the accident; the joint and several order against both insurers to pay €1,500 provisionally and the appointment of an expert were upheld, with contribution fixed at one half each.","k":"Liability insurance — child's act, liability of parents and supervisors","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1384, paras 2 and 3","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-04-19","rol":"2016/RG/349","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2017:ARR.20170419.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"After an accident between two drivers, the police court had split liability equally; meanwhile the other driver's motor liability insurer had paid the appellant €9,500 through six provisional receipts. When full liability was placed on the appellant on appeal, the insurer sought repayment. The court noted that the receipts were worded 'without admission of liability' and reserved the insurer's full discretion, that the insurer had pursued the appellant's liability before the criminal court, which rules out any unilateral undertaking to compensate, and that the payments became undue once its insured was found free of liability. The request for an expert was refused; the appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — recovery of the insurer's provisional payments","law":"Recovery of undue payment; insurer's subrogation (no article cited)","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-04-04","rol":"2016/RG/462","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2017:ARR.20170404.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The general conditions excluded the average rule for a dwelling insured for at least €120,000, and the building was insured for €200,000; a special clause, however, recorded that the insured had refused the valuation system so the rule remained. Finding the clauses contradictory, the court construed the contract in the insureds' favour and set aside the average rule; the insurer was ordered to pay €128,362.31. The insurer's appeal succeeded only as to an extra €3,700 advance; the claimed €17,194.58 cash loss was not proven and the hearing was reopened on interest.","k":"Fire insurance — underinsurance, average rule and conflicting clauses","law":"LCAT art. 44 (Insurance Act 2014, art. 98); RD 24.12.1992, art. 3 §2; Cass. 3.11.2006","w":50,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-03-30","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2017:ARR.042","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 136, § 2, de la loi relative à l'assurance obligatoire soins de santé et indemnités, coordonnée le 14 juillet 1994, viole les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution dans la mesure où il…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"On a preliminary question from the Ghent Court of Appeal, the Constitutional Court held that article 136 §2 of the coordinated Health Insurance Act of 14 July 1994 breaches articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution insofar as it excludes loss-of-chance damages (former Civil Code arts 1382–1384) from the subrogation of health-insurance funds. Denying the fund any recourse for this head of damage places an excessive burden on health insurance and treats insured persons unequally. Pending legislation, the trial judge may allow subrogation or a right to reimbursement.","k":"Health-insurance fund subrogation — loss-of-chance damages","law":"Coordinated Health Insurance Act 14.7.1994, art. 136 §2; former Civil Code, arts 1382–1384; Constitution, arts 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-03-28","rol":"P.16.0115.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2017:ARR.20170328.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Lorsqu'un employeur met prématurément à la pension un employé en incapacité de travail permanente par la faute d'un tiers, la pension d'invalidité qu'il verse à son employé ne constitue pas un dommage pour le débiteur…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"The European Union claimed from the defendants and their motor liability insurers, who had intervened voluntarily, the salary paid to an official injured in a road accident and the invalidity pension it paid after retiring him early. The Court held that an invalidity pension paid by an employer that retires early a worker permanently disabled through a third party's fault is not a loss for that employer, and quashed the judgment on that point. The grounds concerning salary paid during incapacity, exhaustion of the criminal court's jurisdiction, limitation of the direct action and the composition of the chamber were rejected.","k":"Early invalidity pension of an EU official — recoverable loss","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383; Judicial Code, art. 102 §2 and 106bis; Cass. 26.5.2009","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-03-27","rol":"2016/RG/251","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2017:ARR.20170327.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"Since the insured risk was theft, the insured had to prove that a theft occurred. The boat had been left with a garage keeper who issued no contract, invoice or receipt and then vanished without trace; it was just as credible that he took the engine, committing a breach of trust rather than theft. Theft was not proven; the appeal was dismissed without examining the forfeiture clauses.","k":"Yacht hull cover — theft or breach of trust","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1315","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-03-27","rol":"2016/RG/193","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2017:ARR.20170327.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The couple, who had moved their family liability policy to another insurer through their broker, incurred lawyer's and technical adviser's fees in 2008 after an offence against their daughter, only to discover that legal expenses cover had not been ticked in the new policy. The court held that the broker had not drawn their attention to the importance of keeping that cover or to the consequences of the empty box on the proposal form, and that no fault could be attributed to lay clients. The broker and its management company were ordered jointly to pay €16,251.77 with interest; the appeal was dismissed.","k":"Broker — loss of legal expenses cover","law":"Act of 27.3.1995, art. 12bis §3 (now Insurance Act 2014, art. 273–275); Cass. 25.6.2015","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-03-20","rol":"2015/RG/1122","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2017:ARR.20170320.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"Facing damp problems caused by terrace works, the owner twice asked his legal expenses insurer what to do as the ten-year warranty period was about to expire; the insurer only suggested a formal notice and asked him not to sue before the expert's findings. The court dismissed the owner's appeal against the contractor but found that the insurer had breached its duty to advise: a normally prudent and diligent insurer would have recommended issuing a writ without delay. The causal link between that fault and the loss will be examined after the expert report ordered at first instance; the case was sent back to the lower court.","k":"Legal expenses insurance — duty to advise and expiry of the ten-year warranty","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1792, 2270, 2262bis; insurer's duty to advise","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-03-16","rol":"2016/Rg/363 ( 16ème chambre)","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2017:ARR.20170316.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Assurance Vie - secret médical art 95 alinéa 4 de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre L'article 95, alinéa 4 de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre constitue une…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Under a life policy linked to a mortgage loan, the insurer refused to pay, alleging intentional misrepresentation of the risk on the basis of information obtained from the doctor after the insured's death. The Mons Court of Appeal held that article 95(4) LCAT is an exception to medical confidentiality and must be read restrictively: the post-mortem certificate may only contain information about the cause of death, and data on the patient's history (atrial fibrillation) obtained in breach of confidentiality has no evidential value. As the insurer failed to prove intentional misrepresentation, it was ordered to provide cover, repay the outstanding loan balance and pay the heirs a provisional €6,136.","k":"Life insurance — post-mortem certificate and medical confidentiality","law":"LCAT art. 95(4); Criminal Code art. 458; Cass. 2.6.2010","w":51,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-03-09","rol":"C.15.0253.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2017:ARR.20170309.4","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"29bis","q":"Il suit de cette disposition que le passager d'un véhicule automoteur lié à une voie ferrée impliqué dans un accident de la circulation bénéficie de l'indemnisation prévue, quel que soit le lieu de la survenance de cet…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The successors of two passengers killed in the Buizingen train collision of 15.2.2010 claimed article 29bis compensation from the railway operator as owner of the rail vehicle. The Mons Court of First Instance, sitting on appeal, refused to apply article 29bis because the accident occurred on a dedicated track. The Court of Cassation held that a passenger of a rail-bound motor vehicle involved in a traffic accident is entitled to compensation wherever the accident occurs, even on a railway completely isolated from traffic; the judgment was quashed on the successors' appeal and the follow-up judgment annulled.","k":"Article 29bis — rail passenger compensation, place of the accident","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1, paras 1–2; Cass. 11.1.2010; Constitutional Court, 6.2.2014, no. 25/2014","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-03-09","rol":"C.16.0052.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2017:ARR.20170309.7","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"procedure","q":"Il s'ensuit que, pour que le paiement de la prime fait au mandataire apparent soit libératoire, un contrat d'assurance engendrant l'obligation pour le preneur de payer cette prime en contrepartie de l'engagement de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"An intermediary had the policyholder sign a proposal form in the insurer's name and collected the first premium, but never passed on the form or the premium to the insurer. The Brussels Court of Appeal, while finding that no contract had been formed, ordered the insurer to refund the amount paid to the intermediary on the basis of apparent agency. The Court of Cassation held that a premium paid to an apparent agent discharges the payer only if an insurance contract creating the obligation to pay that premium exists between the parties; the judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Premium payment — apparent agent and existence of the contract","law":"LCAT art. 1(e) and art. 13 para. 2","w":52,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-03-01","rol":"2016/RG/141","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2017:ARR.20170301.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"On 10.2.2012 the insured changed the beneficiary clause of her policy in favour of an animal protection society; the former beneficiary sued the insurer, alleging a defect of consent. The court recalled that the burden of proof lay on the claimant, held that the naive remark in the designation form did not show impaired consent, and disregarded a medical certificate that a final judgment had found to breach medical confidentiality. The alleged acceptance of the benefit was also rejected: while the policyholder is alive, acceptance requires an endorsement signed by the beneficiary, the policyholder and the insurer (art. 123 LCAT). The appeal was dismissed.","k":"Life insurance — change of beneficiary and alleged defect of consent","law":"LCAT art. 123; former Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, art. 870","w":53,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-02-24","rol":"C.16.0243.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2017:ARR.20170224.2","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"subrogation","q":"Een verzekerde is een derde wanneer de verzekeraar hem geen dekking verleent voor het schadegeval.","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The contractors' all-risks insurer brought a subrogated recourse claim against the architect, who was also an insured under the policy, and against the architect's liability insurer; the policy excluded the waiver of recourse where the liable person could shift the loss to his own insurance. The Court held that subrogation operates only against a liable third party, but an insured is a third party when the insurer gives him no cover for the loss; as the waiver did not apply to an insured covered by his own liability insurance, the subrogated recourse was available. The liability insurer's appeal was dismissed and the Brussels Court of Appeal judgment stands.","k":"Contractors' all-risks insurance — subrogation against a co-insured","law":"LCAT art. 41 para. 1; general policy conditions, art. 22","w":16,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-02-24","rol":"C.16.0309.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2017:ARR.20170224.5","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"damage","q":"Het bestaan van een contractuele, wettelijke of reglementaire verplichting sluit niet uit dat schade in de zin van artikel 1382 en 1383 Burgerlijk Wetboek ontstaat, tenzij wanneer, blijkens de inhoud of de strekking van…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"On 1.8.2013 a lorry's load spilled onto the road; the municipal fire brigade cleaned it up and the municipality claimed its costs from the Belgian Motor Insurers' Bureau, representing the lorry's Dutch insurer. The Court held that a contractual, statutory or regulatory duty does not prevent damage within the meaning of article 1382 of the former Civil Code unless the expense must ultimately be borne by the party performing it; technical assistance costs not resulting from an emergency call to protect or rescue people do not remain with the municipality and can be recovered from the liable party. The Bureau's appeal was dismissed and the Bruges police court judgment stands.","k":"Municipal fire-brigade costs — recoverable damage","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383; Act of 31.12.1963 (civil protection), art. 2bis/1; Royal Decree 25.4.2007, art. 2, 2°","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-02-23","rol":"C.15.0243.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2017:ARR.20170223.7","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"intent","q":"La faute intentionnelle suppose la volonté de causer un dommage résultant de la réalisation d'un risque couvert par le contrat d'assurance.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured had tried to take his own life by opening a gas cylinder in his bedroom and then lit a cigarette, causing an explosion; the fire and private liability insurer refused cover for intentional fault. The Mons Court of Appeal held that the insured's will to cause his own death or to harm himself was sufficient. The Court of Cassation held that an intentional act requires the will to cause damage resulting from the materialisation of a risk covered by the contract, and quashed the judgment, which had not found that this will concerned covered damage, on the appeal of the insured's side.","k":"Intentional act — suicide attempt and exclusion of cover","law":"LCAT art. 8 para. 1; Cass. 24.4.2009; Cass. 26.10.2011","w":17,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-02-21","rol":"2016/RG/311","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2017:ARR.20170221.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"« l'assureur ne peut suspendre le paiement de l'indemnité à défaut de preuve de soupçons suffisamment sérieux pesant sur l'assuré lui-même »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The contents of a furniture shop were destroyed by arson; although the loss was settled on 25.7.2011, the insurer awaited the criminal file and paid the €163,395.03 only on 22.12.2014, and the bankruptcy trustee claimed default interest. The court held that an insurer may suspend payment only where sufficiently serious suspicions weigh on the insured itself; alarm faults, incomplete accounts and investigator reports based on hearsay were not enough, and an insurer withholding payment does so at its own risk. The judgment was reversed: the insurer owes statutory interest from the formal notice of 13.9.2011, capitalised, plus the costs of both instances; its cross-appeal was dismissed.","k":"Fire insurance — suspending payment where arson is suspected","law":"LCAT art. 67 §2, 5° and §2bis, 2°; former Civil Code, arts. 1153 and 1154; Cass. 27.10.1995","w":54,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-02-21","rol":"P.16.04990.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2017:ARR.20170221.6","ch":"","res":"r","t":"motor","q":"Een persoon is houder van het motorrijtuig in de zin van die wetsbepaling indien hij feitelijk meesterschap erover uitoefent.","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A company manager who had his employee drive an uninsured vehicle was convicted as keeper under article 22 §1 of the Act of 21 November 1989. The Court held that the keeper is whoever exercises de facto control over the vehicle; the finding that the defendant, who rented the vehicle and told the police he would fetch the insurance certificate, had such control at the time was legally justified. The defendant's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Uninsured vehicle offence — concept of keeper","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 22 §1","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-02-20","rol":"2016/RG/113","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2017:ARR.20170220.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The policy made theft cover conditional on a specified alarm and satellite-tracking combination; the court treated this as a forfeiture clause and placed the burden of proving causation on the insurer. A specialised thief who broke in to take the keys would have expected such a system and could have neutralised it; nothing credible showed he knew the car was not fitted with one. The judgment was reversed and the insurer ordered to pay one euro on a provisional basis.","k":"Luxury car theft — missing tracking system and causation","law":"LCAT art. 3 and 11","w":20,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-02-13","rol":"C.16.0280.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2017:ARR.20170213.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"L'article 870 du Code judiciaire est la généralisation de la règle consacrée par l'article 1315 du Code civil (1). (1) Voir les concl. contraires du MP. || Par application de l'article 1315, alinéa 2, du Code civil, il…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The general conditions required doors and windows to be locked when the home was unoccupied, but provided that non-compliance had no effect where those doors or windows were broken into. The Court held that an insurer claiming to be released from cover must prove the breach, that it concerns a specific obligation imposed by the contract, and a causal link with the loss. The appeal judgment that, absent traces of a break-in, required the insured to prove the break-in was quashed on her appeal.","k":"Theft insurance — burden of proof for forfeiture","law":"LCAT art. 11; former Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, art. 870","w":20,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-02-07","rol":"2015/RG/1261","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2017:ARR.20170207.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insured, covered by an income protection policy taken out by his company, had challenged the findings of the insurer's doctor through the amicable medical procedure provided in the policy and then sought to contest the third doctor's decision in court. The court characterised the irrevocable acceptance of those findings as a binding third-party decision, noted that the degree of disability is a private matter within the parties' disposal so that public policy is not engaged, and that a right to two levels of jurisdiction is not a requirement of a fair trial. Finding the procedure adversarial, balanced, reasoned and prompt, it dismissed the claim.","k":"Income protection insurance — binding decision of the third doctor","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1134; ECHR, art. 6","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-02-06","rol":"2009/AB/52713","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2017:ARR.20170206.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"alt","s":"The employer had not declared to its workplace-accident insurer a worker hired in 2002, who died in a workplace accident in 2004; the insurer was ordered to compensate the dependants. On its recourse claim, the court did not apply articles 5–6 LCAT (the worker was hired after the contract was concluded) but the general conditions: failing to declare is a fault, but fraud requires intentional deception of the insurer to cause harm or obtain a gain, which a criminal conviction for illegal employment does not prove by itself. The employer must repay not all benefits but a share proportional to the unpaid premium (€1 provisionally); claims against the directors were dismissed (Companies Code, art. 61 §1).","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse against employer — undeclared worker, fraud","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 55; general conditions, art. 3, 16 and 23; Companies Code, art. 61 §1; Cass. 14.1.2013","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-02-06","rol":"2015/RG/1704","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2017:ARR.20170206.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The client had given the broker a placement mandate for her motor liability policy but sent the cancellation notice to the insurer herself without telling the broker; the broker did not follow up and the client ended up uninsured, having to reimburse the Guarantee Fund's payments. The court found that the broker breached its duty to seek better terms and follow the file, but that the client was also negligent in not informing the broker and in not reacting to the absence of a new proposal, green card or premium notice. The loss was split equally: the broker was ordered to pay €2,403.60, half of €4,807.19.","k":"Broker — placement mandate and lapse of motor liability cover","law":"Broker's contractual duty of care; apportionment of fault (no article cited)","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-02-06","rol":"2015/RG/1445","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2017:ARR.20170206.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The neighbouring building's fire insurer, which had paid €14,408.76 to its insured, claimed that amount from the insurer of the building where the fire started. The latter argued that the claim was inadmissible under the Assuralia agreement of 1.1.1999; the court held the objection inadmissible because it was not raised before any other defence. On the merits it refused the benefit of the waiver of recourse in article 3, as the insurer had not complied with the information duty in article 5 and had remained inactive in handling the loss; the appeal was dismissed.","k":"Fire — Assuralia third-party recourse agreement between insurers","law":"Assuralia agreement of 1.1.1999 on third-party recourse (fire-explosion), art. 3, 5, 8","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-02-02","rol":"2016/RG/237","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2017:ARR.20170202.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"The insurer had refused to cover the theft of a vehicle that lacked the anti-theft system required by the policy; the insured company sued its broker for breach of the duty to inform and advise. According to the case summary, the court held that an intermediary must remedy the client's legitimate ignorance and answer all reasonable questions about the client's rights and obligations, and that the duty to answer the question asked is an obligation of result. The available text lacks the operative part, so the outcome is not verified.","k":"Insurance intermediary — duty to answer questions (vehicle theft)","law":"Intermediary's duty to inform and advise (Act of 27.3.1995)","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-01-26","rol":"C.16.0179.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2017:ARR.20170126.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"L'employeur public qui, en vertu de ses obligations légales ou réglementaires, est tenu de verser une rémunération à son agent sans recevoir de prestations de travail en contrepartie a droit à une indemnité dans la…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The public employer's insurer, subrogated to the employer's rights, claimed from the liable party's insurer the salary paid to an employee during incapacity. The Court held that holiday pay, being due for days of leave, is not the counterpart of work that the accident deprived the employer of, and so is not a recoverable loss. The order to pay €43,315.04, which included holiday pay, was quashed on the liable party's insurer's appeal.","k":"Public employer — holiday pay not recoverable","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383; Cass. 8.9.2016","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-01-17","rol":"2015/RG/340","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2017:ARR.20170117.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"« Celle-ci n'ayant pas été faite en temps utiles, elle ne peut interrompre la prescription »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The insured claimed permanent-incapacity benefits under a private and professional life accident policy; he had reported the loss only once he learned how serious his injuries were. The court held that a loss must be reported as soon as the accident occurs and in good time, and that late notice does not interrupt the three-year limitation period. It is irrelevant that the insurer suffered no prejudice from the delay (art. 21 §1 LCAT, now art. 76 §1 of the 2014 Act): the issue is limitation, not forfeiture. Given the insurer's consistent refusal, there were no negotiations and no waiver. The claim was time-barred; the insured's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Personal accident insurance — late notice does not interrupt limitation","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 74, 76 §1, 88 §1 and 89; Cass. 9.12.2010","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons (2e ch.)","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-01-15","rol":"2015/RG/810","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2017:ARR.20170115.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The insured's premises next to a canal were flooded and the insurer refused cover because the policies included no natural-disaster cover; the insured sued its broker. The court held that the policy clearly excluded flooding, the insured should have known this, it was for the insured to tell the broker its needs, and the broker had no duty to seek unrequested cover of its own motion; no causal link was shown for the missing written information either. Dismissal of the claim was upheld, with first-instance costs reduced from €11,000 to €1,440.","k":"Broker's duty to advise — no natural-disaster cover","law":"Act of 27.3.1995, arts. 12bis §3 and 12quater; Judicial Code, arts. 557, 618; RD 26.10.2007","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-01-11","rol":"2016/RG/5","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2017:ARR.20170111.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The stolen vehicle was returned to the insured after 298 days; the policy provided a flat-rate contribution of €25 per day for the period of disappearance. The court held that this indemnity is a lump sum independent of the costs actually incurred, that no clause requires proof of a replacement vehicle, and that the exclusion for loss of use is distinct from this item. The insurer's reading of several policy clauses was rejected under article 1162 of the Civil Code; the insurer was ordered to pay €6,750.","k":"Vehicle theft insurance — flat-rate indemnity for a replacement vehicle","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1156 et seq., 1162","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-01-05","rol":"2010/RG/32 ( 21ème chambre)","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2017:ARR.20170105.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"DROIT A LA GARANTIE VIE PRIVEE En général, les dommages causés par les moyens de transport ne sont pas assurés en R.C. Vie privée.Tel n'est manifestement pas le cas en l'espèce, puisque la victime était totalement…","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The widow and children of a person murdered while sitting in his stationary car sued the deceased's personal liability (RC vie privée) insurer and his motor liability insurer. The Mons Court of Appeal found that the vehicle played no role in the events, so the general-conditions exclusion for damage connected with a motor vehicle did not apply and the facts fell within private life: the personal liability insurer owed cover and was ordered to pay a provisional €1, with proceedings reopened on quantum. The claim against the motor liability insurer was dismissed, as the death did not result from an accident involving the insured vehicle.","k":"Personal liability cover — murder in a stationary vehicle, motor-vehicle exclusion","law":"Personal liability policy general conditions (vehicle exclusion); motor policy art. 1.2 (insured persons)","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2017-01-04","rol":"P.16.0781.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2017:ARR.20170104.1","ch":"2F","res":"r","t":"motor","q":"Examinant ensuite le lien de causalité entre cette inattention et l'accident causé par le demandeur, qui s'était entre-temps emparé du véhicule, les juges d'appel ont considéré que le défendeur n'avait commis aucune…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The defendant stole a car left with its engine running and caused an accident; he was convicted of driving uninsured, since motor liability insurance does not cover a person who took control of the vehicle by theft. The Court held that the penalty in article 22 of the Act of 21 November 1989 applies to a person who drives the vehicle after stealing it. It also upheld the finding that the owner's inattention had no causal link with the accident caused by the thief, so no apportionment of liability applied; the defendant's appeal against the owner and an insurer, as civil parties, was dismissed.","k":"Stolen vehicle — thief's uninsured driving and owner's fault","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 3 and 22; former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383; Cass. 2.1.1996","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-12-20","rol":"2015/RG/1032","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2016:ARR.20161220.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"« dès la prise d'effet du contrat d'assurance sur la vie, l'assureur ne peut plus invoquer les omissions ou inexactitudes non intentionnelles »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"After the insured's death, the insurer refused to pay the funeral benefit, alleging omissions in the health declaration. The court accepted that the broker who failed to forward certain documents acted as the policyholders' agent and that this omission could be held against them, but intent was proven neither for them nor for the broker. In life insurance, the insurer can no longer rely on unintentional omissions once the contract has taken effect. The insurer was ordered to pay €6,000 with statutory interest from 21.08.2013 and to maintain the surviving spouse's cover with a premium waiver.","k":"Funeral (life) insurance — health declaration and incontestability","law":"LCAT arts 6, 7, 97, 99","w":55,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-12-19","rol":"2015/RG/1624","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2016:ARR.20161219.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"« l'appelante reste en défaut de prouver qu'il existe un lien causal entre la circonstance que le véhicule ne répondait pas aux conditions légales en matière de contrôle technique […] et l'accident »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The insurer refused cover because the car had no valid roadworthiness certificate. The court treated the clause as a forfeiture clause: the insurer must prove the accident would not have happened as it did had the car passed inspection, and cannot merely argue that the car should not have been on the road. The loss of control was explained by snow thrown onto the windscreen by a lorry; the car was regularly serviced and the repair estimate showed no defect. The insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Own-damage cover — no roadworthiness test and causation","law":"LCAT art. 11; former Civil Code, art. 1315(2)","w":20,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-12-19","rol":"2015/RG/1661","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2016:ARR.20161219.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The victim, injured in 1995 at her grandmother's home, sued the grandmother's liability insurer in 2014; her parents intervened to claim their own loss. The insurer raised limitation for the first time on appeal; the court held, under article 2224 of the Civil Code, that limitation may be raised at any stage and that silence at first instance did not amount to a waiver. The parents' claim was held time-barred under both article 88 of the Insurance Act and article 2262bis; the victim's own claim was not before the court.","k":"Liability insurance — parents' own loss, limitation raised on appeal","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 88; former Civil Code, art. 2221, 2224, 2262bis","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-12-06","rol":"2015/RG/714","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2016:ARR.20161206.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The building operated by the tenant company was destroyed by fire and the company went bankrupt; the trustee claimed the indemnity from the tenant's fire insurer, which the insurers who had compensated the landlord opposed. The court held that the tenant is liable to the landlord for the fire, that the landlord's special lien over movables (art. 20, 1° of the Mortgage Act) attaches to the indemnity owed by the tenant's insurer, and that the landlord's insurers, subrogated to its rights, benefit from that lien. It made no difference that the tenant's insurer and one of the landlord's insurers were the same company; the trustee's claim was dismissed.","k":"Fire insurance — landlord's lien over the tenant's insurance indemnity","law":"Mortgage Act, art. 20, 1°; LCAT art. 41; former Civil Code, art. 1733","w":16,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-12-05","rol":"2015/RG/365","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2016:ARR.20161205.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"On 16.5.2011 the insurer re-sent, without reservation and asking the insureds to sign it, a duplicate of the settlement receipt issued in 2009. The court held that the insurance-specific grounds of interruption do not exclude those of ordinary law, and that this letter was an acknowledgement of debt within article 2248 of the Civil Code, starting a fresh three-year period from 17.5.2011. The writ of 29.4.2014 was therefore in time; the insurer was ordered to pay €64,301.34 provisionally, an expert report being refused at this stage.","k":"Fire insurance — limitation interrupted by acknowledgement of debt","law":"LCAT art. 34 §1, 35 §3; former Civil Code, art. 2244–2248","w":57,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-11-28","rol":"C.15.0521.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2016:ARR.20161128.1","ch":"3F","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Entre la responsabilité du propriétaire d'un bâtiment engagée sur la base de l'article 1386 du Code civil et la responsabilité de son gardien engagée sur base de l'article 1384, alinéa 1er, du même code, celle des deux…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A platform had collapsed under a person's weight; the appeal court held the building's owners and their insurer liable under article 1386, and the keeper's liability insurer under article 1384(1) of the Civil Code, jointly towards the victim. The Court held that where a building collapses through lack of maintenance or a construction defect, article 1386 excludes the more general article 1384(1), even where owner and keeper are different persons. The order against the keeper's insurer in favour of the victim was quashed on the insurer's appeal; the ground alleging contradictory reasoning was rejected.","k":"Collapse of a building — no cumulation with keeper's liability","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1384(1) and 1386; Constitution, art. 149","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-11-24","rol":"C.15.0517.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2016:ARR.20161124.9","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"motor","q":"Il ne suit pas de cette disposition que le conducteur d'un des véhicules impliqués dans l'accident ne puisse être indemnisé comme personne lésée qu'à la condition de prouver qu'il n'est pas responsable de l'accident.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"In a collision between two vehicles at a crossroads, it could not be established which driver had run the red light; one of the drivers and her parents, who suffered consequential loss, sued the motor liability insurers of both vehicles under article 19bis-11 §2 of the Act of 21 November 1989. The Court held that this provision does not mean that the driver of an involved vehicle can be compensated as an injured party only by proving that she was not liable, and declined to refer a question to the Constitutional Court. The insurers' appeal was dismissed and the Hainaut Court of First Instance appeal judgment stands.","k":"Accident where the causing vehicle cannot be identified — driver's compensation","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 19bis-11 §2; Constitutional Court nos. 175/2014, 96/2015, 123/2015","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-11-24","rol":"C.15.0104.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2016:ARR.20161124.5","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"persons","q":"Une personne est liée professionnellement au sens de cette disposition légale lorsque la relation entre le preneur d'assurance et cette personne permet à cette dernière de recueillir des revenus professionnels.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"In 2006 an employer took out group medical-expenses insurance for its retired former staff; the insurers terminated it by letter of 18.11.2009. The Brussels Court of Appeal held that, since the retirees had no relationship with the employer allowing them to earn professional income at the time of affiliation, the contract was not linked to professional activity, was therefore concluded for life, and the termination was unlawful; it ordered the cover to be maintained. The Court of Cassation endorsed this definition of a professional link, held that article 138bis-8 does not affect it, declined to refer a question to the Constitutional Court and dismissed the insurers' appeal.","k":"Group health insurance — lifelong cover for retirees","law":"LCAT art. 138bis-1 §2 and art. 138bis-8 §1 (former); Act of 20.7.2007, art. 3 §2 para. 3","w":58,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-11-21","rol":"2015/RG/1368","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2016:ARR.20161121.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The policyholder had answered the medical questionnaire of 14.5.2008 in the negative and did not report the breast cancer diagnosed on 28.5.2008, before the policy was issued, although the proposal required any change before issue to be notified in writing. After paying the hospital invoices the insurer terminated the contract and sought reimbursement. The court held that a claim for undue payment does not arise from the insurance contract and is subject to the ten-year limitation period, found the policyholder negligent, noted that the insurer would not have covered the risk, and ordered repayment of €2,771.91; translation costs were refused.","k":"Hospitalisation insurance — illness not disclosed before policy issue, undue payment","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1235, 1376, 2262bis §1; Cass. 9.10.2009","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-10-26","rol":"P.15.1587.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2016:ARR.20161026.2","ch":"2F","res":"c","t":"motor","q":"L'opposition du prévenu ne peut profiter à l'assureur de sa responsabilité civile ou, en cas de non-assurance, au Fonds commun de garantie, appelé à la cause ou intervenu volontairement, que dans le cas où le jugement…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"An uninsured driver had been convicted by default and ordered, jointly with the Guarantee Fund, to pay a provisional sum to the injured party; on his opposition the police court acquitted him of unintentional injury, and the Walloon Brabant Criminal Court, on appeal, dismissed the injured party's claims against both the defendant and the Fund. The Court of Cassation held that the res judicata effect of an acquittal does not extend to the civil claim brought on appeal by the civil party, and that the defendant's opposition does not benefit the Fund where it was ordered jointly with him in a judgment given after hearing it and did not appeal. The judgment was quashed on the injured party's appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund — effect of the defendant's opposition and acquittal","law":"Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 187 and 203; res judicata of criminal judgments; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 19bis","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-10-21","rol":"C.16.0099.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2016:ARR.20161021.2","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"subrogation","q":"Hieruit volgt dat de verzekeraar die gesubrogeerd is in de rechten van zijn verze-kerde, het bedrag van de vergoeding kan terugvorderen van een andere verzekerde die aansprakelijk is voor de schade wanneer de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The fire insurer of an association of co-owners sought by subrogation to recover the indemnity it had paid from the liability insurer of a co-owner responsible for the loss; the policy provided that co-owners are deemed third parties towards each other and the insured collectivity. The Bruges justice of the peace had refused the recourse because the liable insured could not be regarded as a third party. The Court of Cassation held that a subrogated insurer may recover from another liable insured where the contract provides that an insured is a third party for damage caused to another insured; finding also that the association's argument that liability had never been disputed went unanswered, it quashed the judgment on the appeal of the fire insurer and the association.","k":"Fire insurance — subrogation against a co-owner","law":"LCAT art. 41 para. 1","w":16,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-10-20","rol":"136/2016","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2016:ARR.136","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"An EU official was killed as a pedestrian when hit by a tram; the European Union, as employer, claimed from the transport operator the medical costs, salary, death grant and orphans' pensions it had paid. On questions from the French-speaking Brussels Court of First Instance, the Constitutional Court held that articles 1382 and 1383 of the Civil Code, read as limiting a public employer's loss to payments made without receiving work in return, do not violate articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution. That limit strikes a proportionate balance between the employer's interest and the burden on the liable party and its insurer, and the employer can insure the risk. The second question, on Article 29bis, needed no answer, as the difference stems solely from articles 1382 and 1383.","k":"Public employer's loss — recoverable payments after an Article 29bis accident","law":"former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1383; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":5,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle — CC 136/2016","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-10-20","rol":"C.16.0014.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2016:ARR.20161020.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"La recevabilité du moyen de cassation ne requiert pas que la partie demanderesse précise l'intérêt qu'elle a à la cassation. || La victime qui a perçu des prestations de l'organisme assureur pour un dommage résultant…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that a victim who received benefits from the health-insurance fund for incapacity for work may claim compensation under general law for the same loss only to the extent that it exceeds those benefits; the judgment awarding full compensation because no documents quantified the benefits and the general-law court need not assess the subrogation was quashed on that point. For future household loss, the court had identified three periods according to household composition but capitalised an average daily base of €23.40 over the whole period (€40,260.91); a loss that can be calculated on exact data may not be assessed on hypothetical elements, so that head was also quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Personal injury — deduction of health-insurance benefits, household loss","law":"Coordinated Act of 14.7.1994, art. 136 §2; former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383; Cass. 15.9.2014; Cass. 16.4.2015","w":56,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-10-17","rol":"C.09.0414.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2016:ARR.20161017.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Le dommage consiste en l'atteinte à tout intérêt ou en la perte de tout avantage légitime; il suppose que la victime du fait illicite se trouve après celui-ci dans une situation moins favorable qu'avant (1). (1) Cass.…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Owing to the hospital's fault, the mother was not told in time that an abortion had failed, and the child was born after the statutory deadline; she sought compensation from the hospital and its insurers. The Court held that the birth of a child cannot in itself be a loss for the mother, and that the appeal court could lawfully find that the financial burden, foreseeable relational difficulties and extra effort did not leave her worse off than before. It also held that the Act of 21 April 2007, applicable to pending cases, excludes recovery of first-instance legal costs as an item of loss; the mother's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Failed abortion — birth of a child is not a loss","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383; Judicial Code, art. 1022; Act of 21 April 2007, art. 13; Cass. 14.11.2014","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-10-12","rol":"P.15.1667.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2016:ARR.20161012.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"L'employeur public qui, par la faute d'un tiers, est privé des prestations de travail d'un de ses agents et qui, en vertu de ses obligations légales ou réglementaires, doit continuer à payer à cet agent la rémunération…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Walloon Region claimed from the defendant and her insurer, which had intervened voluntarily, the salary paid to its employee during temporary incapacity; the appeal court awarded the full salary from 22 February 1997 to 21 August 1999 relying solely on the Medex report. The Court held that decisions of the administrative health service are mere factual presumptions as against third parties, who may challenge them, notably on the basis of a court expert's report. The judgment, which refused to examine those objections although the expert found a much shorter temporary incapacity, was quashed on that point on the appeals of the defendant and the insurer.","k":"Public employer's loss — evidential value of Medex decisions","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1315, 1349, 1353, 1382–1383; Judicial Code, art. 870; Act of 3 July 1967","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-10-11","rol":"2015/RG/723","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2016:ARR.20161011.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The co-owner spouse of a home deliberately set on fire by the policyholder claimed the indemnity from the fire insurer. The court held that her right to the full indemnity was res judicata under an earlier judgment and upheld the award of €29,284.36, including loss of use during the works. The insurer's debt is a debt of value until the expert report (compensatory interest at 6% from the fire) and a money debt thereafter (default interest and compounding). The insurer's appeal was largely dismissed; its third-party claim against the policyholder's heirs was held admissible and the hearing reopened on that point.","k":"Fire insurance — interest on the indemnity (debt of value/debt of money)","law":"Former Civil Code, arts 1153, 1154; Judicial Code, art. 25; Cass. 11.6.2009","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-09-27","rol":"2013/RG/457/2013/RG/1500","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2016:ARR.20160927.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A train derailed after a rock fall; the Region, liable to the railway operator for neighbourhood disturbance, sought an indemnity from the contractor hired to clear the rock face and from his liability insurer. The court held that the injured party's direct action against the insurer is subject to a five-year limitation period and that the Region, which knew of the insurer by 13.10.2000 at the latest, acted too late by submissions of 3.1.2012; no interruption was shown. The contractor's own claim against his insurer also failed: the policy covered only extra-contractual liability, the exclusion for lack of precautionary measures could be raised against the injured third party since the insurance was not compulsory, and an insurer that first defended its insured may later refuse cover.","k":"Business liability — limitation of the injured party's direct action","law":"LCAT art. 34 §2, 79, 86; former Civil Code, art. 544, 1382","w":59,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-09-26","rol":"C.15.0315.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2016:ARR.20160926.1","ch":"3N","res":"c","t":"motor","q":"Vereist is dat er een oorzakelijk verband bestaat tussen de schade en enig ge-bruik van het motorrijtuig in het verkeer, hetzij door de plaats die het inneemt, zijn staat of enige beweging.","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"Diesel leaked from the tank of a tractor unit parked on a sloping verge into the sewers, forcing the town to carry out clean-up works. The Antwerp Court of Appeal held that the harmful event was unrelated to road-traffic risks and that the operating-liability insurer, not the motor liability insurer, had to cover the loss. The Court of Cassation held that 'in traffic' must be construed broadly, so stationary vehicles are not excluded for that reason alone; what is required is a causal link between the damage and some use of the vehicle in traffic, whether through its position, its condition or a movement. The judgment was partly quashed on the operating-liability insurer's appeal.","k":"Motor liability cover — parked vehicle and the notion of 'traffic'","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 2 §1 and art. 3 §1 para. 1","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-09-22","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2016:ARR.113","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : En ce qu'il ne permet pas au juge répressif d'accorder au prévenu acquitté et au civilement responsable une indemnité de procédure d'appel à charge de la partie civile succombante qui, en…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"In one of the two cases referred by the Liège Court of First Instance, the Belgian Guarantee Fund was a voluntary intervener; the court asked whether denying any appeal-stage procedural indemnity to the acquitted defendant and the person civilly liable, payable by the unsuccessful civil party who alone appealed an acquittal in the absence of any appeal by the prosecution, breached the equality principle. The Constitutional Court held that article 162bis(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure violates articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution in that respect: where the prosecution does not appeal, the civil party's appeal no longer attaches to the public action, serves a purely private interest and generates the appeal costs; the difference from a civil party proceeding by direct summons is not reasonably justified. As the gap is identified in precise terms, the referring court must remedy it.","k":"Criminal proceedings — civil party's sole appeal and procedural indemnity","law":"Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 162bis(2); Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":56,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-09-15","rol":"2015/RG/691","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2016:ARR.20160915.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Two fires broke out the same evening in a rented flat; the second was deliberately set with an accelerant by an unknown person. The owners' fire insurer, subrogated to their rights, sued the tenant and her tenant's liability insurer. Under article 1733 the tenant is liable for fire unless she proves it broke out without her fault; a fire set, even deliberately, by a person for whom she is answerable is not an exonerating external cause (art. 1735). It was not shown that the perpetrator was certainly a third party for whom she is not answerable who entered without any fault on her part. The tenant's liability stops at the rented premises, but the damage was not shown to go beyond them. The subrogated insurer may only recover sums actually paid: the provisional EUR 45,000 was confirmed and the proceedings reopened for proof of its payments.","k":"Fire insurer's subrogated recourse — tenant, arson and art. 1733","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1733, 1735; LCAT art. 41","w":16,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-09-15","rol":"C.15.0280.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2016:ARR.20160915.1","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"procedure","q":"Il s'ensuit sans aucun doute raisonnable que la personne lésée peut, en vertu des articles 8, alinéa 1er, et 10, alinéa 2, de la Convention de Bruxelles, dont le texte utile pour la solution du litige se retrouve aux…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"Injured parties domiciled in Belgium brought a direct action in Belgium against a liability insurer established in Portugal, which challenged the jurisdiction of the Belgian courts. Relying on CJEU case C-463/06, the Court of Cassation held that, under articles 8 para. 1 and 10 para. 2 of the Brussels Convention (articles 9 §1(b) and 11 §2 of Regulation 44/2001), the injured party may bring a direct action against the insurer before the court of its own domicile where a direct action is possible and the insurer is domiciled in a contracting state. The insurer's appeal was dismissed and the Brussels Court of First Instance appeal judgment stands.","k":"Direct action against a foreign insurer — court of the injured party's domicile","law":"Brussels Convention of 27.9.1968, art. 8 para. 1 and 10 para. 2; Regulation 44/2001, art. 9 §1(b) and 11 §2; CJEU 13.12.2007, C-463/06","w":56,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-09-12","rol":"2015/RG/942","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2016:ARR.20160912.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The general conditions excluded theft from unoccupied premises whose outer doors were not locked or bolted; the insured had simply pulled the door shut. The court held that locking provides specific security and that, had the duty been complied with, the theft would not have happened as it did, since the burglar merely forced the door. The refusal of cover was upheld; the procedural indemnity was reduced to €600 because the insured received legal aid.","k":"Home theft — door not locked while the home was empty","law":"General conditions, art. 26.4; causation for forfeiture","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-09-12","rol":"2015/RG/1120","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2016:ARR.20160912.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The insureds, covered by a legal expenses policy in force since 2006, sought payment of their lawyer's fees in a neighbour dispute notified in 2012. The court held that the policy definition of 'dispute' has a subjective element relating to the insured and an objective one coming from a third party: although harm had existed since 1996, the conflict of interests arose only in 2012 and the risk was uncertain when the policy was taken out. The insurer's appeal was dismissed; the provisional €1 was confirmed and the hearing reopened for the remainder.","k":"Legal expenses insurance — when the dispute arises and cover","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1315; policy definition of 'dispute'","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-09-12","rol":"C.15.0326.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2016:ARR.20160912.1","ch":"3N","res":"r","t":"motor","q":"De mogelijke aansprakelijkheid van de bestuurder van een bij het ongeval betrokken voertuig sluit niet uit dat de eigenaar van dat voertuig vergoeding van zijn schade vordert van de WAM-verzekeraars.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A company owning a car damaged in an accident where it could not be established which vehicle caused it claimed compensation under article 19bis-11 §2 of the Act of 21 November 1989; the Antwerp Court of First Instance, on appeal, held that, as the driver was neither an officer nor an employee of the company, it was an innocent injured party and ordered the Belgian Motor Insurers' Bureau to pay. The Court of Cassation held that only the insurers of vehicles whose drivers bear no liability are released, and that the possible liability of the driver of an involved vehicle does not prevent its owner from claiming compensation. The Bureau's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Accident where the causing vehicle cannot be identified — compensation of the non-driving owner","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 19bis-11 §2","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-09-08","rol":"2015/RG/859","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2016:ARR.20160908.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"« L'assureur ne peut stipuler la méconnaissance d'une obligation de diligence formulée en termes généraux comme motif de déchéance »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The car was stolen after being parked in the same spot as the day before, when its keys went missing. The court held that any precaution the insurer requires must be expressly stated in the contract; breach of a general duty of care cannot ground forfeiture or exclusion for gross negligence. As the insurer alleged neither prejudice nor fraud from the unreported loss of keys, and less than 24 hours was no lasting aggravation of risk, the insurer was ordered to pay €12,796 with compensatory interest from 25.7.2011.","k":"Vehicle theft — general duty of care and forfeiture","law":"Insurance Act 2014, arts. 62, 65, 74–76, 81 (former LCAT arts. 8, 11, 26); Cass. 12.1.2007","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-09-08","rol":"C.15.0523.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2016:ARR.20160908.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"L'employeur public qui, en vertu de ses obligations légales ou réglementaires, est tenu de verser une rémunération à son agent sans recevoir de prestations de travail en contrepartie a droit à une indemnité dans la…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The French Community claimed from the Belgian Motor Insurers' Bureau (BBAA) the salary paid to a teacher injured in an accident. The Court held that a public employer paying salary without receiving work need not prove a separate loss; Medex decisions are factual presumptions in the dispute with the liable party and its insurer, so the employer discharges its burden of proof by producing them, and contrary proof lies with the liable party or insurer. The judgment dismissing the employer's claim because it refused any expert examination was quashed on the employer's appeal, except as regards the dismissal of its claim against another insurer.","k":"Public employer — salary paid as own loss, Medex presumption","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383; Act of 3 July 1967; RD of 24.1.1969, art. 8; Judicial Code, art. 962; Cass. 9.4.2004","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-07-12","rol":"2009/AB/52713","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2016:ARR.20160712.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"En vertu de l'article 49, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail, l'employeur est tenu de souscrire une assurance contre les accidents du travail. L'alinéa 7 du même article dispose que…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that compulsory workplace-accident insurance covers every worker bound to the employer by an employment contract, regardless of working pattern or interruptions. A second policy taken out by the employer creates concurrent insurance; under article 45(1) LCAT the insurer whose cover is claimed cannot refuse to pay by pointing to the other policy. The insurer's argument based on irregular employment was rejected: irregular employment does not bar compensation of the worker or their dependants under the 1971 Act.","k":"Workplace accident — concurrent insurance and irregular employment","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 49; LCAT art. 45(1)","w":60,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"2016-06-30","rol":"2013/RG/603 - 2013/RG/635","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2016:ARR.20160630.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Minors who had bought gas canisters from a night shop caused an explosion in one of their bedrooms, where they were drinking alcohol, resulting in severe burns. The court found fault on the part of several minors, of the host father, who failed to ask what they were doing, and of the two shopkeepers who sold them the canisters at night; the parents are liable under former Civil Code art. 1384, para. 2. Liability: 50% to the minor who caused the explosion, 10% each to three other minors and to the father, 5% to each shopkeeper. The parents' family liability insurer is liable in solidum to the injured parties and must indemnify its insureds. Provisional damages were awarded (EUR 15,000 to the most seriously burned) and a medical expert appointed. The subrogated health-insurance fund's new claim on appeal against another insurer was inadmissible.","k":"Family liability insurance — gas explosion caused by minors, apportionment of liability","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1384","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-06-30","rol":"C.15.0447.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2016:ARR.20160630.18","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"29bis","q":"Hieruit volgt dat wanneer het slachtoffer door zijn schuld heeft bijgedragen tot de schade, de verzekeraar van een betrokken motorrijtuig die het slachtoffer heeft vergoed, de betaalde vergoeding op grond van artikel…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer of the vehicle at fault had paid in full, under article 29bis, the personal injury of a passenger who was not wearing a seat belt, and claimed from the insurer of the other involved vehicle the share attributable to the passenger's own fault; the East Flanders Court of First Instance, on appeal, rejected the claim because the other driver was not liable. The Court of Cassation held that where several vehicles are involved, their insurers must compensate the victim and bear the burden in equal shares; the paying insurer can recover from the liable third party under article 29bis §4 only what the victim could have obtained under general law, and can recover the share due to the victim's own fault from each insurer of an involved vehicle in equal parts under article 1251, 3° of the former Civil Code. The judgment was partly quashed.","k":"Article 29bis — recourse between insurers and the at-fault victim's share","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1, §4 and §5; former Civil Code, art. 1251, 3°","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-06-27","rol":"2015/AL/196 et 2015/AL/250","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2016:AVIS.20160627.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Le travail dans le gel pendant quelques jours, ayant eu pour conséquence l'amputation de phalanges de 3 doigts, constitue un évènement soudain. La victime doit donc être indemnisée dans le cadre de la législation sur…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Working for several days in freezing conditions, which led to the amputation of phalanges of three fingers, constitutes a sudden event. The court therefore held that compensation is due under workplace-accident legislation, not occupational-disease legislation; the Occupational Diseases Fund was discharged. The appeals of the workplace-accident insurer and of the worker (against the Fund) were dismissed, the expert's assignment confirmed and the case sent back to the tribunal; the insurer and the Fund were ordered to pay the appeal costs.","k":"Workplace accident — frostbite from working in freezing cold, sudden event","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7, 9 and 68","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-06-13","rol":"C.15.0305.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2016:ARR.20160613.1","ch":"3N","res":"c","t":"damage","q":"Hij moet alleen de redelijke maatregelen nemen om het nadeel te beperken als dat met de houding van een redelijk en voorzichtig persoon strookt.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A road-accident victim with a severe whiplash injury kept seeing her former doctors, more than 160 km away, after moving house; the Mechelen Court of First Instance, on appeal, compensated only travel to a nearby doctor and, for the spectacles items, relied on advice one of the judges obtained from her brother-in-law, an optician. The Court of Cassation held that the victim of a wrongful act is entitled to full compensation and need not minimise the loss as far as possible, but only take the reasonable steps a reasonable and prudent person would take; relying on information not submitted to adversarial debate breached the rights of the defence. The judgment was quashed on the victim's appeal as regards travel costs and spectacles.","k":"Road-accident damage — victim's duty to mitigate","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383; general principle of the rights of the defence; Cass. 14.5.1992; Cass. 25.10.1991","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-06-01","rol":"2013/RG/215","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2016:ARR.20160601.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"After the fire that destroyed his bakery and home, the policyholder held his broker liable for the reduction of the indemnity under the proportional rule caused by under-insurance of the building. The court recalled that the broker's duty to inform and advise is a duty of care, breach of which must be proved by the policyholder, proof by plausibility being sufficient. The broker, who had noted a potentially insufficient sum insured and proposed increasing it, should have drawn the policyholder's attention to the consequences of the proportional rule; it failed to do so. The policyholder was himself negligent in not checking, as a prudent owner, that his building was properly insured. Liability was shared equally: the broker was ordered to pay EUR 36,060 plus VAT, half of the EUR 72,120 loss, with interest from 5.3.2008; the other heads of claim, not proven, were dismissed.","k":"Broker's liability — under-insurance and the proportional rule","law":"Act of 27.3.1995, art. 12bis; LCAT art. 44; RD 24.12.1992, art. 3 §2","w":61,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-05-31","rol":"2015/RG/386","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2016:ARR.20160531.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"In a building empty since August 2008, the water had not been cut off and heating was insufficient; during the frost of 13.1.2009 the pipes froze and caused extensive water damage. The policy excluded damage from failure to take precautions, 'in particular if the building is insufficiently heated in freezing weather and, in winter, the insured has not drained the water installations'. The court held that the clause was not drafted in general terms and, despite the words 'in particular', precisely named the cause of the loss; it applied consistently with articles 8 and 11 LCAT. The judgment was reversed and the €20,181.80 claim dismissed.","k":"Water damage — exclusion for lack of frost precautions in an empty building","law":"LCAT art. 8, 11; policy exclusion clause","w":62,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-05-27","rol":"C.15.0509.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2016:ARR.20160527.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Celui qui, par sa faute, a causé un dommage à autrui est tenu de le réparer et la victime a droit, en règle, à la réparation intégrale du préjudice qu'elle a subi (1). (1) Cass. 8 janvier 2016, RG C.14.0300.F, Pas.…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The appeal court had refused to capitalise a daily flat rate for the victim's permanent non-pecuniary and household loss because she had not proved that the loss would remain constant, and awarded a global lump sum instead. The Court held that a victim who proves her loss need not, when proposing capitalisation, also prove that it will remain constant; an equitable lump-sum assessment requires the court to explain why it rejects the proposed method and find that the loss cannot be determined otherwise. The judgment was quashed on those two heads on the victim's appeal; the ground concerning third-party assistance was rejected.","k":"Permanent non-pecuniary and household loss — capitalisation and burden of proof","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1315, 1382–1383; Judicial Code, art. 870; Cass. 8.1.2016","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-05-23","rol":"C.15.0440.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2016:ARR.20160523.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"L'article 1416 du Code civil, qui détermine les pouvoirs de gestion du patrimoine commun par des époux mariés selon le régime légal, est étranger à la gestion d'un bien indivis par un des époux mariés sous le régime de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Spouses married under separation of property lived in a jointly owned house that only the husband had insured against fire; the Liège Court of Appeal held that the policy had been taken out on behalf of both spouses and that the wife, as half-owner, was entitled to half of the indemnity, ordering the insurer to pay €135,606.61. The Court of Cassation held that article 1416 of the former Civil Code governs the management of community property under the statutory regime and does not apply to one spouse managing jointly owned property under separation of property. The judgment was quashed to that extent on the insurer's appeal and remitted to the Mons Court of Appeal.","k":"Fire insurance — rights of the non-subscribing spouse to the indemnity","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1416","w":56,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-05-18","rol":"2013/AB/1126","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2016:ARR.20160518.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"alt","s":"The workplace-accident insurer had paid benefits to a worker, after which the labour tribunal held that no sudden event had been proved; the insurer sought repayment from the worker and from the health-insurance fund. The court held that, having failed to notify its refusal of cover in time, the insurer must bear the sickness-invalidity benefits up to the date of notification under article 63 §2(3) of the Act of 10 April 1971: it cannot recover anything from the fund and may claim from the worker only the difference between its payments and what he was entitled to under health insurance. The fraud allegation was rejected. The judgment was confirmed (the fund owes €554.26) and the hearing reopened to calculate the amounts.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer — unnotified refusal and recovery from the health-insurance fund","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63 §2(3); coordinated Act of 14.7.1994","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-05-13","rol":"C.15.0415.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2016:ARR.20160513.5","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"29bis","q":"Au sens de l'article 29bis de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs, le conducteur est la personne qui conduit le véhicule automoteur au…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"Having stopped his car on the hard shoulder of a motorway, the driver got out and ran across the right-hand lane just as a lorry arrived, and its trailer seriously injured him; the Hainaut Court of First Instance, on appeal, ordered the insurer of the stopped car to compensate him under article 29bis. The Court of Cassation held that, for article 29bis, the driver is the person driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, i.e. the person in control of it at that moment; since the victim was no longer the driver when the accident occurred, the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Article 29bis — driver who left his vehicle as a vulnerable road user","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; Cass. 18.5.2012; Cass. 19.6.2015; Cass. 7.9.2015","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-05-12","rol":"13/6430/A","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:2016:JUG.20160512.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"« aucun nouveau délai de trois mois n'a commencé à courir et l'assureur n'est pas tenu à la sanction prévue par l'article 13, § 2 »","court":"first","out":"kismen","src":"alt","s":"The court recalled that the insurer must make an offer within three months where neither liability nor damage is disputed (art. 13 of the Act of 21.11.1989) and give a reasoned reply where they are (art. 14). Counter-proposals by the injured party after the offer do not start a new period; as the date of the first claim was not proven, the financial penalty was refused. The 5% permanent disability award was reduced to €6,450 (€1,290 per point under the 2012 indicative table) from €9,625; the unproven aesthetic damage claim was rejected and €200 for clothing confirmed. Both appeals succeeded only very partially.","k":"Motor liability — late-offer penalty and permanent disability award","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts 13 and 14; 2012 indicative table","w":35,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (75e ch., istinaf — polis mahkemesi kararı)","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-05-12","rol":"2015/Rg/183 (16ème chambre)","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2016:ARR.20160512.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"LA CLAUSE 'INDELICATESSE' - NOTION - La garantie 'Indélicatesse' a pour objet d'indemniser ceux qui sont lésés par l'acte professionnel mal intentionné de l' assuré, agent immobilier ou administrateur de bien (syndic ou…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Clients harmed by the fraudulent acts of an estate agent registered with the IPI brought a direct action against the insurer providing the compulsory professional liability and financial guarantee cover. The Mons Court of Appeal held that under article 87 LCAT, in compulsory liability insurance, defences, nullities and forfeitures arising from the law or the contract cannot be raised against the injured party; the insurer therefore could not rely on the intentional nature of the loss to refuse cover. Separate faults on different dates were separate claims and the total did not exceed the €250,000 ceiling; the insurer was ordered to pay the victims sums ranging from €1,750 to €13,750 and its appeal was dismissed.","k":"Estate agent's liability insurance — intentional act not opposable to injured parties","law":"LCAT arts. 86–87; Cass. 27.6.2013","w":63,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-05-11","rol":"64/2016","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2016:ARR.064","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"const","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"In an accident involving three identified vehicles and a lorry whose driver left and remained unknown, the injured party, who was clearly not liable, sued the motor liability insurer of one identified vehicle under article 19bis-11 §2; the police court counted the unknown lorry's share in the split. On a question from the West Flanders Court of First Instance (Ypres division), the Constitutional Court held that the provision violates articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution if the unknown insurers of unidentified vehicles count in the equal-share split and that split is enforceable against the injured party. It is constitutional if only the insurers of identified vehicles are counted: an unknown insurer's share would never be paid, and the Guarantee Fund is not an 'insurer' within the meaning of the provision.","k":"Article 19bis-11 §2 — unidentified vehicles in the equal-share split","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 19bis-11 §§1-2; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":35,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle — CC 64/2016","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-05-10","rol":"2015/RG/270","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2016:ARR.20160510.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"« un tassement […] n'est pas synonyme de glissement ou d'affaissement »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The insureds, whose building developed cracks from late 2012, invoked the landslide or subsidence cover, defined as the movement of a significant mass of earth caused by a natural phenomenon. The court recalled that the claimants must prove the policy conditions are met, yet several causes were possible: weak bearing capacity, non-compliant construction, or settlement from drought. Even on the drought hypothesis, a landslide or subsidence of a significant mass of earth was not proven; settlement is not the same thing. The cracks are effects and do not show which cause should be preferred. The appeal was dismissed, with €1,210 appeal costs.","k":"Natural disaster — cracks: settlement is not landslide or subsidence","law":"Policy definition (landslide or subsidence); former Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, art. 870","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-05-10","rol":"2015/RG/25","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2016:ARR.20160510.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The policyholder of a comprehensive policy on a leased vehicle and the company she manages claimed the indemnity after a reported theft. The company's claim was inadmissible: it was not a party to the contract taken out by the policyholder in her own name and had no standing. The objection that she lacked an insurable interest failed: the policy provides insurance on behalf of another (a stipulation for a third party) in favour of the leasing company that owned the vehicle and held the insurable interest at the time of the loss (arts. 37–38 LCAT); the contract is neither void nor lapsed. The indemnity is determined under the contract. The insured must prove the theft but must be believed if her account is plausible and nothing casts doubt on it. A motor expert was appointed on the protection systems and the theft clause; the rest was reserved.","k":"Vehicle theft (comprehensive cover) — insurance on behalf of another, insurable interest, proof of theft","law":"LCAT arts. 37, 38, 51; former Civil Code, arts. 1121, 1315","w":64,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-05-09","rol":"C.13.0252.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2016:ARR.20160509.3","ch":"3N","res":"c","t":"subrogation","q":"Artikel 136, § 2, vierde lid, ZIV-wet dat in algemene bewoordingen bepaalt dat de indeplaatsstelling geldt tot beloop van het bedrag van de verleende presta-ties, maakt geen onderscheid naargelang van de persoon aan wie…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A health-insurance fund that had paid care-home flat-rate fees and hospital twelfths for a member placed in a nursing home after a road accident sought reimbursement from the liable driver and his insurer; the Antwerp Court of First Instance, on appeal, rejected the claim because the payments were made to the institutions rather than the beneficiary, and allowed the insurer's counterclaim. The Court of Cassation held that subrogation under article 136 §2 para. 4 of the Act of 14 July 1994 applies up to the benefits paid, whoever received them, and that the share of the hospital budget paid in twelfths can be recovered from the third party liable under general law; the judgment was quashed on the fund's appeal.","k":"Health-insurance fund subrogation — direct payments to care homes and hospitals","law":"Act of 14.7.1994 (health insurance), art. 136 §2 para. 4 and §5; Royal Decree 11.6.2003; Hospitals Act of 7.8.1987, art. 87 and 104bis","w":56,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-05-04","rol":"2014/RG/621","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2016:ARR.20160504.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A patient left with a permanent Horner's syndrome after surgery appealed against the insurer more than four years after the judgment. The insurer pleaded acquiescence: her former lawyer had written, without authority, that she accepted the judgment, and her legal-expenses insurer had paid the first-instance costs. The court recalled that tacit acquiescence can only be inferred from precise and consistent acts showing a definite intention to accept the decision (art. 1045 Judicial Code); payment of costs by a third party, the legal-expenses insurer, is not such an act, and a lawyer's letter written without authority does not bind the party, whose disavowal of the lawyer was upheld. The appeal was admissible and, as the allegations of a failure to inform and medical negligence were not implausible, a neurologist was appointed as expert before any ruling on the merits.","k":"Medical liability — costs paid by the legal-expenses insurer and acquiescence","law":"Judicial Code arts. 1045, 962 et seq.","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-04-28","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2016:ARR.061","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 68 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail et l'article 1018 du Code judiciaire ne violent pas les articles 10, 11 et 23, alinéa 3, 2°, de la Constitution, combinés ou…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Before the Brussels Labour Court of Appeal, a worker asked that the fees of his own medical adviser be borne by the workplace-accident insurer in proceedings against it; the court asked whether article 68 of the Act of 10.4.1971 and article 1018 of the Judicial Code, which do not include such fees in recoverable costs, were compatible with articles 10, 11 and 23 of the Constitution and article 6 ECHR. The Constitutional Court found no violation: the worker is never ordered to pay costs, save for a reckless and vexatious claim, and always receives the procedural indemnity; systematically charging adviser fees to the workplace-accident insurer would upset the balance in sharing the occupational risk and increase employers' burden. Such fees may be covered by legal aid and, where the insurer was at fault in assessing the benefits, recovered under ordinary liability law.","k":"Workplace accident — worker's medical adviser fees and costs","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 68; Judicial Code, art. 1018; Constitution, arts. 10, 11 and 23; ECHR, art. 6","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-04-21","rol":"2015/RG/207","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2016:ARR.20160421.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"« l'assuré doit être cru pour autant que sa déclaration soit vraisemblable et qu'aucun élément ne soit de nature à jeter le doute sur ses propos »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The insured bears the burden of proving theft, but given its difficulty she must be believed if her account is plausible and nothing casts doubt on it; the court may not reverse the burden. Handing the detective two similar keys, one belonging to another car, and being unable to find the spare did not undermine her consistent and credible account. The insurer's appeal was dismissed; on the insured's cross-appeal the indemnity was set at €13,303.53 incl. VAT (insured value of €11,500 plus VAT paid).","k":"Vehicle theft — credible statement and lost spare key","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, art. 870","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-04-18","rol":"C.15.0450.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2016:ARR.20160418.2","ch":"3F","res":"r","t":"limitation","q":"Suivant l'article 35, § 3, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre, applicable aux faits, si la déclaration de sinistre a été faite en temps utile, la prescription est interrompue jusqu'au moment…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"Minors who had caused a fire at a school in 1995 and their parents, sued by the school's fire insurer, joined their family liability insurer in 2011; the insurer pleaded limitation, relying on letters refusing cover sent in 1996 to the broker, to the insureds' legal-expenses insurer and to their lawyer. The Court of Cassation held that the limitation period, interrupted by a timely claim notification, remains interrupted until the insurer has notified its decision in writing to the other party, and that notice must be given to that party personally or to an agent it has authorised to receive it. The insurer's appeal was dismissed and the Mons Court of Appeal judgment rejecting the limitation plea stands.","k":"Interruption of the limitation period — to whom the insurer's decision must be sent","law":"LCAT art. 34 §1 and art. 35 §3","w":3,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-04-11","rol":"2015/RG/930","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2016:ARR.20160411.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"For storm damage of 18.1.2007 the insurer declined cover on 29.6.2007 on the ground that the building's wear exceeded 40%; the first-instance court had held the action time-barred. The court of appeal accepted that this refusal in principle started a new three-year period, but held that the insurer's unreserved acceptance on 3.9.2007 of the amicable appointment of a third expert to determine the wear implied, tacitly but certainly, that it reopened the file and reconsidered its position, so that its refusal was no longer firm and final. The later letters, in particular that of 9.9.2008 inviting the insured to seek a court-appointed expert, were likewise not a firm and final decision to refuse cover and did not start a new period. The action was not time-barred; an expert was appointed to determine the wear at the time of the loss and describe the damage.","k":"Storm damage — limitation, file reopened after refusal","law":"LCAT arts. 34 §1, 35 §3","w":65,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-04-05","rol":"05/8357/A","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:2016:JUG.20160405.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The patient sought compensation from the surgeon's liability insurer for a 2001 operation, alleging a failure to inform. The court held that the burden of proving the information was given lies on the doctor and hence his insurer; but the patient failed to show with certainty that, if informed, he would have declined the operation or chosen another, the expert having stated that no other treatment option existed. With no causal link established, the claim was dismissed.","k":"Medical liability insurance — duty to inform and causation","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, art. 870; Cass. 16.12.2004; Cass. 6.12.2013","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-03-24","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2016:ARR.051","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : Les articles 1er, 2 et 46 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail ne violent pas les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution en ce que l'employeur ne peut invoquer le régime…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Before the Dendermonde Criminal Court, an employer was prosecuted, with civil-party claims, after an accident suffered by a person undergoing individual vocational training in the business (Flemish Government decree of 5.6.2009); the issue was whether the employer's inability to rely on the civil immunity of article 46 of the Act of 10.4.1971 breached the equality principle. The Constitutional Court held that articles 1, 2 and 46 do not violate articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution: the trainee has no employment contract; the employer pays neither social security contributions (and so does not fund the Workplace Accidents Fund) nor wages for the trainee and, despite the duty to insure the trainee against accidents, bears lighter burdens than for an employee. These differences reasonably justify the exclusion of immunity.","k":"Workplace accident — individual vocational trainee and employer immunity","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 1, 2 and 46; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-03-24","rol":"C.15.0136.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2016:ARR.20160324.12","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"legal","q":"Aangezien de rechtsbijstandverzekering de vergoeding van schade beoogt, staat zulks eraan in de weg dat de verzekerde van wie de proceskosten worden vergoed door de verzekeraar, tevens aanspraak maakt op de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured's law firm claimed a balance of €1,708.48 from the legal-expenses insurer, which had set off the procedural indemnity awarded by the court against the fee note; the Antwerp Court of First Instance, on appeal, held that the indemnity belongs solely to the litigant and ordered the insurer to pay. The Court of Cassation held that legal-expenses insurance is indemnity insurance, so an insured whose legal costs are paid by the insurer cannot also claim the procedural indemnity, which belongs to the insurer; the judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Legal-expenses insurance — who is entitled to the procedural indemnity","law":"Judicial Code, art. 1022; Insurance Act 2014, art. 154","w":56,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-03-18","rol":"C.15.0083.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2016:ARR.20160318.4","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"work","q":"Il suit de ces dispositions que l'assureur-loi n'est subrogé dans les droits de la victime que jusqu'à concurrence des montants cumulables versés à celle-ci, à l'exclusion des montants non cumulables versés au Fonds des…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The workplace-accident insurer of the employer of a worker killed in an accident on another company's site brought a subrogated recourse claim against that company as the liable third party; the Hainaut Court of First Instance, on appeal, awarded it €52,361.43 and €11,219.60 for past and future material loss. The Court of Cassation held that the workplace-accident insurer is subrogated only up to the cumulable amounts paid to the victim's dependant, excluding non-cumulable amounts paid to the Occupational Accidents Fund under article 42bis; the recourse was limited to €23,851.66 in total. The judgment was partly quashed on the liable company's appeal.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — non-cumulable amounts","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 42bis, 46 and 47","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-03-17","rol":"2014/RG/1004","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2016:ARR.20160317.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"« Pour exclure le lien causal, il faut pouvoir dire que, sans la faute, le dommage se serait néanmoins produit tel qu'il s'est réalisé in concreto »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The burglar entered through a ground-floor window the insured had left in tilt position, in breach of a prevention duty in the general conditions, treated as a forfeiture clause. Causation is established once it is found that, without the fault, the loss would not have occurred as it did; the insurer need not also prove that the closed frame could not have been forced, since the opening made entry easier. The insurer's appeal was allowed and the insured's claim dismissed.","k":"Home theft — window left tilted open and causation","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 65 (former LCAT art. 11); Cass. 20.9.2012; Cass. 7.3.2013","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-03-14","rol":"2015/RG/938","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2016:ARR.20160314.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The insured's home was burgled while she had been on holiday since late June; the insurer relied on a clause excluding theft after more than 60 consecutive days of vacancy. The court held that, although clearly drafted as an exclusion, the clause imposed a pre-loss prevention duty and was therefore a forfeiture clause; the insurer had to prove causation between the vacancy and the theft and failed to do so. The judgment was reversed and the insurer ordered to pay €7,544.08 on a provisional basis with interest from 2.9.2012.","k":"Home theft — clause on vacancy exceeding 60 days","law":"LCAT art. 3 and 11; Cass. 20.9.2012","w":20,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-03-08","rol":"2015/RG/854","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2016:ARR.20160308.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"« L'exclusion est une absence de droit […] Tandis que la déchéance est un retrait de droit »","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"After a fire deliberately started by a friend staying in the tenant's studio, the building's fire insurer brought a recourse claim against the tenant and his liability insurer. The court held the tenant liable for the acts of persons in his household; the clause excluding intentionally caused damage, sanctioning conduct after the contract was made, was a forfeiture clause of a personal nature that could not extend to the policyholder, who had no part in the intentional act. The tenant and his insurer were ordered in solidum to pay €69,028; the rest of the claim was dismissed.","k":"Fire — tenant's liability cover and personal nature of forfeiture","law":"LCAT art. 8 and 11; former Civil Code, arts. 1733–1735; Cass. 4.3.2013","w":46,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-03-08","rol":"2013/RG/545","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2016:ARR.20160308.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"alt","s":"A gas explosion in a neighbouring house damaged an owner's building; the owner and his subrogated insurer sued the person liable and that person's fire insurer. The court assessed each action separately: against the liable person, five years from knowledge of the damage and its author (former Civil Code, art. 2262bis); against the insurer, five years from the event or from later knowledge of the claim against the insurer, capped at ten years (art. 34 §2 LCAT). The subrogated insurer, which made no inquiry to identify the insurer, was time-barred in both actions, as was the owner against the liable person. For the owner's direct action, time ran from when he learned the insurer's identity: it succeeded and the insurer was ordered to pay €1 provisionally.","k":"Fire — limitation of subrogated and direct actions","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 2262bis §1; LCAT art. 34 §2; Cass. 16.2.2007","w":66,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-03-03","rol":"2014/RG/1483","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2016:ARR.20160303.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Ruling after remand from the Court of Cassation (Cass. 18.10.2013), the court examined the recourse of the owner's fire insurer, subrogated to his rights, against the tenant and her liability insurer. The fire was caused by defective power cables in a 22-year-old dishwasher installed in the rented premises by the landlord. The court held that the tenant, although custodian of the appliance, was exonerated because the fire was solely due to a hidden defect for which she is not answerable; the landlord owes the warranty for that defect (art. 1721 former Civil Code), whether or not he knew of it. Since the tenant proved the absence of any fault contributing to the fire, she escaped the presumption of article 1733. The subrogated insurer's action was dismissed and it was ordered to pay costs.","k":"Fire insurer's subrogated recourse — tenant and hidden defect","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1721, 1733; Cass. 18.10.2013","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-03-03","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2016:ARR.032","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : Sous réserve de ce qui est dit en B.9, l'article 3, alinéa 3, de la loi du 13 janvier 2012 « insérant un article 110/1 dans la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre, pour ce…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Before the Ghent Court of First Instance, the universal legatee of a life-insurance policyholder sued two insurers: the policies, concluded before the Act of 13.1.2012, named the 'legal heirs' as beneficiaries and the policyholder died before the two-year transitional period expired. The Constitutional Court ruled that article 3(3) of that Act (deferred application of article 110/1 LCAT to earlier contracts unless the policyholder opted out) does not violate articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution, subject to the reservation in B.9: where the legal heirs have not come forward and nothing indicates the policyholder intended to waive article 110/1, the provision, by preventing any payment of the benefit, may discriminatorily interfere with the right to property (art. 1 of Protocol No. 1 ECHR), which the referring court must examine.","k":"Life insurance — 'legal heirs' beneficiary clause and transitional rule","law":"LCAT art. 110/1; Act of 13.1.2012, art. 3(3); Constitution, arts. 10–11; Protocol No. 1 ECHR, art. 1","w":67,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-02-24","rol":"2015/RG/399","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2016:ARR.20160224.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"Sued in the civil courts by the planning authority seeking restoration for building works without a permit, the insured claimed her defence costs under the legal expenses cover attached to her private liability policy. The court held that a restoration measure is not a penalty but a form of restitution and that the action falls within non-contractual liability; the word 'notably' in the policy does not limit cover to actions under article 1382 of the Civil Code. The insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Legal expenses insurance — defence against a planning restoration action","law":"CWATUP, art. 157; former Civil Code, art. 1382; Court of Arbitration, 19.1.2005","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-02-22","rol":"2015/RG/287","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2016:ARR.20160222.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The insured and his lawyer claimed the criminal defence fees from the legal expenses insurer. The court found that the insured had been finally convicted of intentional offences, so the exclusion in the general conditions applied; a partial acquittal made no difference since the defence formed a whole. The insurer had told the lawyer from the outset that it would refuse cover if fraud were established, so its challenge was not late. The appeals were dismissed and the €4,262 fee note remained payable by the insured.","k":"Legal expenses insurance — exclusion on conviction for intentional offences","law":"Legal expenses policy, general conditions, art. 19.4.1","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-02-22","rol":"2013/RG/449","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2016:ARR.20160222.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"In an earlier interlocutory judgment the court had held that the proceeds of the outstanding-balance insurance belonged to the deceased's partner as beneficiary and that the insurer was at fault in identifying the beneficiaries. In this final judgment the insurer, although it had already paid the deceased's daughter, was ordered to pay the beneficiary a gross EUR 42,761.58 with default interest from the notice of 12.8.2010; her claim for a higher net amount to offset tax withholding was rejected, since the contractual cover is limited to that capital. Her claim for reimbursement of the loan instalments she paid to the bank before that notice was also rejected: she had neither informed the insurer of her acceptance nor demanded cover, and her own delay contributed to her loss. She was ordered to pay the bank EUR 42,502.23; the insurer must indemnify her for the costs owed to the bank and the interest differential from 12.8.2010.","k":"Outstanding-balance insurance — payment to the wrong beneficiary, scope of the insurer's liability","law":"Interlocutory judgment of the Liège Court of Appeal of 24.6.2014; contractual cover","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-02-11","rol":"C.15.0180.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2016:ARR.20160211.2","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"duties","q":"Het beding op grond waarvan de verzekeraar zijn dekking kan weigeren wegens de niet-nakoming door de verzekerde van zijn contractuele verplichtingen vormt een vervalbeding in de zin van voormeld artikel 11.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The 'all-risks omnium' policy stated that cover did not apply where the insured or an authorised driver caused the loss with a blood-alcohol level above 1.5 per mille or while drunk; the Ghent Court of Appeal treated this as an exclusion and placed on the insured the burden of proving she was not intoxicated. The Court of Cassation held that, since article 11 LCAT is mandatory, the court must check whether a differently worded clause is in fact a forfeiture clause, and that a clause allowing the insurer to refuse cover because the insured failed to meet contractual obligations is a forfeiture clause. The judgment was partly quashed on the insured's appeal and referred to the Brussels Court of Appeal.","k":"Comprehensive motor cover — intoxication clause qualified as forfeiture","law":"LCAT art. 3 and art. 11 para. 1; Cass. 20.9.2012","w":20,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-02-11","rol":"C.15.0031.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2016:ARR.20160211.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"La demande résultant de troubles de voisinage fondée sur l'article 544 du Code civil suppose un trouble anormal causé par un fait, une omission ou un comportement imputable au voisin (1); la circonstance que ce fait,…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer of a company damaged by a fire that started at a neighbouring business sued, as subrogee, that business and its liability insurer. The Court of Cassation held that a nuisance claim under article 544 of the former Civil Code cannot be dismissed merely because the neighbour's conduct was faulty, and that, with non-material loss fixed at €15,795.78, the 'additional cover' item should have been reduced to €51,840.20 rather than €36,309.36; the judgment was quashed on those points as regards the liable business. The claim for new-for-old compensation was rejected (replacement value equals actual value), and the grounds against the liability insurer were inadmissible, since the decision in its favour rested on the uncontested finding that article 544 liability was not insured.","k":"Fire — subrogated insurer's recourse: nuisance and fault liability","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 544, 1382–1383","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-02-08","rol":"C.15.0170.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2016:ARR.20160208.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"L'autorité qui, en raison de la faute d'un tiers, est tenue de payer les rémunérations et les cotisations sur ces rémunérations sans recevoir de prestations de travail en contrepartie, en vertu des obligations légales…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Belgian State, which had continued to pay its employee during temporary incapacity after a workplace accident, claimed compensation from the liable third party's liability insurer; the Antwerp Court of First Instance, on appeal, awarded only net salary plus social contributions, holding that withholding tax paid to the State itself was no loss. The Court of Cassation held that a public employer obliged to pay salary without receiving work is entitled to compensation, since the legislature did not intend that burden to remain with the authority, and that withholding tax, although merely an advance on income tax, is still recoverable loss. The judgment was quashed to that extent on the State's appeal.","k":"Public employer — withholding tax on salary paid during incapacity","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1383; Act of 3.7.1967, art. 14 §3; Income Tax Code 1992, art. 270","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-02-05","rol":"C.15.0179.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2016:ARR.20160205.3","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"duties","q":"L'article 11 précité est de droit impératif et il ne résulte pas des pièces auxquelles la Cour peut avoir égard que le demandeur a renoncé à la protection qui lui est accordée par la loi.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer had refused to pay for the stolen car under a clause excluding theft where the keys were left in or on the vehicle, and the Mons Court of Appeal had dismissed the claim, treating the clause as an exclusion of cover. The Court of Cassation held that article 11 LCAT is mandatory, that the court must check whether a clause presented under another label is in fact a forfeiture clause, and that a clause allowing the insurer to refuse cover because the insured breached a contractual duty is such a clause. As the causal link between the key being in the car and the theft had not been examined, the judgment was quashed on the insured's appeal and the case sent to the Brussels Court of Appeal.","k":"Comprehensive cover — theft exclusion where keys left in the car","law":"LCAT art. 3, 11","w":20,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-02-05","rol":"C.15.0011.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2016:ARR.20160205.1","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"29bis","q":"Le juge est tenu de remédier à toute lacune de la loi dont la Cour constitutionnelle a constaté l'inconstitutionnalité, ou à celle qui résulte de ce qu'une disposition de la loi est jugée inconstitutionnelle, lorsqu'il…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A health-insurance fund claimed compensation under article 29bis from the public transport operator for an accident involving a rail-bound vehicle. The Brussels Court of Appeal had refused, on grounds of legal certainty and legitimate expectations, to apply to earlier accidents the Constitutional Court's preliminary ruling of 15 July 1998, which found the exclusion of such vehicles discriminatory. Sitting in plenary session, the Court of Cassation held that a preliminary ruling finding unconstitutionality, whose effects were not limited in time, is declaratory and binds the courts; the judgment was quashed on the fund's appeal and the case sent to the Mons Court of Appeal.","k":"Article 29bis — rail-bound vehicles and temporal effect of a Constitutional Court ruling","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; Special Act of 6.1.1989, art. 26 §2, 28; Const. Court 15.7.1998, no. 92/98","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-02-01","rol":"2015/RG/684","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2016:ARR.20160201.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A client signed an insurance proposal and paid EUR 137,687.24 into the insurer's account; the contract offer sent by the insurer was never returned signed and the client decided not to subscribe. The insurer, applying a cancellation and surrender procedure, refunded only EUR 127,893.28. The court recalled that a proposal binds neither the prospective policyholder nor the insurer (art. 4 §1 LCAT) and that, since the contract was never formed, payment of the premium could not bring it into effect (art. 103 LCAT is irrelevant); the insurer confused formation of the contract with its entry into effect and had to refund the whole sum. The broker who paid the EUR 9,793.96 difference to the client, subrogated by agreement at the time of payment and, alternatively, entitled under unjust enrichment, may recover it from the insurer. The insurer's appeal was dismissed and the order to pay confirmed.","k":"Life insurance (branch 21) — proposal, contract formation and premium refund","law":"LCAT arts. 1, 4 §1, 103; former Civil Code, arts. 1249–1250","w":68,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-01-28","rol":"2015/RG/20 ( 16ème chambre)","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2016:ARR.20160128.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"L' INTERVENTION FORCEE RECEVABLE APRES L 'AVIS PROVISOIRE DE L 'EXPERT. RESPECT DES DROITS DE LA DEFENSE - L'article 981 du Code judiciaire dispose que l'expertise est inopposable à la partie appelée en intervention…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insured joined its post-delivery liability insurer to the proceedings during the court-ordered expert examination, after the expert had sent a provisional opinion. The Mons Court of Appeal held that under articles 812 and 981 of the Judicial Code such compulsory joinder remains admissible at that stage provided the insurer's rights of defence were respected; the insurer's appeal was dismissed. Whether the loss is covered by the policy was reserved pending the expert's report.","k":"Business liability — compulsory joinder of the insurer in the expert procedure","law":"Judicial Code arts. 812, 981, 1068; Cass. 30.1.2015","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-01-25","rol":"2015/RG/523","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2016:ARR.20160125.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"« sans cet état, l'accident entraînant son décès ne se serait pas produit tel qu'il s'est produit »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The insured died in a motorcycle accident with a blood alcohol level of 2.64 g/l; the insurer under a 'key person' policy paying a lump sum and annuity on accidental death relied on the intoxication exclusion. The court held that mandatory articles 8 and 11 LCAT put the burden of proving causation between the gross fault and the loss on the insurer; the clause shifting that burden to the insured is void, but the exclusion itself stands. A straight, dry, lit road, moderate speed, no braking and the expert report gave serious, precise and concordant presumptions that without intoxication the accident would not have happened as it did. The beneficiaries' claims were dismissed; given their young age, the procedural indemnity was cut to €2,000 per instance.","k":"Accidental death insurance — intoxication exclusion and causation","law":"LCAT art. 3, 8 para. 2, 11; Act of 14.7.1991, art. 31, 33; Judicial Code, art. 1022","w":62,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-01-21","rol":"2010/RG/2008 - 2014/RG/507","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2016:ARR.20160121.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The injured party, who lost three fingers while using a mitre saw, sued the importer's product-liability insurer. The court held that the insured company, which had the product made in China, placed it on the European market, certified its conformity and described itself as importer, is treated as the producer (art. 4 §1 of the Act of 25.2.1991); the Dutch intermediary company is not the importer, so the insurer's indemnity claim against it was dismissed. The injured party's claim against that company, brought in 2013, was time-barred: the three-year period ran from the hearing of 4.2.2009 at which he learned its identity, and the insurer's indemnity claim did not interrupt it. The insurer was ordered to pay a provisional EUR 25,000 and a medical expert was appointed.","k":"Product liability — action against the liability insurer, importer status and limitation","law":"Act of 25.2.1991, arts. 3, 4 §1, 12 §2; former Civil Code, art. 2249","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-01-08","rol":"C.15.0271.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2016:ARR.20160108.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Celui qui, par sa faute, a causé un dommage à autrui est tenu de le réparer et la victime a droit à la réparation intégrale du préjudice qu'elle a subi (1). (1) Cass. 16 avril 2015, RG C.13.0305.F, Pas. 2015, n° ......,…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A passenger seriously injured in 2001 in Italy in a vehicle insured by the defendant claimed compensation from the insurer. The Court of Cassation found the judgment of the Liège Court of First Instance, sitting on appeal, self-contradictory: it confirmed an award of €29,749 for the costs of acquiring a property, yet granted nothing for that item in its summary. Refusing to capitalise the aesthetic damage because it was not constant or linear, without pointing to circumstances specific to the case, breached the duty to assess damage in concreto; the judgment was quashed on both points on the victim's appeal.","k":"Road accident — assessment in concreto of aesthetic damage","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1383; Judicial Code, art. 1138, 4°; Cass. 16.4.2015","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2016-01-04","rol":"2015/RG/545","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2016:ARR.20160104.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The insured reported a car-jacking in Brussels; the insurer refused cover, pointing to his changing accounts of how he got home. The court found the changes reasonably explained by embarrassment at admitting he had been drinking and by a depressive state following the recent death of his parents, and that nothing else cast doubt on the theft. The insurer's appeal was dismissed and the judgment ordering it to pay €19,768.60 upheld.","k":"Car-jacking — insured's shifting statements and proof of theft","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1315","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-12-21","rol":"C.14.0475.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2015:ARR.20151221.1","ch":"3N","res":"r","t":"damage","q":"De appelrechter kan zijn beslissing motiveren door verwijzing naar de redenen van het beroepen vonnis zonder deze te moeten weergeven, voor zover duidelijk is over welke redenen het gaat. [resmî özet]","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Seriously injured in a road accident on 17 October 2005 and left with 46% permanent disability, the victim asked the insurer of the fully liable driver to capitalise his post-consolidation non-pecuniary loss and extra household effort. The appeal judges awarded a lump sum on an equitable basis, for concrete reasons such as the changing intensity of this harm over time. The Court held that an appeal judge may give reasons by reference to the first-instance judgment provided it is clear which reasons are meant, and dismissed the victim's appeal.","k":"Personal injury — lump-sum or capitalised assessment after consolidation","law":"Constitution, art. 149; former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-12-18","rol":"C.14.0185.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2015:ARR.20151218.1","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"contract","q":"Il suit de ces dispositions que, si elle ne s'applique ni aux assurances maritimes ni aux assurances fluviales, que régissent des lois particulières, la loi du 25 juin 1992 s'applique aux assurances aériennes, à…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The liability insurer of a small private aircraft disputed the injured parties' direct action, arguing that the 1992 Act did not apply to aviation insurance. The Court held that, on the clear wording of article 2 LCAT, the Act applies to aviation insurance except insurance of goods in transit, and statements to the contrary in the preparatory works cannot override the text. The Liège Court of Appeal's judgment granting the injured parties the direct action of article 86 LCAT against the insurer stood; the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Aviation insurance — scope of the 1992 Act","law":"LCAT art. 2 §1, 86","w":69,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-12-14","rol":"2015/RG/591","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2015:ARR.20151214.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insured died of an aortic dissection suffered at work; the insurer gave a final refusal on 5.3.2007. His widow obtained from the president of the labour court, under article 17 of the general conditions, the appointment of a medical arbiter; the insurer took part in the expert proceedings and only objected two years later. The first-instance court had held the action time-barred. The court of appeal accepted that a new three-year period ran from the refusal and that the unilateral application did not interrupt it, but held that the insurer, which should have applied the article 17 procedure instead of simply maintaining its refusal, was acting in bad faith by relying on limitation after taking part in the expert proceedings. The action was not time-barred; the insurer was ordered to pay its half of the medical arbiter's fees, EUR 675, with the remaining claims reserved pending the expert report.","k":"Personal accident insurance — limitation and the insurer's good faith","law":"LCAT arts. 34 §1, 35 §3; general conditions, art. 17","w":65,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-12-14","rol":"S.13.0067.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2015:ARR.20151214.7","ch":"3F","res":"r","t":"work","q":"Après qu'ont été fixés la date de la consolidation et le calcul de l'allocation annuelle, le caractère d'ordre public de la loi du 10 avril 1971, les dispositions précitées et les autres dispositions invoquées par le…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The workplace-accident insurer argued that once the consolidation date and annual allowance had been fixed by judgment, a separate agreement on prosthetic and orthopaedic devices could only be made under the review conditions of article 72 of the Act of 10 April 1971. The Court held that neither the public-policy nature of the Act nor res judicata prevents such an agreement between insurer and victim, even without any change in loss of capacity, nor its approval by the Occupational Accidents Fund or its assessment by the labour court. The Mons Labour Court of Appeal's judgment stood; the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Workplace accident — separate agreement on prostheses after consolidation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24, 28, 65, 72","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-12-10","rol":"2014/RG/909","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2015:ARR.20151210.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"« il suffit, mais il faut, qu'un dommage ait été voulu »","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"The tenant had opened two gas cylinders in order to take his own life, and the explosion destroyed the building; the owner's fire insurer, subrogated after paying, sued the tenant's liability insurer. The court held that it is enough that some damage was intended, not its nature or extent: the tenant knew the explosion would damage the building and therefore caused the loss intentionally. As the liability cover was not compulsory, this forfeiture, arising from a fact prior to the loss, could be raised against the injured party: the liability insurer's appeal succeeded and the subrogated fire insurer's claim was dismissed.","k":"Tenant's liability insurance — gas explosion in a suicide attempt, intentional loss","law":"LCAT arts. 8 para. 1, 87 §2; former Civil Code, art. 1733; Cass. 24.4.2009; Cass. 14.5.2012","w":70,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons (2e ch.)","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-12-07","rol":"2015/RG/415","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2015:ARR.20151207.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The van, parked locked in front of the insured's home, disappeared overnight; the insurer pointed to the absence of traces, earlier minor claims, doubts about who used the vehicle and the insured's precarious finances. The court held that these factors did not cast doubt on the theft report, the criminal file having cleared the doubt about the user, and that the insured's dishonesty could not be implied from her receiving legal aid. The insurer was ordered to pay €15,961.05 (indemnity of €15,057.08 plus €903.97 towing and storage) with interest from 7.1.2014.","k":"Van theft — insurer's suspicions and proof","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1315","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-12-07","rol":"2014/RG/394","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2015:ARR.20151207.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The insured had omitted significant medical history from the health questionnaire; the insurer sought repayment of the hospital costs it had paid and of unpaid premiums. The court held that the history revealed by hospital stays shortly after inception was relevant to the assessment of the risk and that the omission was intentional; no causal link with the claims is required. The contract is void with retroactive effect and all benefits paid must be repaid. As the registered reminder and termination were proven, the premiums were also due; time to pay was refused for bad faith and the appeal was dismissed.","k":"Medical expenses insurance — intentional non-disclosure and repayment of benefits","law":"LCAT arts 5, 6; Cass. 25.2.2005","w":71,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-11-25","rol":"2014/RG/934","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2015:ARR.20151125.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"After suing his theft insurer for his stolen vehicle, and before judgment, the insured was admitted to a collective debt settlement without declaring either the lender or the pending proceedings. The court held the action admissible because the insured had standing and interest when he brought it: despite the lender's retention-of-title clause, he remained liable for his debt. However, from his admission on 18.9.2009 he could not pursue the proceedings alone without the judge's authorisation and notice to the debt mediator (art. 1675/7 §3 Judicial Code); recovering a claim of more than EUR 10,000 is not an ordinary act of daily life. The judgment was varied accordingly and the insured ordered to pay costs of EUR 2,630.","k":"Vehicle theft insurance — claimant admitted to collective debt settlement","law":"Judicial Code art. 1675/7; Cass. 17.2.2011","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-11-23","rol":"2014/RG/1336","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2015:ARR.20151123.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The dispute concerned the calculation of the indemnity owed to the insureds after the fire in their home and the delay in payment. The court set aside the proportional rule for the building: the sums insured had been fixed on the basis of a 2001 valuation commissioned by the insurer, and the special conditions only required a review of the contract once the renovation works were completed, which was not the case at the time of the fire. The proportional rule did apply to the contents. As the insurer failed to show that the breach of the time limits in article 67 §2 LCAT was not attributable to it, it owes interest at double the statutory rate on the late payments, without prior notice and regardless of the insureds' failure to make reservations when accepting partial payments. The insurer was ordered to pay EUR 20,056.70 in principal plus doubled interest from 24.4.2011 on the successive balances.","k":"Fire insurance — late payment, double statutory interest and proportional rule","law":"LCAT art. 67 §2 and §2bis","w":54,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-11-23","rol":"S.13.0078.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2015:ARR.20151123.2","ch":"3N","res":"c","t":"work","q":"Uit het geheel van deze bepalingen volgt dat de krachtens artikel 63, § 2, vierde lid, Arbeidsongevallenwet op de verzekeringsonderneming op straffe van verhaal rustende verplichting de verzekeringsinstelling te…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A health-insurance fund sought reimbursement from the workplace-accident insurer, which had concluded that the incapacity no longer resulted from the accident but from unrelated surgery without notifying the fund. The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal had held that no duty to notify arose because the degree of incapacity was unchanged. The Court held that the duty to notify the health-insurance fund under article 63 §2, paragraph 4, of the Act of 10 April 1971, backed by a right of recourse, applies not only when the degree of incapacity changes but also when, in the insurer's view, the incapacity is no longer due to the accident but to another cause; the judgment was quashed on the fund's appeal and the case sent to the Antwerp Labour Court of Appeal.","k":"Workplace accident — insurer's duty to notify the health-insurance fund","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-11-12","rol":"2014/RG/…","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2015:ARR.20151112.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"When a building housing a medical practice and rented flats was burgled, the alarm was off because the upstairs tenants were at home; the insurer treated this as a breach of clause 1382 of the policy. The court held that forfeiture requires a clause imposing a clear and precise obligation; the clause did not require the alarm to be set while an authorised person was in the building, the policy only requiring the building to be fitted with electronic intrusion protection. The insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Building theft — alarm not set while tenants were present","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 65 (former LCAT art. 11); policy clause 1382","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-11-12","rol":"R.G. 2011/3731/A","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:2015:JUG.20151112.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The victim of a 1990 road accident, already compensated under an appeal judgment, sought further compensation from the liability insurer for a 'true frontal syndrome'; the police court had dismissed the claim. The court held that the earlier expert report and judgment had not ruled on this undetected loss, so res judicata did not bar the claim, and that the limitation period of article 2262bis runs from when the injured party actually knows of the loss, the liable person and the possible causal link. The appeal was upheld, the claim declared admissible and an expert appointed, with the advance on costs shared equally.","k":"Personal injury — later-discovered loss, res judicata and limitation","law":"Judicial Code, art. 23–25; former Civil Code, art. 2262bis","w":56,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-11-06","rol":"C.14.0391.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2015:ARR.20151106.1","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"29bis","q":"L'employeur qui subit un préjudice personnel en servant la rémunération d'un travailleur qui, ayant été victime d'un accident de la circulation, ne peut plus, en raison de ses blessures, fournir ses prestations de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"An employer that had kept paying the salary of an employee injured in a road accident claimed it from the motor liability insurer under article 29bis. The Liège Court of First Instance, sitting on appeal, had held that only the victim's relatives are rightful claimants and excluded the employer. The Court held that anyone who suffers personal loss as a result of the victim's injury or death is a rightful claimant under article 29bis §1, including an employer that continues to pay wages; the judgment was partly quashed on the employer's appeal and the case sent to the Namur Court of First Instance.","k":"Article 29bis — employer as the victim's rightful claimant","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-10-22","rol":"2014/RG/1018","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2015:ARR.20151022.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The insured bears the burden of proving the theft; the rule that her account should be believed does not apply where factors cast doubt on it. The house was in fact occupied by her son, who discovered and reported the theft, making it doubtful that her belongings, especially jewellery, were there; purchase certificates bore signatures not matching hers, no bank records supported the purchases and the claim appeared inflated compared with the initial statements. Theft was not proven and the appeal was dismissed.","k":"Home theft — suspicious indications and unproven theft","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, art. 870; Cass. 22.1.2009","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons (16e ch.)","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-10-15","rol":"2014/RG/949","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2015:ARR.20151015.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"To keep its right of recourse, the insurer must notify the policyholder and, where relevant, the insured of its intention to seek recourse as soon as it learns of the facts justifying it; the court noted that article 88 §2 LCAT (now article 152 §2 of the Insurance Act 2014) applies immediately to existing contracts. The notice had been sent directly and only to the insured, then a minor represented by his parents, which does not meet the protective purpose of the rule. Absent valid notice, the recourse claim was inadmissible and the insurer's appeal dismissed.","k":"Insurer's recourse — notice of intended recourse to a minor","law":"LCAT art. 88 §2 (Insurance Act 2014, art. 152 §2); former Civil Code, art. 372, 376","w":11,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-10-15","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2015:ARR.143","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"La Cour, chambre restreinte, statuant à l'unanimité des voix, constate que la Cour est incompétente pour répondre à la question préjudicielle posée.","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Before the French-speaking Brussels Police Court, a motor liability insurer that had compensated a vulnerable road user under article 29bis brought a recourse action under article 25, 3° b) of the model contract against the policyholder who had knowingly entrusted the vehicle to a person not meeting the legal requirements; the court asked whether that recourse was compatible with article 29bis. The Constitutional Court, sitting in a restricted chamber and unanimously, found that it lacked jurisdiction: it reviews only legislative norms and cannot test a regulatory act (annex to the RD of 14.12.1992) against a statutory provision. The merits of the recourse were not decided.","k":"Motor liability — model-contract recourse and article 29bis; Court lacks jurisdiction","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; model contract RD 14.12.1992, art. 25, 3° b); Constitution, art. 142; Special Act of 6.1.1989, art. 1","w":72,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-10-14","rol":"2014/RG/843","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2015:ARR.20151014.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer claimed to have terminated the policy on 8.5.2006, before the loss, but could not prove that the termination notice had been sent by registered letter. Given the mandatory nature of article 29 LCAT and the insured's objection, the court held that the policy had not been validly terminated and that the insured was entitled to compensation within the limits of the policy. The insurer was ordered to pay EUR 13,000 plus statutory interest from the date of the loss and costs of EUR 3,006.93; the insured's claim against the intermediary became moot.","k":"Termination by the insurer — proof of registered letter","law":"LCAT art. 29; Cass. 17.1.2001","w":73,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-10-10","rol":"2014/RG/537","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2015:ARR.20151010.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The insured company's director was the victim of an armed car-jacking in which a case holding his restaurants' takings was stolen. The court held the claim not time-barred, since the claim notification had interrupted the limitation period and the insurer could not prove it had sent its refusal letter; theft and quantum were established by a credible account and the agreed loss assessment signed by both parties. The clause on carrying cash in vacuum bags described the risk rather than imposing a duty, and no causal link was shown; the insurer was ordered to pay €44,494.06 with interest from 7.7.2009.","k":"Theft of cash in transit — limitation and risk-description clause","law":"Insurance Act 2014, arts. 65, 88, 89 §3 (former LCAT arts. 11, 34, 35 §3); former Civil Code, arts. 1134, 1153, 1315; Cass. 22.1.2009","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-10-08","rol":"2014/RG/422 ( 16 ème chambre)","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2015:ARR.20151008.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"ASSURANCE VEHICULE - RESPECT DES MESURES DE PREVENTIONS - OBJET VISIBLE - L' application de l'article 9 § 2.2. des conditions générales de la police d'assurance stipule que la garantie n'est acquise que pour autant que…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A sales representative claimed €11,368.25 after sample cases of spectacles belonging to a third party were stolen from the back seat of her car; the first-instance court had held the claim inadmissible for lack of standing because she did not own the goods. The appeal court held that, as the insurer's contracting party, she had standing and interest to sue, and that a bailee's duty to return the goods founds an insurable interest (arts. 5, 17° and 91 of the Insurance Act 2014): the claim was admissible. However, art. 9 §2.2 of the general conditions made cover conditional on a prevention measure (goods not visible from outside the vehicle); the cases were visible through the front windows, only the rear windows being tinted. The insurer was entitled to refuse cover and the claim was dismissed on the merits.","k":"Theft from a vehicle — bailee's insurable interest and loss-prevention clause","law":"Insurance Act 2014 arts. 5, 17°, 91 and 93; Judicial Code art. 17; general conditions, art. 9 §2.2; Cass. 26.1.1978","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-10-07","rol":"P.15.0384.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2015:ARR.20151007.4","ch":"2F","res":"r","t":"motor","q":"En vertu de cette disposition, les véhicules automoteurs ne sont admis à la circulation sur la voie publique, les terrains ouverts au public et les terrains non publics mais ouverts à un certain nombre de personnes…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"After a fatal accident during a motorcycle race at the Spa-Francorchamps circuit, the appeal court had ordered the rider's private liability insurer to compensate the civil parties. The insurer argued that the motorcycle fell under compulsory motor insurance; the Court held that the findings that the circuit, entirely closed to traffic during the race, was neither a public road nor land open to the public were sufficient to justify that the motorcycle was not subject to compulsory insurance under article 2 §1 of the Act of 21 November 1989. The finding that the waiver signed by the deceased rider could not be raised against relatives claiming for their own loss also stood; the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motorcycle race on a closed circuit — compulsory insurance and private liability cover","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 2 §1","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-10-06","rol":"2014/RG/734","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2015:ARR.20151006.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"« il ne lui suffit donc pas d'établir le caractère non accidentel du sinistre ; encore ING doit-elle prouver, de manière certaine, que le feu a été bouté par J.L. lui-même »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The insurer refused cover relying on the public prosecutor's expert, who concluded that the fire could not be accidental. The court held that the insurer must do more than show the fire was not accidental: it must prove with certainty that the insured himself set it, and any remaining doubt counts against the party bearing the burden. The judgment was reversed; the insurer was ordered to pay €59,938.16 plus safety-coordination costs (up to €2,750 on invoice), with interest from 1 November 2012, since the payment deadline was suspended until the insurer had access to the criminal file; the remainder was dismissed.","k":"Fire insurance — suspected arson, proof of intent","law":"LCAT arts. 8, 67 §2 and §2bis; former Civil Code, art. 1315","w":74,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-09-24","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2015:ARR.123","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 19bis-11, § 2, de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs ne viole pas les articles 10 et 11 de la…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Leuven and Antwerp Police Courts, hearing claims by drivers against their own motor liability insurers, asked whether article 19bis-11 §2 of the Act of 21.11.1989, which splits compensation equally among insurers where the vehicle that caused the accident cannot be identified, breached the equality principle by also covering property damage and the losses of the drivers involved, and by creating a risk of collusion through incomplete or inaccurate statements. The Constitutional Court answered no, also when read with article 6(1) ECHR: the provision is an automatic compensation scheme imposed on insurers, independent of the Fund and without restriction as to who the injured party is; a rule that is justified in itself does not become discriminatory because it could be abused, and the trial court must draw the consequences of any proven fraud or collusion (fraus omnia corrumpit).","k":"Article 19bis-11 §2 — driver's own loss and risk of collusion","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 19bis-11 §2 and art. 4 §1; Constitution, arts. 10–11; ECHR, art. 6(1)","w":35,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-09-23","rol":"2014/RG/1459","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2015:ARR.20150923.17","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The policyholder had intentionally misrepresented the risk by concealing that his son was the usual driver of the vehicle. The first-instance court, relying on article 12 LCAT, had confined the nullity to the cover concerned and upheld the claim under the material-damage cover. The court of appeal reversed: the proposal form asks about the use of the vehicle and premiums are higher for young drivers, so the driver's age affects the risk even for material-damage cover. The intentional inaccuracy affects the whole contract, which is void in its entirety. The insured's claim was dismissed, with costs of EUR 1,640.","k":"Intentional misrepresentation — usual driver, nullity of the whole contract","law":"LCAT arts. 5, 12","w":75,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-09-08","rol":"2014/AM/287","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2015:ARR.20150908.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'objectif du test préalable à l'embauche n'est pas de vérifier si effectivement le travailleur convient à l'emploi offert tant au point de vue des tâches à réaliser que de son insertion au milieu de travail, ce qui est…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A job applicant was injured on 20 May 2011 during a pre-hiring test; the first court had recognised a workplace accident. The court distinguished the test from a trial period: a test checks whether the candidate's training is theoretically sufficient for the job and does not create an employment contract. The parties had expressly agreed that no pay would be given; an essential element of the employment contract was missing, so the Act of 10.4.1971 did not apply. A contract drawn up after the accident and signed only by the employer, the Dimona declaration of 30 May 2011 and the pay slips could not artificially regularise the situation. The workplace-accident insurer's appeal was upheld and the original claim dismissed; under art. 68, however, the costs of both instances (€561.15) remained payable by the insurer.","k":"Workplace accident — accident during a pre-hiring test","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 1 and 68; Act of 3.7.1978 on employment contracts","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-09-07","rol":"C.14.0209.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2015:ARR.20150907.1","ch":"3F","res":"r","t":"29bis","q":"Le conducteur au sens de l'article 29bis précité est la personne qui conduit le véhicule automoteur au moment de l'accident, c'est-à-dire celle qui, à ce moment, en a la maîtrise.","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A passenger who had suddenly grabbed the steering wheel and sent the car off the road claimed compensation from the motor liability insurer under article 29bis. The Court held that the driver within the meaning of that provision is the person driving the vehicle at the time of the accident, i.e. the person in control of it; the court below could lawfully conclude that the passenger who had taken over the controls was the driver. The complaint against the finding that he had intentionally caused the accident and its consequences failed on the facts; the appeal was dismissed and the claim remained rejected.","k":"Article 29bis — passenger who grabs the wheel becomes the driver","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-09-02","rol":"2014/RG/1527","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2015:ARR.20150902.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The exclusion of cosmetic surgery of a functional nature is clear and understandable to a lay person; consumer law does not justify reading it in the insured's favour. The surcharges of the surgeon chosen by the insured are not covered.","k":"Hospital insurance — cosmetic surgery exclusion","law":"Policy terms; consumer law (interpretation)","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-06-30","rol":"2014/RG/911","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2015:ARR.20150630.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Universal legatees under a will claimed the proceeds of the deceased's life-insurance policy. The court held that the action was not time-barred: the three-year period runs from the death, it was interrupted by the claim of 16.1.2007 and the interruption never ended because the insurer never gave a written refusal. On the merits the claim failed: the policy designated in writing the children and, failing them, the legal heirs; a will drawn up four years after the policy does not prove revocation of that designation. The appeal was dismissed and the appellants ordered to pay costs of EUR 11,357.92.","k":"Life insurance — beneficiary designation and will","law":"LCAT arts. 34–35, 106, 110/1; former Civil Code, art. 731","w":76,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-06-29","rol":"2014/RG/1177","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2015:ARR.20150629.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The burglars climbed onto the veranda roof, forced one window, then forced up the lowered aluminium shutter of a bathroom window that had been left open; the insurer relied on article 39 of the general conditions on prevention measures. The court held that the opening, protected by the lowered shutter, was properly closed, and that it was not shown that the theft would have happened differently had the window been shut, given the burglars' determination and the whole day they had to act. The insurer's appeal was dismissed, the €10,000 interim award upheld and the hearing reopened on quantum.","k":"Home theft — open window, lowered shutter and causation","law":"LCAT art. 11; former Civil Code, art. 1156; general conditions, art. 39","w":20,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-06-25","rol":"96/2015","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2015:ARR.096","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"const","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"After an accident involving several vehicles in which the drivers' liability could not be established, the injured party claimed from the motor liability insurers concerned, under article 19bis-11 §2, compensation for the property damage to their car. On a question from the French-speaking Brussels Police Court, the Constitutional Court held that the provision, read as covering property damage, does not violate articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution. For insurers, the financial risk of an accident where the causing vehicle cannot be identified does not differ fundamentally from one where it can, and must be covered by premiums; the provision does not limit compensation to bodily injury and does not refer to article 4.","k":"Accident with no identifiable liable driver — art. 19bis-11 §2 covers property damage","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 19bis-11 §2 and 4; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":35,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle — CC 96/2015","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-06-19","rol":"C.14.0403.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2015:ARR.20150619.6","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"29bis","q":"De bestuurder, in de zin van voormeld artikel 29bis, is de persoon die het motorrijtuig bestuurt op het ogenblik van het ongeval, dat wil zeggen de persoon die, op dat ogenblik, het meesterschap over dat motorrijtuig…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A moped rider who struck a car and then collided with a bus claimed compensation from the bus operator under article 29bis and, on the basis of fault, from the car driver's motor liability insurer. The Court held that the driver is the person controlling the vehicle through the mechanical means used to steer it; being thrown off during the accident does not end that status, which is lost only in a separate accident that does not merge with the first. The judgment treating her as a vulnerable road user at the time of the bus collision, although the two phases were linked, was quashed on that point on the operator's appeal; the victim's appeal against the car driver's insurer was dismissed.","k":"Article 29bis — driver status after being thrown from a moped","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1 and §2; Cass. 18.5.2012","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-06-19","rol":"C.14.0150.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2015:ARR.20150619.5","ch":"RE","res":"c","t":"motor","q":"Uit het voorgaande volgt dat het de verzekeraar die de slachtoffers van een verkeersongeval heeft vergoed op grond van artikel 29bis WAM, is toegelaten een contractueel recht van verhaal uit te oefenen op de verzekerde…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The motor liability insurer, whose cover was suspended for non-payment of the premium, sought to recover from the policyholder, under articles 24 and 25 of the model contract, the amounts paid under article 29bis to the relatives of a deceased cyclist, although the policyholder's wife bore no liability; the Ghent Court of First Instance had allowed the recourse. Sitting in joint chambers, the Court held that the article 29bis compensation duty rests on the insurer alone and is not a counter-performance owed to the insured, that the insurer's contractual recourse is limited to what it would have owed by reason of its insured's liability, and that a recourse clause covering amounts for which the insured is not liable departs from the model contract to the policyholder's detriment. The judgment was quashed on the insured's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — limits of insurer's recourse after a 29bis payment","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; model contract RD 14.12.1992, art. 1, 24, 25; LCAT art. 88","w":77,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-06-19","rol":"C.14.0169.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2015:ARR.20150619.2","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"work","q":"Uit de samenhang tussen deze bepalingen volgt dat de arbeidsongevallenverzeke-raar die de getroffene heeft vergoed en gesubrogeerd is in zijn rechten, slechts over een rechtsvordering inzake burgerrechtelijke…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The workplace-accident insurer had recovered its outlays from the third parties at fault; they in turn sought indemnity from the employer, also at fault, and the Ghent Court of Appeal ordered the employer to indemnify them for 20%. The Court held that the subrogated workplace-accident insurer may bring a liability action against the employer only in the cases listed in article 46 §1 of the Act of 10 April 1971, and that a co-liable party who compensated the victim or the insurer has an action against the co-liable employer only in those same cases. The judgment holding that the immunity could be raised only against the victim and their successors was quashed on that point on the employer's appeal.","k":"Workplace accident — employer immunity and co-liable parties' recourse","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46, 47; former Civil Code, art. 1251, 3°","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-06-19","rol":"C.12.0577.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2015:ARR.20150619.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"En vertu des articles 1382 et 1383 du Code civil, celui qui cause à autrui un dommage par sa faute est tenu de réparer intégralement ce dommage; ceci implique le rétablissement du préjudicié dans l'état où il serait…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The General Secretariat of the Council of the EU, which paid an invalidity pension to a staff member retired after injuries caused by a third party's fault, sought reimbursement from the liable party's insurer; the Veurne Court of First Instance, on appeal, allowed the claim. The Court of Cassation accepted that a public employer obliged to pay salary without receiving work may recover its loss, but held that an invalidity pension is not salary: it is a social-security benefit covering the risk of permanent incapacity and is not recoverable loss under article 1382 of the former Civil Code. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal, including the inseparable finding that the Union had no subrogated recourse.","k":"Liability insurance — EU invalidity pension is not recoverable loss","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1383; EU Staff Regulations","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-06-17","rol":"2014/RG/1091","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2015:ARR.20150617.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insured, who reported that his motorcycle was stolen within ten minutes outside a video shop, objected to the use of statements gathered by the investigator engaged by the insurer. The court recalled that private detectives are strictly regulated by the Act of 19 July 1991, that the detective stayed within his legal remit by telling interviewees clearly that he was investigating for the insurer, and that the criticism of this method as undemocratic was unfounded. The judgment, which had dismissed the claim because of elements casting suspicion on the insured's account, was upheld; the appeal failed.","k":"Motorcycle theft insurance — weight of a private detective's findings","law":"Act of 19.7.1991 on private detectives, art. 1; former Civil Code, art. 1315","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-06-09","rol":"07/6525/A","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:2015:JUG.20150609.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"","court":"first","out":"kismen","src":"alt","s":"A person injured in a 1995 road accident, already on invalidity pension for a neck condition before the accident, claimed compensation from the motor insurer under article 29bis. The court refused to base economic loss on salary lost through the pension, causation not being proven, while accepting that some economic loss existed; for personal and household incapacity it placed the burden of proving the pre-existing condition on the insurer and kept the 30% rate. Amounts were partly revised (including €1,760.29 family help and €10,916.50 temporary personal incapacity), with 5% interest until end 2009 and costs shared.","k":"Article 29bis — pre-existing condition and assessment of bodily injury","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; former Civil Code, art. 1382; Cass. 6.1.1993; Judicial Code, art. 1017","w":35,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (istinaf)","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-06-01","rol":"2013/RG/1779","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2015:ARR.20150601.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The policyholder claimed for the fire of a luxury car; the first court had dismissed the claim for lack of proof of ownership and thus of insurable interest, holding the contract void for want of that essential element. The court dismissed the appeal and refused the refund of premiums. Because the policyholder had in bad faith breached the duty to cooperate in evidence by refusing to produce the purchase invoice, the first-instance procedural indemnity was kept at the maximum (€6,600); the insurer's claim for a vexatious appeal was rejected.","k":"Motor fire insurance — insurable interest, proof of ownership","law":"Insurable interest (LCAT); Judicial Code, art. 1022","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-05-28","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2015:ARR.074","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : Interprété en ce sens qu'il n'exclut pas du régime d'indemnisation automatique les accidents de la circulation impliquant un véhicule qui circule sur une voie ferrée qui est complètement isolée…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Before the Dinant Police Court, the relatives of a victim relied on article 29bis against the railway operator after an accident on a track completely isolated from traffic, the victim being a person authorised to be on the track for work. The Constitutional Court ruled that article 29bis §1(2) of the Act of 21.11.1989, read as not excluding such accidents from automatic compensation, does not violate articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution. The exception identified in judgment no. 35/2012 concerns ordinary vulnerable road users; for a person authorised on the track for work, the track's isolation has no bearing on the risk created, so excluding that person would not be reasonably justified.","k":"Article 29bis — person authorised on an isolated railway track for work","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1(2); Constitution, arts. 10–11; Const. Court no. 35/2012","w":35,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-05-28","rol":"C.14.0579.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2015:ARR.20150528.13","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"duties","q":"En vertu de l'article 11 de la loi du 25 juin 1992, le contrat d'assurance ne peut prévoir la déchéance partielle ou totale du droit à la prestation d'assurance qu'en raison de l'inexécution d'une obligation déterminée…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The policyholder contested the motor liability insurer's recourse for intentional omission or misstatement in the risk declaration at the conclusion of the contract, relying on the causation requirement of article 11 LCAT. The Court held that article 11 LCAT does not apply to the insurer's recourse based on article 25, 1°, first paragraph, b) of the model contract. The judgment of the French-speaking Brussels Court of First Instance, sitting on appeal, stood; the policyholder's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for intentional misrepresentation and causation","law":"LCAT art. 5, 11; model contract RD 14.12.1992, art. 9, 24, 25, 1° b); Cass. 13.9.2012","w":78,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-05-21","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2015:ARR.062","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : - L'article 46, § 1er, 7°, d), de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail viole les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution. - La seconde question préjudicielle n'appelle pas de réponse","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Before the Ghent Labour Court of Appeal, a workplace-accident victim brought an ordinary-law damages claim against the employer, who had seriously breached workplace safety rules and had been served a formal notice by the authorities; article 46 §1, 7°, d) of the Act of 10.4.1971 required the notice to state explicitly that immunity could be lifted. The Constitutional Court held this provision contrary to articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution: depriving the victim of the action merely because the administration omitted that statement is excessively formalistic and makes the victim's right depend on a possible oversight by the inspecting official. The second question required no answer.","k":"Workplace accident — employer immunity and content of the formal notice","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46 §1, 7°, d); Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-05-20","rol":"P.15.0474.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2015:ARR.20150520.1","ch":"2F","res":"c","t":"procedure","q":"Tant en vertu de l'article 162bis, alinéa 2, qu'en vertu de l'article 153, § 5, la victime ou son subrogé qui met en œuvre l'action en réparation du dommage en lançant citation soit devant la juridiction répressive,…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The civil party, whose claim failed after the defendant's acquittal, had been ordered to pay a procedural indemnity to the defendant's insurer, which had intervened voluntarily. The Court held that article 153 §5 of the Insurance Act of 4 April 2014 does not derogate from article 162bis, second paragraph, of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and that criminal courts, even when ruling on the civil claim, may award a procedural indemnity only in the cases provided by law. Since the prosecution had been brought by the public prosecutor and the civil party had merely joined it at the hearing, the order to pay the procedural indemnity to the insurer was quashed without referral.","k":"Criminal proceedings — procedural indemnity in favour of the insurer","law":"Insurance Act 2014, art. 153 §5; Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 162bis; Judicial Code, art. 1022","w":56,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-05-18","rol":"2014/AB/996","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2015:ARR.20150518.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Filmbeelden van een niet van de straat afgesloten oprit die zichtbaar is voor elke voorbijganger op de openbare weg, vormen geen inbreuk op art 5 van de wet Van 19-7-1991. Beelden die de betrokkene tonen terwijl hij…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer relied on footage, shot by a private detective, showing the victim walking in the street and getting into a car on the way to the court expert; the expert had cut the permanent incapacity rate from 10% to 7% on that basis. The court held that filming a driveway visible from the street and the public road itself breaches neither arts. 5 and 7 of the Private Detectives Act of 19.7.1991 nor the Privacy Act of 8.12.1992, and that using the footage as evidence is not a disproportionate interference with privacy; the DVD of 13 May 2013 may be used. However, because the footage was disclosed only after the preliminary report, the adversarial character of the expert examination was undermined: it must be put to the new expert at the start of his mission. The new expert examination ordered by the first court was confirmed and the case sent back; the appeal succeeded in part, with costs on the insurer.","k":"Workplace accident — private detective footage as evidence","law":"Private Detectives Act of 19.7.1991, arts. 1 §1, 3°, 5 and 7; Act of 8.12.1992, arts. 5 and 7; Judicial Code, arts. 976 and 1068 para. 2","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Brussel","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-05-11","rol":"12/2495/A","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:2015:JUG.20150511.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The public employer that had kept paying a teacher injured in a road accident on her way to work claimed the gross salary from the BBAA (Belgian Motor Insurers' Bureau), representing in Belgium the liable driver's foreign liability insurer. The court accepted in principle an own claim under article 1382 but held it unfounded: the employer did not even allege that it had replaced the teacher and proved no concrete loss. As the employer declined to bring a subrogation claim and the Medex findings were not binding on the BBAA, the claim was dismissed.","k":"Public employer's recourse — representative of a foreign liability insurer","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382; Act of 3.7.1967, art. 14, §3; Cass. 18.11.2011; Cass. 15.1.2014","w":56,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-04-29","rol":"2013/RG/1628","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2015:ARR.20150429.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The policyholder, who had disclosed intestinal disorders in the health-insurance proposal, was refused cover for a hospital stay linked to that condition. The court found that the special conditions excluded the intestinal condition without any time limit (the duration box had been left blank), a reading confirmed by the insured's signed undertaking not to use the Medi-Card for a contractually excluded condition. Special conditions prevail over general conditions; article 23 of the latter does not apply. The judgment was reversed and the insured's claim dismissed.","k":"Health insurance — open-ended exclusion of a pre-existing condition","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1156–1164; precedence of special conditions","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-04-28","rol":"P.13.1010.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2015:ARR.20150428.1","ch":"2N","res":"r","t":"work","q":"Om te bepalen of de op basis van het gemeen recht toe te kennen schade-loosstelling meer bedraagt dan de door de arbeidsongevallenverzekeraar verschul-digde uitkeringen, moet het bedrag van de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The victim's relatives, civil parties in criminal proceedings, objected, against the insurer that had intervened voluntarily, to comparing net with gross amounts and to the capital set up by the workplace-accident insurer not being limited to the victim's working life. The Court held that, to determine whether common-law damages exceed the benefits owed by the workplace-accident insurer, those benefits must be taken including social contributions and compared with the common-law damages, and that the reimbursement action under article 47 of the Act of 10 April 1971 covers the whole capital set up, not only the part matching the victim's likely earning life. The appeal was dismissed.","k":"Workplace accident — comparing common-law damages with statutory benefits","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46, 47; former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-04-27","rol":"2014/RG/895","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2015:ARR.20150427.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The liquidator of a bankrupt company claimed from the theft insurer for a van allegedly stolen and later found burnt out. The court recalled that the insured bears the burden of proof and that the account must be plausible: no signs of forced entry, steering lock intact, an encrypted transponder preventing start-up without an original key while the manager still held both keys, a vehicle left nose-first at the end of a narrow lane ruling out towing or a flatbed, and a financial interest since the indemnity (€22,112.10) exceeded the outstanding loan (€17,255.42). These elements cast doubt on the theft; the appeal was dismissed.","k":"Theft insurance — plausibility of the theft report","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1315","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-04-17","rol":"C.14.0350.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2015:ARR.20150417.1","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"persons","q":"De verzekeraar die een persoonsverzekering tegen lichamelijke ongevallen heeft afgesloten, is tot betaling van vergoedende interest aan de verzekerde ge-houden wanneer de verzekeringsovereenkomst voorziet in dekking van…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Tongeren Court of First Instance, sitting on appeal, had ordered the personal accident insurer to pay, on top of the €30,550.41 indemnity, compensatory interest from the date of the accident and of consolidation, whereas the policy provided for interest from 14 days after the amounts were fixed. The Court held that the insurer owes compensatory interest only if the contract covers it, and that for late payment it may be ordered to pay default interest on the agreed indemnity, not compensatory interest on the covered loss. The judgment was quashed as regards interest on the insurer's appeal and the case sent to the Antwerp Court of First Instance.","k":"Personal accident insurance — compensatory versus default interest","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1146, 1147, 1153","w":56,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-04-16","rol":"C.13.0305.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2015:ARR.20150416.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Méconnaît la force obligatoire d'une convention, l'arrêt qui, en se fondant sur des stipulations que ladite convention contient, refuse de donner à celle-ci l'effet convenu par les parties (1) (2). (1) Voir Cass. 15…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The policy's general conditions provided the temporary-incapacity benefit only to the extent the victim actually lost salary or income; the Liège Court of Appeal held that, since the health-insurance fund's benefits were below the salary, the victim was entitled to the policy benefits without deducting them. The Court of Cassation held that this disregarded the binding force of the insurance contract (art. 1134 of the former Civil Code). On the insurer's subrogated claim against the liable party and its insurer, assessing permanent household loss on a flat-rate basis rather than by capitalisation, without case-specific reasons, breached the duty to assess damage in concreto; the judgment was quashed on those points on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Accident insurance — temporary incapacity benefit and actual loss of income","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1134, 1382–1383","w":56,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-03-30","rol":"2014/RG/1318","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2015:ARR.20150330.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"During a burglary at the insured's home, the thieves took the car keys and drove the car away; the insurer relied on clause A3433 making theft cover conditional on specified anti-theft systems. The court held that, though drafted as an exclusion, the clause imposed prevention duties (fitting and maintaining the systems) and was a forfeiture clause; the insurer had to prove causation and did not dispute that there was none on the facts. The judgment was reversed and the insurer ordered to pay €20,000 with interest from 29.1.2013.","k":"Vehicle theft — anti-theft equipment clause recharacterised as forfeiture","law":"LCAT art. 3 and 11; Cass. 20.9.2012; clause A3433","w":20,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-03-30","rol":"2014/rg/706","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2015:ARR.20150330.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The policyholder, whose comprehensively insured car was allegedly stolen, had lost at first instance for lack of sufficient proof of theft. The court recalled that the burden of proof lies on the insured but is lightened: positive proof of theft is not required, yet nothing may cast doubt on the truth of the insured's statements. The insurer's question whether a keyless theft of a locked, transponder-equipped vehicle was technically possible was found relevant; lacking the technical expertise, the court appointed a motor expert before ruling on the merits.","k":"Motor theft insurance — proof of theft, transponder","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, arts. 962 et seq.","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-03-12","rol":"C.14.0123.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2015:ARR.20150312.13","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"procedure","q":"La circonstance que les droits et obligations résultant du contrat d'assurance couvrant la responsabilité de la société faillie représentée par le troisième défendeur aient, avant la reprise d'instance, été transférés…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The contractors' all-risks insurers of a construction company appealed against judgments of the Liège Court of Appeal that had reopened the proceedings on the cover limit and the production of the general conditions. The Court held that no one may appeal in cassation unless they were a party in the same capacity, and that the transfer of the rights and obligations under the insurance contract to the branch of another insurer does not give that insurer, absent from the proceedings, standing to appeal. It also held that a judge's missing signature may be supplied after delivery under article 788 of the Judicial Code, and dismissed the appeal; the merits were not decided in this judgment.","k":"Procedure — transferee insurer's standing to appeal and missing signature","law":"Judicial Code, art. 782, 782bis, 785, 788","w":56,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-03-10","rol":"2014/AM/104","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2015:ARR.20150310.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"La subrogation implique que les exceptions susceptibles d'être opposées au subrogeant par le débiteur de la réparation du dommage demeurent opposables au subrogé. Cette règle n'est toutefois pas valable pour les…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The health-insurance fund sought from the workplace-accident insurer reimbursement of incapacity benefits paid to its member from 18 to 24 December 2009, before the accident of 4 December 2009 was recognised as a workplace accident; the insurer argued that this period was covered by the guaranteed monthly wage paid by the employer, so the victim had no right against it. The court recalled that defences available against the subrogor can be raised against the subrogee, except those arising after the payment that transferred the claim: the right to the guaranteed wage only arose when the accident was recognised in June 2010, months after the fund's payment. The insurer also failed to prove that the guaranteed wage had actually been paid. The appeal was upheld; the insurer was ordered to pay €423.72 with interest from 7 January 2010 and €106.89 in costs.","k":"Workplace accident — health-insurance fund's subrogation and defences arising after payment","law":"Coordinated Act of 14.7.1994, art. 136 §2; Act of 3.7.1978, art. 54 §1; CCT no. 12bis, arts. 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-03-10","rol":"P.13.1066.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2015:ARR.20150310.5","ch":"2N","res":"c","t":"motor","q":"De vernietiging van de beslissing op de door de eiser tegen Axa Belgium nv ingestelde burgerlijke rechtsvordering bij het arrest van het Hof van 18 april 2006, brengt de vernietiging mee van de beslissing op de door de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The civil party, injured during a motor-vehicle race, claimed against the insurer of the organiser's special liability cover under article 8 of the Act of 21 November 1989, the liability insurer of the defendant driver and the Guarantee Fund. The Court held that the earlier quashing of the decision on the claim against the organiser's insurer extended to the decision on the claims against the liability insurer and the Fund, which formed an indivisible ruling with it, so that those claims were still pending before the court on referral. The Ypres criminal court's judgment declining jurisdiction over them was quashed to that extent on the civil party's appeal; the rest of the appeal was dismissed.","k":"Race organiser's insurance — scope of cassation and Guarantee Fund","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 8; Cass. 11.10.2000","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-03-10","rol":"P.14.0184.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2015:ARR.20150310.2","ch":"2N","res":"r","t":"motor","q":"Uit de samenhang tussen deze bepalingen volgt dat het Fonds zich voor de strafrechter als gesubrogeerde in de rechten van de benadeelde die het heeft ver-goed wegens niet-verzekering, burgerlijke partij kan stellen…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Guarantee Fund, having compensated the injured party because the vehicle was uninsured, joined the criminal proceedings as civil party against the liable driver, who argued that it could not do so as he had not been prosecuted for driving uninsured. The Court held that under articles 19bis-11 §1 8°, 19bis-14 §1 and 19bis-17 of the Act of 21 November 1989, the Fund, subrogated to the rights of the injured party it compensated for lack of insurance, may join criminal proceedings as civil party against the liable person, without that person also having to be prosecuted and convicted for driving uninsured. The immediate appeal against the non-final decision on the Fund's subrogation was examined and the driver's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Guarantee Fund — joining criminal proceedings as subrogated party","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 19bis-11 §1 8°, 19bis-14 §1, 19bis-17; Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 416, para. 2; Cass. 14.12.2005","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-03-05","rol":"27/2015","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2015:ARR.027","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"const","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The victim, injured at work in a full-time job while also holding a part-time job with another employer, asked for both salaries to be included in the basic pay used to calculate statutory benefits. On a question from the Liège Labour Court of Appeal, the Constitutional Court held that article 34(1)-(2) of the Act of 10 April 1971 does not violate articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution by treating such a victim like one employed only full-time. Flat-rate compensation reflects a balance between employers' and workers' interests; requiring the workplace-accident insurer to compensate also on the basis of part-time pay from another business would undermine the aim of keeping insured risks assessable. The second question needed no answer.","k":"Workplace accident — pay from a second part-time job","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 34(1)-(2); Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle — CC 27/2015","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-03-05","rol":"C.14.0017.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2015:ARR.20150305.7","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"damage","q":"Sous peine d'indemniser un dommage non subi, il y a lieu de tenir compte de la quote-part d'entretien personnel de la victime dont le ménage fait l'économie.","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Mons Court of First Instance, sitting on appeal in an article 29bis case, had set the surviving husband's household loss at €137,453.61 without deducting the deceased wife's share of personal upkeep. The Court held that a surviving spouse's household loss is the loss of the benefit they personally derived from the victim's household work and that, to avoid compensating a loss not suffered, the victim's share of personal upkeep that the household no longer has to bear must be taken into account. The judgment was quashed as regards household loss on the motor liability insurer's appeal and the case sent to the Walloon Brabant Court of First Instance.","k":"Death — surviving spouse's household loss","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1 and §5; former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-03-05","rol":"C.14.0197.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2015:ARR.20150305.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"L'employeur public qui, en vertu de ses obligations légales ou réglementaires, est tenu de verser une rémunération à son agent sans recevoir de prestations en contrepartie a droit à une indemnité lorsqu'il subit ainsi…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A teacher at a subsidised independent school was injured on her way to work in a road accident caused by the defendant's insured; the French Community, which kept paying her salary, claimed those amounts from the insurer under article 1382 of the former Civil Code as its own loss. The Brussels Court of First Instance, on appeal, held that the loss lies in the absence of work in return, borne by the employing school rather than the subsidising authority, so the Community could rely only on subrogation under article 14 of the Act of 3 July 1967. The Court of Cassation found that decision lawful and dismissed the Community's appeal.","k":"Commuting accident — subsidising Community's claim against the insurer","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1383; Act of 3.7.1967, art. 14; Act of 29.5.1959; Cass. 24.1.2013","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-03-03","rol":"2013/RG/67 ( 2 ème chambre)","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2015:ARR.20150303.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"Alleging budget overruns and defects, the building owner sued several construction professionals, including the architect and his liability insurer. The insurer argued that cover had been suspended for non-payment of premiums during certain periods and that this suspension could be raised against the injured party. The court recalled that an architect's liability insurance is compulsory (Cass. 19.10.2001) and that under art. 151 §1 of the Insurance Act 2014 (formerly art. 87 §1 LCAT) only suspension of the contract, not suspension of cover for unpaid premiums (art. 69 of the 2014 Act, formerly art. 14 LCAT), may be raised against the injured party (Cass. 22.10.1996). The €375,000 ceiling matters only if reached. The insurer's appeal on this point was dismissed; the architect, his company and the insurer were held liable in solidum, but, on cross-appeals, for substantially reduced sums (€3,545.81 and €8,540.79).","k":"Architect's liability insurance — suspension of cover and its effect on the injured party","law":"Insurance Act 2014 arts. 69, 151 §1 and 311 §2 (formerly LCAT arts. 14 and 87 §1); Cass. 19.10.2001; Cass. 22.10.1996","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-02-25","rol":"2014/RG/324","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2015:ARR.20150225.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"Returning from a party, a young man was hit in the eye by a magazine thrown during a game among friends. The court rejected forfeiture for late notice: the insured learned of the claim only in July 2008 and passed it on within the ten-day contractual period, and the insurer showed no prejudice (arts. 19 §1 and 21 LCAT). The intentional-loss exclusion was dismissed, since the current restrictive approach requires that the insured knowingly and deliberately caused the damage; drunkenness was not proven. However, the victim, who took part in the game, accepted a risk: one third of the damage stays with him, and the direct action and guarantee claim against the insurer succeed for two thirds.","k":"Family liability insurance — late notice, intentional loss and victim's fault","law":"LCAT arts. 8, 19 §1, 21; former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":79,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-02-09","rol":"C.14.0210.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2015:ARR.20150209.2","ch":"3N","res":"c","t":"subrogation","q":"Uit die bepaling volgt dat de verzekeringsinstelling die aan het slachtoffer van schade voortvloeiend uit ziekte, letsel, functionele stoornissen of overlijden, de bij de verplichte verzekering bepaalde prestaties heeft…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The health-insurance fund sought reimbursement of its benefits from the liable person and his insurer after an accident for which liability was shared equally with its member; the Turnhout Court of First Instance, sitting on appeal, had limited the provisional award and the reservation to half of the payments. The Court held that under article 136 §2, fourth paragraph, of the coordinated Act of 14 July 1994, the fund is subrogated for all its benefits, up to the amount owed under ordinary law by the liable third party or its insurer, and that the subrogation is not limited to the third party's share of liability. The judgment, which ignored the incapacity compensation the member could claim under ordinary law, was quashed as to the amount on the fund's appeal and the case sent to the Limburg Court of First Instance.","k":"Health-insurance fund subrogation — scope where liability is shared","law":"Coordinated Act of 14.7.1994 (health insurance), art. 136 §2, para. 4","w":56,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-02-06","rol":"2013/AL/392","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2015:ARR.20150206.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"« Les moyens de preuve obtenus en violation de cette disposition légale doivent être écartés des débats »","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"To challenge the incapacity rate set by an adversarial medical expert, the workplace-accident insurer produced a private investigator's report with footage of the victim filmed without his knowledge on the public road. The court held that such evidence is not excluded in principle, but requires compliance with the Act regulating private investigators and that the person be informed and given access and rectification rights (article 9 §2 of the Act of 8 December 1992) before it is produced in court. As this was not done, the report and footage were excluded, and the Antigone case law was not extended. The insurer's appeal was dismissed; compensation based on temporary total incapacity and 35% permanent incapacity was confirmed.","k":"Workplace accident — private-investigator evidence excluded","law":"Act of 10.4.1971; Act of 19.7.1991, art. 1, 2 and 8; Act of 8.12.1992, art. 9 §2 and 39, 4°","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-02-03","rol":"2013/RG/1298","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2015:ARR.20150203.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"« il n'est pas requis que la circonstance omise ou inexactement déclarée ait eu une influence sur la survenance du sinistre […] il suffit qu'elle ait exercé une influence sur l'appréciation du risque »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The insured died by suicide after the first policy year; the insurer argued the contract was void for intentional non-disclosure. The court found that, despite a clear warning, the insured had concealed a burnout, anxiolytic medication and a suicide attempt shortly before signing, an omission that could only be intentional. No causal link between the concealed fact and the death is required; it is enough that it affected the assessment of the risk. The provisional award of €161,500 was reversed and the widow's claim dismissed.","k":"Mortgage life (outstanding balance) insurance — undisclosed suicide attempt","law":"LCAT arts 5, 6","w":71,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-01-30","rol":"C.14.0276.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2015:ARR.20150130.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Laemployeur du secteur public qui invoque avoir subi un dommage ensuite daun accident causé par la faute daun tiers dont son membre du personnel a été victime, dès lors quail a dû payer les rémunérations et les charges…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A public employer's insurer claimed from the liable person's liability insurer the amounts paid during the employee's temporary incapacity; the Leuven Court of First Instance, on appeal, ordered payment, treating the findings of the medical service (Medex) as binding. The Court of Cassation held that the employer must prove, by any means, its loss and that the salary related to a period of accident-related incapacity; against the liable party's insurer, Medex findings are only a factual presumption for the court to weigh. Because the liability insurer had not been allowed to contest them, the judgment was quashed on its appeal.","k":"Public-sector workplace accident — effect of Medex findings on the liability insurer","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1383; Act of 3.7.1967; RD 13.7.1970, art. 8","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-01-28","rol":"P.14.0390.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2015:ARR.20150128.2","ch":"2F","res":"c","t":"procedure","q":"L'appel du prévenu ne profite pas à l'assureur de sa responsabilité civile, appelé à la cause ou intervenu volontairement lorsqu'en vertu de l'article 14 de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The police court had convicted the defendant of involuntary manslaughter and ordered him, jointly with his liability insurer which had intervened voluntarily, to pay €48,430.82 to the civil party; only the defendant appealed, and the Brussels criminal court acquitted him and released the insurer. The Court held that the defendant's appeal does not benefit an insurer ordered to pay alongside him under article 14 of the Act of 21 November 1989 that has not itself lodged an admissible appeal: the first judgment, final as against the insurer, irrevocably settles its relationship with the victim. The decision on the victim's civil claim against the insurer was quashed; another insurer's appeal as civil party was dismissed for lack of any ground.","k":"Criminal proceedings — defendant's appeal does not benefit the insurer","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 14; Cass. 21.12.2005","w":56,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-01-22","rol":"2013/RG/795","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2015:ARR.20150122.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The parents of a deceased worker alleged errors in the autopsy and in 2010 sued the doctor and her liability insurer. The court held the action against the doctor time-barred under art. 2262bis §1(2) of the former Civil Code, and the direct action against the insurer time-barred after five years from knowledge of the damage (art. 34 §2 LCAT); the injured party cannot remain passive in finding out the insurer's identity. Letters from 2004 and 2005 did not express a wish to be compensated and so did not interrupt the period (art. 35 §4); art. 35 §3bis was irrelevant since both actions were time-barred. Debates reopened on costs.","k":"Direct action against a doctor's liability insurer — five-year limitation","law":"LCAT arts. 34 §2, 35 §3bis and §4; former Civil Code, art. 2262bis §1","w":80,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-01-16","rol":"C.14.0294.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2015:ARR.20150116.2","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"liability","q":"Hieruit volgt dat voor de verzekeringsovereenkomst waarin de dekking afhanke-lijk kan gemaakt worden van het instellen van de vordering tijdens de duur ervan, de verplichte dekking gedurende de termijn van 36 maanden na…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"An architect's liability insurer disputed having to cover, under a claims-made policy, a claim made after the policy had ended. The Court held that the 36-month cover in article 78 LCAT is meant to protect the insured and the injured party until a new contract is concluded with another insurer; in a contract making cover conditional on a claim being made during its term, the mandatory 36-month cover therefore applies unless another insurer covers the loss. The Ghent Court of Appeal's judgment stood; the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Architect's liability insurance — 36-month run-off cover","law":"LCAT art. 78 (as amended by the Act of 16.3.1994)","w":19,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-01-15","rol":"2013/NA/9","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2015:ARR.20150115.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"« Les personnes qui décideraient de ne pas souscrire une assurance incendie couvrant les risques simples […] ne peuvent donc s'adresser à la Caisse nationale des calamités naturelles »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The natural disasters act does not in principle apply to insurable simple risks; for insured property the National Disaster Fund only tops up when the insurer has capped its payments under article 68-8 §2 LCAT or defaults. The Governor had awarded €3,269.02 to a policyholder who received €4,877 from her insurer for a loss assessed at €7,479.45. The State argued, without proving it, that the insurer had not applied the cap; its appeal was dismissed and the Governor's decision upheld. In this administrative procedure the State bears its own costs but owes no procedural indemnity.","k":"Natural disaster — top-up payment by the National Disaster Fund","law":"Act of 12.7.1976 (natural disasters), art. 2 §3, 34-1, 34-2, 34-3, 55; LCAT art. 68-8 §2","w":81,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles (2e ch.)","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-01-12","rol":"13/14220/A","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:2015:JUG.20150112.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The subsidising authority that had kept paying a teacher injured on her way to work claimed the gross salary from the liability insurer of the person responsible for the accident. Sitting on appeal, the court dismissed the claim under article 1382 of the Civil Code, as no damage of the authority's own was shown. The subrogation claim under article 14, §3 of the Act of 3 July 1967 is calculated not on gross pay but on the victim's net pay plus the tax she would have owed on compensation; an expert was appointed on the incapacity rates and the judgment was declared binding on the State (Medex).","k":"Public employer's recourse against the liability insurer — net-pay basis","law":"Act of 3.7.1967, art. 14, §3; former Civil Code, art. 1382; Cass. 18.11.2011; Cass. 15.1.2014","w":56,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-01-07","rol":"2013/RG/1765","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2015:ARR.20150107.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A horse boarded at a riding centre injured another boarded horse; the centre, held liable as keeper, sought cover from its liability insurer. The court found that the special conditions, which prevail over the general conditions, clearly state 'entrusted property cover (boarded horses excluded)'; the balance of obligations was not upset, since the premium had been calculated on the number of boxes and the insured had been assisted by its broker. The judgment was reversed: the insurer owes no cover; the insured was ordered to pay €2,850 in costs.","k":"Business liability insurance — entrusted-property exclusion (boarded horses)","law":"Precedence of special conditions over general conditions; former Civil Code, art. 1385","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-01-06","rol":"P.14.0311.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2015:ARR.20150106.2","ch":"2N","res":"c","t":"motor","q":"Uit de omstandigheid dat een voertuig ten onrechte werd ingeschreven als een \"landbouw- of bosbouwtrekker\" in de zin van artikel 1, § 2.59, KB Technische Eisen Auto's volgt niet dat dit voertuig, voor zover het voldoet…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The public prosecutor appealed against the acquittal on the charge of uninsured driving, arguing that tractors registered as agricultural tractors were being used for other purposes. The Court held that under articles 2 §1 and 22 §1 of the Act of 21 November 1989 only putting into circulation a vehicle for which no compliant insurance contract was concluded, or whose insurance is suspended, is punishable, and that registration for a particular use does not mean that another use in itself amounts to driving uninsured. It added that there is an aggravation of risk within the meaning of article 26 LCAT only if it is lasting; since the policies allowed transport for third parties against payment, no lasting aggravation was established. The prosecutor's appeal was dismissed; the defendants' appeals were partly allowed on the roadworthiness and driving-licence charges.","k":"Uninsured driving offence — use differing from registration and risk aggravation","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 2 §1, 22 §1; LCAT art. 26 §1","w":82,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-01-05","rol":"2014/RG/138","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2015:ARR.20150105.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The dog of an insured who performed as a paid fairground artist attacked a passer-by's dog while, excited and frightened after refusing to jump through a burning hoop during the show, it was being taken back to the van. The court held that the incident was closely linked to a professional activity and that cover under the private-life liability policy had not been shown; the injured party's claim against the insurer was dismissed. The insured, who had knowingly filed a false claim statement, was ordered to repay the insurer the €718.52 paid to the victim, with interest; the medical expert examination between insured and victim was maintained.","k":"Family liability insurance — professional-activity exclusion (performing dog)","law":"Policy general conditions, arts. 1.1 and 1.4 (private-life liability); former Civil Code, arts. 1315 and 1385","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2015-01-05","rol":"C.13.0385.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2015:ARR.20150105.1","ch":"3F","res":"c","t":"work","q":"Il résulte de la lecture conjointe de ces dispositions que, lorsqu'il doute de l'application de la loi du 10 avril 1971 à l'accident ou qu'il refuse de le prendre en charge, l'assureur contre les accidents du travail ne…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Occupational Accidents Fund had compensated the victim believing the employer was uninsured, whereas the workplace-accident insurer had refused to accept the accident; the Brussels Court of Appeal had held that any insurer refusing to pay is 'in default' within the meaning of article 58 §1 3° of the Act of 10 April 1971 and that the Fund had recourse under article 60. The Court held that an insurer that doubts whether the Act applies to the accident or refuses to accept it is not in default within that meaning, so articles 58 §1 3° and 60 do not apply; the judgment was quashed on the Fund's appeal and the case sent to the Mons Court of Appeal.","k":"Workplace accident — an insurer that refuses cover is not 'in default'","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 58 §1 3°, 60, 63 §2","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-12-16","rol":"2013/rg/1236","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2014:ARR.20141216.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The first-instance court had ordered the insurer to cover a night-time burglary at a grocery shop; on appeal the insurer argued that the insured had concealed that he actually ran a night shop (arts. 5–7 LCAT) and had not met the minimum mechanical protection standards for the doors. The Liège Court of Appeal found that the insured had declared a daytime grocery shop and that the insurer failed to prove a night shop was being run: no misrepresentation of the risk was established. On the protection measures, it reopened the hearing for the parties to address the photographs of the shutter's locking system and their date, recalling that under article 11 LCAT the insurer must prove not only the alleged breach but also the causal link between that breach and the occurrence of the loss.","k":"Business theft insurance — risk disclosure and burden of proof on protection measures","law":"LCAT arts. 5–7 and 11; former Civil Code, art. 1315(2)","w":83,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-12-04","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2014:ARR.175","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : - Interprété en ce sens qu'il ne peut s'appliquer à la réparation des dommages matériels, l'article 19bis-11, § 2, de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Before the Liège Police Court, the Walloon Region claimed its property damage from the motor liability insurers of the drivers involved in a multi-vehicle accident where the vehicle that caused it could not be identified. The Constitutional Court ruled that article 19bis-11 §2 of the Act of 21.11.1989, read as not applying to property damage, violates articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution, while read as applying to it, it does not. The budgetary reasons limiting the Guarantee Fund to bodily injury do not apply to insurers; the provision creates an automatic compensation scheme imposed on insurers, independent of the Fund, without restriction as to the type of damage and without reference to article 4 §1(2).","k":"Article 19bis-11 §2 — property damage where the liable vehicle cannot be identified","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 19bis-11 §2 and art. 4 §1; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":35,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-12-04","rol":"C.13.0617.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2014:ARR.20141204.6","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"home","q":"Au sens de cette disposition, lorsqu'une police d'assurance souscrite par l'association des copropriétaires d'un immeuble couvre tous dégâts des eaux survenant dans cet immeuble, chaque copropriétaire a, en cas de…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer that had paid a co-owner under the co-ownership association's policy covering all water damage brought a recourse claim, by way of direct action, against the liability insurer of another co-owner who was responsible; the Brussels Court of Appeal ordered the latter to pay €6,014.14. The Court held that, within the meaning of article 41 LCAT, each co-owner is an insured for their own unit but not for another co-owner's damaged unit, and that a clause treating co-owners as 'third parties' to each other does not extend the insurer's subrogation recourse. The liability insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Co-ownership water damage policy — insurer's subrogation","law":"LCAT art. 41, para. 1; Cass. 5.11.2012; Cass. 25.4.2013","w":16,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-11-20","rol":"2013/AL/646","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2014:ARR.20141120.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Est un accident de travail car survenu au cours de l'exécution du contrat de travail et par le fait de cette exécution, l'accident dont est victime le travailleur qui, sur son lieu de travail, pendant ses heures de…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"At her workplace, during working hours but in a moment of leisure, the worker was trapped under her employer's quad bike, which she had mounted despite the employer's prohibition. The court held this to be a workplace accident: the victim was under the employer's authority and the accident arose from circumstances connected with the working environment and the employer's equipment; the victim's own fault is irrelevant. The workplace-accident insurer's appeal was dismissed, the appointment of a medical expert confirmed and the case sent back to the first-instance court.","k":"Workplace accident — quad ridden against orders during a break","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7, 9 and 68; Cass. 17.12.1965; Cass. 11.4.1969","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-11-20","rol":"C.13.0435.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2014:ARR.20141120.1","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"29bis","q":"Il résulte de la combinaison de ces dispositions que l'arrêt préjudiciel constatant l'inconstitutionnalité de l'article 29bis de la loi du 21 novembre 1989, sans que la Cour constitutionnelle en ait limité les effets…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Brussels Court of First Instance, sitting on appeal, had held the transport company liable under the pre-2001 version of article 29bis to compensate a pedestrian hit by a tram on 10 November 1997. The Court of Cassation held that the Constitutional Court's preliminary ruling finding article 29bis unconstitutional for rail-bound vehicles, without limiting its effects in time, is declaratory and binds courts that did not refer the question, including for accidents that occurred before its publication. As the accident happened in a place open to the public rather than on an isolated track, the transport company's appeal was dismissed and its obligation towards the health-insurance fund stands.","k":"Motor liability — tram accident, temporal effect of article 29bis","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1 (pre-2001); Special Act of 6.1.1989, arts 26 §2 and 28","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-11-18","rol":"2013/RG/131","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2014:ARR.20141118.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"Fire damaged the industrial part of a mixed-use rental building insured at \"new replacement value\". The Liège Court of Appeal held that the general conditions, referred to in the special conditions and accepted through payment of premiums, formed part of the contract; despite the stipulated new value, they clearly provide that the part not rebuilt is valued at actual value (new value less depreciation). The reduction to 60% absent reconstruction could not yet be decided: it remained to be seen whether the refusal of planning permission was beyond the insured's control and whether rebuilding for the same purpose elsewhere in Belgium was possible. The new expert's appointment was confirmed; the action to have the judgment declared binding on the sub-tenant's insurer was admissible, with no procedural indemnity for it. Appeal costs were split.","k":"Fire insurance — actual value and the 60% rule where the building is not rebuilt","law":"Policy general conditions, arts. 23 and 25; Judicial Code, arts. 1017 and 1022; Cass. 25.1.2013","w":56,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-11-18","rol":"P.13.0250.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2014:ARR.20141118.6","ch":"2N","res":"c","t":"limitation","q":"Krachtens artikel 35, § 4, Wet Landverzekeringsovereenkomst, zoals hier van toepassing, wordt de verjaring van de vordering bedoeld in artikel 34, § 2, van deze wet, zoals hier van toepassing, gestuit zodra de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"In criminal proceedings concerning a fatal accident involving a stolen vehicle, the direct action of some of the victim's relatives against the insurer had been held time-barred. The Court held that under article 35 §4 LCAT the insurer's knowledge of a wish to be compensated interrupts the limitation period only for the injured party who expressed that wish; a lawyer's letter written on behalf of 'the family' did not interrupt it for relatives other than the parents, so their appeal was dismissed. On the insurer's appeal, the ruling on the own liability of the person who stole the car and was himself injured was quashed: the court could not deny causation without examining whether the damage would have occurred in the same way without the theft.","k":"Direct action — interruption of the limitation period, for whom","law":"LCAT arts 34 §2 and 35 §4; former Civil Code, arts 1382–1383","w":12,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-11-06","rol":"C.14.0066.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2014:ARR.20141106.11","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"motor","q":"Contrairement à ce que soutient le moyen, il ne résulte pas de cette disposition légale que, ainsi que le prévoit l'article 23 de l'arrêté royal du 11 juillet 2003 fixant les conditions d'agrément et le fonctionnement…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"In the collision of 19 April 2004 several vehicles were involved and it could not be established which one caused the accident. The Court held that the obligation of the motor liability insurers who, under article 19bis-11 §2 of the Act of 21.11.1989 (inserted in 2002), compensate the injured party in equal shares is not limited to bodily injury, unlike the limitation applying to the Guarantee Fund under article 23 of the Royal Decree of 11.7.2003. The alleged difference stems from article 19bis-13 §3 and that decree, not from article 19bis-11, so no question was referred to the Constitutional Court and the insurer's appeal against the other insurer was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — unidentified causing vehicle, property damage","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 19bis-11 §1, 7° and §2, art. 19bis-13 §3; Royal Decree of 11.7.2003, art. 23","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-10-13","rol":"S.13.0121.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2014:ARR.20141013.3","ch":"3N","res":"","t":"work","q":"De regeling waarin de Arbeidsongevallenwet Overheidspersoneel en zijn uitvoeringsbesluiten voorziet, die ertoe strekt het personeel van de overheidsdiensten te verzekeren tegen de gevolgen van de beroepsziekten en de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"For a police inspector assaulted during an intervention, the medical service set permanent incapacity at 50% with consolidation on 30 November 2004; the city, acting as its own workplace-accident insurer, sought to have that decision set aside, but the Antwerp Labour Court of Appeal dismissed the claim and held that the officer was entitled to statutory benefits on that basis. The Court of Cassation held that the public-sector workplace-accident scheme grants substantive rights only to the injured employee, and that the court could lawfully find the employing authority's position not comparable to that of a private-sector workplace-accident insurer. The employer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Public-sector workplace accident — medical service decision binding on the employer","law":"Act of 3.7.1967; RD 30.3.2001, arts. X.III.10, X.III.18; ECHR, art. 6; Constitution, arts. 10–11, 159","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-10-09","rol":"148/2014","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2014:ARR.148","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"The victim of a road accident caused by a vehicle of a public body that had used its exemption from compulsory insurance, where a fortuitous event exonerated the driver, sought annulment of article 14 §1 of the Act of 1 July 1956 following judgment no. 31/2013. The Court annulled the provision, as from the entry into force of article 50 of the Act of 9 July 1975, insofar as it did not require the exempt State or public body to bear the same obligations as the Guarantee Fund towards victims of fortuitous accidents caused by its vehicles. It refused the Council of Ministers' request to maintain the effects until 5 June 2013, as no legal uncertainty was shown that could justify denying such victims any compensation.","k":"Exempt public vehicles — Fund-equivalent duty in fortuitous accidents","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 14 §1; Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 10; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":35,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle — CC 148/2014","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-10-09","rol":"2013/rg/781","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2014:ARR.20141009.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A worker vaccinated against hepatitis B for his job who then developed a neurological disorder had been compensated under workplace-accident law; he, his family and the workplace-accident insurer sued the vaccine manufacturer (Product Liability Act of 25.2.1991 and former Civil Code art. 1382). The Liège Court of Appeal rejected the limitation defence: the victim's action brought within three years passes to the subrogated insurer (art. 47 of the Act of 10.4.1971) with the period already running, and the victim's interruption benefits the insurer. On the merits, a causal link between vaccination and illness does not establish that the product was defective, which must be proven separately and was not. The family's and the insurer's claims were dismissed; the insurer's request for a new expert report was refused. The hearing was reopened on costs.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's subrogation — product liability against a vaccine maker","law":"Act of 25.2.1991, art. 12; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47; former Civil Code, arts. 1382 and 2224","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-10-06","rol":"2013/RG/1162","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2014:ARR.20141006.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"In the proposal form the insured denied any driving ban or prosecution for drunkenness, although she had been banned for drunkenness and proceedings were pending. The court found the omission intentional and the contract void under art. 6 LCAT, no link with the loss being required: the vehicle theft was not covered and the insured had to repay the €7,352.43 paid out by the insurer. The claim, brought within the three-year period of art. 34 §1, was not time-barred; given her bad faith, compensatory interest ran from each payment.","k":"Motor liability and comprehensive — concealed licence and alcohol history, nullity","law":"LCAT arts. 5, 6, 34 §1; Cass. 25.2.2005","w":85,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-10-02","rol":"2013/RG/892, 2013/RG/1441","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2014:ARR.20141002.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A patient who suffered surgical complications sued the surgeon and the hospital's liability insurer; the first-instance court had ordered a medical expert report and awarded a provisional EUR 3,000. The Liège Court of Appeal first set out the admissibility principles: it suffices that the judgment adversely affects the appellant, and no claim need have opposed the parties at first instance, since arguing opposing interests in submissions creates the procedural link. The appeal by the insurer and the surgeon was upheld: the provisional award was removed, the expert report being confirmed as an interim measure with all rights reserved, and the case was sent back to the first-instance court. The patient's appeal against the two surgeons who operated in an emergency was dismissed, as nothing, including her own technical adviser's report, showed any fault on their part.","k":"Hospital liability insurer — interest to appeal and removal of provisional award","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, arts. 870 and 1068(2)","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-10-02","rol":"C.13.0436.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2014:ARR.20141002.4","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"subrogation","q":"Il suit de ces dispositions que, si le paiement de l'indemnité d'assurance au créancier privilégié par l'assureur de celui-ci opère la subrogation de l'assureur dans les droits et actions de ce créancier, avant ledit…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A fire damaged a let building on 19 April 2007; the building's fire insurer served an attachment notice (opposition) on the tenants' contents insurer on 5 June 2007 and paid its own insured on 18 September 2007, while the contents insurer paid the tenants on 10 September and 17 October 2007. The Liège Court of Appeal held the building insurer to be a creditor because it was subrogated when those payments were made. The Court of Cassation held that before the payment giving rise to subrogation, only the privileged creditor (the landlord) may oppose payment of the indemnity owed to the policyholder by its own insurer; the judgment was quashed on the contents insurer's appeal.","k":"Fire insurance — attachment notice before subrogation","law":"LCAT arts 41 and 58; former Civil Code, arts 1239 and 1242","w":86,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-09-29","rol":"2011/RG/746","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2014:ARR.20140929.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"« l'aggravation sensible du risque étant l'aggravation qui est telle que si elle avait existé au moment de la souscription, la compagnie n'aurait assuré qu'à d'autres conditions »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"A personal accident policyholder died in a workplace accident; the insurer paid only part of the death benefit, arguing that the insured, listed as a lorry driver, worked as a timber skidder. The court held that, although the insurer showed a higher premium rate, it had not provided any form or document indicating that this occupation mattered for assessing the risk, nor proved that the insured should reasonably have seen it as a significant and lasting aggravation. The reduction was unjustified; the insurer's appeal was dismissed and the award of the €69,873.85 balance with interest upheld.","k":"Personal accident insurance — change of occupation and aggravation of risk","law":"LCAT arts 26, 5; former Civil Code, art. 1315","w":87,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-09-29","rol":"C.13.0551.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2014:ARR.20140929.1","ch":"3N","res":"c","t":"motor","q":"Hieruit volgt dat de verzekering van een aanhangwagen geen dekking verleent voor de schade veroorzaakt tijdens de koppeling van de aanhangwagen aan een trekker.","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"An oil trail left by a tractor-trailer combination caused an accident; the leak came from the semi-trailer insured by one of the insurers. The Dendermonde Court of First Instance, sitting on appeal, had ordered the trailer insurer, under article 1384(1) of the former Civil Code, to reimburse the tractor's insurer. The Court of Cassation held that under articles 1(2) and 3 §1, last paragraph, of the Act of 21.11.1989 the insurance of a trailer covers only damage caused by the trailer when not coupled; damage caused while it is coupled to a tractor is not covered. The judgment was quashed on the trailer insurer's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — insurance of a coupled trailer","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 1(2) and art. 3 §1, last paragraph","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-09-25","rol":"C.13.0389.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2014:ARR.20140925.12","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"liability","q":"Cette remise constitue un fait juridique, pouvant être prouvé par toute voie de droit que le juge du fond apprécie souverainement.","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that under article 88(2) LCAT, to preserve its right of recourse, the insurer must give clear and unambiguous notice of its intention to seek recourse and must prove it, though the Act prescribes no particular form. Where notice is given by registered letter, the insurer need only prove that the letter was handed to the post office, a legal fact that may be proved by any means. The Charleroi Court of First Instance, sitting on appeal, had accepted that the registered letter announcing recourse for the loss of 1 December 2001 had been sent; the insured's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Liability insurance — notice of intention to seek recourse and its proof","law":"LCAT art. 88(2)","w":11,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-09-23","rol":"2013/RG/311","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2014:ARR.20140923.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A firefighter-diver suffered barotrauma in a rapid descent on a private diving course paid by his public employer; he and the employer's workplace-accident insurer sued the training company's liability insurer. The Liège Court of Appeal held that the Act of 3.7.1967 does not oblige a civil court to refer a preliminary question to the labour court and found a workplace accident. With no loss of its own, the insurer covers the employer's assets under indemnity-based property insurance, so article 41 LCAT subrogates it, up to its payments, to the employer's rights; its letter was no admission, which cannot bear on a point of law. The diving centre was at fault for having no safety diver in the water. The liability insurer must pay a provisional one euro to the victim and to the subrogated insurer; the medical expertise was confirmed and the case remitted.","k":"Public-sector workplace-accident insurer's subrogation — diving-course accident","law":"Act of 3.7.1967; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 74; LCAT arts. 1, 41 and 51; former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1383; Cass. 24.4.2002; Cass. 26.3.2003; Cass. 17.6.2005","w":16,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-09-23","rol":"2014/RF/102","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2014:ARR.20140923.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The operator of a tavern closed after a fire sought interim relief for release of the insurance indemnity withheld by its bank, which had suspended the credit line relying on its contractual pledge over all sums due to the debtor. The Liège Court of Appeal reversed the interim order and dismissed the operator's claims: article 10 of the Mortgage Act and article 58 LCAT allow the indemnity payable for the loss of or damage to an insured item to be applied to privileged debts if it is not used to repair that item. Given the uncertainty over the business's future, under a judicial reorganisation plan until 2017, and the improbability of repayment at maturity, the bank committed neither an unlawful act nor an abuse of rights by refusing to maintain the credit and appropriating the indemnity that formed its pledge. The insurer was not a party to the dispute.","k":"Fire indemnity — bank's pledge and suspension of credit","law":"LCAT art. 58; Mortgage Act, art. 10","w":41,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-09-19","rol":"121/2014","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2014:ARR.121","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"const","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"After a 2002 workplace accident, the victim needed another person's assistance for two weeks after surgery during the period of temporary total incapacity; the workplace-accident insurer argued that the Act provides no allowance for that period. On a question from the Bruges Labour Court, the Constitutional Court held that the Act of 10 April 1971, including article 24(4), does not violate articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution by granting the supplementary annual allowance for regular third-party assistance only for permanent incapacity. Temporary incapacity is limited and changing; the need for help can only be assessed with certainty at consolidation, and career-break and thematic-leave schemes exist for relatives.","k":"Workplace accident — third-party assistance during temporary incapacity","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24(4); Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle — CC 121/2014","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-09-17","rol":"13/1398/A","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTHAI:2014:JUG.20140917.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A lorry driver on assignment abroad, obliged to spend the night in his truck before returning, suffered a fatal accident during that rest period; his dependant sued the workplace-accident insurer on her own behalf and for the minor children. The court held that a worker sent on assignment for several days away from home remains under the employer's authority throughout, that the accident, even during a break, occurred in the course of performing the contract, and that a fault, even serious such as drinking alcohol, does not show that the accident was intentionally caused. The insurer was ordered to pay €2,020.80 in funeral costs to the person who bore them and an annual annuity of €3,688.07 to each of the two children.","k":"Workplace accident — fatal accident during a break on assignment","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 7, 10, 13 §1, 41 and 48","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail du Hainaut","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-09-15","rol":"C.14.0116.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2014:ARR.20140915.2","ch":"3N","res":"c","t":"subrogation","q":"Deze indeplaatsstelling geldt, tot beloop van het bedrag van de verleende prestaties, voor het geheel van de sommen die krachtens een Belgische wetgeving, een buitenlandse wetgeving of het gemeen recht verschuldigd zijn…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"On the appeal of the motor liability insurer ordered under article 29bis to compensate the victim of the accident of 20 May 2002, the judgment of the Tongeren Court of First Instance, sitting on appeal, was partly quashed: loss of earnings during temporary incapacity could not be calculated by deducting the health-insurance fund's benefits and then a further 20% tax reduction; awarding €94,932.34 when €92,995.90 was claimed exceeded the claim; and granting a monthly annuity for future loss without allowing argument breached the rights of defence. However, the Court held that while the insurer who compensates the victim has recourse against the other involved insurers under article 1251, 3° of the former Civil Code, the insurer whose insured is fully liable under ordinary law bears the compensation definitively; the appeal was dismissed on that point.","k":"Article 29bis — loss of earnings and recourse between insurers","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §§1, 4 and 5; Act of 14.7.1994, art. 136 §2; former Civil Code, art. 1251, 3°; Judicial Code, art. 1138, 2°","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-09-12","rol":"C.13.0544.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2014:ARR.20140912.5","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"29bis","q":"Artikel 29bis, § 1, vijfde lid, WAM, zoals hier van toepassing, bepaalt dat slachtoffers die een onverschoonbare fout hebben begaan die de enige oorzaak was van het ongeval, zich niet kunnen beroepen op de bepalingen…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"In a letter of 2 August 2002 the insurer stated that it did not consider its insured liable and would pay only under article 29bis. The Turnhout Court of First Instance, sitting on appeal, held that the insurer had not waived its right to rely on the victim's inexcusable fault and that article 29bis §1(5), being a matter of public policy, could not be waived. The Court of Cassation found that the judgment gave the letter a meaning incompatible with its wording and that this provision, which allows the insurer to escape its duty to compensate, is not a matter of public policy, so the insurer may waive it. The judgment was quashed on the victim's appeal.","k":"Article 29bis — waiver of the inexcusable-fault defence","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1(5) (former version)","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-09-12","rol":"C.13.0567.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2014:ARR.20140912.6","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"29bis","q":"Een motorrijtuig is wel betrokken in de zin van die wetsbepaling wanneer het eni-ge rol heeft gespeeld in het verkeersongeval, dit is wanneer het zonder hiervoor een noodzakelijk element te zijn geweest, een invloed…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that the mere presence of a motor vehicle at the time of an accident is not enough to treat it as involved within the meaning of article 29bis; it is involved if it played some role in the accident, that is, if without being a necessary element it had an influence on it. The Ghent Court of First Instance, sitting on appeal, found it undisputed that the pedestrian crossed the junction to catch an approaching tram and concluded that the tram was involved; that conclusion was legally justified. The transport company's appeal against the insurer was dismissed.","k":"Article 29bis — meaning of an 'involved' vehicle (tram)","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-09-08","rol":"C.09.0546.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2014:ARR.20140908.1","ch":"3F","res":"c","t":"subrogation","q":"Le montant du dommage que subit le bénéficiaire consistant dans la quote-part des frais médicaux que la législation sur l'assurance obligatoire en matière de soins de santé et d'indemnités laisse à sa charge après…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The victim, whose liability had been split equally with a third party, had part of the medical costs reimbursed by the third party's insurer; the remaining €3,303.20 was claimed both by the health-insurance fund as subrogee and by the victim and another insurer in their own names. The Namur Court of First Instance, sitting on appeal, excluded the patient co-payments (ticket modérateur) from the fund's subrogation and awarded the sum to the victim and the other insurer. The Court of Cassation held that under article 136 §2 of the coordinated Act of 14.7.1994 the co-payment loss is not excluded from the fund's subrogation, and quashed those parts of the judgment on the fund's appeal.","k":"Health-insurance fund subrogation — patient co-payment (ticket modérateur)","law":"Coordinated Act of 14.7.1994, art. 136 §2(1) and (4)","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-07-17","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2014:ARR.111","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 1382 du Code civil ne viole pas les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution dans l'interprétation selon laquelle il ne permet pas, lorsqu'un accident a été causé par les fautes…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Tournai Court of First Instance, hearing claims against the Belgian State brought in part by insurers, asked whether former Civil Code article 1382, read as not allowing the co-liable third party to be ordered to pay full compensation for reflected loss where the accident resulted from the concurrent faults of the direct victim and that third party, breached the equality principle. The Constitutional Court answered no: making the direct victim's fault opposable to a person suffering reflected loss through emotional ties limits that person's right to compensation correspondingly and strikes a fair balance between the interests involved.","k":"Reflected loss — contributory fault of the direct victim","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1382; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":5,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-06-30","rol":"2012AR1268","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2014:ARR.20140630.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Anders dan de verzekeraar voorhoudt, houdt de overdracht van een onroerend goed bijgevolg niet in dat de overdrager vanaf de datum van de authentieke verkoopakte geen verzekerbaar belang meer heeft en dat diens…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Selling a building does not end the seller's insurable interest on the date of the notarial deed, nor allow the insurer to terminate the policy. Article 57 §1 LCAT protects a buyer who has not yet taken out a policy: cover continues in the buyer's favour for the statutory three months.","k":"Home insurance — cover after sale of the building","law":"LCAT (1992 Act) art. 57 §1","w":88,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-06-30","rol":"2013/RG/1012","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2014:ARR.20140630.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The first-instance court had awarded EUR 6,790.53 to an insured burgled at home; the insurer appealed, invoking breach of the prevention duty requiring, when absent, that all accesses to the home be closed using all available locking devices. The Liège Court of Appeal allowed the appeal: the duty is specific and sufficiently clear, a window left in tilt position is an access for any reasonably prudent insured, and the insured had not closed it. Under article 11 LCAT the insurer must also prove a causal link between the breach and the loss; the court found that the burglars merely had to push the window down and that the claim they would have got in anyway was unproven. The insurer did not have to cover the loss and the insured's claim was dismissed.","k":"Home theft insurance — prevention duty, window left in tilt position","law":"LCAT art. 11(1); former Civil Code, art. 1315","w":20,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-06-25","rol":"2013/rg/627","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2014:ARR.20140625.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A driver, alone involved, wrote off her vehicle and was acquitted by the police court of drink-driving and drunkenness charges; her own-damage insurer refused to pay under the exclusion clause for drivers with a blood alcohol level above 0.8 g/l or in a state of drunkenness. The Liège Court of Appeal recalled that the insurer bears the burden of proving the exclusion, but found drunkenness established by inference: loss of control on a slight bend in optimal driving conditions, the police officers' observations of alcohol influence, and the driver's own statement that she had drunk thirteen glasses of alcohol on an empty stomach while taking medication incompatible with alcohol. Drunkenness alone justified the refusal; the insured's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Own-damage cover — proving intoxication by inference despite criminal acquittal","law":"Policy general conditions, art. 7.1.11 (drunkenness exclusion); burden of proof on the insurer","w":35,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-06-17","rol":"10/4855/A","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:2014:JUG.20140617.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"A father whose adult son died in a road accident in England sued the vehicle operator and its motor insurer; English law applied under the 1971 Hague Convention. The court held that the English rule limiting bereavement damages to parents of minor children was, given also the strong link with Belgium, contrary to Belgian international public policy and set it aside only to that extent; the award was fixed at the English flat sum of £10,000, plus reasonable funeral costs. The insurer's cross-appeal on procedural costs was dismissed, and dismissal of the claim against the Guarantee Fund was upheld.","k":"Road accident in England — applicable law and public policy","law":"Hague Convention of 4.5.1971, art. 10; Fatal Accidents Act 1976, s. 1A; former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":84,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles (istinaf)","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-06-13","rol":"C.13.0184.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2014:ARR.20140613.1","ch":"RE","res":"c","t":"29bis","q":"Il n'est pas requis qu'un lien de causalité existe entre la présence du véhicule automoteur et la survenance de l'accident.","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A pedestrian hit by a car was thrown against the rear window of another, lawfully parked vehicle; the Huy Court of First Instance, sitting on appeal after an earlier cassation, held that the parked vehicle was not involved within the meaning of article 29bis, as it contributed no more to the accident than a roadside tree. Sitting in joint chambers, the Court of Cassation held that a vehicle is involved if it played any role whatsoever in the accident, and no causal link between its presence and the occurrence of the accident is required. The judgment was quashed on the Guarantee Fund's appeal against the parked vehicle's insurer and remitted to Namur.","k":"Article 29bis — involvement of a parked vehicle","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-06-12","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2014:ARR.20140612.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Le travailleur qui chute sur le parking de l'entreprise qu'il venait de quitter après avoir été licencié verbalement pour motif grave se trouve sur un trajet en rapport direct avec l'exécution de son contrat de…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A worker claimed to have fallen on 30.11.2010 in the car park of the company he had just left after being verbally dismissed for serious misconduct; the workplace-accident insurer refused to recognise the accident. According to the Juportal note, the court accepted that a dismissed worker leaving the premises is on a route directly connected with the performance of his contract and that such a fall is an accident on the way to or from work. However, the burden of proving the sudden event lies on the victim and his own assertions are not enough: the accident report mentioned no witnesses, the indirect witness statements were produced only 15 months after the event and the direct one 19 months later; the court gave them no probative weight. The appeal was dismissed and the judgment rejecting the claim was upheld on other grounds; costs were nevertheless charged to the insurer under article 68 of the Act of 10 April 1971.","k":"Workplace accident — fall in the car park after dismissal, proof of a sudden event","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 8 §§1–2, 9 and 68","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-06-12","rol":"C.13.0349.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2014:ARR.20140612.5","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"29bis","q":"Uit de wetsgeschiedenis van deze bepalingen blijkt niet dat de wetgever bij de invoering van artikel 29bis WAM heeft willen afwijken van artikel 8, derde lid, WAM, dat toelaat de schade van de inzittende in een…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court recalled that article 8(3) of the Act of 21.11.1989 allows damage suffered by drivers and passengers of vehicles taking part in an authorised speed race to be excluded from the special insurance. The legislative history does not show that, in introducing article 29bis, Parliament intended to depart from that provision, so a passenger cannot rely on article 29bis to set the exclusion aside. The passenger's appeal against the judgment of the Turnhout Court of First Instance, sitting on appeal, was dismissed.","k":"Article 29bis — exclusion of a passenger in a speed race","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 8(3) and art. 29bis","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-06-05","rol":"C.13.0486.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2014:ARR.20140605.4","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"contract","q":"Artikel 23 van de toepasselijke wet van 11 juni 1874 betreffende de verze-kering, dat overeenstemt met artikel 60 Wet Landverzekeringsovereenkomst, ver-leent aan de verzekeraar een voorrecht op de verzekerde zaak dat…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The trustees in bankruptcy of the insured had admitted the credit insurer's premium claim as preferential only in proportion to the receivables collected; the Ghent Court of Appeal held that, since the insurer had paid no claim, there was no security on which the lien could bite. The Court of Cassation held that the insurer's lien over the insured property for an amount equal to two years' premiums under article 23 of the Act of 11.6.1874 (corresponding to article 60 LCAT) may cover intangible assets: the premium owed to a credit insurer is preferential over the insured receivable that can be collected, and where the policy covers a pool of receivables, the total premium is preferential over the collected receivables within the cover. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Credit insurance — insurer's lien for premiums","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 23; LCAT art. 60","w":89,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-06-03","rol":"2013/rg/373","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2014:ARR.20140603.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insured asked for his policy to be adapted to a new vehicle with the same cover; the insurer sent only a premium notice and, after the theft, refused cover under clause 365 of the new special conditions (anti-theft system). The Liège Court of Appeal inferred from the finger-pointing between insurer and broker that the insured never received those conditions: the contract and its amendments must be proven in writing (art. 10 §1 LCAT), and a general reference in a premium notice does not create a fiction of knowledge. General negligence could not ground a forfeiture (art. 11 LCAT), no specific contractual duty being identified. The insurer was ordered to pay EUR 19,332.91 (insured value less the resale price of the recovered vehicle, plus towing), half the interest being disallowed for shared procedural inactivity. The claim against the broker was dismissed.","k":"Motor theft insurance — unnotified special conditions not binding","law":"LCAT arts. 10 §1 and 11","w":90,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-05-28","rol":"2013/RG/1354","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2014:ARR.20140528.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The personal accident policy covered only permanent disability above 15%; although its medical adviser had assessed 5%, the insurer mistakenly paid EUR 7,335.67 as a \"final indemnity\" and then sought repayment. The insured argued that the receipt he signed was a settlement finally and conclusively fixing the parties' rights. The Liège Court of Appeal upheld the first-instance judgment: the receipt merely evidences receipt of a sum, contains no mutual concessions and is therefore not a settlement (former Civil Code, art. 2044); its statement that payment was made in accordance with the contract terms rules out any waiver by the insurer of the scope of cover; even if it were a settlement, it would be vitiated by a fundamental mistake. The insured must repay the undue amount (including EUR 101.14 overpaid for temporary incapacity) and bear the costs; his request for payment terms was refused.","k":"Personal accident insurance — recovery of mistaken payment, receipt is not a settlement","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 2044; Cass. 15.10.1979; Cass. 7.3.1988","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-05-28","rol":"2013/AM/251","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2014:ARR.20140528.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'action en paiement de l'indemnité d'aggravation se prescrit par trois ans à dater du jour où naît pour la victime le droit à réparation ; l'absence d'indication des délais de recours dans la décision administrative ne…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The Workplace Accidents Fund had stopped paying, from 1 February 2001, the temporary incapacity linked to the aggravation of a 1968 accident; the victim only sued the Fund on 6 March 2008. The court held that the three-year period under art. 69 runs from the day the right to compensation arises, here 1 February 2001, and that the absence of any mention of appeal periods in the decision (art. 14 of the Social Insured Persons' Charter) does not stop limitation from running: the claim was out of time. Unlike the first court, the court did not find that the Fund had breached its duty to inform; the widow's claim against the Fund under former Civil Code arts. 1382–1383 was dismissed and the Fund's appeal was fully upheld. However, the widow's claim against the professional liability insurer of the lawyer, whose fault was established, was not moot: an expert was appointed and the advance was charged to that insurer.","k":"Workplace accident — limitation of aggravation benefits and the Fund's duty to inform","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 69(1); Act of 11.4.1995 (Social Insured Persons' Charter), arts. 3, 4 and 14; former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1383; Cass. 4.2.1980; Cass. 19.6.2006; C. jud. art. 1068","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-05-26","rol":"C.11.0186.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2014:ARR.20140526.1","ch":"3F","res":"c","t":"work","q":"Lorsque, en raison de l'assurance contre les accidents du travail souscrite, des indemnités résultant de la loi sur les accidents du travail sont payées aux victimes, l'assureur-loi, parce qu'il doit s'acquitter des…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The workplace-accident insurer sought to recover from the employer, its own insured, by way of subrogation, the benefits paid to the victims of a road accident that was also a workplace accident; the Brussels court of first instance, on appeal, had upheld that recourse in principle. The Court held that, because the insurer pays in performance of its own obligations under the insurance contract, it cannot bring recourse against the employer it insures; the judgment was quashed, together with the ruling on the employer's counterclaim.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer — recourse against its own insured employer","law":"Act of 10.4.1971 arts. 46 §1, 6° and 47; LCAT art. 41; Cass. 8.9.1992","w":16,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-05-22","rol":"2012/RG/1666","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2014:ARR.20140522.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A patient who developed an infection after knee surgery, later leading to amputation, sued the surgeon and the hospital's liability insurer; the first-instance court had set aside the amicable expert agreement signed between the patient and the insurer as contrary to article 6 ECHR and appointed a court expert. The Liège Court of Appeal reversed: the duty to accept the expert's findings and the right to dispute liability bind both parties equally; the agreement was not one-sided, was validly performed and bars the appointment of a court expert. On the merits, for hospital-acquired infections the hospital and doctor are as a rule bound only by a duty of care; as the exogenous origin of the germ was not established, no obligation of result arose and no fault was proven. The claims against the doctor and the insurer were dismissed.","k":"Medical liability — amicable expert agreement and hospital-acquired infection","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382 et seq.; ECHR, art. 6; Judicial Code, art. 1022(4)","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-05-22","rol":"2014/RG/25 - 2014/RG/101","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2014:ARR.20140522.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"After a parachuting aircraft crash, the first-instance court had awarded the victims' relatives a provisional EUR 30,000 and denied the aviation insurer and its insureds the right to deposit the sum with the court (cantonnement). The Liège Court of Appeal recalled that excluding this right requires proof of serious prejudice to the creditor: the relatives gave no details of financial hardship, the provisional sum was far below what they claimed, and the insureds' insolvency risk did not affect the cover the insurer did not dispute owing. The right to deposit was restored; the aircraft manufacturer's voluntary intervention in one of the cases was held inadmissible for lack of standing and interest. The merits and costs were reserved and a timetable set on territorial jurisdiction for the second accident.","k":"Aviation liability insurance — right to deposit the award and admissibility of voluntary intervention","law":"Judicial Code (deposit of the award, voluntary intervention); Judicial Code, art. 748bis","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-05-19","rol":"2012AR1512","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2014:ARR.20140519.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"De betwisting tussen de partijen betreft de vraag of de hierboven bedoelde uitkeringen van de groepsverzekering al dan niet aanleiding geven tot inbreng en inkorting in het raam van de nalatenschap. De artikelen 124…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Heirs disputed whether the capital of an employer group insurance, paid to the two beneficiaries designated by the deceased employee, was subject to hotchpot and abatement. The court held that art. 124 ff. LCAT also apply to group insurance (Constitutional Court, 27.7.2011): in principle only the premiums, not the capital, can be brought into account or abated, and only if manifestly disproportionate to the deceased's assets; the premiums were modest and no indirect gift was proven. As the beneficiaries held a right of their own and did not take as heirs, the benefits gave rise to neither hotchpot nor abatement.","k":"Group insurance — benefits paid to beneficiaries, hotchpot and abatement","law":"LCAT art. 124 ff.; Constitutional Court, 27.7.2011; Inheritance Tax Code, art. 8","w":91,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-05-13","rol":"2013/rg/117","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2014:ARR.20140513.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"A car dealership's building was severely damaged in the 2010 storm; the business insurer cut the indemnity by invoking the limitation of \"storm\" cover to 10% of the sums insured. Following the sequence of events, the Liège Court of Appeal distinguished damage caused directly by wind outside the building, which falls under storm cover, from damage then caused by falling power cables (broken glass, lifted roof), which falls under the \"impact on insured property\" cover. Clauses that do not address a loss falling under several covers and do not distinguish direct from indirect damage are construed in the insured's favour, the insurance contract being a standard-form contract (former Civil Code, art. 1162). The insurer must cover the loss without the 10% reduction; however, the claim for damage caused by late payment was allowed only up to statutory default interest, and the claim against the broker was dismissed for lack of causation.","k":"Storm damage — 10% cover limit and interpretation in the insured's favour","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1162; Cass. 23.6.1983; policy general conditions, arts. 18–21","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-05-08","rol":"C.13.0451.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2014:ARR.20140508.13","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"intent","q":"Uit die bepalingen volgt dat enkel aan diegene die een opzettelijke fout heeft be-gaan of een in de overeenkomst bepaalde verplichting niet is nagekomen, het recht op de dekking van de verzekering kan worden ontzegd.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The owner had taken out comprehensive (omnium) cover for his car; his wife, an insured person under the policy, caused the accident intentionally, and the insurer did not allege any intent on the owner's part. The Dendermonde Court of First Instance, sitting on appeal after remittal, denied cover to the owner because of his wife's intentional act. The Court of Cassation inferred from articles 8(1) and 11(1) LCAT that only the person who committed the intentional act or breached a specific contractual obligation can be denied cover, so any clause depriving another insured of cover is prohibited. The judgment was quashed on the insured's appeal.","k":"Comprehensive motor cover — intentional act of another insured, innocent insured","law":"LCAT arts 8(1) and 11(1); model contract RD 14.12.1992, art. 25, 2°","w":33,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-04-29","rol":"2012/RG/1069 ( 2ème chambre )","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2014:ARR.20140429.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Intent on suicide, the insured opened a gas cylinder in his bedroom; the explosion triggered when he lit a cigarette destroyed the building and injured his son. His heirs claimed cover for the building damage from the insurer, and the son brought a direct action for his bodily injury. Under the Court of Cassation's definition, intentional fault requires a loss that was not merely foreseeable but intended or accepted, even if different from the one that occurred; the insured intended his own death and the build-up of toxic gas in a closed space and could not have been unaware of the explosion risk (indirect intent). The alleged insanity was unsupported, only depression being proven. In non-compulsory liability insurance, intentional fault is a fact predating the loss that can be raised against the injured party (art. 87 §2 LCAT; Cass. 18.11.2011). The heirs' and the son's claims were dismissed; the judgment was upheld.","k":"Intentional fault — gas suicide, explosion and defence against the injured third party","law":"LCAT arts. 8(1), 86 and 87 §2; Cass. 22.12.1995; Cass. 18.11.2011","w":92,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-04-28","rol":"2012/RG/1850","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2014:ARR.20140428.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The tenant's home insurer could not refuse cover because the fire had been set deliberately by someone living in the tenant's household. Loss of cover for an intentional act is strictly personal; a clause depriving an innocent policyholder of cover is prohibited.","k":"Home insurance — intentional act by a household member","law":"LCAT (1992 Act) art. 8 para. 1 and art. 11; Cass. 4.3.2013","w":93,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-04-24","rol":"C.13.0271.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2014:ARR.20140424.8","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"liability","q":"Deze bepaling staat niet eraan in de weg dat de niet-verplichte aansprakelijkheids-verzekeraar de verweermiddelen die betrekking hebben op het bestaan en de draagwijdte van de verzekeringsovereenkomst, kan tegenwerpen…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"An insurance company, suing liability co-insurers by direct action as the injured party, had lost before the Brussels Court of Appeal. The Court of Cassation held that article 87 §2 LCAT does not prevent a voluntary liability insurer from raising against the injured party defences relating to the existence and scope of the contract; that where a claim is withdrawn, including before a German court, the interruption of limitation is deemed never to have occurred under article 2247 of the former Civil Code; and that under article 28 of the Act of 11.6.1874 insurance has no effect where the risk had already materialised when the contract was concluded, without liability having to be established at that time. As no interruption under article 35 §4 LCAT was proved, the appeal was dismissed.","k":"Voluntary liability insurance — defences, limitation, risk already realised","law":"LCAT arts 35 §4 and 87 §2; Act of 11.6.1874, art. 28; former Civil Code, art. 2247; Judicial Code, art. 826","w":94,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-04-10","rol":"C.13.0447.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2014:ARR.20140410.2","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"limitation","q":"Uit de samenhang van deze bepalingen volgt dat de verjaring van de recht-streekse vordering van de benadeelde bij toepassing van artikel 35, § 4, Wet Landverzekeringsovereenkomst wordt gestuit wanneer de verzekeraar van…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Brussels Court of Appeal had held time-barred the direct action brought by the claimant, an insurance company, against the liable company's insurer. The Court of Cassation held that, read together, articles 34 §2 and 35 §4 LCAT mean that the limitation period for the direct action is interrupted when the liable party's insurer learns that the injured party wishes to obtain compensation from it. It is not enough that the liability insurer knows the injured party wants compensation from its own property insurer; the appeal was dismissed.","k":"Direct action — interrupting limitation against the liable party's insurer","law":"LCAT arts 34 §2, 35 §4 and 86; Cass. 7.10.2005; Cass. 1.3.2012","w":12,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-03-27","rol":"2010/RG/867","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2014:ARR.20140327.19","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Investors in branch 23 life-insurance products sued the insurance intermediaries for breach of their duty to inform and advise and brought a direct action under article 86 LCAT against the intermediaries' professional liability insurer. Having upheld the jurisdiction of the Belgian courts, the Liège Court of Appeal held all claims time-barred: with no proven contractual relationship with the intermediaries, the five-year tort limitation period applied, running from knowledge of the existence of the loss (2002), not its extent. The direct action against the insurer was also time-barred under article 34 §2 LCAT: the injured party cannot simply assert that it learned of its right against the insurer only in 2008 through the Insurance Ombudsman; it bears a duty to investigate. The warranty claims against the insurer fell away.","k":"Intermediary liability — limitation of the direct action and duty to investigate","law":"LCAT arts. 34 §2 and 86; former Civil Code, art. 2262bis; EC Regulation 44/2001, art. 6; Cass. 9.12.2010","w":95,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-03-25","rol":"2012/RG/1771","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2014:ARR.20140325.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"alt","s":"A patient harmed by a misplaced hand prosthesis claimed compensation from the surgeon's professional liability insurer; liability was not disputed. The court applied the successive statutory rates to unindexed medical and pharmacy costs, but 2.5% after 1.1.2008 on indexed items to avoid double indexation. It accepted capitalisation of the permanent household loss and reopened the hearing to compute it; the causal link with early retirement and the partner's leave costs (€400) were rejected.","k":"Medical liability insurance — compensatory interest rate and capitalisation","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382; Cass. 22.6.2010; Cass. 30.9.2009; Cass. 17.2.2012","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-03-18","rol":"P.13.1629.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2014:ARR.20140318.6","ch":"2N","res":"c","t":"contract","q":"De appelrechters die op deze gronden oordelen dat de opzegging rechtsgel-dig was en de eiser veroordelen om als eigenaar een personenvoertuig in het ver-keer te hebben gebracht zonder dat de burgerrechtelijke…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The defendant had been convicted of driving an uninsured vehicle because the motor liability policy, whose policyholder was a company, had been terminated by a registered letter addressed to him as the company's manager; the Veurne criminal court, sitting on appeal, held that the manager acted for the company and that the company had been able to learn of the termination. The Court of Cassation recalled that under article 13 of the model contract the formal notice and termination for non-payment of premium must be addressed to the policyholder, and held that those findings did not legally justify treating the termination as valid or the conviction. The judgment was quashed on the defendant's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — termination notice sent to the manager of a corporate policyholder","law":"Model contract RD 14.12.1992, arts 1 and 13; Cass. 28.3.2007","w":96,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-03-13","rol":"C.13.0392.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2014:ARR.20140313.6","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"29bis","q":"Een verzekeraar of sociale verzekeraar die slechts gesubrogeerd is in de rechten van het slachtoffer en zijn rechthebbenden tegen de aansprakelijke derde, kan voor de betalingen aan het slachtoffer en zijn…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"A French health-insurance fund that had compensated a child injured in a road accident sued the motor liability insurer and a company as subrogee. The Court held that under article 29bis as it stood before the Act of 19.1.2001 only the victim and the beneficiaries who suffered loss can claim on that basis; an insurer or social insurer that is merely subrogated cannot rely on article 29bis to recover its payments, and that ground was rejected. However, the Antwerp Court of First Instance, sitting on appeal, breached the principle that courts are bound by the parties' claims by holding the parents fully liable when the defendants had only sought a 50/50 split (seat belt or child seat); the ruling on the claim against the company was quashed.","k":"Article 29bis (pre-2001) — recourse by a subrogated social insurer","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1(1) (pre-2001)","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-03-04","rol":"2012/RG/1045 ve 2012/RG/1133","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2014:ARR.20140304.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"For theft cover the policy required a satellite tracking system allowing constant location and proof of the subscription; the insurer argued the system was not working at the time of the theft. The court held that, whether the clause was a forfeiture or an exclusion, the insurer had to prove the system was not working when the theft occurred, preventing the car being located; the tracking company's incomplete letters mentioning 'communication faults' did not prove this. The insurer's appeal was dismissed and it was ordered to pay the €34,000 vehicle value less the €1,240 excess, with interest. According to Juportal, the appeal in cassation was dismissed.","k":"Vehicle theft — proving the tracking system was not working","law":"Special conditions, clause 758; burden of proof (former Civil Code, art. 1315)","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-03-04","rol":"2007/RG/806","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2014:ARR.20140304.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"An insurer that had compensated its insureds brought a subrogated claim against the liable parties and their liability insurer. The court held that the claim passes to the subrogated insurer with all its accessories: it may claim compensatory interest from its payment dates, provided it does not exceed the victim's own rights. The liability insurer pays the principal up to the cover limit but interest and costs even beyond it; it was ordered to indemnify its insureds for expert fees, interest and costs.","k":"Subrogated insurer — compensatory interest and liability insurer's burden beyond cover","law":"LCAT arts 41 and 82","w":97,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-03-03","rol":"C.13.0224.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2014:ARR.20140303.1","ch":"3F","res":"c","t":"persons","q":"Partant, est prohibée, dans un contrat d'assurance sur la vie, toute clause contractuelle qui a pour effet de priver de la garantie d'assurance, en raison d'une faute intentionnelle, un bénéficiaire autre que l'auteur…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The policyholder had taken out life insurance on his wife's life, with the surviving spouse as beneficiary and, failing that, the legal heirs; he killed his wife and their daughter and then took his own life. The Mons Court of Appeal, on remittal, denied cover to the other heirs under a clause excluding intentional acts of the insured or the beneficiary. The Court of Cassation held that under articles 3, 8(1) and 11(1) LCAT only the person who committed the intentional act or breached a specific obligation can be deprived of cover, and in life insurance any clause depriving a beneficiary other than the wrongdoer of cover is prohibited. The judgment was quashed on the heirs' appeal and remitted to the Liège Court of Appeal.","k":"Life insurance — intentional act of one beneficiary, other beneficiaries","law":"LCAT arts 3, 8(1) and 11(1)","w":33,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-02-25","rol":"2012/RG/763","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2014:ARR.20140225.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"An insured who tipped over an old tank knowing from its weight that it still held a significant amount of heating oil caused the damage knowingly and willingly. The family liability insurer did not have to provide cover; the insured remains personally liable to the neighbours.","k":"Family liability insurance — intentional loss","law":"LCAT (1992 Act) art. 8 para. 1; Cass. 24.4.2009; Cass. 26.10.2011","w":98,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-02-24","rol":"2013/RG/343","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2014:ARR.20140224.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"After a minor and his parents were held jointly liable for offences committed by the child, the mother's family liability insurer paid the full awards and sought half from the father. He argued that he was himself an insured as a \"person entrusted, outside any professional activity, with the custody of the insured children\". The Liège Court of Appeal rejected this reading: the clause covers a third party to whom the policyholder temporarily entrusts the child, not the father exercising his statutory right of secondary residence, who is neither policyholder, cohabiting partner nor household member. The first-instance judgment was reversed and the father ordered to pay EUR 7,921.82.","k":"Family liability insurance — person entrusted with a child's custody","law":"Policy general conditions, arts. 41 and 44; former Civil Code, arts. 1156, 1161 and 1384","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-02-21","rol":"C.13.0277.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2014:ARR.20140221.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"N'est, en principe, pas nouveau le moyen qui critique un motif que le juge donne à l'appui de sa décision (1). (1) Cass., 4 novembre 2011, RG C.09.0130.F, Pas., 2011, n° 595. || L'article 35, §4, de la loi du 25 juin…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The injured parties brought a direct action against the alleged liable party's insurer for the cleaning costs of their damaged shop; the court of appeal held that limitation had not been interrupted because they had not contacted the insurer directly, and refused to apply article 35 §3bis LCAT to an earlier act. The Court of Cassation held that article 35 §4 does not require the insurer to be informed by the injured party itself (here it learned of the claim from its own insured), and that article 35 §3bis, in force from 19 January 2003, applies to interruptions still running on that date provided the claim against the insured was not yet time-barred. The judgment was quashed on the injured parties' appeal.","k":"Direct action — interruption of limitation and temporal application of the new rule","law":"LCAT arts. 34 §2, 35 §3bis and §4; former Civil Code, art. 2; Cass. 7.10.2005","w":65,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-02-12","rol":"P.13.1304.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2014:ARR.20140212.1","ch":"2F","res":"r","t":"contract","q":"Les juges d'appel ont considéré contraire au principe d'exécution de bonne foi des conventions la résiliation brutale et instantanée du contrat d'assurance entre la demanderesse et son assurée.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Tournai criminal court, sitting on appeal after remittal, held that termination for non-payment of premium, although formally compliant with the statutory and contractual time limits, was an abuse of rights because its near-instant effect caused the insured harm out of proportion to the insurer's benefit. The Court of Cassation held that in compulsory liability insurance a termination effected before the loss can be raised against the injured party, but the injured party bringing a direct action under articles 86 and 87 §1(2) LCAT may challenge its validity and the court must rule on that issue. The insurer's appeal against the injured parties was dismissed; its appeal against the Guarantee Fund was inadmissible.","k":"Compulsory liability insurance — termination for non-payment, abuse of rights","law":"LCAT arts 86(1) and 87 §1(2); former Civil Code, art. 1134(3)","w":99,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-02-10","rol":"2012/rg/1700","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2014:ARR.20140210.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A packaging machine placed by a company in a sheltered workshop was destroyed in a fire at the workshop; the company's insurers sued the workshop and its insurer. The court upheld the dismissal of the claims against the workshop and the finding that the workshop's policy was property insurance including insurance for account; it held that there was multiple insurance within the meaning of article 45 LCAT and declared the objection based on article 6 of the Assuralia agreement inadmissible as raised too late. Proceedings were reopened on whether the request to apply the agreement had been made in time.","k":"Fire — machine on loan, multiple insurance (art. 45 LCAT)","law":"LCAT art. 45; former Civil Code, art. 1384 para. 1","w":60,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-02-06","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2014:ARR.025","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : - Interprété en ce sens qu'il exclut du régime d'indemnisation automatique les accidents de la circulation impliquant un véhicule qui circule sur une voie ferrée qui est complètement isolée de…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Before the Liège Police Court, a workplace-accident insurer and an employer sued the railway operator after an accident suffered by a passenger of a train running on a track completely isolated from road traffic. The Constitutional Court held that article 29bis §1(2) of the Act of 21.11.1989, read as excluding such accidents from automatic compensation where the victim is a passenger of the vehicle, violates articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution; read as not excluding them, it is constitutional. Judgment no. 35/2012 concerned only vulnerable road users on or near the isolated track, not passengers on board, for whom the track's isolation does not alter the risk.","k":"Article 29bis — passenger of a rail vehicle on an isolated track","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1(2) and art. 2 §1; Constitution, arts. 10–11; Const. Court nos. 35/2012 and 93/2006","w":35,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-02-04","rol":"12/1411/A","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAANT:2014:JUG.20140204.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"de familiale verzekeraar van de vader die burgerrechtelijk aansprakelijk werd gesteld voor zijn minderjarige zoon, kan niet in de rechten treden van de kwalitatief aansprakelijke persoon, in casu aldus de vader, en zich…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"After compensating the victims of a burglary committed intentionally by the minor son, for whom the father was liable under article 1384(2) of the former Civil Code, the family liability insurer brought a subrogated recourse (art. 41 LCAT) against the son. The court dismissed the claim: a minor living at home is an 'insured' under the policy terms, not a 'liable third party'; although he himself has no cover because of his intentional act, the insurer cannot pursue its own insured (Cass. 11.1.2010; Cass. 4.6.2012). Neither article 8 LCAT nor the principle fraus omnia corrumpit alters this; the debates were reopened as regards the accomplices.","k":"Family liability insurance — insurer's recourse against the minor child","law":"LCAT arts. 41 and 8; former Civil Code, art. 1384(2); Cass. 11.1.2010; Cass. 4.6.2012","w":100,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-02-04","rol":"P.13.0992.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2014:ARR.20140204.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"L'employeur public qui, à la suite de la faute d'un tiers, est tenu de poursuivre en vertu de ses obligations légales et réglementaires le paiement d'un traitement et des cotisations afférentes à ce traitement sans…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer covering a police zone for salary and charges paid without work in return claimed, as civil party, reimbursement from the person who deliberately assaulted an inspector; the Antwerp Court of Appeal limited it to subrogation under article 14 §3 of the Act of 3 July 1967 and to the net salary. The Court of Cassation held that an insurer covering a public employer for salary and contributions paid without work may, as subrogee to the employer under article 41 LCAT, recover its outlay from the liable person. The judgment was quashed to that extent on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Recourse of the public employer's insurer against the wrongdoer — gross salary","law":"LCAT art. 41; Act of 3.7.1967, art. 14 §3; former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1383","w":16,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-01-27","rol":"2013/RG/447","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2014:ARR.20140127.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"« C'est à l'assureur qu'il incombe de prouver que l'élément sur lequel il n'a pas été informé était pour lui un facteur d'appréciation du risque »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The insurer argued that the policyholder's brother, declared as an occasional driver, was the main driver, and sought nullity of the contract and repayment for three accidents. The court found no intentional omission at inception: the breach arose during the contract, fell under art. 26 LCAT and could ground recourse, not nullity. Having failed to notify its intention to seek recourse as soon as it knew the facts, the insurer lost that right under art. 88; fraus omnia corrumpit did not apply and the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — undeclared main driver, late notice of recourse","law":"LCAT arts. 5, 6, 26, 87 §1, 88; model contract RD 14.12.1992, arts. 24–25; Cass. 4.5.2007","w":101,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège (3e ch. C)","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-01-16","rol":"2012/RG/1594","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2014:ARR.20140116.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The injured party's direct action against the insurer was subject to a five-year period running from the 1992 Act's entry into force (1.1.1993); filed after 1.1.1998, it was time-barred. Pleadings against the insureds did not interrupt the period as against the insurers, since they did not notify the insurers of the wish to be compensated.","k":"Direct action — limitation (transitional rules)","law":"LCAT (1992 Act) art. 34 §2, 35 §4, 86","w":102,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2014-01-13","rol":"C.13.0208.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2014:ARR.20140113.4","ch":"3N","res":"c","t":"work","q":"Hieruit volgt dat de arbeidsongevallenverzekeraar tot beloop van de gedane uitke-ringen en gevestigde kapitalen in de rechten treedt die het slachtoffer of zijn rechthebbenden hadden kunnen uitoefenen op grond van het…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The worker broke his wrist in a workplace accident on 25 January 2008 and suffered a brain haemorrhage while that injury was being treated; the workplace-accident insurer sought reimbursement from those held liable, including a hospital, of its payments covering the damage caused by the haemorrhage. The Antwerp Court of Appeal denied recourse under article 47 of the Act of 10.4.1971 on the ground that the haemorrhage was not a workplace accident, having occurred when the worker was not under the employer's authority. The Court of Cassation held that under article 47 the insurer is subrogated, up to its payments and the capital it has set aside, to the rights the victim could have exercised under ordinary law against the person liable for the damage compensated under the Act; the judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Workplace accident — insurer's subrogation against the liable third party","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts 46 and 47","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-12-19","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2013:ARR.173","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : - L'article 25, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail ne viole pas les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution. - Les deuxième, troisième et quatrième questions…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Before the Kortrijk Labour Court, a workplace-accident victim declared recovered without permanent incapacity, who had not challenged that decision, sought from the workplace-accident insurer an allowance under article 25(1) of the Act of 10.4.1971 for a temporary worsening of the condition. The Constitutional Court ruled that this provision, read as applying only where there is permanent incapacity for work, does not violate articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution. The three further questions on limitation (article 69) rested on the unrealised premise that article 25 applied and required no answer.","k":"Workplace accident — temporary aggravation allowance after a declaration of recovery","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 25(1) and 69; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-12-04","rol":"P.13.0285.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2013:ARR.20131204.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"L'article 89, § 5, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre, qui interdit à la juridiction répressive, devant laquelle l'assureur est mis en cause par la personne lésée, de statuer sur les droits…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"In a workplace accident in which an apprentice was injured on a building site, the general contractor's business liability insurer denied cover under an exclusion for damage 'caused by the absence or removal of statutory safety equipment'. The Court of Cassation held that article 89 §5 LCAT does not prevent the insurer from raising the defences of article 87 §2 against the injured party in criminal court, but that article 8(2) requires cases of gross negligence to be specified expressly and exhaustively: the clause was too general to apply, and the insurer's appeal was dismissed. The subrogated workplace-accident insurer's appeal was also dismissed: as the victim bore one fifth of the fault, its recourse is capped at four fifths of the common-law damages; some findings concerning the employer were quashed on other grounds.","k":"Business liability insurance — gross-negligence exclusion and defences in criminal court","law":"LCAT arts. 8(2), 87 §2, 89 §5; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46; Cass. 29.6.2009","w":103,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-11-27","rol":"P.13.1178.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2013:ARR.20131127.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsque, par suite du concours d'infractions, les peines privatives de liberté et les amendes prévues par les lois coordonnées sur la police de la circulation routière ne sont pas prononcées, la déchéance du droit de…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A driver who had held a category B licence for less than two years was convicted of driving without motor liability insurance, and the Brussels Court of Appeal imposed a three-month driving ban under articles 35 and 38 §2 of the Road Traffic Act. The Court of Cassation held that a ban is then mandatory but that the court sets its length under article 24, 1° of the Act of 21 November 1989, since the uninsured-driving offence is not among those covered by article 38 §2. The judgment was quashed only as regards the driving ban; the appeal was otherwise dismissed.","k":"Driving uninsured — length of driving ban for a novice driver","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 22 §1, 24, 1°; Act of 16.3.1968, art. 38 §2","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-11-12","rol":"2013/RG/142","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2013:ARR.20131112.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The liability policy of a company letting its own building described the insured activity as \"property management and consultancy\", so the insurer had refused to cover an accident during a check of a fire-detection system; the company turned against its broker. The court held that the earlier judgment in the dispute with the insurer did not mean the insured should itself have realised the limits of cover: it had told the broker about its letting activity before the policy was taken out. The judgment ordering the broker to hold the insured harmless and pay €20,600 provisionally was upheld; the objection to territorial jurisdiction was also rejected.","k":"Broker's liability — activity left uninsured","law":"Judicial Code art. 624, 2°; liability of the insurance intermediary","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-11-05","rol":"2012/RG/1001","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2013:ARR.20131105.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Juportal record contains no summary for this Liège Court of Appeal judgment, only the keyword 'calculation of the indemnity owed to the workplace-accident insurer'. Its content and outcome cannot be derived from the record and should be checked against the full text.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's subrogation — calculating the indemnity","law":"Act of 10 April 1971 (no article cited in the record)","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"2013-10-04","rol":"C.12.0072.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2013:ARR.20131004.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Il ne résulte pas de l'article 88, alinéa 2, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre que la déchéance du droit de l'assureur d'introduire l'action récursoire contre son assuré lorsqu'il tarde à…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer had denied cover to an architect because of gross negligence; the Brussels Court of Appeal dismissed the insurer's recourse claim, because it had not notified its intention to seek recourse as soon as it knew the facts, but refused to make it pay the insured's defence costs (provisionally €5,296.30) after cover was denied. The Court of Cassation held that the loss of the right of recourse under article 88(2) LCAT does not entitle the insured, despite gross negligence, to call on the cover. The insured's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Professional liability insurance — late notice of recourse does not restore cover","law":"LCAT art. 88(2)","w":11,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-09-23","rol":"2012/RG/1455","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2013:ARR.20130923.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The policy covered contents in a regularly occupied building, allowing at most 60 consecutive nights of vacancy; because of renovation works, the insured had not lived there for more than 60 consecutive nights after cover began on 28.6.2007. The court held that the insured had not shown she fell within the scope of cover; given the trust that should prevail, the insurer could not be blamed for not immediately challenging the information received or for starting to assess the loss. The insured's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Home theft — 'regular occupation' definition and scope of cover","law":"former Civil Code, arts. 1134, 1315; general conditions, art. 22","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège (3e ch. C)","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-09-16","rol":"2012/RG/1658","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2013:ARR.20130916.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"A stolen car used in an attempted hold-up was abandoned under a bridge and set on fire by the robbers, damaging the public bridge (€4,335.45); the motor insurer declined cover because of the theft. The court held that although putting a vehicle into traffic triggers the insurance obligation, cover also applies to a stationary vehicle that took part in traffic where the liability is linked to a traffic event. Having been driven and stopped on the public road, the car was taking part in traffic; the Guarantee Fund's liability to the injured party was upheld.","k":"Guarantee Fund — stolen car set on fire and the notion of traffic","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 2 §1, 3 §1, 19bis-11 §1, 4°","w":35,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège (3e ch. B)","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-09-13","rol":"C.12.0329.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2013:ARR.20130913.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Est fondée la fin de non-recevoir déduite de ce que l''unique moyen présenté par le demandeur à l''appui de son pourvoi ne critique pas la décision de l''arrêt déclarant l''action en garantie dirigée par le demandeur…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"In an accident in Belgium caused by a Danish military vehicle, the Belgian Motor Insurers' Bureau argued that Denmark's exemption of such vehicles from compulsory insurance released it from compensating the victims. The Court of Cassation held that where the vehicle is normally based in a State listed in article 2(2) of the Royal Decree of 13 February 1991 but exempt from compulsory insurance, the Bureau must compensate the injured party unless that State has designated an authority or body in Belgium to do so. The Bureau's appeal was dismissed; insofar as it concerned its third-party claim against the Belgian State, it was inadmissible because it did not challenge that decision.","k":"Motor liability — exempt foreign military vehicle: the Bureau's duty to compensate","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 2 §2, 11; RD 13.2.1991, arts. 1(a), 2(2); Directive of 24.4.1972, arts. 2.2, 3.1, 4(a)","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-09-09","rol":"2012/RG/1637","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2013:ARR.20130909.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The policy excluded sewer backflow caused by rainfall from the water-damage cover and placed it under the natural-disaster cover. The court found that both 2007 losses resulted from sewer backflow caused by rainfall, so they fell under the natural-disaster cover and its deductible; the rainfall need not be 'exceptional'. The insureds can only be compensated within the limits of the contract; their claims for the deductibles and €500 non-pecuniary damage were rejected and the appeal dismissed.","k":"Home insurance — sewer backflow: water damage or natural disaster","law":"General policy conditions, art. 4.1, 4.3, 11","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège (3e ch. B)","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-09-09","rol":"2012/RG/1291","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2013:ARR.20130909.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Le dommage causé lors d'une activité non assurée n'est pas couvert.","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Two boat engines entrusted to a repairer for maintenance froze over the winter because they had not been drained. The court found that article 9.1 of the general conditions excludes loss caused by the insured's failure to perform its undertakings and that the extension covering customers' vehicles derogates only from articles 6.1 and 9.5; any other reading would turn the policy into an after-work all-risks cover that was never agreed. The insured's claim against its business liability insurer was dismissed.","k":"Business liability — loss from unperformed work, not covered","law":"General conditions, arts 6.1, 9.1, 9.5; former Civil Code, arts 1161–1162","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-09-06","rol":"C.12.0360.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2013:ARR.20130906.1","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"intent","q":"Est légalement justifié, l''arrêt qui considère qu''il suit de l''article 1er de l''arrêté royal du 12 janvier 1984 déterminant les conditions minimales des contrats d''assurance couvrant la responsabilité civile…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The policyholder's son, insured under his father's family liability policy because he lived in his household, had set fire to his employer's buildings with matches and paper; the victim's fire insurers, subrogated to its rights, sued the family liability insurer, which the Mons Court of Appeal ordered to pay €434,264.32. The Court accepted that, under article 1 of the Royal Decree of 12 January 1984, the insured risk is liability incurred outside professional activity, that private life must be read broadly, and that the arson did not arise from the professional activity as such. The insurer bears the burden of proving the intentional-act exclusion, and whether the act was intentional given the insured's impaired mental faculties is a question of fact. The insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Family liability insurance — private life and the intentional-act exclusion","law":"Royal Decree of 12.1.1984 art. 1; former Civil Code, art. 1386bis","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-08-22","rol":"2011/AB/997","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2013:ARR.20130822.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Le paiement d'avances par l'entreprise d'assurances rendu obligatoire par l'article 63, § 4, de la loi du 10 avril 1971 n'entraîne ni reconnaissance d'un droit ni obligation de payer une allocation supérieure à celle…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer had paid benefits on the basis of a 12% permanent incapacity rate contained in a draft agreement the victim never accepted; the labour court later set the rate at 7%. The insurer sought to recover the overpayment through an unjust-enrichment action. The court observed that the advance payments made compulsory by art. 63 §4 of the Act of 10.4.1971 imply neither recognition of a right nor an obligation to pay more than what is later fixed by agreement or a final judgment; but all questions relating to compensation, including the restitution of overpayments, should have been decided by the court hearing the incapacity-rate dispute (subsidiarity of unjust enrichment). Having raised these points, and the admissibility of the victim's counterclaim, of its own motion, the court reopened the debates without ruling on the merits.","k":"Workplace accident — recovery of advance payments, unjust enrichment","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63 §4; Judicial Code, art. 775","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-06-27","rol":"C.11.0562.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2013:ARR.20130627.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"La survenance du sinistre s'entend, au sens de l''article 87, § 1er, alinéa 2, de la loi du 25 juin 1992, de la survenance du dommage. || Si un tiers ne peut, hors le cas d''une stipulation à son profit, exiger…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The building owner, whose contractor had gone bankrupt, brought a direct action against the architect's former professional liability insurer; the policy had been terminated on 28 May 2000 and the Mons Court of Appeal dismissed the claim, finding no proof of irremediable defects before that date and that the risk was covered by a new insurer. The Court of Cassation held that 'occurrence of the loss' in article 87 §1(2) LCAT means occurrence of the damage, whose existence cannot depend on the defects being irremediable; inferring that the risk was covered from the new policy without examining its conditions for prior work disregarded that policy's binding force and its effect on third parties. The judgment was quashed on the owner's appeal.","k":"Architect's liability insurance — 'occurrence of the loss' and terminated policy","law":"LCAT arts. 78 §2, 87 §1(2); former Civil Code, arts. 1134, 1165","w":104,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-06-26","rol":"2008/AB/51587","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2013:ARR.20130626.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'interruption de la prescription par celui qui se fait subroger dans ses droits n'a lieu au profit du subrogé que si elle est antérieure et non postérieure à la subrogation.","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The health-insurance fund, which had paid benefits provisionally after the workplace-accident insurer refused to cover a new period of incapacity, sought an order against the insurer. The court noted that the subrogated action is subject to the limitation period of the victim's own action against the insurer (art. 69 of the Act of 10.4.1971, three years) and that the subrogee benefits from the subrogor's interrupting acts, but only those preceding the subrogation (Cass. 16.12.2004). Here subrogation arose with the payments made between April and December 1995, whereas the victim's registered letter dated from 26 August 1997, so the fund could in principle not rely on it. As the court raised this point of its own motion, it reopened the debates without ruling on the merits.","k":"Workplace accident — health-insurance fund's subrogated action, interruption of limitation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 69-70; Cass. 16.12.2004","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-06-25","rol":"2010/RG/901","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2013:ARR.20130625.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"« Les coûts de l'expert désigné par l'assuré et le cas échéant du troisième expert sont avancés par l'assureur »","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"After a fire, the insured sought more than the first-instance award. The court held that the insurer was not bound to continue the valuation procedure during the criminal investigation, and that the loss could not be fixed solely on the insured's expert's unilateral statements or on rebuilding costs for which no invoices were kept. It appointed a court expert to assess the loss under the policy terms and reopened the hearing on who must deposit the advance; costs were reserved. This is an interim ruling.","k":"Fire insurance — assessing the indemnity, court-appointed expert","law":"LCAT art. 67 §2 and §2bis; general conditions, art. 10, 14.2","w":54,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-06-24","rol":"C.12.0336.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2013:ARR.20130624.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Celui qui s'acquitte d'une dette qui lui est personnelle peut prétendre bénéficier de la subrogation légale s'il a, par son paiement, libéré à l'égard de leur créancier commun celui sur qui doit peser la charge…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A health insurer that had paid a victim's hospital costs sought reimbursement from the motor liability insurer of the vehicle involved, relying on Assuralia's 'article 45 agreement' under which such costs fell first on the insurer liable under article 29bis; the Liège Court of First Instance, on appeal, allowed the claim. The Court of Cassation held that article 45 LCAT and that agreement apply only where both contracts insure the same interest against the same risk, which is not the case for health insurance and the article 29bis compensation duty. The judgment was quashed on the motor liability insurer's appeal.","k":"Multiple insurance — hospitalisation insurance and article 29bis","law":"LCAT arts. 45, 138bis-1 §1; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; former Civil Code, art. 1251, 3°","w":105,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-06-18","rol":"2012/RG/1075","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2013:ARR.20130618.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"A child whose eye was pierced by a wooden arrow shot by the insured's son, together with his parents, sought higher awards from the liability insurer. The court granted each parent, who feared their son would lose an eye, €1,000 for their own non-pecuniary loss instead of the €500 offered, and awarded the child €14,000 for 8% permanent impairment and €11,100 for 6% permanent incapacity. The loss from a future surcharge on life, hospitalisation or income-protection insurance, though highly likely, was reserved because taking out such cover remained hypothetical; the appeal being largely upheld, the insurer bore the costs of both instances.","k":"Personal injury — parents' non-pecuniary loss and future insurance surcharge","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1382 and 1384(2)","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-06-10","rol":"2012/RG/651","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2013:ARR.20130610.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"An insured who, after a theft, obtained other people's invoices to inflate the loss and knowingly gave false information lost all right to compensation. A post-traumatic condition did not show a lack of free will.","k":"Theft claim — inflating the loss with false documents","law":"LCAT (1992 Act) art. 19 and 21","w":106,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-06-07","rol":"C.12.0128.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2013:ARR.20130607.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Lorsqu''un des motifs de la responsabilité, fondant la réclamation de la personne lésée contre le transporteur CMR, n''est pas couvert par la police, les intérêts de l'assureur et de l''assuré ne coïncident pas dans…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A transport company sought cover from its liability insurers, which had for years conducted its defence in proceedings in England before denying cover because of its uninsured liability as a CMR carrier; the Antwerp Court of Appeal held there was no conflict of interests, as the injured party's main claim rested on covered grounds. The Court of Cassation held that where one of the grounds of liability relied on by the injured party is not covered, the interests of insurer and insured do not coincide to that extent, and the insurer has no right under article 79(2) LCAT to contest the claim in the insured's place. The judgment was quashed on the insured's appeal.","k":"Liability insurance — control of the defence where interests conflict","law":"LCAT art. 79","w":107,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-05-30","rol":"C.12.0344.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2013:ARR.20130530.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La personne qui s'est emparée par vol du véhicule automoteur ayant causé le dommage et le coauteur ou complice du vol ne possèdent pas de droit contre le Fonds commun de garantie automobile (1). (1) Arrêté royal du 16…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The victim killed in the accident of 15 March 1996 had taken part as co-perpetrator in the theft of the vehicle that caused it; the Charleroi Court of First Instance, on appeal, ordered the Guarantee Fund to compensate the victim's father, mother and sister for non-material loss and funeral costs, treating these as their own losses. The Court of Cassation held that the thief, co-perpetrator or accomplice has no claim against the Fund (RD of 16 December 1981, art. 17 §1, 5°), and that relatives of a victim with no right to compensation likewise cannot recover consequential losses arising from family and emotional ties. The judgment was quashed to that extent on the Fund's appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund — relatives of a victim who took part in the theft","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 80 §1; RD 16.12.1981, art. 17 §1, 5°; former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1383","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-05-10","rol":"C.12.0211.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2013:ARR.20130510.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"L''article 67, § 1er, alinéa 1er de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d''assurance terrestre n''interdit pas aux parties de convenir que le bien reconstruit doit être destiné au même usage en Belgique que le bien…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A building used for a commercial business was destroyed by fire; the policy required the whole indemnity to be spent on rebuilding for the same use in Belgium, and the insurer paid only part, accepting only part of the new building (commercial units and flats) as rebuilt for the same use. The Ghent Court of Appeal held the clause void as restricting the insured's rights beyond what article 67 §1 LCAT allows. The Court of Cassation held that this provision does not prohibit the parties from agreeing that the rebuilt property must be used for the same purpose in Belgium, and quashed the judgment on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Fire insurance — reinstatement clause requiring 'the same use'","law":"LCAT art. 67 §1","w":54,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-05-02","rol":"2012/RG/399","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2013:ARR.20130502.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The owners of a building destroyed by fire claimed for a workshop and its equipment, which the insurer treated as an uncovered outbuilding. The court accepted that the insured must show the loss falls within the cover, but a part of the building not excluded by the policy is covered. As for disclosure, the insurer must prove that the undisclosed fact was relevant to its assessment of the risk and that the policyholder could reasonably have seen it as such; no breach of article 5 LCAT was found. The order to pay the balance of €91,137.96, including the workshop equipment (€10,986) and net of advances, was upheld; proceedings were reopened on interest.","k":"Fire insurance — hobby workshop within cover and duty of disclosure","law":"LCAT art. 5; former Civil Code, art. 1315","w":108,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-04-29","rol":"2011/RG/1663","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2013:ARR.20130429.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La victime d'un accident du travail qui a été indemnisée en loi dans le cadre de son activité professionnelle principale peut réclamer un surplus d'indemnisation du dommage résultant de l'incapacité totale d'exercer une…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Compensated under the workplace-accident scheme for his main job, the victim claimed from the liable party's liability insurer a top-up for the total loss of his side activity as a volunteer firefighter. The court held that the statutory compensation for a 10% incapacity in the main activity cannot, by definition, cover the loss resulting from total incapacity to carry on the side activity, so the victim may claim that top-up under ordinary law; the Cassation ruling of 1.3.1993 relied on by the insurer concerned a different situation. Proceedings were reopened to calculate the loss under ordinary-law parameters.","k":"Workplace accident — top-up under ordinary law for a side activity","law":"Workplace-accident legislation (ordinary-law recourse); Cass. 1.3.1993 (distinguished)","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-04-26","rol":"2005/AR/1340","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2013:ARR.20130426.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"L'article 35 §3bis, qui a créé une nouvelle cause de suspension ou d'interruption de la prescription et n'a été inséré dans la loi du 25 juin 1992 que par la loi du 22 août 2002, entrée en vigueur le 19 janvier 2003, ne…","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"Injured in 2000 when a tractor's hydraulic lift bar rose, the victim sued the business liability and family liability insurers in 2002 and the tractor's motor insurer in 2005, but only joined the person responsible in 2009. The court held that article 35 §3bis LCAT, in force since 19.1.2003 (interruption of the limitation period against the insurer extends to the action against the insured), does not apply retroactively to earlier writs but applies from its entry into force to a period not yet expired, the interruption lasting throughout the proceedings; the action against the person responsible was therefore not time-barred. On the merits liability was split equally: the business liability insurer was ordered, jointly with its insured, to pay a provisional €2,500 and to indemnify him, while the claims against the family liability insurer (professional activity) and the motor insurer (tractor not in traffic) were dismissed.","k":"Business liability — action against the insurer interrupting the limitation period against the insured","law":"LCAT arts 34 §2, 35 §3bis and 86; former Civil Code, arts 1384(2), 2244 and 2262bis §1; Act of 21.11.1989","w":109,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-04-26","rol":"C.12.0338.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2013:ARR.20130426.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La conduite préalablement prévue d''un véhicule automoteur appartenant à un tiers ne constitue, en règle, pas une conduite occasionnelle telle que visée à l''article 4 du contrat-type; la circonstance que le preneur…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"During a carnival parade, a participant walking beside a float pulled by a tracked dumper hired by a youth association fell between the tractor and the trailer and was seriously injured; the Leuven Court of First Instance, on appeal, found that the driver had removed the plate from his own vehicle in advance to fit it on the dumper and that his driving had been arranged beforehand, so he could not rely on his own motor policy's extension to occasional driving of a third party's vehicle. The Court of Cassation held that driving planned in advance is, as a rule, not occasional driving under article 4 of the model contract, and that infrequent driving does not necessarily make it occasional. The Guarantee Fund's appeal, and its request to have the judgment declared binding on the insurer, were dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — 'occasional' driving of a third party's vehicle","law":"Model contract RD 14.12.1992, art. 1(1) and annex art. 4, 1°, b)","w":110,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-04-25","rol":"C.11.0103.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2013:ARR.20130425.7","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"procedure","q":"Il n''existe pas de principe général du droit selon lequel aucune personne résidant à l''étranger ne doit être forcée, par un acte de contrainte à portée extraterritoriale, à enfreindre la législation de son lieu de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The reserved heir of a policyholder who in 1998 had taken out a contract with a Luxembourg life insurer asked for the general and special conditions; the Brussels Court of Appeal ordered the insurer to produce them under a penalty, despite the insurer's professional secrecy under Luxembourg law. The Court held that treating the heir as standing in the policyholder's shoes justified the Belgian courts' jurisdiction in insurance matters (art. 9(1)(b) of Regulation 44/2001), and that article 20(2) of the Code of Private International Law allows, but does not require, a judge to give effect to another State's mandatory rules. A court may order a party resident in another Member State to produce a document under its own national law. The insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Life insurance — heir's request for contract documents from a foreign insurer","law":"Code of Private International Law art. 20(2); Regulation (EC) 44/2001 art. 9(1)(b); Regulation (EC) 1206/2001 art. 1; CJEU 6.9.2012, Lippens (C-171/11)","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-04-25","rol":"C.11.0745.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2013:ARR.20130425.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L''assimilation du bureau belge à un assureur ne peut être invoquée que par les victimes de sinistres survenus sur le territoire belge et provoqués par la circulation de véhicules ayant leur stationnement habituel à…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Belgian Motor Insurers' Bureau sought reimbursement from the owner and the driver of a vehicle normally based in Belgium of sums it had paid to the victims of an accident in Germany. The Court held that the Bureau's assimilation to an insurer can only be relied on by victims of accidents in Belgium caused by vehicles normally based abroad; it does not apply to the Bureau's recourse for payments made in respect of an accident in another State. The appeal judgment of the Eupen court of first instance, which dismissed the claim against the driver and limited it to half under article 24 of the model contract, was partly quashed on the Bureau's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — Belgian Bureau's recourse, assimilation to an insurer","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 2 §2 para. 2; Directive 72/166/EEC, art. 2","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-04-25","rol":"C.12.0114.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2013:ARR.20130425.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"L''assurance contre le péril d''incendie souscrite en nom personnel par un copropriétaire indivis du bien assuré ne couvre que sa part de propriété et ne bénéficie pas aux autres copropriétaires, sauf s''il résulte de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that fire insurance taken out in his own name by one co-owner of undivided property covers only his share and does not benefit the other co-owners, unless the policy shows that he acted on their behalf. The Mons Court of Appeal judgment awarding the insured, who owned half of the building with his ex-wife, compensation for the whole loss was partly quashed on the insurer's appeal: it extended the contract to a third party and awarded more than the loss suffered by not reducing the €125,000 indemnity to the insured's own share.","k":"Fire insurance — scope of cover for jointly owned property","law":"LCAT art. 1 B a) and 39; former Civil Code, art. 1165","w":111,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-04-22","rol":"2012/RG/1344","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2013:ARR.20130422.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"« Par le biais » d'un intermédiaire d'assurance ne signifie pas que dès qu'un tel intermédiaire intervient d'une quelconque façon, l'assureur n'est libéré vis-à-vis de son assuré que lorsque celui-ci a reçu…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The surrender value of a pension-savings life policy was paid to the account stated on the form signed by the insured; the account actually belonged to her broker and she never received the money. The court held that payment \"through\" an intermediary (art. 13, para. 3 LCAT) does not cover every kind of involvement of the intermediary; it is contrasted with payment made directly to the insured. The insurer, which legitimately believed the account on the document signed by the insured was hers, is discharged; the insured's claim against the insurer was dismissed.","k":"Payment through an intermediary — discharge of the insurer","law":"LCAT art. 13, para. 3","w":52,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-04-17","rol":"2011AR1224","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2013:ARR.20130417.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Artikel 1384,1e BW - art 86 WLVO De brand vernietigde de materiële structuur van het gebouw, althans gedeeltelijk. De brand vernietigde bovendien een wezenlijke eigenschap van dat gebouw, dat het gebouw tot een woning…","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"After their house burned on 1.1.2006, the owners failed to repair the rainwater drainage, causing a second, water-damage loss next door; the neighbour and his subrogated insurer sued the owners and their home insurer. The court held that the fire, which made the house uninhabitable, rendered it defective so that the owners were liable as keepers (art. 1384 para. 1), and that the injured parties had a direct action (art. 86 LCAT); the second loss, however, stemmed from the owners' negligence (art. 1383), and the insurer could raise forfeiture against the injured parties (art. 87 §2). The insurer was ordered, jointly with the owners, to pay €932.01 and €37,220.92 for the first loss; the €14,788.60 for the second loss was borne by the owners alone.","k":"Fire spreading to a neighbour — direct action and forfeiture for the second loss","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1383, 1384 para. 1; LCAT art. 86, 87 §2","w":4,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-04-15","rol":"2012/RG/170","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2013:ARR.20130415.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"« L'absence de lien entre l'omission litigieuse et la survenance du sinistre est sans incidence »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The insureds answered 'no' to the question whether the proposed insurance had been refused, cancelled or terminated by another insurer, although the previous fire policy on the same building had been terminated because of claims. Given how clear the question was, the court held the omission could only be intentional: had it known, the insurer would have inspected and refused the risk or accepted it on other terms; the lack of any link with the fire, and the broker's involvement, were irrelevant. The judgment awarding €218,900 on a provisional basis was reversed; the contract was void under art. 6 LCAT and the insureds had to repay €6,452.20 with interest.","k":"Fire insurance — concealed cancellation by a previous insurer","law":"LCAT arts. 5, 6; Cass. 16.11.2001","w":112,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-04-15","rol":"2012/RG/1193","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2013:ARR.20130415.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"After a fire the insurer lodged a criminal complaint for forgery and arson; the insureds were acquitted and compensated in 2010–2011. They claimed interest from the date of the loss. The court found no fault on the insurer's part: the complaint was not wrongful since the investigation had disclosed indications of guilt; after the acquittal the loss was assessed jointly and paid within thirty days, in line with the general conditions and article 67 §2bis, 2° LCAT. The appeal was dismissed.","k":"Fire insurance — late payment and interest after criminal proceedings","law":"LCAT art. 67 §2bis, 2°","w":54,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-03-25","rol":"2012/RG/61","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2013:ARR.20130325.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The insured had reported that his car was damaged by hitting game, and the insurer paid without waiting for the criminal file; that file and a witness showed the car hit a pole, a scenario not covered. The court held that the payment, made in the climate of trust between insurer and insured, was not owed; it was not a settlement, and paying without reservation did not waive the right to reclaim. The judgment was reversed; the insured, acting in bad faith, was ordered to repay €11,767.87 with interest from 9.5.2006.","k":"False claim statement — recovery of the indemnity paid","law":"Recovery of undue payment (former Civil Code)","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-03-25","rol":"2012/AB/463","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2013:ARR.20130325.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Artikel 37 eerste lid van de Arbeidsongevallenwet bepaalt dat wanneer de getroffene uitkeringen geniet krachtens een sociaal zekerheids- of sociaal voorzorgsstelsel die slechts worden toegekend op voorwaarde dat de…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The worker, injured in a workplace accident on 29 June 2009, had been drawing a retirement pension since 1 January 2009 and worked within the limits of permitted work for pensioners. The court held that under art. 37, para. 1 of the Act of 10.4.1971 the basic wage is then fixed solely on the wage due for the permitted work, without topping up to a hypothetical wage (Cass. 17.10.1994). The basic wage of EUR 19,086.01 accepted by the first court was reduced to EUR 7,421.57 on the workplace-accident insurer's appeal; appeal costs stayed with the insurer.","k":"Workplace accident — basic wage of a pensioner in permitted work","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 37 para. 1; Cass. 17.10.1994","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Brussel","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-03-20","rol":"2011/AR/433","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2013:ARR.20130320.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"« is de nietigheid van de overeenkomst beperkt tot de verzekering van de risico's waaromtrent de verzekeraar is misleid »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"Asked whether a previous insurer had cancelled its policies, the insured company denied it and, in a free-text note, blamed unpaid premiums on temporary roadworks, hiding the real, structural cause. The court held that asking a question shows that the insurer regards the information as important, and that structural insolvency increases the likelihood of deliberate fire-raising, so it is relevant to assessing the fire risk. Where several risks are covered, nullity is limited to the risk about which the insurer was misled: the €175,000 provisional award was reversed and the contract declared void, retroactively, for the fire risk.","k":"Fire insurance — false reason for prior cancellation, partial nullity","law":"LCAT arts. 5, 6","w":112,"c":"Hof van beroep Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-03-20","rol":"2011/AR/2507","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2013:ARR.20130320.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"In proceedings brought by the injured party after a road accident, the motor liability insurer denied that the driver was its insured; because of this conflict of interest, the driver hired his own lawyer and claimed the costs from the insurer. The court held that reasonable defence costs become payable only once it is established that the conflict of interest is not attributable to the insured, so limitation runs from the judgment of 2.12.2009 establishing the duty to cover, and the claim filed on 8.4.2010 was in time. The insured's appeal partly succeeded: the insurer owes €3,575.14 in lawyer's fees and, after deducting the €900 already awarded, was ordered to pay €2,675.14 plus interest.","k":"Motor liability — defence costs in a conflict of interest, limitation","law":"LCAT art. 34 §1 and 82(3); general conditions, art. 20","w":113,"c":"Hof van beroep Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-03-14","rol":"C.12.0256.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2013:ARR.20130314.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Il suit de l'interprétation que la Cour de justice Benelux donne des exclusions d'assurance prévues à l'article 3, § 1er, des dispositions communes annexées à la Convention Benelux du 24 mai 1966 relative à l'assurance…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Relying on the Benelux Court of Justice's interpretation, the Court held that where a vehicle has been stolen the Guarantee Fund need only intervene if it is shown that the damage was caused by a road accident brought about by the thief or by someone using the vehicle knowing it was stolen. The Mons Court of Appeal, having found that it was not established with certainty that the thief had pushed the vehicle into the canal, lawfully dismissed the Walloon Region's claim against the Fund. The appeal was dismissed.","k":"Guarantee Fund — damage caused by a stolen vehicle","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 3 §1; Benelux Court of Justice, 26.6.1989, A 88/3; Cass. 15.5.2003; Cass. 22.1.2009","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-03-13","rol":"2004AR2169","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2013:ARR.20130313.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Artikel 58 WLVO houdt geen rechtstreekse vordering in van de pandhoudende/hypothecaire schuldeisers t.o.v. de brandverzekeraar van hun schuldenaar bij brand van het onderpand Artikel 58 WLVO houdt wel in dat de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"On 10.6.1997 the warehouse where a company, later bankrupt, stored and bottled wines and spirits burned down; insurers subrogated to the rights of the bank, a mortgage and pledge creditor, claimed the indemnity from the company's fire insurers. The court held that art. 58 LCAT gives the creditor no direct action against the fire insurer, but means the insurer can validly pay only the creditor; the insured's own claim was time-barred after three years (art. 34 §1), yet under art. 66 §1 that defence, based on a fact occurring after the loss, cannot be raised against a preferred creditor known to the insurer. The limitation defence was rejected and the fire insurers were ordered to pay their shares, capped at the mortgage amount (€619,733.80).","k":"Fire insurance — limitation not opposable to the secured creditor","law":"LCAT art. 34 §1, 35 §3, 58, 66 §1; Mortgage Act, art. 10","w":114,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-03-13","rol":"P.12.1812.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2013:ARR.20130313.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Les arguments de droit qui complètent la thèse d'une partie et qui se déduisent des faits et pièces dans le débat constituent des motifs que le juge peut suppléer d'office; ces arguments ne sont pas des moyens distincts…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"Workers were injured when a building collapsed; the contractor's construction liability insurer relied on exclusion clauses (absence of statutory safety equipment, foreseeable damage defined with the word \"notably\"). The Liège Court of Appeal found these clauses insufficiently precise under article 8(2) LCAT. The Court held that by invoking such a clause the insurer necessarily relies on a case of gross negligence specified expressly and exhaustively, so a judge who finds that this condition is not met does not breach the principle that the parties define the dispute or the rights of defence. The insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Construction liability insurance — imprecise exclusion clause","law":"LCAT art. 8 para. 2; Judicial Code, art. 1138, 2°; principle of party disposition and rights of defence","w":17,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-03-12","rol":"P.12.0739.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2013:ARR.20130312.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En vertu de l'article 3, § 1er, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs, l'assurance doit garantir l'indemnisation des…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that the exclusion in article 3 §1 of the Act of 21.11.1989 of the liability of persons who took control of the vehicle by theft, violence or receiving stolen goods does not require that they were prosecuted for those offences. The Antwerp Court of Appeal judgment holding the motor liability insurer bound to cover because the minor driver had not been prosecuted for theft or receiving, without examining its defence, was quashed on the insurer's appeal as regards the injured parties' civil claims against it, together with the part releasing another insurer and the Guarantee Fund.","k":"Motor liability — theft exclusion without criminal prosecution","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 3 §1","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-03-07","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2013:ARR.031","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 14, § 1er, de la loi du 1er juillet 1956 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs viole les articles 10 et 11 de la…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Before the Mons Court of Appeal, the case concerned victims of an accident caused by a fortuitous event exonerating the driver, involving a vehicle of a public transport body that had used the exemption from compulsory insurance. The Constitutional Court held that article 14 §1 of the Act of 1.7.1956 violates articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution insofar as, from the entry into force of former article 50 of the Act of 9.7.1975 until that of the Act of 21.11.1989, it did not require the State or exempt public body to assume the same obligations as the Guarantee Fund towards such victims. As the gap is identified in sufficiently precise and complete terms, the referring court must remedy it.","k":"Motor liability — insurance-exempt public vehicle and fortuitous event","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, arts. 14 §1 and 16; Act of 9.7.1975, former art. 50; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 10; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":35,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-03-07","rol":"C.12.0332.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2013:ARR.20130307.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"L'article 29bis, §1er, de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs n'exclut du champ d'application du régime d'indemnisation qu'il institue…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The heirs of a worker struck by a train at a level crossing while carrying out track maintenance claimed article 29bis compensation from the railway operator. The Court held that article 29bis §1 does not exclude from the compensation scheme a worker maintaining the railway track when an accident involving a rail-bound vehicle occurs, nor his heirs; the argument that the track was completely isolated from traffic relied on facts not found in the judgment. The railway operator's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Article 29bis — death of a railway maintenance worker","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-03-04","rol":"2012/AB/59","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2013:ARR.20130304.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Het bewijs van de plotse gebeurtenis wordt niet geleverd door de verklaringen van het slachtoffer, wanneer deze niet wordt ondersteund en zelfs wordt tegengesproken door de verklaringen van de werkgever, en de versie…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The worker claimed he had fallen in the workshop on 5 August 2008; the workplace-accident insurer refused to recognise the accident. The court held that the sudden event was not proved by the victim's own statements, which the employer's account did not support but contradicted (accident at 6 p.m. or 10 p.m.; going home versus falling asleep at the workplace), and a night-time drive to a distant hospital with a hip fracture was not plausible either. The doctors' findings the next day, noting an injury and prescribing painkillers, show the injury but not the sudden event. The insurer's appeal was upheld, the first-instance judgment set aside and the worker's claim dismissed; costs remained with the insurer.","k":"Workplace accident — proof of the sudden event, contradictory statements","law":"Act of 10.4.1971","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Brussel","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-03-04","rol":"C.09.0205.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2013:ARR.20130304.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"Seul l'auteur d'une faute intentionnelle ou d'un manquement à une obligation déterminée du contrat peut être déchu du bénéfice de la garantie de l'assurance; partant est prohibée toute clause contractuelle qui a pour…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer relied on a joint-and-several and indivisibility clause between policyholders to refuse cover to a policyholder who had not intentionally caused the loss. The Court held that under articles 8 and 11 LCAT only the person who committed the intentional act, or who breached a specific contractual duty, can be deprived of cover; any clause depriving another policyholder of cover is prohibited. The insurer's appeal against the Liège Court of Appeal judgment ordering it to pay €61,634 was dismissed.","k":"Intentional act — denial of cover to a co-policyholder","law":"LCAT art. 8 para. 1 and 11 para. 1; former Civil Code, art. 1134","w":62,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-03-01","rol":"C.12.0188.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2013:ARR.20130301.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"L'action récursoire de l'assureur contre l'assuré se prescrit par trois ans à compter du jour du paiement par l'assureur, le cas de fraude excepté; cette disposition fait courir la prescription de l'action récursoire de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The motor liability insurer sought reimbursement from the insured under article 25, 3° b) of the model contract (driving without a licence). The Court held that the insurer's recourse against the insured is time-barred three years after payment, even if the ground for recourse was not yet established at that time, and that this period also applies to recourse against the policyholder. The insurer's appeal against the appeal judgment of the Tongeren court of first instance, which held the claim, brought more than three years after the payments, time-barred, was dismissed.","k":"Insurer's recourse — start of the three-year limitation period","law":"LCAT art. 34 §3 and 88 para. 1; model contract RD 14.12.1992, art. 25, 3° b)","w":115,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-03-01","rol":"C.12.0298.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2013:ARR.20130301.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Le délai de prescription visé à l'article 34, §2, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre ne s'applique à l'action de la personne lésée contre l'autorité que lorsque celle-ci a les mêmes…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"An uninsured public authority had been held liable for a road accident caused by its employee's fault; the health-insurance fund claimed from it the costs it had paid for the victim. The Court held that the five-year limitation period of article 34 §2 LCAT applies to the injured party's claim against the public authority only where the authority has the same obligations as an insurer, that is, where it is not itself liable. The appeal judgment of the Turnhout court of first instance, which held the claim not time-barred on that basis, was quashed on the authority's appeal.","k":"Public authority exempt from insurance — limitation period","law":"LCAT art. 34 §2 and 86; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 10 §1","w":6,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-03-01","rol":"C.12.0307.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2013:ARR.20130301.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Il suit des articles 114 et 121 de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre que l'acceptation rend le bénéfice irrévocable et que le preneur d'assurance ne peut exercer son droit de rachat après…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that under articles 114 and 121 LCAT acceptance makes the beneficiary designation irrevocable, and the policyholder may exercise the right of surrender after acceptance only with the beneficiary's consent, even where the beneficiary accepted as a contingent (second-ranked) beneficiary. The policyholder's appeal against the Antwerp Court of Appeal judgment holding that the insurer could not grant the surrender request without the contingent beneficiary's consent was dismissed.","k":"Life insurance — surrender after acceptance by the beneficiary","law":"LCAT art. 114 and 121","w":116,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-02-25","rol":"2012/RG/842","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2013:ARR.20130225.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The tenant's fire insurer sent a registered formal notice complying with the statutory and contractual requirements; cover was suspended at midnight on 9.11.2004 and the premium was paid only a few days later. The court held that the insurer did not abuse its rights and that the insured failed to prove the fire started before the suspension, so the claims under the fire policy were dismissed. The tenant is liable for the fire unless it proves an external cause. Against the sub-tenant's strict-liability insurer, the subrogated insurer's claim failed (art. 8 of the Act of 30.7.1979) and an injured party's claim was time-barred (three years); the tenant obtained only €1 on a final basis.","k":"Fire insurance — suspension of cover for unpaid premium","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1315, 1733; Act of 30.7.1979, art. 8, 8bis; Cass. 9.3.2009","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-02-19","rol":"2011/RG/1246","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2013:ARR.20130219.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Au sens de l'article 1er, 3° de la loi du 27 mars 1995 relative à l'intermédiation en assurances et en réassurances et à la distribution d'assurances, l'intermédiaire d'assurances est défini comme toute personne morale…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A federation that had taken out a framework policy for its members claimed 2008 commissions from an intermediary company, which argued that the federation was unlawfully carrying on intermediation under the Act of 27 March 1995 and had misled its members about the intermediary's competing programme. The court held that the federation, which negotiated a framework contract as policyholder of an insurance for account (art. 38 LCAT) and receives a small contribution per contract, is not an insurance intermediary and the 1995 Act does not apply to it; the warning to members was given in good faith. The intermediary was ordered to pay €21,409.36 in commissions plus €1,000 and €5,000; its counterclaim was dismissed.","k":"Insurance intermediary status — association insuring for account","law":"Act of 27.3.1995, art. 1; LCAT art. 38","w":117,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-02-18","rol":"2011/AB/141","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2013:ARR.20130218.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A workplace-accident insurer that was told the sequelae might worsen and that the treating doctor recommended a reassessment, and that received a written request for help from the victim, must inform and advise the victim about the possibility of a revision claim and its time limits and formalities (arts. 3 and 4 of the Charter of the socially insured). The court held that the breach was a fault that caused the late filing of the revision claim; as reparation in kind it examined the claim despite its lateness and appointed a medical expert. The insurer was also ordered to pay total temporary incapacity benefits for the relapse from 7 April 2008 to November 2008, with statutory interest.","k":"Workplace accident — insurer's duty to inform, late revision claim","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 72; Charter of the socially insured (Act of 11.4.1995), arts. 3-4; former Civil Code, arts. 1382-1383; Cass. 20.6.1997; Cass. 5.5.2011","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-02-18","rol":"2012/AB/256","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2013:ARR.20130218.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"1. Artikel 20 van de Arbeidsongevallenwet Openbare Sector bepaalt dat wat de vorderingen tot betaling van vergoedingen op grond van deze wet betreft, de verjaringstermijn begint te lopen vanaf de dag waarop de betwiste…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Under the public-sector workplace-accident regime (Act of 3.7.1967, art. 20), the limitation period for a benefits claim runs from notification of the contested administrative act, meaning any decision taken by the employer or the medical service during the administrative procedure. The court held that the employee's summons against the insurer with which the public employer had taken out workplace-accident cover did not interrupt the limitation period against the employer: under the former Civil Code, art. 2244, a summons interrupts only when served on the party one wants to prevent from relying on limitation, and since the action against the insurer had been dismissed, any interruption is in any event deemed non-existent (art. 2247). The claim against the employer was time-barred; the appeal succeeded only on costs, which fall on the employer (art. 16, para. 2).","k":"Public-sector workplace accident — limitation, suing the insurer does not interrupt","law":"Act of 3.7.1967, arts. 16 and 20; former Civil Code, arts. 2244 and 2247; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 70","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Brussel","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-02-11","rol":"2012/RG/481","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2013:ARR.20130211.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'article 14§3 de la loi du 3 juillet 1967 assigne une double limitation à la subrogation qu'elle instaure. L'assureur-loi ne peut ni réclamer au tiers responsable davantage que les décaissements qu'il a effectués au…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The public employer (pension service) of a teacher injured by a chair thrown by a pupil claimed its outlays from the family liability insurer of the pupil's parents. The court applied the twofold cap on subrogation under article 14 §3 of the Act of 3 July 1967: the subrogated body can claim neither more than it paid nor more than the compensation due to the victim under ordinary law for the same loss. The permanent material loss was assessed ex aequo et bono at €31,250; the public body must refund the difference with the €40,000 advanced by the insurer. A rejected settlement offer is not an acknowledgment of debt.","k":"Public employer's subrogated recourse — twofold cap","law":"Act of 3.7.1967, art. 14 §3; Cass. 3.9.2008","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-02-04","rol":"2012/RG/11","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2013:ARR.20130204.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"« On ne peut tenter d'éluder l'exigence essentielle de spécificité en recourant à une clause formulée en termes généraux »","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"Having compensated its policyholder for a fire that destroyed a wooden chalet, the fire insurer brought a subrogated claim against the liable company and its business liability insurer. The latter relied on clauses excluding 'all losses resulting from breach of professional standards', requiring 'all necessary measures to prevent damage' and defining gross fault in general terms. The court held that under article 8, para. 2 LCAT gross-fault cases must be set out expressly and exhaustively; such general clauses do not meet that requirement. The liability insurer and its insured were ordered in solidum to pay €125,000, and the insured alone a further €40,056 (total €165,056).","k":"Business liability — gross-fault exclusion must be specific","law":"LCAT art. 8 para. 2, 41; Cass. 12.1.2007","w":118,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-02-04","rol":"C.10.0120.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2013:ARR.20130204.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"L'assurance contre le péril d'incendie souscrite en son nom personnel par le copropriétaire indivis du bien assuré ne couvre que sa part de propriété et ne bénéficie pas aux autres copropriétaires, sauf s'il résulte de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Fire insurance taken out in his own name by one co-owner of undivided property in principle covers only his share; the insurer had therefore agreed to pay half of the loss. The Mons Court of Appeal had ordered the insurer to cover the other co-owner as well (€19,666.38), because the policyholder stated, without contradiction, that he had taken out the policy in agreement with his sister. The Court held that this reasoning breached article 1122 of the former Civil Code; the judgment was partly quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Fire insurance — cover for a co-owner","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1122 and 1165; LCAT art. 10 §1","w":119,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-02-01","rol":"C.12.0272.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2013:ARR.20130201.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"En cas de cession entre vifs d'un immeuble, la résiliation du contrat d'assurance à la demande du preneur d'assurance-cédant après la passation de l'acte authentique mais avant l'expiration du délai de trois mois, ne…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The sellers had sold their house by notarial deed and then had their fire policy terminated; a few days later the house burned down. The Court held that article 57 §1 LCAT aims to keep the cover existing at the time of the deed in force for three months in the interest of both seller and buyer; a termination requested by the policyholder-seller after the deed but before that period expires cannot be relied on against a buyer claiming cover for a loss occurring in that period. The insurer's appeal against the Antwerp Court of Appeal judgment holding it liable to cover the buyers was dismissed.","k":"Fire insurance — termination after sale and the buyer","law":"LCAT art. 57 §1","w":120,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-01-29","rol":"2011/RG/1854","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2013:ARR.20130129.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"An insurer relying on general conditions must prove they were brought to the policyholder's attention before or at the latest when the contract was made, or that he had a reasonable opportunity to read them, and that he accepted them. The court found this proven: the endorsement said the conditions were available on the website or as a paper copy from the intermediary, the premium notice stated that payment meant acceptance, and the insured paid without objection. Theft cover required doors to be locked during absences; the insured left the door unlocked so upstairs tenants could get in. The first-instance judgment was reversed and the claim dismissed.","k":"Theft insurance — enforceability of general conditions and locked-door condition","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1134; general conditions, art. 15.1; Cass. 25.3.2011","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-01-24","rol":"C.12.0113.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2013:ARR.20130124.4","ch":"1F","res":"","t":"damage","q":"L'employeur public qui, en vertu de ses obligations légales ou règlementaires, est tenu de verser une rémunération à son agent sans recevoir de prestations en contrepartie a droit à une indemnité lorsqu'il subit ainsi…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The workplace-accident insurer of a public employer claimed from the liability insurer of the third party responsible, under article 1382 of the former Civil Code, the annuity paid to the spouse of an employee killed in a commuting accident and the funeral costs. The Court held that a public employer obliged to pay salary without receiving work in return suffers compensable loss; however, the annuity paid to the deceased employee's spouse under article 8 of the Act of 3.7.1967 is not consideration for work and is therefore not compensable loss under article 1382. The appeal judgment of the Neufchâteau court of first instance ordering the liable party's insurer to pay €112,491.12, €263,249.94 and the funeral costs was quashed.","k":"Public employer — annuity paid after a commuting accident","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383; Act of 3.7.1967, art. 8","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-01-23","rol":"2011/AM/205","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2013:ARR.20130123.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'entérinement de l'accord-indemnité par le F.A.T. est un acte administratif « détachable » du mécanisme contractuel qu'il consacre. Par conséquent, tant que la formalité de l'entérinement n'est pas réalisée,…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The victim reported a relapse on 30 March 2009, between signing the compensation agreement with the workplace-accident insurer and its approval by the Workplace Accidents Fund; the insurer refused the relapse and pointed him to a revision request within three years. The court held that the Fund's approval is an administrative act separable from the contractual mechanism and that, until it is given, the agreement can be challenged for a defect of consent under ordinary law. The permanent incapacity rate and the consolidation date are essential elements of the agreement; the victim maintained his consent through an excusable mistake caused by the insurer's incorrect information on the procedure to follow. The rescission claim was upheld, the insurer's appeal dismissed and the judgment confirmed.","k":"Workplace accident — rescission of the compensation agreement for mistake","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 65; former Civil Code, art. 1110","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-01-23","rol":"P.11.1797.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2013:ARR.20130123.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"L'assureur ne peut, en vertu de l'article 87, § 2, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre, opposer à la partie lésée, qui dispose d'un droit d'action direct à son encontre, que des exceptions,…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Mons Court of Appeal had held the civil parties to have forfeited their right of action against the liability insurer that had intervened voluntarily in the criminal proceedings, because they had never summoned it directly. The Court held that under article 89 §5 LCAT an insurer that intervenes voluntarily before the criminal court is a party to the case, so the other parties may bring ancillary claims against it by written submissions (Judicial Code, art. 809). Moreover, since under article 87 §2 LCAT the insurer may only raise against the injured party defences arising from facts prior to the loss, a collective debt settlement order concerning the insured made after the loss cannot justify forfeiture. The judgment was quashed on the injured parties' appeal as regards their claims against the insurer.","k":"Direct action — claim against an insurer that intervened voluntarily","law":"LCAT art. 87 §2 and 89 §5; Judicial Code, art. 809","w":121,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-01-21","rol":"2012/AB/141","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2013:ARR.20130121.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Wanneer er geen wijziging is in de graad van arbeidsongeschiktheid ten gevolge van het arbeidsongeval, doch een arbeidsongeschiktheid op grond van een andere oorzaak, rust op de verzekeringsonderneming geen…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The health-insurance fund sought reimbursement from the workplace-accident insurer of incapacity benefits paid to the victim from 19.1.2006, arguing that the insurer had breached its duty to notify under article 63 §2, para. 4, of the Act of 10.4.1971. The court found that the surgery on that date was unrelated to the workplace accident of 25.8.2005, so there was no change in the degree of accident-related incapacity but an incapacity from another cause. In that situation the insurer has no duty to notify; the judgment dismissing the fund's claim was upheld. According to the summary record, an appeal to the Court of Cassation was lodged against this ruling.","k":"Workplace accident — insurer's duty to notify the health-insurance fund","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63 §2, para. 4","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Brussel","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-01-14","rol":"2010/RG/1887","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2013:ARR.20130114.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"« à majorer des intérêts calculés au double de l'intérêt légal »","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"alt","s":"The insured, who did not rebuild his burnt building but bought another one abroad, claimed the balance of the indemnity. The court held that the balance was payable within 30 days of sending the purchase documents and ordered the insurer to pay €23,649.04 with double statutory interest from 15.2.2005. Unproven VAT, indirect losses and special damages attributed to the insurer's delay were rejected. The additional claims were not time-barred: the claim notification interrupted the limitation period and a new three-year period ran from the insurer's written decision.","k":"Fire insurance — balance on purchase of a replacement building, double interest","law":"LCAT art. 67 §2, §6; arts 34 §1, 35 §3; Judicial Code, arts 807, 808","w":122,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-01-14","rol":"C.11.0734.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2013:ARR.20130114.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"L'assureur-loi lié par un contrat d'assurance de personnes peut stipuler un droit de recours contre le preneur d'assurance qui ne respecte pas l'obligation prévue à l'article 26, § 1er, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The employer employed a person who was not on the staff register and had not been declared to the insurer; that person died in a road accident while making a bread delivery round for the employer. The workplace-accident insurer brought recourse against the employer under article 26 LCAT and the general conditions. The Court held that article 11 LCAT, which requires a causal link, does not apply to the insurer's contractual recourse against the policyholder for breach of the duty to declare an aggravation of the risk (art. 26 §1); the Ghent Court of Appeal judgment rejecting the recourse for lack of a causal link between the accident and the aggravation was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Workplace-accident insurance — aggravation of risk, recourse and causation","law":"LCAT art. 11 and 26 §1","w":123,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-01-08","rol":"2011/RG/1740","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2013:ARR.20130108.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The insured, whose car had been vandalised, invoked the 'insolvent third party' cover for the €2,150.27 the criminal court ordered the offender to pay; the first judge found insolvency insufficiently proven. The court held that 'insolvent third party' means one who has nothing to pay with, and that the offender, without occupation, in prison and with no seizable assets found, met that definition. The insurer was ordered to pay €2,150.27 with interest, less the €247.89 deductible. The €400 procedural indemnity and service costs are not part of the compensation owed by the third party and fall outside the cover.","k":"Legal protection — 'insolvent third party' cover","law":"'Insolvent third party' clause; Act of 21.4.2007 on recoverability of lawyers' fees","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-01-08","rol":"2012/RG/58","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2013:ARR.20130108.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"« il savait parfaitement bien que si la compagnie avait été informée correctement, elle n'aurait pas accepté de couvrir le risque »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The insured had taken out six death policies covering outstanding loan balances by signing a pre-printed health declaration, without disclosing the anxiety-depression for which he was on medication. The court found that the very clear declaration required anyone unable to sign it to provide a medical certificate and questionnaire, and that the general conditions excluded neuropsychiatric conditions: the insured knew the insurer would have refused the risk, so the omission, repeated six times, was intentional. The burden of proof lies on the insurer; no link with the loss is required. The contracts were void; the widow's appeal was dismissed and the insurer's cross-appeal on costs upheld.","k":"Credit life insurance — intentional non-disclosure and nullity","law":"LCAT art. 5–6","w":124,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-01-07","rol":"C.11.0387.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2013:ARR.20130107.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Lorsque l'assureur refuse de couvrir un sinistre incendie en invoquant que celui-ci peut être dû à un fait intentionnel de l'assuré ou du bénéficiaire d'assurance, c'est la dérogation prévue sous a) de l'article 67, §…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that where the insurer refuses to cover a fire on the ground that it may have been caused intentionally by the insured or the beneficiary, only the exception in article 67 §2, 5° a) LCAT applies, not that in b). It added that article 67, both in the version applicable to the dispute and as amended by the Act of 21.5.2003, derogates from the general rules on default interest in articles 1146 and 1153 of the former Civil Code. The insurer's appeal against the Mons Court of Appeal judgment ordering it to pay the indemnity and interest after the expert assessment was dismissed.","k":"Fire insurance — payment deadline and interest where arson is suspected","law":"LCAT art. 67 §2, 5° a) and b); former Civil Code, art. 1146 and 1153","w":54,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2013-01-04","rol":"C.11.0679.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2013:ARR.20130104.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Manque en droit le moyen qui est fondé sur l'hypothèse que les articles 13 et 14 de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteur, qui imposent à…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Articles 13 and 14 of the Act of 21.11.1989 require the insurer, within a set time after the injured party's claim, to make a reasoned compensation offer or give a reasoned reply, failing which it must, among other things, pay an additional amount. The Court held that these provisions impose additional obligations on the insurer that go beyond mere payment arrangements, so they are not procedural rules applying immediately to pending proceedings within the meaning of article 3 of the Judicial Code. The appeal of the injured party's provisional administrator against the appeal judgment of the Mechelen court of first instance was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — temporal application of the articles 13 and 14 penalties","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 13 and 14; Judicial Code, art. 3","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-12-20","rol":"2011/rg/1608","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2012:ARR.20121220.20","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"En vertu de l'article 1733 nouveau du Code civil modifié par la loi du 20 février 1991, le preneur répond de l'incendie, à moins qu'il ne prouve que celui-ci s'est déclaré sans sa faute. La responsabilité du preneur est…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"After a fire that started in the chimney of an open fireplace, the tenant's insurer and the landlord's insurer each sought recourse against the other. The court recalled that under article 1733 of the former Civil Code the tenant is liable for the fire unless he proves it broke out without his fault: proof of a chimney defect is not enough, since the intensive use of the fire left unattended overnight could amount to fault; the presumption was not rebutted and no sharing of liability was possible. The tenant's insurer was ordered to pay €14,274.52 to the landlord's insurer.","k":"Fire — tenant's liability, recourse between insurers","law":"Former Civil Code, arts 1733–1734, 1721, 1384 para. 3","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-12-17","rol":"2011/RG/1805","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2012:ARR.20121217.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"« l'assuré doit prouver que son habitation était fermée au moyen d'une clé et pas seulement « clapée » »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The policy made theft cover conditional on the premises being locked with a key during every absence and at night. The court held that the insured must prove the door was locked with a key and not merely pulled shut, even if a key was needed to open it from outside. Police findings (the door was opened with a flat object, impossible had it been locked at three points) gave serious, precise and concordant presumptions that it was not locked; the insurer's refusal was upheld and the appeal dismissed. The loss-assessment report signed subject to reservations was not an admission of cover.","k":"Home insurance — theft cover and the 'locked door' condition","law":"General policy conditions (specific condition of theft cover); burden of proof on the insured","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège (3e ch.)","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-12-03","rol":"2011/RG/1576","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2012:ARR.20121203.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"« Il ne peut écarter la méthode de capitalisation du dommage moral permanent pour le motif que cette méthode ne se justifie pas lorsque la base est elle-même évaluée « en équité » »","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"alt","s":"A patient injured in a medical accident and the clinic's liability insurer each challenged several heads of damage. The court held that a constant permanent non-pecuniary and household loss with a known daily value, even a flat-rate one, may be compensated by capitalisation, and that a judge cannot reject it merely by citing habituation without identifying circumstances justifying a change in the base; it awarded €14,820 and €41,627.52 for permanent non-pecuniary loss and €5,187 and €14,569.63 for permanent household loss. However, because the victim delayed quantifying his claim for over two years, compensatory interest was suspended from 17.12.2007 to 7.8.2008; costs were reserved.","k":"Medical accident — capitalisation of permanent non-pecuniary and household loss","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382; Cass. 2.5.2012; Cass. 17.2.2012","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-12-03","rol":"C.10.0040.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20121203.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Le transfert des droits et actions du subrogeant au subrogé s'effectuant par le paiement de la rémunération et donc au moment de celui-ci, la convention sur l'étendue du dommage conclue par le travailleur avec…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A public employer had paid its employee's salary throughout the temporary incapacity following a commuting accident; the employee later accepted, in an amicable expert assessment with the liable party and its insurer, that the incapacity had ended earlier. The Court held that under article 14 §3 of the Act of 3.7.1967 subrogation takes effect when the salary is paid, so a later agreement by the victim on the extent of the loss does not affect the rights transferred. The appeal judgment of the Mons court of first instance, which set the employer's claim against the liable party and its insurer on the basis of that agreement, was quashed on the employer's appeal.","k":"Public employer's subrogation — effect of a later settlement","law":"Act of 3.7.1967, art. 14 §3","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-11-30","rol":"C.11.0618.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20121130.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Par l'article 8, alinéa 7, b), de la loi du 30 juillet 1979 relative à la prévention des incendies et des explosions ainsi qu'à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile dans ces mêmes circonstances, le…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"After a fire in a rented building, an insurer governed by foreign law that had indemnified the injured party brought a subrogated claim against the tenant and the tenant's strict-liability insurer. The Court held that under article 8, paragraph 7, of the Act of 30.7.1979 an indemnity insurer exercising subrogation under article 41 LCAT cannot benefit from the strict-liability insurance payments, even where it paid under a contract governed by foreign law. It added that a tenant need not positively establish the cause of the fire; it suffices to show, through sufficiently precise and consistent presumptions, that no fault by the tenant or those for whom the tenant is responsible is possible. The subrogated insurer's appeal against the Ghent Court of Appeal judgment accepting that the tenant was not at fault for a deliberately set fire was dismissed.","k":"Fire — exclusion of the subrogated insurer, tenant's burden of proof","law":"Act of 30.7.1979, art. 8 para. 7; LCAT art. 41; former Civil Code, art. 1733 and 1735","w":16,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-11-26","rol":"2011/AB/192","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2012:ARR.20121126.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Seul le juge est compétent pour fixer le taux d'incapacité résultant d'un accident du travail. En ce qui concerne le taux d'incapacité permanente retenu par l'expert judiciaire (85%), si c'est à raison que celui-ci a…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer appealed against the judgment in favour of a victim left permanently paraplegic; the victim cross-appealed against the 85% rate set by the court expert. Recalling that only the judge may fix the incapacity rate, the court found that unpredictable incontinence problems made any real integration into the general labour market impossible and set permanent incapacity at 100% from 1.5.2005, with the maximum third-person assistance allowance. The insurer's main appeal was dismissed; it was ordered to draw up the accounts and pay the arrears within one month, though the requested penalty payment was refused.","k":"Workplace accident — paraplegia, incapacity rate and third-person assistance","law":"Act of 10.4.1971; Cass. 22.5.1959","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-11-19","rol":"2011/AB/905","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2012:ARR.20121119.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Het bewijs van een plotse gebeurtenis wordt niet geleverd door de eigen verklaring van het slachtoffer, wanneer deze enkel wordt aangevuld met de verklaring van een collega enkel vaststelde dat het slachtoffer hem de…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The worker claimed that a can fell on his hand while he was refilling a drinks machine on 3.2.2009; the workplace-accident insurer refused to recognise the accident. The court recalled that the sudden event may be proved by any legal means, including serious and consistent presumptions, but that the burden of proof lies on the victim. A colleague's statement, based only on what the worker told him the next day, and the next-day medical findings (bruised wrist) prove an injury but not the alleged sudden event; the judgment denying a workplace accident was upheld.","k":"Workplace accident — proof of the sudden event","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 9","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Brussel","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-11-15","rol":"C.11.0523.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20121115.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La circonstance que le véhicule automoteur impliqué n'est pas conçu, ou ne l'est pas uniquement, pour le transport de personnes ou de choses sur des routes ou des terrains mais pour servir, exclusivement ou non, d'engin…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A worker twisted his foot while collecting refuse on the public road with a refuse truck that was carrying him; the truck's motor liability insurer had been ordered to reimburse another insurer's outlays under article 29bis. The Court held that the vehicle's simultaneous use as a working machine does not prevent it from being regarded as taking part in traffic, and that a vehicle is involved if it played any role in the accident. The motor liability insurer's appeal against the appeal judgment of the Brussels court of first instance, which found that the truck was carrying persons and waste at the time, was dismissed.","k":"Article 29bis — refuse truck, road accident and involvement","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 2 §1 and 29bis §1 para. 1; Benelux Court of Justice, 23.10.1984, A 83/2; Cass. 5.12.2003; Cass. 28.4.2011","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-11-14","rol":"P.11.1611.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20121114.10","ch":"2F","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"L'effet suspensif attaché à la récusation formée contre un membre de la cour d'appel prend fin à compter du jour de la signification aux parties de l'arrêt de la Cour qui la rejette (1). (1) Cass., 21 juin 2000, RG…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"In criminal proceedings concerning a gas pipeline explosion, the liability insurer of the accused pipeline operator had intervened voluntarily. The Court held that an insurer that intervened voluntarily has no standing to challenge the decision on its insured's own civil claim, which was brought neither by nor against it, and that since the insured's criminal conviction was not set aside, the injured parties' direct action under article 86 LCAT stands. However, the decisions on the claims of civil parties who had not validly appealed against the first-instance acquittal were quashed, including on the insurer's appeal; the appeal was otherwise dismissed.","k":"Direct action — appeal by an insurer that intervened in criminal proceedings","law":"LCAT art. 86; Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 416","w":125,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-11-13","rol":"2011/RG/1004","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2012:ARR.20121113.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"« Il faut mais il suffit que l'assureur apporte la preuve d'une part de l'absence de déclaration […] d'une aggravation sensible du risque et, d'autre part, qu'il n'aurait pas assuré le risque aggravé »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"After a car-jacking in which the keys were taken, the insured, whose key replacement the insurer had agreed to pay, kept driving the car and parking it on the street near the first theft for 45 days without changing the locks; the car was stolen again. The court found an undeclared significant and lasting aggravation of risk; since the insurer proved it would not have insured the aggravated risk, it could limit its performance to a refund of premiums. This regime requires no causal link, and the one-month period runs only from the insurer's knowledge of the aggravation. The appeal was dismissed.","k":"Vehicle theft insurance — undeclared aggravation of risk","law":"LCAT art. 26 §1, §3 b), para. 2","w":82,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-11-05","rol":"C.10.0514.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20121105.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'assureur incendie qui a indemnisé les conjoints propriétaires indivis d'un immeuble détruit par le feu propagé par le vice affectant le véhicule automobile dont un seul était propriétaire et gardien, est subrogé à…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A building owned in equal shares by spouses married under separation of property burned down because of a defect in a vehicle owned and kept by the wife alone. The fire insurers claimed reimbursement of their payments from the vehicle's motor liability insurer. The Court upheld the Brussels Court of Appeal judgment which, relying on article 7 b) of the model contract allowing the spouse to recover property damage where liability rests on a vehicle defect, held the fire insurers subrogated under article 41 LCAT only to the husband's rights and allowed them to recover half of their payments. The motor liability insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Subrogation — fire insurer's recourse against the motor liability insurer","law":"LCAT art. 41 para. 1; model contract RD 14.12.1992, art. 7 b)","w":126,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-10-24","rol":"2011/RG/1528","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2012:ARR.20121024.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Le rachat du contrat est défini comme l'opération par laquelle le preneur d'assurance résilie le contrat avec paiement par la compagnie de la valeur de rachat et la réduction de contrat comme la continuation du contrat…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The holder of a life policy did not pay the quarterly premium due on 8.4.2009 within thirty days of the insurer's formal notice of 3.6.2009; the premium paid on 23.7.2009 was refunded and the contract was reduced. After the insured's death in 2010, his parents, as beneficiaries, claimed the full death benefit. The court found that the notice warned that non-payment jeopardised the protection afforded by the contract, referred to surrender or reduction of the policy and invited the insured to contact his adviser: articles 13 §2 and 15 §2 of the Royal Decree of 14.11.2003 were complied with, the law does not require the notice to quantify the surrender or reduction value, and reduction does not require the insured's consent. The insurer's appeal succeeded, the first-instance judgment was reversed and the insurer's offer of 1.10.2010 was endorsed: €1,511.98 to each beneficiary with interest, the beneficiaries being ordered to pay €4,586 in costs.","k":"Life insurance — unpaid premium, formal notice and reduction of the contract","law":"Royal Decree of 14.11.2003 on life insurance business, arts. 13 §2 and 15 §2","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-10-01","rol":"2010/RG/744","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2012:ARR.20121001.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"« La lecture de son contrat d'assurance doit lui permettre de savoir dans quels cas il est couvert et dans quels cas il ne l'est pas »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"Neighbours whose land was polluted by heating oil sued the operator responsible, a contractor and their business liability insurers. The operator's insurer refused cover under a clause excluding 'damage caused or aggravated by failure to comply with environmental protection regulations'. The court held that under article 8, para. 2 LCAT gross-fault cases must be set out expressly and exhaustively; a general reference to vast and complex regulations does not let the insured know when he is not covered. The insurer had to provide cover; those liable and their insurers were ordered in solidum to pay a provisional €37,219.72, less deductibles, and a further expert assessment was ordered.","k":"Business liability — overly general environmental-regulation exclusion","law":"LCAT art. 8 para. 2; Cass. 12.1.2007","w":17,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-09-28","rol":"C.11.0404.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120928.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"Lorsque plusieurs véhicules automoteurs sont impliqués dans un accident de la circulation, les assureurs respectifs sont tenus d'indemniser la victime ou ses ayants droits et de supporter en principe chacun une partie…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The driver solely responsible for the accident was entitled, as heir of his deceased passenger, to article 29bis compensation; the Turnhout court of first instance, on appeal, treated him as a liable third party under article 29bis §4 and ordered his motor liability insurer to indemnify the other insurer, liable under article 29bis, for all sums owed to him. The Court held that the victim's heir is not a liable third party under article 29bis §4 as regards the compensation owed to him under article 29bis for his own loss resulting from the victim's injury or death. The judgment was quashed on the motor liability insurer's appeal.","k":"Article 29bis — at-fault driver as the victim's heir, subrogation","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1 and §4","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-09-28","rol":"C.11.0691.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120928.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"L'annulation du contrat d'assurance rend, en principe, ce contrat non avenu avec effet rétroactif et il en résulte que ce que les parties ont presté en vertu de ce contrat peut être recouvré (1). (1) Voir les…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The motor liability insurer sought from the policyholder a refund of the compensation it had paid under article 29bis to the heirs of a deceased victim, after the policy was annulled following the accident for intentional non-disclosure when the policy was taken out. The Court held that the article 29bis compensation duty rests on a statutory, not a contractual, obligation; therefore, where the policy is annulled after the accident, the insured must refund the article 29bis payments only to the extent that the insurer would also have had to compensate the victim under its contractual duty of cover. The insurer's appeal against the appeal judgment of the Hasselt court of first instance, which rejected the refund claim because the driver bore no liability, was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — annulment of the policy and refund of article 29bis payments","law":"LCAT art. 2 §1 para. 1 and 6 para. 1; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 3 §1 and 29bis §1","w":127,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-09-25","rol":"P.11.1950.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120925.2","ch":"2N","res":"","t":"work","q":"Krachtens artikel 46, § 2, tweede lid, Arbeidsongevallenwet, dat bepaalt dat de volgens het gemene recht toegekende vergoeding die geen betrekking kan hebben op de vergoeding van de lichamelijke schade zoals zij gedekt…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The partner of a worker killed in a fatal accident claimed compensation for loss of income from the liable person and his liability insurer, which had intervened voluntarily; the Ypres criminal court, on appeal, deducted from that compensation the annuity paid to the children by the workplace-accident insurer. The Court held that compensation for loss of the deceased partner's income may include the share he spent on the maintenance and upbringing of the minor children, for whom the surviving partner continues to provide, so it may cover the same loss as the workplace-accident annuity awarded to the children. The partner's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Workplace-accident annuity — deduction from the partner's common-law compensation","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 13, 14, 19 and 46 §2; Cass. 23.3.2005","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-09-20","rol":"C.12.0029.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120920.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"En vertu du caractère impératif de l'article 11, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre, consacré par l'article 3 de la même loi, il appartient au juge de vérifier si une clause du…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The policy excluded theft \"if the necessary precautions were neglected\", for instance where the ignition key was left in the vehicle; the Brussels Court of Appeal treated this as an exclusion and did not examine whether the spare key left in the boot was causally linked to the theft. The Court of Cassation held that a clause allowing the insurer to refuse cover because the insured breached a contractual obligation is, whatever its label, a forfeiture clause under article 11 LCAT, which requires a causal link with the loss. The judgment was quashed on the insured's appeal and the case referred to the Liège Court of Appeal.","k":"Theft insurance — exclusion or forfeiture clause (keys)","law":"LCAT art. 3 and 11(1)","w":20,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-09-19","rol":"2010/AR/3032","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2012:ARR.20120919.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"« slechts van de hoedanigheid van derde-benadeelde kunnen worden uitgesloten na bewijs door de verzekeraar van de kwade trouw, het bedrog, de collusie »","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"alt","s":"A five-and-a-half-year-old child was hit by a motorcycle in 1993; under a final judgment the motor liability insurer was liable for the full loss and the parents for 3/4 for lack of supervision. The court reassessed the heads of damage owed to the victim and upheld the motor insurer's subrogated recourse against the parents for 3/4 (art. 41 LCAT). The parents' family liability insurer relied on the clause denying cohabitants third-party status (art. 6.2 of the Royal Decree of 12.1.1984); the court held this irrebuttable presumption of fraud contrary to the equivalence of the parties' obligations, so the exclusion applies only if the insurer proves fraud or collusion. The family insurer must indemnify the parents within policy limits; the motor insurer's direct action against it was time-barred (10-year limit).","k":"Family liability — exclusion of damage between cohabiting insureds","law":"Royal Decree 12.1.1984, art. 3.2, 6.2; Royal Decree 22.2.1991, art. 14; Act of 9.7.1975, art. 19 §1, 19bis; LCAT art. 34 §2, 41, 86; Act of 21.11.1989","w":128,"c":"Hof van beroep Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-09-18","rol":"2008/AR/3068","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2012:ARR.20120918.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The policies (account balances and guaranteed family income) covered death resulting from the sudden and fortuitous action of an external cause beyond the insured's will. The court held that death from an unforeseeable, sudden allergic reaction to a drug prescribed in post-operative treatment was accidental: the drug is the external element, and since the policy definition does not require the external cause to be the sole cause, the insured's allergic predisposition is irrelevant. The two insurers' appeal was dismissed and their liability to pay €12,772.44 and €41,549.46 to the heirs as beneficiaries confirmed. The heirs' cross-appeal succeeded: interest runs without suspension from the formal notice of 13.2.1998 and is capitalised.","k":"Accidental death — sudden drug allergy as an external cause","law":"Policy definition of accident (sudden and fortuitous action of an external cause)","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-09-18","rol":"2011/RG/759","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2012:ARR.20120918.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"En vertu de l'article 34 de la loi du 25.06.1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre, l'action en paiement de dommages est prescrite après un délai de trois ans, à partir du jour de l'événement qui donne ouverture à…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A supermarket operator sued his fire insurer on 19 March 1998 for damage to stock and equipment caused by a fire on 15 February 1986. The court found no proof that the parties had agreed to suspend the limitation period until the end of the criminal proceedings, and held that the debate over the validity of the six-month contractual clause was irrelevant: the three-year statutory limitation period then in force had in any event expired before 21.9.1992, when the LCAT entered into force, and under articles 148 and 149 the new article 34 period applies only to periods not yet expired on that date. The claim was held time-barred, the appeal was dismissed and the insured was ordered to pay €5,000 in procedural costs.","k":"Fire insurance — limitation period and LCAT transitional provisions","law":"LCAT arts. 34, 35, 148 and 149; RD of 24.8.1992","w":129,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-09-17","rol":"2010AR1887","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2012:ARR.20120917.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"De verzekeraar kan zich als derde niet beroepen op aansprakelijkheidsbeperkende bedingen in het contract van haar verzekerde met de bouwheer. Een overeenkomst brengt alleen gevolgen mee tussen contracterende partijen…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"On 17.7.1998 a crane boom collapsed because of the manufacturer's defective welds; the operator and its subrogated insurers brought a direct action against the liability insurers of the manufacturer, which had gone bankrupt. The court held that intent under art. 8 para. 1 LCAT requires a will to cause the damage, which was not proven; that a gross-negligence exclusion must be expressly and restrictively defined in the policy; that limitation, interrupted once the insurer learned of the injured party's wish to be compensated (art. 35 §4), had not restarted absent a written refusal; and that the loss fell within the 12-month cover period of the second policy. The liability insurers were ordered to pay (including €151,140.68 by the pool), while the claim against the inspection body, bound only by an obligation of means, was dismissed.","k":"Liability insurance — intent, gross negligence and limitation defences","law":"LCAT art. 8, 34 §2, 35 §4, 86; former Civil Code, art. 1165; Cass. 7.10.2005","w":130,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-09-13","rol":"C.11.0751.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120913.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Dès lors que les articles 24 et 25, 3°, alinéa 1er, b), du contrat-type annexé à l'arrêté royal du 14 décembre 1992 ne prévoient aucune autre condition d'application que le non-respect de la loi ou des règlements, le…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court of Cassation held that recourse under articles 24 and 25, 3°, first paragraph, b) of the model contract (driver not meeting the legal requirements) depends only on the breach of the law or regulations and does not require a causal link with the accident. Article 11 LCAT concerns obligations imposed by the contract and does not affect this recourse based on a statutory duty, so the insured's proposed preliminary question to the Constitutional Court on that article was not referred. The appeal judgment of the Brussels Court of First Instance was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for unlicensed driver, causation","law":"Model contract RD 14.12.1992, art. 24 and 25, 3°, b); LCAT art. 11; Cass. 19.2.2009; Cass. 19.6.2009","w":0,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-09-13","rol":"C.10.0226.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120913.1","ch":"1F","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Le gardien d'une chose est celui qui use de cette chose pour son propre compte ou qui en jouit ou la conserve avec pouvoir de surveillance, de direction et de contrôle (1). (1) Cass. 9 décembre 2011, RG C.11.0015.F,…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"During a visit, a sixteen-year-old got into the owner's car without her knowledge and inadvertently released the handbrake, and the car ended up in a ditch; the Liège Court of First Instance ordered the father's private-life liability insurer to pay the owner €26,900.90. The Court of Cassation accepted that merely releasing the handbrake did not transfer custody (garde) of the car to the child under former Civil Code art. 1384(1), so the exclusion for damage to property in an insured's custody did not apply. The ground based on article 6, 1° of the Royal Decree of 12 January 1984 was held to lack interest, since damage to the car itself did not arise from a liability subject to compulsory insurance; the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Family liability insurance — child releasing a handbrake, custody of the thing","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1384(1); RD 12.1.1984, art. 2, 3 and 6, 1°; Cass. 9.12.2011","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-09-11","rol":"2008/AR/2817","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2012:ARR.20120911.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The contract required the armoured door of the unoccupied flat to be double-locked during absences; a worker given the keys for renovation left without locking it and a burglary followed. The court found that, had the door been locked, the other fixing points would have held and the burglars could not have entered in the same way, so causation was established. The insured must pass the duty on to anyone given the keys; it is irrelevant that a third party committed the breach. The claims against both insurers and the renovation firm were dismissed; the appeal failed.","k":"Theft insurance — double-locking duty and forfeiture","law":"LCAT art. 11; policy forfeiture clause","w":20,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-09-10","rol":"2011/AA/574","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2012:ARR.20120910.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Bij de omzetting van de graad van zuiver fysieke minderwaarde in een economische minderwaarde moet rekening worden gehouden met : de aard van de handicap, de leeftijd van de getroffene, en het daarmee verband houdend…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"To convert physical impairment into economic incapacity, account must be taken of the nature of the disability, the victim's age and adaptability, the occupation, retraining possibilities, professional skills and competitiveness on the general labour market; what the victim can still earn is assessed as concretely as possible. On that basis and the expert's report, the court confirmed a 6% permanent incapacity rate from the consolidation date (16 March 2008) and refused to appoint an ergonomics expert. The victim's appeal was dismissed; costs were borne by the workplace-accident insurer under article 68 of the Act of 10 April 1971.","k":"Workplace accident — assessing economic incapacity","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 24 and 68; Cass. 3.4.1989","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-09-04","rol":"2011/RG/1036","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2012:ARR.20120904.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The income protection policy excluded disability from using a motor vehicle with two or more wheels unless it was a moped or a 'véhicule automobile'; the insured was injured clearing snow from his driveway with his quad bike. The court recalled that the insurer must prove the exclusion, which is construed narrowly. Given the definition in article 2.14 of the Royal Decree of 1.12.1975 and the word's ordinary meaning, a quad, even used for farm work, is a 'véhicule automobile'; the insurer's reading that such a vehicle must serve to carry people or goods on the road strained the words (contra proferentem). The appeal was dismissed and the case returned to the list for further proceedings.","k":"Income protection insurance — quad bike and 'motor vehicle' exclusion","law":"Royal Decree 1.12.1975, art. 2.14; contra proferentem rule","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-06-26","rol":"2009/AR/3359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2012:ARR.20120626.16","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"An insured claiming payment must prove the loss, the event and that the risk is covered. Given the evidential difficulties in theft insurance, theft may be proved by presumptions if the claim, backed by a police complaint, appears sincere and reasonable and nothing in the file casts doubt on it. Here, the vehicle's doubtful origin and links between the insured's circle and people connected to vehicle trafficking cast doubt on the account; a mere theft report to the police was not enough. The insurer's refusal was upheld and the appeal dismissed.","k":"Vehicle theft insurance — proving theft by presumptions","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1315 (burden of proof)","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-06-26","rol":"2010AR3234","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2012:ARR.20120626.18","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Het standpunt van NV Nateus dat artikel 2248 burgerlijk wetboek niet van toepassing zou zijn gelet op de van het gemene recht afwijkende bijzondere bepaling van artikel 35 §4 van de wet op de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A patient in whom a surgical swab had been left during a caesarean section brought a direct action in 2009 against the doctor's professional liability insurer; the insurer argued that the interruption under art. 35 §4 LCAT had ended with its written decision to pay of 19.3.2004 and that the five-year period had expired. The court held that art. 35 §4 does not exclude interruption by acknowledgment of the right (art. 2248 Civil Code) and that the insurer had acknowledged the patient's right by letter of 10.6.2005, so the limitation defence failed; the correspondence did not establish any settlement either. The insurer was ordered to pay itemised damages to the patient and €1,436.85 and €190.10 to the health-insurance fund.","k":"Direct action — insurer's acknowledgment interrupts the limitation period","law":"LCAT art. 34 §2, 35 §4, 86; former Civil Code, art. 2248","w":131,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-06-26","rol":"P.12.0074.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120626.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"L'état d'intoxication alcoolique qui est la cause ou qui contribue à l'accident constitue un fait antérieur au sinistre pour lequel l'assureur , pour les catégories d'assurances autres que celles de l'assurance…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured cyclist, with a blood alcohol level of 3.66 g/l, had caused a person's death by turning left suddenly; the Mechelen criminal court held that intoxication was not a fact preceding the loss and that the insurer could not raise it against the injured parties. The Court of Cassation held that, in non-compulsory liability insurance, alcohol intoxication that causes or contributes to the accident is a fact preceding the loss, so the insurer may raise the related defence against the injured party. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal insofar as it ruled on the civil parties' claim against the insurer, and the case was referred to the Antwerp criminal court.","k":"Non-compulsory liability insurance — raising intoxication against the injured party","law":"LCAT art. 87 §2(1); contra Cass. 24.10.2000 and Cass. 25.5.2007","w":132,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-06-25","rol":"2008/RG/1500","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2012:ARR.20120625.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Le Code pénal définit le vol comme la soustraction frauduleuse de la chose d'autrui - article 461 du Code pénal- ; l'article 468 du même Code énonce des peines plus sévères lorsque le vol est commis à l'aide de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A vehicle dealer was paid for a sale invoiced on 21.2.2007 with a stolen cheque; the bank credited and then debited its account for the same amount. The dealer relied on the theft cover of its comprehensive motor policy; the insurer refused, saying it covered theft, not fraud. The court held that theft is the fraudulent taking of another's property (Criminal Code art. 461) and that the vehicle had been handed over voluntarily by the seller: this was fraud (art. 496), not theft, so the loss fell outside the cover; the mere occurrence of a loss cannot extend the obligations of an insurer that priced the premium on the risks covered. The insured's appeal was dismissed, the insurer's cross-appeal on costs was allowed and the insured was ordered to pay €4,400 in costs in total.","k":"Comprehensive motor cover, theft — sale against a stolen cheque is fraud, not theft","law":"Criminal Code, arts. 461, 468, 483 and 496","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-06-25","rol":"2008/RG/1500","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2012:ARR.20120625.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"La vente d'un véhicule, par la remise d'un chèque volé, dont le montant a été porté au crédit du compte du vendeur pour être ensuite débité, ne constitue pas un vol, celui-ci étant entendu comme la soustraction…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The cheque given in payment for a vehicle turned out to be stolen and the bank reclaimed the amount credited to the seller's account. The court held that, whether theft is taken in its criminal-law meaning (fraudulent taking of another's property) or its everyday sense, a vehicle voluntarily sold and delivered by the seller has not been stolen; the notion of theft cannot be construed in the insured's favour at the cost of emptying the contract of its substance. The insurer's refusal to pay was upheld, the first-instance judgment was confirmed and the insured was ordered to pay €4,400 in costs for both instances.","k":"Comprehensive motor cover, theft — meaning of theft","law":"Criminal Code, arts. 461 and 496","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-06-21","rol":"2007/AB/49700","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2012:ARR.20120621.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Une chute ne cesse pas d'être un événement soudain au sens des articles 7 et 9 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 parce qu'elle a été causée par un défaut de l'organisme. C'est la lésion qui doit avoir au moins une cause…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The labour tribunal had refused to recognise a workplace accident because the worker's fall had no external cause. The labour court, relying on the Court of Cassation's judgment of 7.1.1991, recalled that it is the injury, not the sudden event, that must have at least one cause external to the victim's body: a fall remains a sudden event even if caused by a bodily defect. The event of 29.12.2003 was recognised as a workplace accident; a medical expert was appointed to assess its consequences.","k":"Workplace accident — fall caused by a bodily malaise, sudden event","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 9; Cass. 7.1.1991","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-06-19","rol":"2010/RG/1876","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2012:ARR.20120619.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"« il appartient à l'assureur de rapporter la preuve de ce lien causal entre la faute lourde et le sinistre nonobstant la façon dont sont rédigées les dispositions contractuelles »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The insured had been acquitted in criminal proceedings because of doubt over whether he was driving; the court held that the insurer, not a party to those proceedings, could challenge those findings and concluded from presumptions that the insured was the driver. Since the gross-fault exclusion is a specific instance of art. 11 LCAT, the insurer must prove causation between the gross fault and the loss whatever the policy says; a clause shifting that burden is void to that extent. With 0.87 mg/l of exhaled air and a loss of control at low speed on a dry road, causation was proven and dismissal of the claim upheld.","k":"Own-damage cover — drink-driving gross-fault exclusion and causation","law":"LCAT arts. 3, 8 para. 2, 11; Act of 14.7.1991, arts. 31, 33; Cass. 31.5.2007","w":46,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège (3e ch.)","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-06-19","rol":"2008/AR/2507","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2012:ARR.20120619.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"alt","s":"An employee blamed the lawyer he had instructed for failing to lodge his claim in his employer's bankruptcy and sued the lawyer's professional liability insurer directly; the first-instance court had dismissed the action because the claim against the lawyer was time-barred. The court of appeal held that the limitation period for the direct action runs from when the injured party could obtain the information identifying the liable person (ten years at most) and is autonomous: the insurer cannot rely on limitation of the claim against its insured. Finding the lawyer at fault and assessing the lost chance at 30%, it ordered the insurer to pay €48,637.59 plus interest; the claim partly succeeded.","k":"Lawyer's liability insurance — limitation of the direct action","law":"LCAT art. 34 §2 and 86; former Civil Code, art. 2276bis","w":133,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-06-18","rol":"2011/RG/854","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2012:ARR.20120618.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"A car stolen in a home-jacking and found more than thirty days after the claim was a total loss under the policy; the dispute concerned the amount. The insurer argued the wreck lost value (from €5,508 to €2,899) because the insured did not sign the power of attorney for its sale. The court noted that the insurer's agent, in the same letter, asked him to collect the car from the tow yard while saying money had been received for it; good faith requires an insurer to inform a lay insured clearly. The insured had met his obligations, and the contractual indemnity of €15,244.21 was upheld. Only the €130 lock replacement, below the deductible, was not due; financing costs were rejected.","k":"Motor theft cover — wreck value and the insurer's duty to inform","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1134 (good faith)","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-06-18","rol":"C.11.0399.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120618.3","ch":"3F","res":"r","t":"limitation","q":"Sur la base de considérations gisant en fait le juge peut légalement décider qu'il n'était pas suffisant dans le chef de l'assureur de marquer son accord sur le principe du recours exercé par la personne lésée disposant…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"Another insurer was exercising the injured party's direct action against the insurer of the tenant's liability. In a letter of 4 April 2001 the insurer had agreed in principle to cover and reimburse, while raising underinsurance and a discrepancy between the risk and the declaration, announcing a proportional rule and promising to revert. The Liège Court of Appeal could find, on the facts, that this letter was not the written notice of a decision to indemnify under article 35 §4 LCAT and so did not end the interruption of the limitation period; the insurer's appeal was dismissed and the claim was not time-barred.","k":"Direct action — end of the interruption of the limitation period","law":"LCAT art. 35 §4","w":3,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-06-18","rol":"C.10.0692.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120618.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Est irrecevable, en matière civile, le pourvoi dirigé contre une décision judiciaire que l edemandeur ne critique dans aucun moyen (1). (1) Cass. 14 avril 1994, RG 9592, Pas. 1994, I, n° 176. || Même si la cassation…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The owner of the burnt-down building claimed indemnity at reconstruction value and produced preliminary agreements to buy flats; the Mons Court of Appeal found that he had not negotiated with his mortgagee, who had attached the indemnity, and had not shown he could replace the building, so it set the indemnity at market value less the land (€814,684.25). The Court of Cassation held that under article 10(1) of the Mortgage Act of 16 December 1851, unless the insurer has reserved the right to apply the indemnity to repairs, the indemnity takes the place of the insured property for the benefit of preferential and mortgage creditors, so the decision was legally justified. The insured's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Fire insurance — replacement of the building and mortgagee's rights","law":"Mortgage Act of 16.12.1851, art. 10(1); RD 1.2.1988 (fire, simple risks)","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-06-07","rol":"C.11.0034.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120607.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'assureur de la responsabilité peut se réserver dans le contrat d'assurance un droit de recours contre le preneur d'assurance et l'assuré pour les cas dans lesquels il ne peut pas opposer sa défense à la personne…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"An unlicensed minor below the legal driving age caused an accident with his mother's car; the motor liability insurer compensated the injured parties on the basis of the parents' liability. The Court of Cassation held that there is no motor liability cover for a person who took control of the vehicle by theft, so the insurer has no contractual recourse against the thief; as for recourse against the parents as policyholders under article 25, 3°, b) of the model contract, they escape it by proving that the breach occurred against their instructions or without their knowledge. As it was not shown that the mother knew, the family liability insurer's duty to indemnify the child and the mother stood; that insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Family and motor liability — minor stealing the car, recourse","law":"LCAT art. 87 §1(1) and 88(1); Act of 21.11.1989, art. 3 §1; model contract RD 14.12.1992, art. 3, 1° and 25, 3°, b)","w":134,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-06-04","rol":"2011/RG/770","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2012:ARR.20120604.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"A lawyer who had defended the insured under a legal expenses policy claimed his fees in Belgium from the insurer domiciled in another Member State. The court held that the lawyer, bound by the policy (e.g. its ceiling) and benefiting from it, is a 'beneficiary' and may therefore sue in the courts of his own domicile under article 9 of Regulation 44/2001. The fee note was found justified, as the new lawyer had increased the claim by 30% and recovered the funds; the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Legal expenses insurance — jurisdiction over a lawyer's claim against a foreign insurer","law":"Regulation (EC) 44/2001, art. 9","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-06-04","rol":"C.10.0208.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120604.6","ch":"3N","res":"r","t":"limitation","q":"De vordering die voortvloeit uit het eigen recht dat de benadeelde tegen de verzekeraar heeft krachtens artikel 86 Wet Landverzekeringsovereenkomst is geen vordering tot vrijwaring in de zin van artikel 2257 B.W. [resmî…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A company held liable in solidum to the victim, subrogated to the victim's rights, sued the liability insurer of a co-liable party on 28 October 2002; the Ghent Court of Appeal held the claim time-barred. The Court held that the direct action under article 86 LCAT is not an action in warranty within article 2257 of the Civil Code, and that the subrogated party exercises the injured party's claim with all its features and accessories, so limitation starts for it when it starts for the injured party. The argument that the victim's minority suspended limitation was inadmissible because the interim judgment rejecting it was not challenged; the appeal was dismissed.","k":"Direct action — when limitation starts for a subrogated party","law":"LCAT arts. 34 §2 and 86; former Civil Code, art. 2257","w":95,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-06-04","rol":"C.10.0734.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120604.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"La faute intentionnelle visée à l'article 8, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat de d'assurance terrestre ne peut être invoquée contre celui qui est civilement responsable de la personne qui la commet…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"Concerning damage caused by an intentional assault committed by a minor, the Court of Cassation held that the intentional-act exclusion of article 8(1) LCAT cannot be raised against a person who is civilly liable for the perpetrator and insured for that liability; the insurer's duty to cover the mother's liability as a parent stood. Parental liability under former Civil Code art. 1384(2) requires an objectively wrongful act by the minor; lack of fault due to young age or moral duress is irrelevant. A minor living with his parents who committed an intentional act is an insured, not a third party, under the family liability policy taken out by them: the decision ordering the minor to indemnify the subrogated insurer for one seventh was quashed on his appeal, and the two insurers' appeals were dismissed.","k":"Family liability insurance — intentional act, parental liability and subrogation","law":"LCAT art. 8(1) and 41(1), (4); former Civil Code, art. 1384(2)","w":118,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-05-18","rol":"C.11.0628.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120518.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"Le conducteur au sens de l'article 29bis alinéa 1er de la loi du 21 novembre 1989, est la personne qui conduit un véhicule automoteur au moment de l'accident, c'est-à-dire celle qui, à ce moment, en exerce le contrôle…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A motorcyclist lost control of her motorcycle, fell and was seriously injured by an oncoming car; the Dinant Court of First Instance held that she ceased to be a driver once she lost contact with the controls, ordering the car's insurer to compensate her under article 29bis and the motorcycle's insurer to indemnify that insurer. The Court of Cassation held that a driver who is ejected and strikes the ground, an obstacle or another vehicle in the course of the same accident does not lose driver status; it is lost only if, after ejection, the person is the victim of a separate traffic accident. The judgment was quashed on both insurers' appeals and the case referred to the Namur Court of First Instance.","k":"Article 29bis — driver status of an ejected motorcyclist","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1(1)","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-05-15","rol":"2011/RG/657","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2012:ARR.20120515.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"The legal expenses insurer, having paid its insured's lawyer and medical adviser costs, claimed them by subrogation from the insured's own accident insurer. The court held that legal expenses insurance is an indemnity-based property insurance giving rise to subrogation; the medical adviser costs (€2,087.50) are recoverable. Lawyer's fees, however, are capped at the procedural indemnity (€1,210), since amended article 1022 of the Judicial Code applies to pending cases from 1.1.2008; the subrogated insurer has no more rights than its insured. The appeal succeeded in part.","k":"Legal expenses insurer's recourse — limit on recovering lawyer's fees","law":"Judicial Code, art. 1022; Act of 21.4.2007, art. 13; RD 26.10.2007; LCAT arts 41, 51; Cass. 25.3.2010; Cass. 23.12.2010","w":16,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-05-14","rol":"C.10.0284.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120514.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Le fait intentionnel de l'assuré visé à l'article 8, alinéa 1er de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre est une déchéance au sens de l'article 87, § 2, alinéa 1er de la loi du 25 juin 1992.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured had turned on the gas to end her life, causing a fire that damaged third parties; the Brussels Court of Appeal held that the insurer could refuse cover to the insured for an intentional loss, but could not raise that defence against the victims bringing a direct action, since the fire and family liability policies were not compulsory. The Court of Cassation held that the intentional act under article 8(1) LCAT is a forfeiture within the meaning of article 87 §2, so it can be raised against the injured party only if it stems from a fact preceding the loss. It added that mere indications of an intentional act do not suspend the time limit for paying the indemnity outside the conditions of article 67 LCAT; the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Non-compulsory liability insurance — intentional loss not raised against injured parties","law":"LCAT art. 8(1), 67 and 87 §2(1)","w":135,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-05-14","rol":"C.09.0318.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120514.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Lorsque l'employeur public est tenu, en vertu de l'article 3bis de la loi du 3 juillet 1967 de continuer à payer à un agent contractuel des indemnités pendant toute la durée de l'incapacité temporaire totale résultant…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A municipality's workplace-accident insurer, subrogated to the municipality's rights, claimed from the liable third party's insurer the gross benefits paid to a contract employee for temporary incapacity extending beyond the end of a fixed-term contract. The Court of Cassation held that a public employer which, under article 3bis of the Act of 3 July 1967, keeps paying such benefits after the contract has ended is not deprived of the employee's services because of the accident and therefore suffers no compensable loss under former Civil Code art. 1382–1383. The subrogated party can also recover gross amounts only if the court finds that the victim's ordinary-law compensation would have borne equivalent charges; the judgment was quashed on the liability insurer's appeal, except for medical costs of €2,995.74.","k":"Public-sector workplace accident — employer's loss and recovery of gross amounts","law":"Act of 3.7.1967, art. 3bis and 14 §3; LCAT art. 41(1); former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383; Cass. 8.10.2007","w":16,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-05-07","rol":"2009/AR/2839","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2012:ARR.20120507.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"« en tant que bénéficiaire du contrat, M. S. a droit aux prestations contractuellement prévues dès lors que le risque couvert s'est réalisé, sans avoir à démontrer qu'il a payé les honoraires »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The insured, injured in an altercation, claimed from his legal expenses insurer the fees of the lawyer who assisted him as civil party; the first judge had held the claim time-barred. The court held that the three-year period runs from when the right to cover arises, i.e. when the insured decided to join the criminal proceedings as civil party, so the claim was in time. Spitting did not make the blows received reasonably foreseeable, so the intentional-loss exclusion did not apply. As beneficiary, the insured need not prove he paid his lawyer; the insurer was ordered to pay €1,632.25 and €715.","k":"Legal expenses insurance — start of limitation and proof of fee payment","law":"LCAT art. 34 §1 and art. 8(1)","w":136,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-04-26","rol":"C.10.0534.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120426.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Lorsque plusieurs parties bénéficient de l'indemnité de procédure à charge d'une même partie succombante, chacune d'entre elles bénéficie de l'indemnité de procédure correspondant au montant de sa demande étant entendu…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"In a dispute concerning a hired crane, the injured parties brought a direct action against the liability insurer; the Brussels Court of Appeal held the action not time-barred because limitation of the claim against the insured was still interrupted on 19 January 2003, when article 35 §3bis LCAT, inserted by the Act of 22 August 2002, entered into force. The Court of Cassation held that this new ground of interruption applies from its entry into force, but only if the claim against the insurer was not already time-barred under the old law (article 34 §2 LCAT, five years) at that date; the judgment, which did not check this, was quashed on the insurer's appeal. On the lessor's appeal, the Court also held that the procedural indemnity owed to several successful parties is not calculated on the cumulative amount of their claims.","k":"Direct action — temporal application of a new ground interrupting limitation","law":"LCAT art. 34 §2(1) and 35 §3bis; former Civil Code, art. 2; Judicial Code, art. 1017, 1018, 6° and 1022","w":57,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-04-23","rol":"2011/RG/524","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2012:ARR.20120423.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A dealer in agricultural machinery claimed from its fire insurer for a second-hand combine harvester sold for €14,250 and handed over to the buyer on 7.7.2009, which was destroyed by fire on 5.8.2009, relying on the retention-of-title clause in its terms of sale. The court held that under the general conditions, where an insured movable is transferred inter vivos, the insurance ends automatically as soon as the insured no longer has possession; postponing the transfer of ownership does not prevent the transfer inter vivos, and the retention-of-title clause, a security for the unpaid seller against third parties, does not widen the cover defined by the contract. The insurer's appeal succeeded, the insured's claim was dismissed and the insured was ordered to pay costs of €2,076.","k":"Equipment fire insurance — end of cover after sale of the insured item","law":"General policy conditions, art. 45; former Civil Code, art. 1315; Mortgage Act, art. 20; Cass. 9.11.1995","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-04-23","rol":"C.11.0478.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120423.2","ch":"3N","res":"","t":"damage","q":"De rechter dient de schade te bepalen op het tijdstip dat dit van het effectieve herstel ervan zo dicht mogelijk benadert, dit is op het tijdstip van zijn uitspraak, in voorkomend geval na hoger beroep, en dient hierbij…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The workplace-accident insurer, by subrogation, claimed €131,881.54 from the liable party's insurer; the Brussels Court of Appeal assessed the victim's incapacity loss under ordinary law on the basis of his former salary, disregarding his early retirement, which was unrelated to the accident. The Court of Cassation held that loss must be assessed as close as possible to actual compensation, taking account of events that affect the loss even if unrelated to the wrongful act: early retirement does not deprive the victim of all economic value, but if it ends his career it must be taken into account. The judgment was quashed on the liable party's insurer's appeal and referred to the Antwerp Court of Appeal.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — early retirement and assessment of loss","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46–47","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-04-17","rol":"2011/RG/494","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2012:ARR.20120417.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"En vertu de l'article 1315 al. 1 du Code civil, celui qui réclame l'exécution d'une obligation doit la prouver. Il appartient donc à l'assuré qui sollicite la condamnation de sa compagnie d'assurance à lui verser…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"An insured claiming payment must prove that the loss falls within the cover, i.e. that the vehicle was actually stolen. The vehicle's transponder immobiliser and the expert's findings made the claim implausible, so the insured's word was not accepted.","k":"Theft insurance — proof of theft","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1315; policy terms","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-04-03","rol":"2007/AR/2813","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2012:ARR.20120403.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"In an empty, unheated building the water meter burst during a thaw; the water saturated the garden soil, which collapsed with the retaining wall onto the street, damaging a bus and vehicles and disrupting public services. The court held that the duties to close the main tap and drain the installations were clear, that the forfeiture sanction need not follow the duty immediately in the policy, and that causation was obvious; the estate agent holding keys was not the building's custodian. In non-compulsory liability insurance, the insurer may raise against injured parties a forfeiture based on facts prior to the loss (art. 87 §2 LCAT); the failures preceded the frost. The claims against the insurer were dismissed; the owner was held liable under article 1382.","k":"Water damage — frost-prevention duties, forfeiture and defences against injured parties","law":"LCAT art. 11, 87 §2; former Civil Code, art. 1382; Judicial Code, art. 601bis; Cass. 2.6.2005; Cass. 5.12.2000","w":137,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-03-27","rol":"2011/BV/32","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2012:ARR.20120327.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"1. Artikel 89 §5 van de Wet op de Landverzekeringsovereenkomst staat niet in de weg dat de verzekeraar aan de benadeelde(n) die hun rechtstreeks vorderingsrecht uitoefenen, een exceptie, nietigheid of verval van het…","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"Article 89 §5 does not prevent the insurer from raising against an injured party suing directly the defences, nullities and forfeitures of article 87 §2 whose cause precedes the loss; if it relies on an undisclosed increase of risk, it must prove it. Non-pecuniary loss for permanent disability was not capitalised: the court found the insurer's per-point method equitable and awarded €20,620 in total.","k":"Direct action — insurer defences; non-pecuniary loss","law":"LCAT (1992 Act) art. 26, 87 §2, 89 §5","w":138,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-03-27","rol":"2011/RG/140","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2012:ARR.20120327.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The insured died after falling from his motorcycle; his mother claimed under the accidental-death cover of an 'account insurance' and had obtained €15,500 on a provisional basis. The court held that under article 1315 of the former Civil Code and article 870 of the Judicial Code, the beneficiary must prove that the loss falls within the contractual definition of the risk. The clause defines the risk rather than excluding it, is clear, and creates no manifest imbalance under article 31 of the Act of 14.7.1991, so it is not unfair. As the evidence suggested excessive speed, that proof was not made: the insurer's appeal was upheld and the claim dismissed.","k":"Accidental death insurance — beneficiary must prove cover","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, art. 870; Act of 14.7.1991, art. 31; RD 22.2.1991, art. 14","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège (3e ch.)","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-03-19","rol":"C.09.0313.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120319.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le jugement qui, après avoir exclu de la notion d'accident de la circulation l'accident impliquant un véhicule outil-moyen d'exploitation qui, effectuant des manoeuvres en tant qu'engin, ne participe pas à la…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A tractor reversing out of a barn on private land open to the public struck the door lintel, and a falling concrete block injured a person; the Mons Court of First Instance treated this as a traffic accident. Relying on the Benelux Court of Justice judgment of 23 October 1984, the Court of Cassation accepted that, even where the vehicle is simultaneously used as a working machine, the damage is caused in traffic if it occurred in a way characteristic of damage caused by motor vehicles in traffic, and that this finding sufficed. The tractor owner's appeal was dismissed, which made pointless the request to have the judgment declared binding on the private-life liability insurer that could have been liable had it not been a traffic accident.","k":"Motor liability — tractor used as a working machine and the notion of traffic accident","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 2 §1 and 3 §1; Judicial Code, art. 601bis; Benelux Court of Justice 23.10.1984","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-03-08","rol":"35/2012","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2012:ARR.035","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"A worker commuting to work was killed by a freight train at a spot where the railway does not cross a public road; the workplace-accident insurer sought reimbursement from the train's owner under Article 29bis. On a question from the Antwerp Court of Appeal, the Constitutional Court held that article 29bis §1(2), as amended by the Act of 19 January 2001, violates articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution insofar as it does not exclude from the automatic compensation scheme accidents involving a train on a line completely isolated from the places listed in article 2 §1. At crossings temporarily closed by barriers or lights the train's risk resembles that of other vehicles, but on a fully isolated line the risk to vulnerable road users is essentially different.","k":"Article 29bis — train on a fully isolated railway line","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 2 §1 and 29bis §1(2); Act of 19.1.2001; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":35,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle — CC 35/2012","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-03-02","rol":"C.10.0569.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120302.3","ch":"1F","res":"","t":"damage","q":"L'employeur public qui, en vertu de ses obligations légales ou réglementaires, est tenu de verser une rémunération à son agent sans recevoir de prestations en contrepartie a droit à une indemnité lorsqu'il subit ainsi…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A public employer's workplace-accident insurer, subrogated to the employer's rights, claimed €176,900.55 from the liable party's insurer for the permanent partial incapacity annuities paid to the victim and the mathematical reserve; the Liège Court of First Instance granted the claim under former Civil Code art. 1382. The Court of Cassation held that where a public employer must pay its employee an annuity for permanent partial incapacity on top of salary while still receiving the employee's services, paying that annuity or the capital set aside for it is not a loss under art. 1382–1383. It declined to refer a preliminary question and quashed the judgment on the liable party's insurer's appeal, referring the case to the Huy Court of First Instance.","k":"Public employer — is a permanent-incapacity annuity a compensable loss?","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383; Act of 3.7.1967, art. 14; Cass. 12.11.2008","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-03-01","rol":"C.11.0001.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120301.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"L'application des articles 15, §1er, alinéa 2, de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs et 35, §4, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Brussels Court of First Instance held that a letter of 13 September 1995 in which the injured party told the motor liability insurer in general terms that he wished to be compensated did not interrupt limitation of the article 29bis claim, since it did not refer specifically to automatic compensation. The Court of Cassation held that under article 15 §1(2) of the Act of 21 November 1989 (and article 35 §4 LCAT) it is enough that the insurer learns of the injured party's wish to obtain compensation; the insurer need not be told the legal basis of the claim. The lower court had also misread the insurer's submissions as a decision to refuse payment; the judgment was quashed on the injured party's appeal and referred to the Leuven Court of First Instance.","k":"Article 29bis — limitation interrupted by a general compensation request","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 15 §1(2) and 29bis; LCAT art. 35 §4","w":139,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-02-28","rol":"2010/RG/379","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2012:ARR.20120228.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"An aircraft hired out by an aircraft-rental company crashed on 18 June 2000; the insurer argued that cover was suspended for non-payment of the premium. The court held that the 1992 Act (LCAT) does not apply to aviation insurance, which is governed by the Act of 11 June 1874. However, by sending only simple payment reminders for several months without drawing the insured's attention to the suspension of cover, the insurer, a professional, breached its duty to perform the contract in good faith (former Civil Code arts. 1134 and 1135). The insurer's appeal was dismissed and the judgment ordering it to provide cover stood; the cross-appeals of the victims and the insured seeking higher amounts were also rejected.","k":"Aviation insurance — unpaid premium, suspension of cover and good faith","law":"Act of 11.6.1874; former Civil Code, arts. 1134 and 1135; LCAT (not applicable)","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-02-27","rol":"2010/RG/1558","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2012:ARR.20120227.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The insured, a professional landlord, had declared in the special conditions that it held an operating permit for its building of 26 studios and two shops, whereas there was neither planning nor rental permission and fire-safety compliance was not documented. The court held that, having been asked about it, the insured knew this was a rating factor, and that its incorrect statement was intentional. The contract was void under art. 6 LCAT, the claim for the fire of 25 June 2003 was dismissed and the appeal rejected; the second alleged misstatement did not need to be examined.","k":"Fire at a rental building — false statement about permits","law":"LCAT arts. 5, 6","w":112,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-02-27","rol":"2012/RG/1430","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2012:ARR.20120227.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The rented ground floor was set alight on 18.07.2003 by a person living with the tenant who, while intoxicated, had sprayed petrol on the furniture and smoked nearby. The landlord's fire insurer, subrogated under article 41 LCAT, pursued the tenant; she in turn sought cover from the same insurer, which also provided her tenant's liability insurance. The court held that the tenant is liable for the fire and for the acts of members of her household (Civil Code arts. 1732–1735), that her action against her insurer was not time-barred (arts. 34 and 35 LCAT), but that the exclusion for an insured's alcohol intoxication justified refusing tenant's liability cover, legal expenses cover and the additional benefits. The judgment was upheld.","k":"Fire — subrogated recourse against the tenant, fire started by an intoxicated household member","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1732–1735; LCAT arts. 34, 35 §3 and 41","w":140,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-02-27","rol":"2010/RG/1558","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2012:ARR.20120227.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Lors de la conclusion du contrat, le preneur d'assurance doit déclarer toutes les circonstances connues de lui et qu'il doit raisonnablement considérer comme constituant pour l'assureur un élément d'appréciation du…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The company owning a building with rented studios and shops claimed cover from its fire insurer for a fire of 25 June 2003. The court found that the policyholder had expressly declared that it held an operating permit when it did not, and that it could not have been unaware that a rental permit was an important factor in the insurer's assessment of the risk. Because of this intentional misrepresentation of the risk, the contract was void under article 6 LCAT; the insured's claim failed, the first-instance judgments were upheld and the insured was ordered to pay €10,000 in procedural costs.","k":"Fire insurance — intentional misrepresentation, nullity of the contract","law":"LCAT arts. 5 and 6","w":141,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-02-22","rol":"2011AR22","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2012:ARR.20120222.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"1.De arbeidsongevallenverzekeraar die de wettelijke vergoedingen heeft betaald, is krachtens artikel 47 van de Arbeidsongevallenwet van 10 april 1971 gesubrogeerd in de rechten van de getroffene en heeft regres op…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer sought from the two liable companies the temporary-incapacity benefits paid to a worker injured on 3.4.2003, calculated on the gross wage (€16,183.30). The court held that recourse under art. 47 of the Act of 10.4.1971 is capped both by the statutory benefits paid and by what the victim could have recovered under ordinary tort law; as tort damages for lost earnings bear no social security contributions and enjoy favourable tax treatment, only the semi-net loss was recoverable. The insurer, not being the employer, had no loss of its own under art. 1382 either, so the claim was dismissed and the appeal succeeded only as to service costs.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — gross wage and the second ceiling","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47, 49; former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-02-20","rol":"C.10.0687.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120220.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"L'action fondée sur l'article 29bis, §1er, de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs se prescrit par 5 ans (1). (1) Cass. 21 mai 2010, RG…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The motor liability insurer that had compensated a vulnerable road user under article 29bis sought recourse against the insurers of the other vehicles involved; the Dinant Court of First Instance held that limitation ran from the day of the accident. The Court of Cassation recalled that the article 29bis claim is time-barred five years after the accident (article 34 §2 LCAT) and that the paying insurer has, under former Civil Code art. 1251, 3°, a subrogation claim against each of the other insurers for what it paid beyond its equal share; as subrogee, it takes over the victim's claim with all its features, including the limitation period already run. The insurer's appeal, arguing that limitation only ran from the day after payment, was dismissed.","k":"Article 29bis — recourse between insurers and start of limitation","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1 and §2; LCAT art. 34 §2; former Civil Code, art. 1251, 3°; Cass. 21.5.2010","w":6,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-02-17","rol":"C.11.0451.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120217.5","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"damage","q":"Celui qui, par sa faute, a causé un dommage à autrui est tenu de le réparer et la victime a droit, en règle, à la réparation intégrale du préjudice qu'elle a subi [resmî özet]","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Marche-en-Famenne court of first instance, on appeal, had awarded the victim a lump sum of €27,480 (€687 x 40) for permanent non-pecuniary loss, rejecting capitalisation because the base, set on an equitable basis, could vary over time as the victim adapted; it did the same for household loss. The Court recalled the victim's right to full compensation and the duty to assess loss in concreto: since the judgment did not identify case-specific circumstances justifying a varying base, it was quashed on those two heads and referred to the Arlon court. As the text does not state that the defendant company acted as insurer, the outcome is not classified on the insurer–insured axis.","k":"Personal injury — capitalisation instead of a lump-sum assessment","law":"former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1383","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-02-17","rol":"C.10.0742.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120217.4","ch":"1F","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Dans le cadre de la médiation pénale, la présomption irréfragable de faute de l'auteur de l'infraction joue en faveur de la personne subrogée dans les droits de la victime qui a été associée à la médiation pénale.","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The workplace-accident insurer brought a recourse claim against the person who had injured an ambulance worker; the prosecution had lapsed following penal mediation, and the Brussels Court of Appeal dismissed the claim on the ground that mediation did not establish fault. The Court of Cassation held that under article 216ter §4(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure the lapse of the prosecution does not affect the rights of persons subrogated to the victim, against whom the offender's fault is irrebuttably presumed, and that this presumption also benefits a subrogated party that took part in the mediation. The judgment was quashed on the workplace-accident insurer's appeal and referred to the Liège Court of Appeal.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — penal mediation and presumption of fault","law":"Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 216ter §4; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47; former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-02-13","rol":"2011/RG/446","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2012:ARR.20120213.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"« le contrat d'assurance est nul, les primes échues jusqu'au moment où l'assureur en a eu connaissance lui sont dues et toute indemnité qui aurait été payée doit être restituée »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The father took out the 'family' formula, declaring that a driver under 25 might drive the vehicle occasionally, so as to benefit from his own bonus-malus level, whereas the cars were registered to his 20-year-old son, who lived elsewhere and was their usual driver. On serious, precise and consistent presumptions, the court found an intentional misstatement: the contract was void, premiums due remained payable and indemnities paid had to be repaid, the earlier payment not amounting to a waiver. The appeal was dismissed; the broker's liability was not examined, as it was not before the court.","k":"Motor liability 'family' formula — concealed main driver under 25","law":"LCAT arts. 5, 6","w":112,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-02-10","rol":"C.11.0092.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120210.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Lorsque la victime d'une faute, ou l'assureur qui a indemnisé cette victime, a demandé la réparation d'un dommage déterminé provoqué par cette faute, l'autorité de la chose jugée du jugement ayant statué sur cette…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer that had compensated the victims of a traffic accident claimed medical expenses from the liable party's liability insurer and, after a judgment of the Liège Court of First Instance of 1 February 2005, brought a new claim for other medical expenses not included in the first. The Court of Cassation held that res judicata attaching to a judgment on a specific head of damage bars a further claim by the victim or its insurer for other damage caused by the same fault only if that judgment intended to compensate the victim's entire present and future loss. The liability insurer's appeal against the decision allowing the new claim was dismissed.","k":"Insurer's recourse — res judicata and later-claimed expenses","law":"Judicial Code, art. 23–25; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-02-06","rol":"C.11.0149.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120206.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"L'omission ou l'inexactitude intentionnelles commises lors de la conclusion du contrat sur les éléments d'appréciation du risque et emportant la nullité de celui-ci en vertu de l'article 6, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 25…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured claimed the price of his stolen car under his comprehensive and liability policies; the insurer sought annulment of the contracts because he had concealed his occupation and earlier driving bans. The Court of Cassation held that intentional omission or misstatement of risk-related facts at the conclusion of the contract, which renders it void under article 6(1) LCAT, can still be relied on in the situation of article 31 §1(4), where the insurer terminated the contract after the loss and the criminal proceedings ended in an acquittal. The Brussels Court of Appeal had therefore lawfully annulled the contracts, regardless of whether the theft was genuine; the insured's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Intentional misrepresentation — nullity after termination and acquittal","law":"LCAT art. 6(1) and 31 §1(4)","w":142,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-02-02","rol":"2011/RG/1247","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2012:ARR.20120202.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"L'assurance responsabilité civile pour les dommages causés aux tiers par un immeuble ne couvre que les dommages causés aux tiers. Par tiers, il faut entendre toute personne autre que les assurés. L'employé d'une…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A door of a building owned by a company fell and injured a person, who claimed compensation from the company's building liability insurer. The policy defined a third party as anyone other than the insureds. Interpreting the contract according to the parties' real intention, the court held that the victim, who owned all the company's shares with his wife, was domiciled at its registered office and worked for it, shared a community of interests with the policyholder and must be treated as an insured, which excluded third-party status. His claim was dismissed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Building liability insurance — company owner not a 'third party'","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1156; policy general conditions (definition of third party)","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-02-01","rol":"2007/AM/20603","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2012:ARR.20120201.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'assureur-loi soutient que l'action originaire de Mme T. s'inscrit dans le cadre d'une procédure en aggravation dès lors qu'il n'est pas contesté que celle-ci a été victime d'un accident du travail le 27/06/2000 qui…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A cashier who suffered a workplace accident during a robbery on 27 June 2000 immediately returned to work until 20 January 2003 and then claimed compensation from the workplace-accident insurer, which refused, treating the claim as an aggravation procedure. The court found that the insurer confused worsening occurring before compensation is settled with later aggravation (within or after the revision period); the victim benefits from the article 9 presumption where the injury appears later, and the action is an original claim for compensation. The three-year period under art. 69 runs from the start of the incapacity and was interrupted by the registered letter of 16 June 2003 (art. 70), so the writ of 24 June 2005 was not time-barred. The insurer's appeal was dismissed, the judgment appointing an expert was upheld and the court reserved its decision on the expert report.","k":"Workplace accident — delayed incapacity and three-year limitation period","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 9, 69 and 70; Cass. 8.2.1993; Cass. 18.11.1996","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-01-30","rol":"S.10.0032.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120130.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"En dehors du cas visé aux articles 25ter de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail, 2 et 3 de l'arrêté royal du 19 mai 2000 portant exécution de l'article 25ter de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The State, as public employer, sought repayment from the other (private) employer of an employee injured in a workplace accident of sums paid from June 2003 to September 2004 on the basis of \"fictitious payslips\"; the Brussels Labour Court of Appeal applied the six-month limitation period for undue public-sector benefit payments. The Court of Cassation recalled that, outside article 25ter of the Act of 10 April 1971 and articles 2 and 3 of the Royal Decree of 19 May 2000, an employer has no claim to any benefit against the workplace-accident insurer, and held that the six-month period of article 59 §1 of the Act of 24 December 1976 applies only to recovering sums paid to public-sector staff or their dependants, not to a refund claim against another employer. The judgment was quashed on the State's appeal.","k":"Public-sector workplace accident — refund between employers and limitation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 25ter; RD 19.5.2000, art. 2–3; Act of 24.12.1976, art. 58–59","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-01-26","rol":"C.11.0318.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120126.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"Lorsque plusieurs véhicules automoteurs sont impliqués dans un accident de la circulation, les assureurs respectifs doivent indemniser la victime et supporter en principe chacun une partie égale demande l'indemnité;…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer of one vehicle involved claimed from the other insurer the article 29bis compensation it had paid to the other vehicle's passengers; the Brussels Court of First Instance refused to consider those passengers' own fault (not wearing seat belts, held not to be gross fault under article 29bis) and allowed half the claim before ruling on the allocation of liability between the drivers. The Court of Cassation held that, under article 29bis §4, the paying insurer can recover from the liable third party or its insurer only what the victim could have obtained under ordinary law, taking account of the allocation of liability, while the share corresponding to the victim's own fault can be recovered, under former Civil Code art. 1251, 3°, from each insurer of an involved vehicle in equal parts. The judgments were quashed to that extent on the defendant insurer's appeal and referred to the Leuven Court of First Instance.","k":"Article 29bis — recourse between insurers and passengers' contributory fault","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1, §4 and §5; former Civil Code, art. 1251, 3°","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-01-24","rol":"2008/rg/387","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2012:ARR.20120124.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Il est admis qu'une révocation tacite de l'attribution bénéficiaire s'opère lorsque le preneur d'assurance accomplit un acte juridique qui contredit nécessairement la vocation bénéficiaire d'un tiers désigné, par…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"In 1998 the policyholder took out a unit-linked life policy whose pre-printed clause paid the death benefit 'to the heirs of the insured', and later made a notarial will appointing universal and specific legatees. On her death (benefit of €118,830.51), distant cousins traced by a genealogist claimed their share as legal heirs. The court held that revocation of a beneficiary designation must be in writing but may be tacit and follow from acts that necessarily imply the intention to revoke; the will contradicted a clause in favour of legal heirs whose existence the deceased did not even know. The benefit goes to the testamentary heirs; the first-instance judgment was reversed.","k":"Life insurance — tacit revocation of the beneficiary clause by will","law":"Revocation of a life-insurance beneficiary designation (doctrine: Devoet, Vieujean)","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-01-23","rol":"C.09.0228.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120123.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"Lorsque la victime est seule responsable de l'accident, ses ayants droit ne peuvent obtenir en droit commun l'indemnisation des dommages qu'ils ont subis par répercussion consécutivement aux lésions corporelles…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"A driver who had left his car to inspect the damage from a first collision was struck and killed by a third vehicle; the Brussels Court of First Instance held him solely liable for the accident as a whole. The Court of Cassation rejected his motor liability insurer's argument that the insured was a pedestrian, thus upholding its liability towards the other injured parties. However, where the victim is solely liable, his dependants cannot recover their consequential loss under ordinary law; the insurer of the involved vehicle therefore cannot recover from the victim's motor liability insurer what it pays the dependants under article 29bis, and the decision was quashed on that point.","k":"Article 29bis — dependants of a solely liable victim and recourse","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1 and §4 (before the Act of 19.1.2001); former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-01-20","rol":"C.09.0353.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120120.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"Viole l'article 29bis, §1er, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs, dans sa version postérieure à la loi du 13 avril 1995,…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A public employer whose employee was injured in a traffic accident on 4 July 1995 brought a direct action against the motor liability insurer under article 29bis for the medical costs, temporary-incapacity pay and permanent-incapacity annuity capital it had paid; the Namur Court of First Instance held it could not rely on article 29bis because it was not a relative of the victim. The Court of Cassation held that a decision limiting the \"dependants\" (ayants droit) in article 29bis §1(1), as amended by the Act of 13 April 1995, to the victim's relatives breaches that provision. The judgment was quashed on the employer's appeal and referred to the Dinant Court of First Instance.","k":"Article 29bis — meaning of \"dependants\" and the public employer's claim","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1(1) (after the Act of 13.4.1995)","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-01-16","rol":"C.11.0256.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120116.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'action que l'assureur-loi peut intenter en application des articles 46 et 47 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail contre le tiers responsable de l'accident du travail est fondée sur une subrogation…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The loss resulted in equal parts from the fault of the victim and his employer and from a defect in a thing for which a third party was answerable; the workplace-accident insurer brought a subrogation claim against that third party and its liability insurer. The Court of Cassation recalled that subrogation under articles 46 and 47 of the Act of 10 April 1971 operates up to the statutory benefits paid, without exceeding what the victim could obtain under ordinary law, and is not limited to the fraction of benefits matching the third party's share of liability. Since the Brussels Court of Appeal, which had awarded a provisional sum of one half pending calculations, had not ruled otherwise, the workplace-accident insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's subrogation — limit where liability is shared","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46–47","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2012-01-12","rol":"2010/RG/1205","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2012:ARR.20120112.35","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The Liège Court of Appeal rejected the arguments of a defaulting notary's victims against the notarial security association based on a stipulation for a third party (art. 1121 of the former Civil Code) and the nullity of its statutes. A notary's employee's misappropriations are covered only if unconnected with the notary's own; requiring the insurer to pay for acts in which the employee was co-perpetrator or accomplice would amount to covering the notary's criminal liability, which the policy excludes. According to the keywords, the victims' claims failed.","k":"Notary's liability insurance — employee's misappropriations","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1121, 1170 and 1174","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"2012-01-06","rol":"C.10.0343.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2012:ARR.20120106.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La participation à la circulation s'entend de l'usage par un véhicule d'une voie de communication en vue de transporter une personne ou une chose d'un lieu à un autre.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A passenger in a car driven by a person wanted by the police was shot in the arm when officers opened fire as the driver sped towards the special units; the Verviers Court of First Instance treated this as a traffic accident and ordered the Guarantee Fund to compensate him under article 29bis. The Court of Cassation recalled that taking part in traffic means a vehicle's use of a public way to carry a person or goods from one place to another, and accepted that the finding that the victim was a passenger in a vehicle moving on the public road which collided with a sudden obstacle lawfully justified the decision. The Fund's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Article 29bis — passenger shot by police, traffic accident","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1(1)","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-12-22","rol":"C.11.0427.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2011:ARR.20111222.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Une demande en remboursement de dépenses interrompt l'action intentée par la personne lésée contre l'assureur en indemnisation totale de son préjudice.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A health-insurance fund claimed from the liable party's liability insurer the outlays it had made for the victim. The Court of Cassation held that the limitation period is interrupted as soon as the insurer learns of the injured party's wish to be compensated, and that a request for reimbursement of outlays interrupts it for the full damage. The Turnhout court of first instance (on appeal) had inferred that knowledge from the insurer's payment of BEF 4,990,911 following the fund's request of 10.11.1995; the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Direct action — interruption of the limitation period by a claim for outlays","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 15 §1, para. 2 (before the Act of 22.8.2002); LCAT art. 34 §2, 35 §4","w":27,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-12-06","rol":"2010/RG/1431","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2011:ARR.20111206.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"L'article 8 de la loi du 25.06.1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre énonce que l'assureur répond des sinistres causés par la faute, même lourde du preneur d'assurance, de l'assuré ou du bénéficiaire. Toutefois,…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insured, who had hit the back of a lorry at about 2.05 a.m., claimed his medical expenses; the insurer refused cover under the 'intoxication' exclusion in its general conditions and sought repayment of the costs it had advanced. The court recalled that under article 8 LCAT the insurer must prove the gross negligence expressly listed in the contract and its causal link with the loss. The blood test showed a minimum level of 0.45 g/l, below the offence threshold, and a maximum of 0.84 g/l; the doubt benefits the insured and the accident is explained by fatigue. Intentional loss was not proved either. The insurer was ordered to pay €234.21 provisionally and costs; its counterclaim was dismissed.","k":"Medical-expenses insurance — proof of gross negligence linked to alcohol","law":"LCAT art. 8; former Civil Code, art. 1315 para. 2","w":17,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-12-06","rol":"2010/BV/172","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2011:ARR.20111206.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Krachtens artikel 136 § 2 zesde lid van de bij KB van 14 juli 1994 gecoördineerde wet betreffende de verplichte verzekering voor geneeskundige verzorging en uitkeringen verwittigt degene die schadeloosstelling…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"As civil party, a health-insurance fund claimed from the defendant and his liability insurer the benefits it had paid to the victim; they had settled with the victim in 2000 without informing the fund as required by art. 136 §2 para. 6 of the Act of 14.7.1994. The court held that the information, though not subject to any form, must be clear and unequivocal, that a letter between lawyers of 20.10.2003 did not meet that standard, and that the duty was fulfilled only on 22.6.2004. As the fund was subrogated by law for its payments up to that date, the defendant was ordered to repay them, regardless of earlier payments to the victim.","k":"Health-insurance fund subrogation — duty to inform the fund","law":"Health Insurance Act of 14.7.1994, art. 136 §2 para. 6","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-12-06","rol":"P.11.0493.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2011:ARR.20111206.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En vertu de l'article 80, §1er, alinéa 1er, 2°, de la loi du 9 juillet 1975 relative au contrôle des entreprises d'assurances, actuellement article 19bis-11, de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"In a road accident where the defendants were acquitted because of a fortuitous event, the civil parties sought compensation for bodily injury from the Guarantee Fund. The Court of Cassation held that the Fund's duty to compensate in that situation rests on statute (art. 80 of the Insurance Supervision Act, now art. 19bis-11 of the Act of 21.11.1989), not on a criminal offence. Since the criminal court rules on civil claims only under the ordinary liability rules, it has no jurisdiction over such a claim; the civil parties' appeals were dismissed.","k":"Guarantee Fund — fortuitous event, jurisdiction of the criminal court","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 80 §1, para. 1, 2° (now Act of 21.11.1989, art. 19bis-11); Preliminary Title Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 3–4; Cass. 14.6.2002","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-11-30","rol":"P.11.1255.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2011:ARR.20111130.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"La mutuelle, partie intervenue volontairement, qui réclame du prévenu condamné et de son assureur le remboursement d'indemnités d'incapacité de travail versées à son affilié, n'exerce pas une action distincte de celle…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The defendant and his liability insurer, a voluntary intervener, appealed against the Marche-en-Famenne criminal court's ruling (on appeal) on the civil claims. The Court recorded the withdrawal of the appeals as regards two civil claims and dismissed them for the rest, as no ground was raised. According to the headnote, a health-insurance fund claiming back incapacity benefits paid to its member does not bring a separate action but exercises the member's own action by subrogation, so the non-final character of the decision on the fund's claim extends to the member's claim (implicit ruling).","k":"Subrogated health-insurance fund — withdrawal of a criminal-case appeal","law":"Code of Criminal Procedure (Code d'instruction criminelle), art. 416, para. 1","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-11-24","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2011:ARR.180","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The insurers' professional association sought partial annulment of the Act of 26.4.2010 organising supplementary health insurance (mutual insurance companies, reserve funds, 'operations' reserved to members, supervisory body), invoking freedom of trade, EU freedom of establishment and services, and the insurance directives. The Constitutional Court dismissed the action: the regulatory and supervisory differences between mutual entities and insurance companies are reasonably justified by essential differences in aims and organisation; the legislature placed the mutual societies' health insurance offer within a strict framework subject in principle to insurance legislation, and members remain free to take out supplementary contracts with an insurer of their choice.","k":"Supplementary health insurance — mutual societies and insurers","law":"Act of 26.4.2010; Constitution, arts. 10–11; First Insurance Directive, art. 8(1)(b)","w":84,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-11-21","rol":"2006/AB/49220","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2011:ARR.20111121.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"Injured on the building site of a private company in which his parents were shareholders and his father the manager, while working alongside his father, the victim sought recognition of a workplace accident; as there was no employment contract, the company's liability insurer was joined to the proceedings. The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal held that the victim, who was neither a statutory body, director, manager nor employee of the company, is a third party within the meaning of the liability policy. Article 8(2) LCAT prevents the insurer from escaping liability on the basis of gross-negligence cases defined in general terms.","k":"Business liability insurance — victim as 'third party', gross negligence exclusion","law":"LCAT art. 8(2); Act of 10.4.1971","w":17,"c":"Arbeidshof Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"2011-11-18","rol":"C.09.0521.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2011:ARR.20111118.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Celui qui, par sa faute, cause un dommage à autrui, est tenu de réparer intégralement ce dommage, ce qui implique le rétablissement du préjudicié dans l'état où il serait demeuré si l'acte dont il se plaint n'avait pas…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"The French Community claimed from the person responsible for an accident and his liability insurer its own loss, having kept paying its employee's salary without receiving work in return. The Court upheld the Liège court of first instance (on appeal) in appointing a medical expert: decisions of the administrative health service (Medex) bind the employer but are, as against the liable party and its insurer, only presumptions left to the court's assessment. However, during temporary incapacity the employer's loss equals the salary plus the related tax and social charges, so the judgment was quashed insofar as it excluded employer contributions.","k":"Public employer's own loss — employer contributions and Medex","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383, 1315; Judicial Code, art. 870","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-11-18","rol":"C.10.0314.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2011:ARR.20111118.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Au sens de l'article 87, §2, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre, la faute intentionnelle est un fait antérieur au sinistre.","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The French Community brought a direct action against the family liability insurer of a pupil's parent who had injured a teacher. The Liège Court of Appeal had found a deliberate, voluntary and conscious act (a foot in the door frame to stop the door closing, aggressive, threatening and violent behaviour) and accepted that the insurer could refuse cover under article 8 LCAT. The Court of Cassation held that, in non-compulsory liability insurance, an intentional act is a fact predating the loss within article 87 §2 LCAT and can therefore be raised against the injured party; the appeal was dismissed.","k":"Family liability insurance — intentional act raised against the injured party","law":"LCAT art. 8, para. 1, 86, 87 §2","w":143,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-11-14","rol":"2010/AA/706","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2011:ARR.20111114.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Gelet op het arrest op 18 juni 2009 gewezen door het Grondwettelijk Hof kan het slachtoffer van een arbeidsongeval de termijn van drie jaar om zijn genezenverklaring zonder blijvende arbeidsongeschiktheid te betwisten,…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The three-year period to contest a declaration of recovery without permanent incapacity (art. 72, para. 2, of the Act of 10 April 1971) may, in the light of the Constitutional Court's judgment of 18 June 2009, be interrupted or suspended by registered letter; the review period in paragraph 1 is a fixed period that cannot be. The court accepted that the notification need not be sent by registered mail, that the workplace-accident insurer need only prove dispatch, and that the period runs from the third working day after the letter was handed to the postal service; the first judge had wrongly required proof of delivery. The available text is incomplete, so the final outcome is not known.","k":"Workplace accident — time limit to contest a declaration of recovery","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 24 and 72; Judicial Code, art. 53bis; RD 9.10.2003, art. 1; Const. Court 18.6.2009","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-11-10","rol":"166/2011","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2011:ARR.166","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"The insurers' trade association sought partial annulment of the Act of 21 January 2010 amending the LCAT on mortgage protection (outstanding balance) insurance for people with an increased health risk. The complaints concerned, among other things, the code of conduct and standard medical questionnaire, insurers' information duty and its criminal sanction, the use of medical data, the review of extra premiums, the Compensation Fund financed by insurers and mortgage lenders, and the pricing monitoring office. The Court rejected the grounds based on freedom of trade and contract, privacy and EU law, and dismissed the action; for instance, leaving the Crown to set contributions to the Compensation Fund was a limited, technical implementing measure.","k":"Mortgage protection insurance — challenge to the increased health risk Act","law":"Act of 21.1.2010; LCAT art. 138ter; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":144,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle — CC 166/2011","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-11-09","rol":"2009/RG/1701","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2011:ARR.20111109.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Il appartient à l'assuré qui demande à sa compagnie d'assurance de l'indemniser, de prouver que le sinistre répond à la définition du risque couvert. Lorsque le risque couvert est le vol, il lui appartient de démontrer…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insured claimed €15,580 for the theft, reported on 7.01.2008, of his car covered under a full comprehensive policy. The court recalled that the insured bears the burden of proving the theft and must be believed if his statement is plausible; but he had admitted hiding from the inspector an incident that damaged the front left of the car shortly before the reported theft, and his intention to sell it. These elements cast doubt on his statement, so the theft was not proved. For suing while knowing he had lied on decisive points, the insured was ordered to pay €1,500 in damages for vexatious proceedings. The judgment was reversed.","k":"Vehicle theft insurance — implausible statement, vexatious proceedings","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, art. 870","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-11-09","rol":"P.11.0759.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2011:ARR.20111109.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En vertu de l'article 19bis-17 de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire en matière de véhicules automoteurs, le Fonds commun de garantie automobile peut, devant la juridiction répressive, se…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"Intervening voluntarily before the Mons criminal court (on appeal), the Guarantee Fund asked that the defendant, if found liable, be ordered to indemnify it against any award made against it; the claim was held inadmissible. The Court noted that under article 19bis-17 of the Act of 21.11.1989 the Fund may join criminal proceedings as a civil party against the liable person only once it has compensated the loss. Having paid nothing and blaming the accident entirely on the victim, the Fund was neither a civil party nor subrogated; the appeal was dismissed.","k":"Guarantee Fund — indemnity claim in criminal proceedings without prior payment","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 19bis-14, 19bis-17; Act of 17.4.1878 (Preliminary Title Code of Criminal Procedure), art. 3","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-11-04","rol":"2010/AB/191","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2011:ARR.20111104.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Wanneer in de arbeidsovereenkomst de aansluiting bij een groepsverzekering onzorgvuldig is geformuleerd, moet de rechter de gemeenschappelijke wil van partijen zoeken, die kan afgeleid worden uit de wijze waarop de…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A professional sportsman claimed that his club had not paid group insurance premiums in line with the promise in his employment contract; the club sought indemnity from the insurer. The court held that an imprecisely worded affiliation clause must be construed according to the parties' common intention as shown by their conduct, that the terms of another group insurance scheme cannot serve as minimum rules, and that contributions must also be computed on benefits in kind. The insurer is bound only by what was agreed in the group insurance contract; as the calculations and supporting documents were missing, the proceedings were reopened before any ruling on the merits.","k":"Group insurance — gap between the contractual promise and the policy","law":"Act of 28.4.2003 (supplementary pensions), art. 6","w":84,"c":"Arbeidshof van Brussel","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-10-31","rol":"C.10.0743.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2011:ARR.20111031.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Il suit de l'article 136, §2, alinéa 4, de la loi relative à l'assurance obligatoire soins de santé et indemnités, coordonnée le 14 juillet 1994, que l'organisme assureur qui a octroyé les prestations prévues par…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A health-insurance fund claimed from the liable party's insurer the incapacity benefits it had paid to the victim. The Brussels court of first instance (on appeal) found that the victim was entitled under ordinary law to €59.79 a day and that the fund had paid 60% of that amount, but reduced the fund's claim by applying the ordinary-law degressive incapacity rates to what it had actually paid. The Court quashed that part: the fund is subrogated for all its benefits, up to the amount owed under ordinary law by the liable party or its insurer.","k":"Health-insurance fund subrogation — full incapacity benefits","law":"Coordinated Act of 14.7.1994 (health insurance), art. 136 §2, para. 4; Cass. 16.11.2009","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-10-26","rol":"P.11.0561.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2011:ARR.20111026.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"La faute intentionnelle qui exclut la garantie de l'assureur en vertu de l'article 8, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre est celle qui implique la volonté de causer un dommage et…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The victim, family members and a health-insurance fund claimed compensation from the defendant's liability insurer. The Liège Court of Appeal had treated the offence of failing to assist a person in danger, committed by a defendant who knew of the danger and deliberately did nothing, as an intentional act excluding cover. The Court of Cassation held that intent under article 8 LCAT requires a will to cause harm, not merely a deliberate course of conduct, and quashed the ruling on the claims against the insurer, remitting the case to the Brussels Court of Appeal.","k":"Intentional act exclusion — failure to assist a person in danger","law":"LCAT art. 8, para. 1; Cass. 24.4.2009","w":17,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-10-25","rol":"2010AR233","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2011:ARR.20111025.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"1. In beginsel is er geen sprake van belangenschade bij naamleningsovereenkomsten wanneer de tegenpartij die overeenkomst kent of wanneer in het kader van een subrogatieovereenkomst tussen verzekeraar en verzekerde door…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"In a dispute between neighbours, the insureds claimed in their own name the expert fees that their legal expenses insurer had paid. The court held that the insurer that paid is subrogated to that recourse right (art. 41 para. 1 LCAT); the insured may sue in its own name on the insurer's behalf, and an undisclosed nominee arrangement is not in principle invalid, but standing must be proven once it is challenged. As no subrogation receipt, nominee agreement or other evidence was produced, the claim for the expert fees was held inadmissible.","k":"Legal expenses insurance — recourse claim brought by the insured as nominee","law":"LCAT art. 41 para. 1; Judicial Code, art. 17–18, 43(2)","w":16,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-10-24","rol":"2010/RG/961","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2011:ARR.20111024.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Un contrat d'assurance revenu familial garanti a pour objet de garantir l'assuré contre les risques d'invalidité totale par accident ; il est contractuellement défini en l'espèce comme tout événement provenant de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A driver left tetraplegic after running into a lorry in 2007 claimed the total-disability-by-accident capital under his 'guaranteed family income' policy. The policy defined an accident as any event arising from the sudden and fortuitous action of an external cause beyond the insured's will. The court held that falling asleep through fatigue and alcohol is not an external cause beyond his will, since the driver freely chose to drive; the alleged manoeuvre by the lorry was not borne out by the criminal file. As the loss fell outside the definition of cover, the alcohol exclusion did not need to be examined. The insured's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Guaranteed income insurance — notion of accident, falling asleep at the wheel","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, art. 870; contractual definition of accident","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-10-24","rol":"2009/RG/1794","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2011:ARR.20111024.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"L'article des conditions générales d'un contrat d'assurance qui imposerait à l'assuré de prendre les mesures adéquates pour prévenir le sinistre, de quitter son immeuble en prenant les mesures de sécurité adéquates pour…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer refused to pay for a burglary of 29.03.2003 because there were no signs of forced entry and the insureds had allegedly not locked the doors. The court characterised the clause requiring the insured to take adequate security measures and lock all doors on leaving as a forfeiture clause, which deprives the insured of cover for a loss normally covered and whose breach the insurer must prove. Since the expert accepted that the garage door could be opened without trace using a rod, the breach was not established. The insurer was ordered to pay €24,277.62 in indemnity, €1,904.55 in technical adviser's fees and costs.","k":"Home theft insurance — door-locking requirement as a forfeiture clause","law":"LCAT art. 11; former Civil Code, art. 1315 para. 2","w":20,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-10-17","rol":"2010/RG/729","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2011:ARR.20111017.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The insured repeatedly changed his account of the place and circumstances of the accident to present two losses as one and avoid paying the deductible twice (€75). The court held that he had fraudulently breached his duty to help establish the circumstances and extent of the loss, so the insurer rightly refused cover; the alleged psychological fragility was unsupported. The insurer was only ordered to pass on €406.56 plus interest received from a third party's insurer for another loss; proceedings were reopened on its €955 claim for handling costs.","k":"Motor own-damage cover — fraudulent breach of the duty to cooperate","law":"LCAT art. 19 §2, 21 §2","w":145,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-10-06","rol":"C.10.0600.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2011:ARR.20111006.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Il ressort des articles 5, alinéa 1er et 6, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre que le preneur d'assurance est personnellement tenu de déclarer les circonstances qu'ils mentionnent…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"On her broker's advice, the policyholder had taken out the policy for the car later involved in the accident in her own name, because it would be cheaper. The Turnhout court of first instance (on appeal) held that, if she had correctly told the broker her son would be the main driver, she need not worry about what the broker passed on to the insurer, and no intentional concealment was proven. The Court quashed that judgment on the insurer's appeal: under articles 5 and 6 LCAT the duty of disclosure rests personally on the policyholder, and the involvement of a broker acting for the insured does not, as a rule, prevent the contract from being void.","k":"Duty of disclosure — broker's involvement and intentional concealment","law":"LCAT art. 5, para. 1, 6, para. 1","w":124,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-09-29","rol":"C.09.0014.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2011:ARR.20110929.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"En raison de la survenance du dommage prévu au contrat, l'assuré dispose d'une demande en garantie contre son assureur dès que la personne préjudiciée réclame des dommages et intérêts et que l'assuré peut réclamer à…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The liability-insured company sought reimbursement from its insurers of compensation it had paid to the victims itself, arguing that default interest ran from the third-party notice of 4.9.1990; the Ghent Court of Appeal ran interest from 30.6.2005, following a formal demand made after payment of the victims. The Court dismissed the appeal: under article 77 LCAT the insured is entitled to cover as soon as the injured party claims, but the claim for reimbursement only becomes due on the date the insured actually paid the injured party.","k":"Liability insurance — interest on the insured's reimbursement claim","law":"LCAT art. 77; former Civil Code, art. 1153","w":146,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-09-29","rol":"C.09.0570.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2011:ARR.20110929.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Un accident survenu à un piéton lorsqu'il est happé par un train circulant sur les rails, constitue un accident de la circulation au sens de l'article 601bis du Code judiciaire (1). (1) Voir les conclusions du M.P. ||…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"On 14.1.2000 a minor who had stepped onto the tracks behind a stationary train was struck by a locomotive entering the station; the Bruges court of first instance (on appeal) held the railway company bound by the article 29bis compensation scheme. The Court held that a pedestrian struck by a train on the track suffers a road accident within article 601bis of the Judicial Code and article 29bis. For accidents occurring between publication of the Constitutional Court's rulings of 15.7.1998 and 26.6.2002, legitimate expectations and legal certainty do not prevent placing the article 29bis §1 duty (pre-19.1.2001 version) on the owner of the rail vehicle; the railway's appeal was dismissed.","k":"29bis — pedestrian struck by a train, owner of the rail vehicle","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1 (pre-19.1.2001); Judicial Code, art. 601bis; Constitutional Court 15.7.1998 (no. 92/98) and 26.6.2002","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-09-22","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2011:ARR.144","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : Dans l'interprétation selon laquelle le tribunal du travail n'est pas compétent pour connaître des demandes relatives à la réparation de dommages découlant d'accidents couverts par une assurance…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Before the Mons Labour Court of Appeal, a volunteer firefighter claimed against the insurer under the common-law accident insurance taken out by the municipality; the issue was whether labour courts could hear such claims. The Constitutional Court held that article 579, 1° of the Judicial Code, read as denying the labour court jurisdiction, violates articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution: accidents of professional firefighters (Act of 3.7.1967) and volunteers are of similar nature; the procedural safeguards of labour courts (petition, representation by a union delegate, opinion of the labour prosecutor) cannot be denied to persons in comparable situations, and the same accident could otherwise fall before two different courts.","k":"Volunteer firefighters' accident insurance — labour court jurisdiction","law":"Judicial Code, art. 579, 1°; Act of 3.7.1967; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-09-19","rol":"2010/RG/531","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2011:ARR.20110919.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"L'article 5 de la loi de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre impose au preneur, à la conclusion du contrat, l'obligation de déclarer exactement toutes les circonstances connues de lui et qu'il…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A hunting lodge burned down on 29.09.2006; the insured claimed compensation from his fire insurer and cover for two hunting liability claims. The court treated the failure to disclose, when applying for cover, that the lodge had been the target of arson a few months earlier as an intentional omission under articles 5 and 6 LCAT: the contract is void, the concealed fact need not have influenced the loss, and the indemnities paid must be refunded (€1,015.76). The claim against the broker also failed, as his knowledge of the earlier losses was not proved and any fault of his would in any event bind the policyholder as principal. The insurer's appeal was upheld.","k":"Fire insurance — concealment of an earlier arson, broker's liability","law":"LCAT art. 5 and 6","w":147,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-09-16","rol":"C.10.0577.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2011:ARR.20110916.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"La loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre est applicable au contrat d'assurance de bateau de plaisance (1). (1) Voir les concl. du M.P. || Conclusions du procureur général Leclercq.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured claimed under the theft cover for his pleasure boat, stolen while on the water; the Brussels Court of Appeal had held the 1992 Act inapplicable because the theft occurred on water and this was not 'land' insurance. The Court held that the term 'land insurance' was chosen only to exclude marine, inland-waterway and aviation insurance, which remain governed by the Act of 11.6.1874; unless a special statute derogates, the 1992 Act applies to all insurance not excluded, whether or not the risks arise on dry land. Pleasure-boat insurance, being neither goods-transport nor marine or inland-waterway insurance, falls within it; the ruling dismissing the claim was quashed.","k":"Pleasure-boat insurance — scope of the 1992 Act","law":"LCAT art. 2 §1; Act of 11.6.1874","w":148,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-09-15","rol":"2009-AR-0640","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:2011:ARR.20110915.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Alleen de rechten die de schadelijder heeft ten aanzien van de aansprakelijke en zijn verzekeraar op het ogenblik van de subrogatie worden overgedragen aan de gesubrogeerde. De gesubrogeerde kan zich niet beroepen op…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A subrogee acquires only the rights the injured party had against the liable person and its insurer at the time of subrogation; it cannot rely on interruptive steps taken by the victim after the payments. The court held that article 136 §2 of the health-insurance statute and the fund's preferential right do not displace the ordinary rules on subrogation and limitation. The health-insurance fund, whose last payments dated from April 2002 and which sued the liability insurer only in June 2008, had its claim declared time-barred; the appeal was dismissed.","k":"Health-insurance fund's subrogated claim — interruption of limitation","law":"Health Insurance Act (coordinated 14.7.1994), art. 136 §2; former Civil Code, art. 1252","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-09-12","rol":"2009/AB/52182","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2011:ARR.20110912.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The fees of the medical adviser who assisted a workplace-accident victim during the court-ordered expert examination must be borne by the workplace-accident insurer, because they are causally linked to the accident. The victim must be able to counter the insurer's doctor before the expert.","k":"Workplace accident","law":"Loi 10.4.1971; Cass. 5.5.2006 (technical adviser fees; expropriation case)","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-09-02","rol":"C.10.0242.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2011:ARR.20110902.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"Lorsque plusieurs véhicules automoteurs sont impliqués dans un accident de la circulation, chacun des assureurs de ces véhicules est tenu d'indemniser la victime qui n'est pas conducteur de la totalité de son dommage.…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The motor liability insurer of a driver who knocked down a pedestrian on the motorway compensated the pedestrian under article 29bis; the criminal court had left one third of the loss with the victim. The insurer brought a subrogated recourse claim (former Civil Code art. 1251, 3°) against the insurers of two other vehicles it considered involved; the Dinant court of first instance (on appeal) dismissed it as limited to what the victim could claim under ordinary law. The Court quashed: each insurer of an involved vehicle must compensate the vulnerable road user in full; the paying insurer bears its own insured's share of liability for good and may recover the rest from the other insurers, needing to prove only involvement, not fault.","k":"29bis — subrogated recourse between insurers and involvement","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1, para. 1 and §2; former Civil Code, art. 1251, 3°; Cass. 29.5.2002","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-09-02","rol":"C.10.0643.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2011:ARR.20110902.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"Lorsque plusieurs véhicules automoteurs sont impliqués dans un accident de la circulation, chacun des assureurs de ces véhicules est tenu d'indemniser la victime qui n'est pas conducteur de la totalité de son dommage…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"In an accident involving three vehicles where no driver was found liable, the motor liability insurer of one vehicle fully compensated its insured's passenger (€85,593.10) and sought recovery from the other insurers. The Nivelles court of first instance (on appeal) had ordered the insurer of one involved vehicle to repay half of the outlay. The Court quashed: where no driver is liable, the insurers bear equal shares of the compensation as between themselves, and the paying insurer may recover from each only what exceeds its own share, up to that insurer's equal share, here one third, not one half.","k":"29bis — equal sharing between insurers where no driver is liable","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1, para. 1 and §2; former Civil Code, art. 1251, 3°; Cass. 2.9.2011 (C.10.0242.F)","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-07-27","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2011:ARR.136","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : Dans l'interprétation selon laquelle, lorsque deux conjoints sont mariés sous le régime de la communauté de biens, le capital de l'assurance-groupe obligatoire que souscrit l'employeur de l'un…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Brussels Court of Appeal asked whether articles 127 and 128 LCAT breached the equality principle insofar as the capital of a compulsory group insurance, taken out by an employer to fund an employee's supplementary pension, would be the affiliated spouse's separate property. The Constitutional Court ruled that, read as making this capital separate property where the spouses are married under a community regime, articles 127 and 128 LCAT violate articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution: the capital must be included in the common estate to be divided on liquidation. The first question, comparing the position with a civil servant's statutory pension, therefore required no answer.","k":"Group insurance — capital under community of property","law":"LCAT arts. 127, 128 and 148 §3; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":149,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-06-28","rol":"2010/RG/50","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2011:ARR.20110628.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"En vertu de l'article 20 de la loi du 25.06.1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre, l'assuré doit prendre toutes mesures raisonnables pour prévenir et atténuer les conséquences du sinistre. A défaut et s'il en…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"After a fire in their building, the owners neither cleared the debris nor protected the party wall; water seeped into the neighbouring house. The neighbour sued the owners and their liability insurer. The court held that the insureds had breached their duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate the loss (art. 20 LCAT) and that the sanction under article 21 here meant the insurer owed nothing. As this liability insurance was not compulsory, article 87 LCAT allowed the insurer to raise against the injured party this defence, which arose from a fact preceding the loss, i.e. the occurrence of the damage next door. The claims of the neighbour and of the insureds against the insurer were dismissed; the owners were ordered to pay the neighbour €11,208.39.","k":"Liability insurance — duty to mitigate, defence raised against the injured party","law":"LCAT art. 20, 21 and 87","w":150,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-06-22","rol":"2009/AR/2983","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2011:ARR.20110622.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"« Het criterium is of de […] gegevens […] redelijkerwijs moet beschouwen als gegevens die van invloed kunnen zijn op de beoordeling van het risico »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The insured, whose house burned down, had not disclosed a criminal conviction concerning the licence required for explosives (fireworks). The court held that the fact that the intermediary filled in the questionnaire does not prevent the insurer from relying on the breach, and that the absence of a question does not remove the duty to volunteer information the applicant should reasonably regard as relevant to the risk. Given the intentional concealment, the policy was void, no causal link with the loss being required; the insured had to repay €7,500 and his claim against the broker, who had not been told of the conviction, was dismissed.","k":"Fire insurance — undisclosed criminal conviction not asked about","law":"LCAT arts. 5, 6","w":112,"c":"Hof van beroep Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-06-22","rol":"2011BV125","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2011:ARR.20110622.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Artikel 89 § 5 Landverzekeringsrecht kadert in hoofdstuk III van genoemde wet, dat uitsluitend betrekking heeft op Aansprakelijkheidsverzekeringen, terwijl de verzekeraar zaakschade van benadeelden, anderen dan B -…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The property insurer of a block of flats, having compensated its injured insureds, claimed €116,180.73 (provisionally) as civil party, under art. 41 para. 1 LCAT, from a person interned following the act with which he was charged. The court held that this person, whose flat was covered by the same policy, was an insured, even if the insurer intended to deny him cover, and that subrogation operates only against liable third parties, so the insurer's claim was dismissed. Art. 89 §5 LCAT concerns only liability insurance and did not bar the criminal court's jurisdiction; the insured's own claim for cover fell outside the court's remit.","k":"Building insurance — no subrogation against an insured","law":"LCAT art. 41 para. 1, 89 §5, art. 1 B(a); Preliminary Title Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 4; Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 162bis","w":151,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-06-21","rol":"P.11.0024.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2011:ARR.20110621.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La conduite d'un véhicule de remplacement ou la conduite fortuite d'un véhicule ne fait pas obstacle à ce que le conducteur de ce véhicule conduise un véhicule automoteur dont la responsabilité civile à laquelle il peut…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"Convicted of driving an uninsured vehicle (art. 22 of the Act of 21.11.1989), the driver argued that it was a replacement vehicle within article 4 of the model contract and covered by his own car's policy. The Court held that the model contract's extension of cover to a replacement or occasionally driven vehicle does not prevent the driver from having driven a vehicle whose civil liability was not insured in accordance with the Act; the grounds being inadmissible or lacking a factual basis, the appeal was dismissed and the Leuven criminal court's conviction (on appeal) stood.","k":"Motor liability — replacement vehicle and uninsured driving offence","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 22; model contract RD 14.12.1992, art. 4","w":152,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-06-16","rol":"108/2011","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2011:ARR.108","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"A pedestrian's private supplementary health insurer had sought reimbursement of medical costs from the motor liability insurer of the vehicle involved, relying on Article 29bis. On a question from the Leuven Court of First Instance, the Constitutional Court held that article 41 LCAT, which grants statutory subrogation only against liable third parties and so does not let a private health insurer invoke Article 29bis against the motor insurer, does not violate articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution. Health-insurance funds and workplace-accident insurers take part in compulsory public schemes serving the general interest, unlike a private insurer; the latter can still rely on contractual subrogation (Civil Code art. 1250, 1°) or an assignment of the claim (art. 1690).","k":"Subrogation — private health insurer and Article 29bis","law":"LCAT art. 41; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":16,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle — CC 108/2011","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-06-01","rol":"2009/AR/3059","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2011:ARR.20110601.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The insurer sought to annul an income protection and incapacity policy for intentional non-disclosure and to recover €4,806.37; the first-instance court had held the claim time-barred. The court of appeal held that the event giving rise to the claim is the concealment, but if the insurer proves it learned of it later, the three-year period runs from that knowledge; the five-year cap from the event does not apply where the claim is based on fraud, which an alleged intentional concealment is. The claim was therefore in time. On the merits, the insurer failed to prove intentional non-disclosure: its claim was dismissed and it bore the costs.","k":"Income protection insurance — limitation and proof in a nullity claim","law":"LCAT art. 6 and 34 §1","w":153,"c":"Hof van beroep Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-05-31","rol":"90/2011","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2011:ARR.090","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"On annulment actions by a consumer association and the insurers' trade association, the Court reviewed the Act of 17 June 2009 on health insurance contracts. It annulled article 15 of that Act insofar as it made the new article 138bis-4 LCAT, which restricts premium and policy changes, retroactive to 1 July 2007, since no public-interest aim made the retroactivity indispensable. It also annulled, to the extent stated, article 3 §2(2) of the Act of 20 July 2007: the two-year transitional period was merely theoretical because the Act was published only on 8 July 2009, which excessively undermined legitimate expectations. The actions were otherwise dismissed.","k":"Private health insurance reform — partial annulment","law":"Act of 17.6.2009, art. 6, 13 and 15; Act of 20.7.2007, art. 3 §2; LCAT art. 138bis-2 to 138bis-4; Constitution, art. 10–11","w":154,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle — CC 90/2011","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-05-30","rol":"C.09.0499.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2011:ARR.20110530.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"L'employeur public qui, à la suite de la faute d'un tiers, est tenu de poursuivre en vertu de ses obligations légales et réglementaires le paiement d'un traitement et des cotisations afférant à ce traitement sans…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A public body claimed from the insurer of the fully liable driver the salary it had paid, without work in return, to its employee seriously injured in a road accident (also a workplace accident) on 18.1.1991; for the period up to consolidation (17.8.1994) it sought €59,878.01. The Brussels Court of Appeal accepted its own right under article 1382 of the Civil Code but capped the award at the €44,153.53 the victim could have claimed under ordinary law. The Court quashed the judgment, except for its refusal to compensate salary paid after 17.8.1994: the employer's loss is not limited to the compensation owed to the victim; it rejected, however, the argument that the administrative health service's findings bind the insurer, as they are only presumptions for the court to assess.","k":"Public employer's own loss — not capped at the victim's ordinary-law award","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383, 1349; Royal Decree of 24.1.1969, art. 8","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-05-18","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2011:ARR.086","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 29bis, § 1er, de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs, interprété en ce sens que les personnes morales…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Antwerp Court of First Instance asked whether article 29bis of the Act of 21.11.1989, read as excluding legal persons from the notion of 'ayants droit' (persons claiming through the victim), breached the equality principle; a legal person sought compensation for its reflected loss after a road accident under the automatic compensation scheme. The Constitutional Court upheld that reading: the scheme protects the victim and family from financial hardship; corporate employers generally have greater means and may, under article 29bis §5, recover wages and benefits paid under ordinary liability law. The difference in treatment is reasonably justified.","k":"Article 29bis — reflected loss of a legal person and the notion of 'ayant droit'","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1 and §5; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":35,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-05-16","rol":"C.10.0214.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2011:ARR.20110516.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'article 41, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre ne fait pas obstacle à ce que, sous la réserve du paiement effectif à la victime, le juge accueille l'action en garantie intentée…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The liability insurer of an insured held liable for the fraudulent acts of its agent brought a contribution claim against the payee's bank as a co-tortfeasor; the Brussels Court of Appeal allowed it, while assessing the insured's share as the heavier one. The Court held that article 41 LCAT does not prevent the court from granting the claim on condition of actual payment to the victim, that apportioning shares between co-tortfeasors is for the court, and that the principle fraus omnia corrumpit does not stop a person answerable for the intentional offence of someone in its charge from claiming the co-tortfeasor's share; the bank's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Subrogated liability insurer — contribution claim against a co-tortfeasor","law":"LCAT art. 41, para. 1; former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":16,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-04-29","rol":"C.10.0201.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2011:ARR.20110429.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"L'article 88 de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre ne s'applique pas à l'assurance des dommages propres qui constitue un contrat d'assurance de choses et non un contrat d'assurance de la…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The own-damage insurer paid its insured €62,500.21 on the basis of an expert report and then sued the appellant for repayment; he argued that the insurer had not given notice of its intention to seek recourse under article 88, para. 2 LCAT and that the one-sided assessment could not be used against him. The Court held that article 88 LCAT, which concerns liability insurance, does not apply to own-damage insurance, which is property insurance. It also upheld the Antwerp court of first instance (on appeal), which had found that the appellant in no way showed the valuation to be wrong, and dismissed the appeal.","k":"Own-damage insurance — art. 88 LCAT notice rule does not apply","law":"LCAT art. 88, paras. 1–2","w":11,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-04-28","rol":"C.10.0492.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2011:ARR.20110428.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"Un véhicule est impliqué dans un accident de la circulation lorsqu'il existe un lien quelconque entre le véhicule et l'accident; il n'est pas requis que le véhicule ait joué un rôle dans la survenance de l'accident; le…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A pedestrian struck by a car was thrown against the rear window of another, lawfully parked car; the Guarantee Fund brought a claim under article 29bis against the motor liability insurer of the parked car. The Liège court of first instance (on appeal) had found the parked car not involved because it played no role in causing the accident. The Court quashed: a vehicle is involved within article 29bis whenever there is any link between it and the accident, it need not have played a role in causing it, and that link exists as soon as there was contact between the vehicle and the victim.","k":"29bis — involvement of a parked vehicle struck by the victim","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1; Cass. 3.10.2008","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-04-14","rol":"2008-AR-2766","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:2011:ARR.20110414.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Aangepaste suggestie: Het ziekenfonds kan ten aanzien van de burgerlijk aansprakelijkheid verzekeraar in geval van onvoldoende dekking, niet bij voorrang ten nadele van haar verzekerde aanspraak maken op de toekenning…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Where the liability insurer's policy limit is insufficient for all claims, the health-insurance fund claiming by subrogation cannot assert priority to the detriment of its own member, the victim: a partially paid creditor ranks ahead of the subrogee. The court declared that, if the insured's liability is established, the victim is to be compensated by the insurer ahead of the fund and the Flemish disability agency, within the €123,946.76 limit of cover; the fund's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Insufficient policy limit — priority between victim and health-insurance fund","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1252","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-04-12","rol":"2007AR3333","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2011:ARR.20110412.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The relatives of a patient who died of tetanus and the health-insurance fund sued the general practitioner, the hospital and the hospital's liability insurer; the insurer pleaded the five-year limitation period of article 34 §2 LCAT. The court noted that article 34 §4 provides for interruption, not suspension: the period is interrupted once the insurer learns of the injured party's claim and a fresh five-year period starts from the written notice of its decision to pay or refuse (27.3.2001), so the writ of 13.7.2005 was in time. The action against the insurer was held not time-barred, its cross-appeal was dismissed and the court-ordered expert examination was declared binding on it.","k":"Medical liability — interruption of the limitation period for the direct action against the insurer","law":"LCAT art. 34 §2 and §4; former Civil Code, art. 2262bis §1","w":6,"c":"Hof van beroep van Brussel","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-03-21","rol":"2008/RG/553","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2011:ARR.20110321.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A company's premises were set on fire in 2002; the company was declared bankrupt three days later. The court found that the insurer had not proved the fire was attributable to the insured; however, the insured had failed to declare, during the contract, repeated arson threats with an attempted execution on 27.08.2001. That was a significant and lasting aggravation of the risk which the insurer would not have agreed to cover. Under article 26 §3 b) LCAT the insurer's obligation was limited to the premiums paid since 27.08.2001 and the injured third party's claim was dismissed (art. 87 §2 LCAT). The first-instance judgment was upheld.","k":"Fire insurance — failure to declare arson threats","law":"LCAT art. 26 §3 b) and 87 §2; Cass. 8.12.1995","w":155,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-03-21","rol":"2010/RG/125","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2011:ARR.20110321.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"When taking out hospitalisation insurance the policyholder did not disclose that he had been treated for hypertension for three years; the insurer sought repayment of the hospital bills it had paid. From serious, precise and consistent presumptions the court found an intentional omission within article 6 LCAT: other applicants with the same condition had answered yes and paid a 25% higher premium. The contract is void, premiums due remain with the insurer and the indemnities paid must be refunded; it is irrelevant that the concealed fact had no link with the loss (a motorcycle accident). The judgment was upheld.","k":"Hospitalisation insurance — concealment of hypertension","law":"LCAT art. 5 and 6","w":147,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-03-10","rol":"C.10.0472.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2011:ARR.20110310.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Les modalités d'exercice de l'action récursoire prévues par la loi du 25 juin 1992 ne s'appliquent à la date où l'action est née que pour autant que ces dispositions soient entrées en vigueur à cette date (1). (1)…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Having compensated the victims of an accident of 30.4.1992 for which its insured was liable, the insurer brought a recourse action against the policyholder and insured under articles 24 and 25.6 of the model policy then in force. The Liège court of first instance (on appeal) held the action inadmissible because the insurer had not given notice of its intention to seek recourse (art. 88, para. 2 LCAT). The Court quashed on the insurer's appeal: the right to repayment arises at the time of the loss, a procedural condition such as notice is governed by the same law as the action itself, and article 88 LCAT only came into force on 1 January 1993.","k":"Motor insurer's recourse — temporal application of art. 88 LCAT","law":"LCAT art. 88, para. 2; Royal Decree of 24.8.1992, art. 3; Cass. 2.9.2005","w":11,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-03-02","rol":"P.10.1652.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2011:ARR.20110302.2","ch":"2F","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Aux termes de l'article 136, §2, alinéa 4, de la loi relative à l'assurance obligatoire soins de santé et indemnités coordonnées le 14 juillet 1994, l'organisme assureur est subrogé de plein droit au bénéficiaire, à…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"The Guarantee Fund had been ordered to compensate a victim who bore 30% of his loss for not wearing a seat belt; both the Fund and the victim appealed against the Liège criminal court's judgment (on appeal). The Court sided with the Fund on several points: for each head of loss, the victim's share of fault must be deducted first and then the health-insurance fund's outlays; the health fund's subrogation is limited to the 70% due under ordinary law; and the €171,180.07 paid by the victim's own insurer for bodily injury must be deducted to avoid double recovery. The Fund's challenge to the annuity was rejected, and the victim's appeal succeeded on administrative costs and home adaptation because his submissions had not been answered.","k":"Guarantee Fund — health-fund subrogation, contributory fault and double recovery","law":"Coordinated Act of 14.7.1994 (health insurance), art. 136 §2, para. 4; former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383; Constitution, art. 149","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-03-01","rol":"2010/RG/87","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2011:ARR.20110301.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"En vertu de l'article 1315 al. 1 du code civil, celui qui réclame l'exécution d'une obligation doit la prouver. Il appartient à l'assuré qui sollicite la condamnation de sa compagnie à lui verser l'indemnité d'assurance…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insured, covered under a partial comprehensive policy, reported the theft of his car; the insurer refused to pay because of inconsistencies. The court recalled that the insured claiming the indemnity must prove that the loss falls within the covered risk and that, given the relationship of trust, he must be believed if his statement is plausible and nothing casts doubt on it; here several converging elements justified doubt. The insurer, which had explained its refusal, committed no fault by not disclosing its inspector's inquiry. The first-instance judgment was reversed and the insured's claim dismissed.","k":"Vehicle theft insurance — proof of the theft","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, art. 870","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-02-21","rol":"C.10.0248.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2011:ARR.20110221.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"L'article 45, §1er, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre est uniquement applicable en cas de pluralité d'assureurs pour un même dommage. || La pluralité au sens de l'article 45 de la loi du 25…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured company claimed from its insurer, which covered it only on a second-tier basis, relying on article 45 LCAT to claim from each insurer. The Ghent Court of Appeal found that the policy applied only after another existing policy had been applied and exhausted, and that the first-tier insurance was sufficient, and dismissed the claim. The Court dismissed the appeal: article 45 §1 LCAT applies only where several insurers concur in covering the same loss, which is not the case where the insurer applies only in second rank and the first-tier insurance suffices.","k":"Multiple insurance — second-tier cover and art. 45 LCAT","law":"LCAT art. 45 §1; former Civil Code, art. 1134","w":60,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-02-21","rol":"C.10.0520.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2011:ARR.20110221.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'article 47 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail implique que l'assureur-loi qui a payé à la victime les indemnités prévues par la loi en matière d'incapacité de travail, temporaire ou permanente,…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The workplace-accident insurer, subrogated under article 47 of the Act of 10.4.1971, claimed from the liable party's insurer the incapacity benefits it had paid to the victim; the Brussels court of first instance (on appeal) calculated the award on gross pay. The Court held that the workplace-accident insurer may recover its benefits, including related charges, up to the ordinary-law compensation the victim could have obtained for the same loss, and that such compensation may be based on gross pay only if the court finds that the charges on it match those on the lost wages. As no such finding was made, and interest was awarded from an earlier date than claimed, the judgment was quashed to that extent on the liable party's insurer's appeal.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — calculation on gross pay","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-02-08","rol":"2010/RG/173","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2011:ARR.20110208.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Frost-damaged potatoes delivered by a farmer forced the customer's factory to stop its production line; it claimed €7,982.09. The farmer sought cover from his agricultural liability insurer (post-delivery). The court held that the policy covers only material and bodily damage and the financial loss resulting from them; stopping the line is neither destruction nor deterioration, so the loss is a non-consequential financial loss excluded from cover. The insured's claim was dismissed.","k":"Agricultural liability insurance — non-consequential financial loss","law":"Policy general conditions (definitions of material, bodily and financial loss)","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-02-07","rol":"C.10.0147.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2011:ARR.20110207.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"L'accident de la circulation visé à l'article 29bis, §1er, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs, dans la version…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"On 27.10.2000, on a port dock (Deurganckdok), a reversing concrete-mixer lorry seriously injured a person; the Dendermonde court of first instance (on appeal) held that, despite a 'no unauthorised access' sign, the site, open to traffic from dozens of firms, was not private, and held the lorry's motor liability insurer liable to compensate under article 29bis. The Court restated that a road accident under article 29bis is one occurring on the public highway or on land, even private, accessible to a number of people entitled to go there, and linked to road-traffic risks. The place requirement having been lawfully found to be met, the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"29bis — accident on a port site, place requirement","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1, para. 1 (version between 13.4.1995 and 19.1.2001); Cass. 25.1.2008","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-02-07","rol":"C.10.0457.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2011:ARR.20110207.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Il suit de l'ensemble des dispositions des articles 88, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre, 1er de l'arrêté royal du 14 décembre 1992 relatif au contrat-type d'assurance…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The car driven by the policyholder's wife was involved in a fatal accident; she was not at fault, but cover was suspended for non-payment of the premium and the insurer compensated the deceased cyclist's relatives under article 29bis. The Dendermonde court of first instance (on appeal) had allowed the insurer's recourse against the policyholder under articles 24 and 25 of the model contract and a policy clause. The Court quashed on the policyholder's appeal: the contractual recourse of an insurer that paid under article 29bis is limited to what it would have owed because of its insured's liability, and a clause granting recourse for amounts for which the insured is not liable departs from the model contract to the policyholder's detriment and is not allowed.","k":"Motor insurer's recourse — 29bis payments where the insured is not liable","law":"LCAT art. 88, para. 1; Royal Decree of 14.12.1992, art. 1 and model contract, art. 24–25; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1; Cass. 7.6.2010","w":156,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-02-07","rol":"C.10.0332.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2011:ARR.20110207.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"Il y a lieu d'entendre par les ayants droit au sens de l'article 29bis, § 1er, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs, dans…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that the rightful claimants referred to in article 29bis §1, first paragraph, of the Act of 21 November 1989 are not only the victim's relatives but all persons who themselves suffer loss as a result of the victim's injuries or death. An employer who keeps paying the wages of an injured employee who cannot work suffers loss and is therefore a rightful claimant. The ground of appeal limiting the notion to relatives failed in law: the appeal was dismissed and the appeal judgment of the Turnhout court of first instance in the employer's favour stands.","k":"Motor liability — article 29bis: employer as the victim's rightful claimant","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1, para. 1 (version between the Acts of 13.4.1995 and 19.1.2001)","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-02-01","rol":"2009/RG/1694","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2011:ARR.20110201.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Le régime de prescription prévu par l'article 26 du Titre préliminaire du Code d'instruction criminelle n'est pas applicable à l'action de la personne subrogée dans les droits et actions de la victime s'agissant non pas…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"After a temporary worker's 2000 workplace accident at the user company, the workplace-accident insurer brought a direct action against that company's business liability insurer (writ of 3.07.2007). The court held that the direct action under article 86 LCAT is time-barred five years after the harmful event (art. 34 §2 LCAT) and that the workplace-accident insurer could have identified the liability insurer by 1.01.2002 at the latest. The regime of article 26 of the Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not apply to this direct action. The claim was held time-barred and dismissed.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — limitation of the direct action","law":"LCAT art. 34 §2, 35 and 86; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47; Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 26","w":157,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-01-24","rol":"C.09.0635.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2011:ARR.20110124.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Il suit du système des questions préjudicielles, tel qu'il est notamment réglé par les articles 26, §2, 2°, et 28 de la loi spéciale du 6 janvier 1989 sur la Cour constitutionnelle, que s'il peut également écarter…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The dispute between spouses married under the community-property regime concerned benefits from a group insurance policy serving as a supplementary pension. The Ghent Court of Appeal had extended to group insurance the Constitutional Court's judgment of 26 May 1999, which had found arts. 127 and 128 LCAT unconstitutional for individual life insurance. The Court of Cassation held that a court may not extend by analogy an unconstitutionality found by the Constitutional Court to a legal question that is not identical; the judgment was quashed as regards the group insurance and costs, and the case was referred to the Brussels Court of Appeal.","k":"Group insurance — arts. 127-128 LCAT and the marital community","law":"LCAT arts. 127 and 128; Special Act 6.1.1989, arts. 26 §2 2° and 28; Constitutional Court 26.5.1999","w":158,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2011-01-17","rol":"C.08.0303.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2011:ARR.20110117.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Il suit de l'article 41, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre, que la subrogation de l'assureur avec qui une commune a conclu un contrat d'assurance en vertu de l'article 27 de…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A municipality's workplace-accident insurer sought reimbursement from the attacker's family liability insurer of the salaries paid to police officers who had been assaulted. The Court held that under art. 41 LCAT the insurer's subrogation is not limited to the subrogation granted to the municipality by art. 14 §3 of the Act of 3 July 1967, but extends to the municipality's other rights and actions against the wrongdoer, including its consequential loss from paying salaries without receiving work. The liability insurer's appeal was dismissed; the appeal of a separate legal entity that had not been a party on appeal was held inadmissible.","k":"Public-sector workplace-accident insurer — scope of subrogation","law":"LCAT art. 41, para. 1; Act of 3.7.1967, art. 14 §3; RD 13.7.1970, art. 27","w":16,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-12-21","rol":"2009/RG/384","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2010:ARR.20101221.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The insurer refused cover for a fire caused by clothing left on a gas heater, arguing there were no flames, the event was not accidental and a clause excluded breaches of safety standards. Relying on the court expert, the court found there was a fire within the policy's meaning. The clause penalising breaches of general standards of care was in substance a forfeiture clause and had no effect under mandatory article 11 LCAT: forfeiture requires breach of a specific contractual duty causally linked to the loss. The expert's assessment of the loss was upheld; only the first-instance procedural indemnity was reduced to €900.","k":"Fire insurance — forfeiture clause based on a general duty of care","law":"LCAT art. 11","w":20,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-12-21","rol":"2009/rg/2019","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2010:ARR.20101221.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The receiver of a bankrupt haulage company argued that the broker's letter of 24.06.1994 was an insurance proposal under article 4 LCAT and that the insurer's silence had created cover. The court set out the three modes of formation in article 4 (proposal, pre-signed policy, insurance application) and found that the letter was merely a vague information request. The insurer's failure to react in the short period before the accident was not a fault, and the broker, an insurance professional, could not assume cover was in place. The claim was dismissed.","k":"Formation of the insurance contract — information request versus insurance proposal","law":"LCAT art. 4; former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":34,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-12-21","rol":"2004AR2922","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2010:ARR.20101221.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"1. De Wet van 25 juni 1992 op de landverzekeringsovereenkomst betreft enkel de landverzekeringen. A contrario valt de luchtvaartverzekering buiten haar toepassingsgebied. Deze verzekering blijft beheerst door de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"An ostrich farmer, claiming that a balloon taking off nearby had panicked his birds, sued the pilot, the balloon's owner and the aviation insurer. The court held that the LCAT covers only non-marine, non-aviation insurance, that aviation insurance remains governed by the Act of 11.6.1874, and that neither that Act nor art. 16 of the Rome Convention of 7.10.1952 gave a direct action here, so the claim for an order against the insurer was inadmissible. Strict liability under the Convention requires a direct causal link that was not shown, and no fault under art. 1382 was proven, so the claims failed on the merits.","k":"Aviation liability insurance — hot-air balloon damage and direct action","law":"Rome Convention of 7.10.1952, art. 1, 9, 16; Act of 11.6.1874; Mortgage Act, art. 20(9); former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-12-20","rol":"2009/AH/239","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2010:ARR.20101220.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"An employee's injury during a suicide attempt, directly triggered by a meeting on 23 October 2006, was accepted as a workplace accident. The workplace-accident insurer relied on article 48 of the Act of 10 April 1971 (accident caused intentionally); the court held that the insurer bears the burden of proving intent and that the criminal file showed a moment of mental derangement rather than any conscious or deliberate act. The insurer's appeal was dismissed, the investigative measure ordered at first instance was confirmed and the case was sent back to the first judge.","k":"Workplace accident — suicide attempt and intentional fault","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 48; Cass. 2.11.1998; Cass. 25.11.2002","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-12-20","rol":"C.10.0270.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20101220.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Il suit des dispositions impératives des premier et second alinéas de l'article 84 de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre qu'une quittance pour solde de tout compte ne prive pas la personne lésée…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A haulier and its subrogated insurer claimed from the Belgian Motor Insurers' Bureau compensation for damage to the tractor unit and towing costs; the Antwerp appeal court had held the claims inadmissible, treating the signed 'full and final settlement' receipt as a settlement agreement. The Court held that, under the mandatory provisions of art. 84 LCAT, a final settlement receipt does not deprive the injured party of the right to claim for heads of loss not covered by it, regardless of whether it is characterised as a settlement agreement. As the court had not found that the receipt covered the items claimed, the judgment was quashed and the case referred to the Turnhout court of first instance.","k":"Final settlement receipt — other heads of loss","law":"LCAT art. 84, paras. 1-2","w":159,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-12-15","rol":"P.10.1269.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20101215.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Il ne résulte pas de l'article 4, 1°, b, du contrat-type d'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs, annexé à l'arrêté royal du 14 décembre 1992, que l'extension de garantie qu'il…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"An 18-year-old driver living with his father caused an accident driving a vehicle belonging to a third party, on which he had fitted the registration plate of his father's car; the Brussels criminal court, on appeal, had ordered the Guarantee Fund to compensate the civil parties. The Court held that art. 4, 1° b) of the model contract, which extends cover to a third party's vehicle driven occasionally by the policyholder's cohabiting child, does not exclude that extension where the vehicle is unregistered. The judgment refusing the extension on that ground alone was quashed on the Fund's appeal and the case referred to the Nivelles criminal court.","k":"Motor liability — extended cover for a third party's unregistered vehicle","law":"Model contract RD 14.12.1992, art. 4, 1° b)","w":160,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-12-13","rol":"2010/AA/209","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2010:ARR.20101213.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Op grond van artikel 28 van de arbeidsongevallenwet heeft het slachtoffer recht op terugbetaling van de kosten voor prothesen en orthopedische toestellen, waaronder begrepen moeten worden de kunstmiddelen en…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The Antwerp Labour Court of Appeal held that the workplace-accident insurer must, under article 28 of the Act of 10 April 1971, pay for the prostheses and orthopaedic devices made necessary by the accident (wheelchairs, handbike, crutches, vehicle adaptation). For home adaptation works, article 35 of the Royal Decree of 21 December 1971, as in force since 22 June 2007, applies immediately to the pending case: the insurer is liable only for a stairlift or monolift, so that head of claim was dismissed. The insurer's appeal was partly upheld; 75% permanent incapacity, third-party assistance and the expert's fees remain at its charge.","k":"Workplace accident — prostheses and home adaptation costs","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 28; RD 21.12.1971, art. 35 (as amended by RD 5.6.2007)","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-12-09","rol":"C.09.0215.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20101209.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"L'arrêt qui considère, d'une part, que l'accident trouve son origine dans l'action soudaine de la cause étrangère à la volonté de l'assuré que constitue le choc violent du véhicule contre un arbre, qui a produit le…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured died after losing control of the car for an unknown reason and hitting a tree; the policy defined an accident as the sudden action of an external cause beyond the insured's will, to be interpreted in line with workplace-accident legislation. The Liège Court of Appeal had held it irrelevant whether the collision was caused by a fainting fit, falling asleep or inattention, an accident being excluded only where the sole cause lies in the victim's body. The Court held that this interpretation was irreconcilable with the policy wording and breached the evidential value of the document; the judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal and the case referred to the Mons Court of Appeal.","k":"Accidental death insurance — notion of accident and bodily cause","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1319, 1320 and 1322 (evidential value of documents); general policy conditions, art. 1","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-12-07","rol":"2007/AR/2713","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2010:ARR.20101207.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"The insured had sued his own-damage insurer before the court of first instance over the valuation of damage to his car in a road accident. The Court of Appeal held that the notion of a 'claim for compensation' in article 601bis of the Judicial Code must not be read narrowly and also covers the insured's contractual claim against his own insurer, so the police court had exclusive jurisdiction. The case was referred to the Leuven court of first instance sitting on appeal; the merits were not decided and the appeal costs were charged to the insured.","k":"Procedure — police court jurisdiction over a claim against the own-damage insurer","law":"Judicial Code, art. 601bis, 577, 643","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep Brussel","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-12-06","rol":"2009/RG/909","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2010:ARR.20101206.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"En vertu du contrat d'assurance incendie-dégâts des eaux, l'assuré a l'obligation contractuelle de vidanger les installations hydrauliques et de chauffage du bâtiment s'il n'est pas chauffé, en période de gel et…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A lead pipe burst in an unoccupied building. The policy required the water and heating installations to be drained if the building was unheated during frost. Relying on the court-appointed expert, the court found that the burst was caused by frost, not by water hammer, showing that the building was unheated and the system not drained. The insurer rightly refused cover, having proved the breach of the contractual prevention duty, its causal link with the loss and the contractual sanction. The insureds' claim was dismissed.","k":"Fire and water-damage insurance — duty to drain the installations","law":"Policy general conditions (prevention duty); Judicial Code, art. 986","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-11-30","rol":"1993/RG/32107","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2010:ARR.20101130.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"Seriously injured in 1989 as the passenger of a German-registered motorcycle, the victim claimed compensation under Belgian law from the German defendant company, which argued that German law applied because only one vehicle was involved. The court found that two vehicles were involved and that, under arts. 3 and 8 of the Hague Convention of 4 May 1971, the law of the place of the accident, Belgian law, governs both liability and compensation. It held that post-consolidation expenses are recoverable where needed to maintain the condition reached or relieve pain, that loss is assessed as close as possible to judgment, and that permanent household loss is assessed on a flat-rate basis rather than capitalised; the defendant was ordered to pay, among other items, €107,633.49 for future professional loss and the maximum procedural indemnity of €14,000.","k":"Road accident with a foreign-registered vehicle — applicable law and personal injury","law":"Hague Convention of 4.5.1971, arts. 3, 4 and 8; former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-10-26","rol":"2009/rg/847","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2010:ARR.20101026.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'existence d'une obligation légale, réglementaire ou contractuelle qui impose à l'employeur du secteur public de continuer à payer la rémunération à son agent en incapacité de travail en raison de la faute d'un tiers,…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A public welfare centre claimed from the private liability insurer of the perpetrator the salary it had kept paying to an employee seriously injured by her husband. The court held that a subrogated public employer has no greater rights than the victim: as the policyholder's spouse she was an 'insured', not a 'third party' under the policy, and had no claim against the insurer; the direct action of article 86 LCAT does not alter this. The €252,431.50 claim was dismissed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Private liability insurance — public employer's recourse against the insurer","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382; Act of 3.7.1967, art. 14 §3; LCAT art. 86; Cass. 21.9.2009","w":125,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-10-25","rol":"S.09.0052.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20101025.3","ch":"3F","res":"","t":"work","q":"Le délai de révision des indemnités pour accident du travail fondé sur une modification de la perte de capacité de travail de la victime ou sur son décès dû aux conséquences de l'accident, ne prend pas cours au moment…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The labour court had fixed the consolidation date and a 15% permanent incapacity rate but reserved its decision on the base remuneration; once that judgment became final, the worker brought a review claim for aggravation. The Court held that the review period under art. 72 of the Act of 10 April 1971 does not start when the decision fixing consolidation becomes final, but only from the final decision fixing all elements for calculating the annual allowance, including the base remuneration. The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal's judgment, which had treated the period as running, was quashed on the workplace-accident insurer's appeal.","k":"Workplace accident — start of the review period","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24 para. 2 and art. 72 para. 1","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-10-18","rol":"2009/AB/51700","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2010:ARR.20101018.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'allocation complémentaire pour l'assistance d'une tierce personne est plafonnée au montant du R.M.M.M.G., mais ne doit pas pour autant être réduite en proportion du degré de nécessité de l'aide par rapport au besoin…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer challenged the prostheses and the third-person assistance allowance awarded to a victim with 60% permanent incapacity. The court held that the supplementary allowance is capped at the guaranteed minimum wage (RMMMG) but must not be reduced in proportion to the degree of need; it is calculated as RMMMG x weekly hours of assistance needed / 38. It set the need at 16 hours instead of 18, held that electrifying the shutters is not a prosthesis, and ordered the insurer to pay the allowance at 16/38 of the RMMMG with statutory interest; the victim's cross-appeal was dismissed and the insurer was ordered to pay the appeal costs.","k":"Workplace accident — calculating the third-person assistance allowance","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 24 and 42","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-10-12","rol":"2009/AM/21621","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2010:ARR.20101012.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'entreprise d'assurances et le Fonds des accidents du travail bénéficient d'une action subrogatoire, à concurrence de leurs débours, contre l'assureur responsabilité civile ou le Fonds commun de garantie automobile…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"A worker sprained his ankle while getting out of a van; the workplace-accident insurer refused cover for lack of a sudden event. The court held that this occurrence, identified in time and place, is in itself the sudden event; requiring a violent effort or a defect in the ground would add a condition to the Act. The insurer's appeal on the main claim was dismissed. However, its request to join the motor liability insurer and have the judgment declared binding on it was granted: the workplace-accident insurer, which holds a subrogated action within the limits of article 29bis, may lay the ground for that action through a purely protective claim. Whether the accident is a road-traffic accident within article 29bis falls outside the labour courts' jurisdiction and remains open.","k":"Workplace accident — sprain alighting from a vehicle; joinder of the motor liability insurer","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 9 and 48ter; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-10-07","rol":"2009/RG/478","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2010:ARR.20101007.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"I. L'employeur du secteur public qui, en vertu de ses obligations légales ou réglementaires, est contraint de continuer à payer le traitement et les compléments y afférents sans recevoir de prestation de travail, est en…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A school headmistress became unfit for work after a parent's verbal aggression and threats; her public employer, which continued to pay her salary, claimed compensation for its own loss from the aggressor under article 1382 of the former Civil Code. The court accepted that a public employer may choose between the subrogated recourse (art. 14 §3 of the Act of 3.7.1967) and a direct claim, and that the limits of subrogation do not apply to the latter; an expert must be appointed so that the loss is established adversarially. The aggressor's liability insurer's defence of intentional loss (art. 8 LCAT) was rejected: under the Court of Cassation's 2009 case law an intentional loss requires that the insured knowingly and wilfully caused damage, which the insurer failed to prove, the aggressor having merely wanted a teacher's lack of pedagogy acknowledged. The insurer must provide cover; the first-instance judgment was upheld.","k":"Liability insurance — intentional loss; public employer's recourse","law":"LCAT art. 8; former Civil Code, art. 1382 and 1315(2); Act of 3.7.1967, art. 14 §3; Cass. 24.4.2009","w":17,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-10-05","rol":"2009/RG/1170","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2010:ARR.20101005.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A chimney flue defectively installed by a contractor caused a fire in the building on 27.01.2005, years after the works. The court held the contractor liable but ruled that its products/completed-operations liability insurer owed no cover: article 35 of the general conditions, mirroring article 78 §1 LCAT, limits cover to damage occurring during the policy period; since the damage occurred after the contract ended, it was not covered, and with no ambiguity there was no room for interpretation in the insured's favour. All claims against that insurer were dismissed; the contractor was ordered to pay the owner the €198.71 deductible and proceedings were reopened on the fire insurer's subrogated claim.","k":"Products/completed-operations liability — damage occurring after the policy ended","law":"LCAT art. 78 §1; former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":19,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-10-04","rol":"2010/RG/253","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2010:ARR.20101004.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"alt","s":"Suspecting arson, the insurer, after reviewing the criminal file, lodged a complaint as civil party with the investigating judge; the investigation ended with a decision not to prosecute. The court held that such a complaint sets the prosecution in motion and amounts to criminal proceedings: absent abuse, the payment deadline was suspended until that decision. Late payment carries interest at twice the statutory rate by operation of law; that interest, which the first judge had started earlier, was limited to 6.7.2008–19.8.2009 on €16,814.35.","k":"Fire insurance — payment deadline suspended during criminal proceedings","law":"LCAT art. 67 §2bis 2°; Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 63","w":54,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-10-04","rol":"C.09.0475.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20101004.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'article 46, §2, alinéa 2, de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail implique que la victime ne peut réclamer l'indemnisation de ses dommages corporels au tiers responsable de l'accident que dans la…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The victim claimed compensation under ordinary law from those liable for the accident; their liability insurer was joined so that the judgment would be binding on it. The Court held that the no-double-recovery rule of art. 46 §2 of the Act of 10 April 1971 applies only to loss covered by that Act, and that permanent household loss is a distinct non-occupational loss not compensated by the workplace-accident insurer. It also held unlawful the rejection of the capitalisation method for non-pecuniary loss on the ground that no loss of income was proven; the Antwerp Court of Appeal's judgment was quashed on those items on the victim's appeal.","k":"Workplace accident and ordinary law — household loss and the no-double-recovery rule","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46 §2; former Civil Code, arts. 1382-1384; Cass. 11.6.2007","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-10-01","rol":"36534/09","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2010:ARR.20101001.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'article 25 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail subordonne l'octroi des indemnités d'incapacité temporaire en cas de rechute en incapacité à la preuve de ce que l'incapacité permanente causée par…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"After consolidation of his injuries and redeployment to another occupation, the victim, whose condition had worsened, claimed total temporary-incapacity benefits from the workplace-accident insurer for the period 6.3.2009 to 30.9.2009. The court held that article 25 of the Act of 10 April 1971 makes such benefits in case of relapse conditional on proof that the permanent incapacity has worsened to the point that the victim can temporarily no longer perform the occupation into which he was redeployed; that is not the case for a victim who, following the aggravation, appears permanently unfit to return to that work. The insurer's main appeal was upheld and temporary-incapacity benefits refused for that period; the victim's cross-appeal was partly upheld, with a supplementary expert assignment ordered to explore redeployment possibilities exhaustively before fixing the rate of aggravation of the permanent incapacity.","k":"Workplace accident — relapse after consolidation, conditions for temporary incapacity","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 25; RD 10.12.1987, art. 9","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-09-30","rol":"C.08.0525.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20100930.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"En se fondant sur des considérations qui font apparaître que l'assureur n'a pas exécuté de bonne foi le contrat d'assurance qui le liait à l'assuré, l'arrêt considère légalement que le comportement de l'assureur…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured company had entered into two settlements with the injured party in proceedings abroad without the insurer's consent. The Mons Court of Appeal had found that the insurer, despite its insured's insistence, refused to take part in the proceedings and negotiations and, by remaining silent, led the insured to settle without its consent; the Court held that these findings show the insurer did not perform the contract in good faith and lawfully justify making the settlements binding on it, notwithstanding art. 85 LCAT. It also held that under art. 82 LCAT and art. 6ter of the Royal Decree of 24 December 1992, interest and costs may be payable beyond the sum insured; the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Liability insurance — settlement without the insurer's consent and good faith","law":"LCAT arts. 82 and 85; former Civil Code, art. 1134; RD 24.12.1992, art. 6ter","w":161,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-09-30","rol":"C.09.0545.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20100930.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"Un véhicule est impliqué au sens de l'article 29bis, al. 2 de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 lorsqu'il existe un lien quelconque entre le véhicule et l'accident, indépendamment de l'existence d'une faute imputable au…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"An insurer sought reimbursement under article 29bis from the owner of a rail vehicle of the sums paid to its insured, who had been knocked over by a fellow passenger when the train passed over a set of points; the justice of the peace had refused to apply article 29bis because no fault was alleged against the owner and only persons were involved. The Court held that article 29bis §1, second paragraph, covers any accident involving a rail-bound vehicle in which a vulnerable road user is injured, and that a vehicle is involved whenever there is any link between it and the accident, regardless of fault by its owner. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal and the case referred to the justice of the peace of the first canton of Brussels.","k":"Article 29bis — passenger knocked over in a train, involvement","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1, para. 2 (as amended by the Act of 19.1.2001); Cass. 11.1.2010","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-09-23","rol":"C.09.0496.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20100923.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Il appartient à la Cour de vérifier la légalité de la déduction que la décision attaquée tire en droit des faits qu'elle constate (1). (1) Voir Cass., 5 janvier 2010, RG P.09.0486.N, Pas., 2010, n° 2. || Les terrains…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Arlon court of first instance had treated the meadow farmed by the injured party, where the accident happened, as non-public land open to a certain number of persons, because the vet and the livestock dealer had the right to go there, and had ordered the insurer to pay an interim €5,000 under article 29bis. The Court held that the notion covers private places permanently accessible to defined categories of people (staff, customers, suppliers, visitors, passengers); without a finding that the meadow was accessible to such persons without special invitation or permission, the decision was not legally justified. It was quashed on the insurer's appeal and the case referred to the Marche-en-Famenne court of first instance.","k":"Article 29bis — is a meadow land open to a certain number of persons?","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 2 §1 and art. 29bis; Cass. 12.10.2005","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-09-22","rol":"P.10.0552.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20100922.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Le juge ne peut allouer une demande ni débouter une partie de son action en se fondant sur un moyen qui n'a pas été invoqué devant lui et au sujet duquel les parties n'ont pu s'expliquer, sans donner à celles-ci…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The motor liability insurer argued that it had terminated the contract under art. 13, para. 4, of the model contract and owed no cover; the Charleroi criminal court, on appeal, rejected that defence on a ground raised by no party, namely that notifying the insured only the day before the termination took effect breached the duty to perform contracts in good faith, and held the insurer jointly liable to the civil parties. The Court held that basing the decision on a ground the parties could not argue breached the rights of the defence and quashed the judgments insofar as they ruled on the civil claims against the insurer. The Guarantee Fund's voluntary intervention before the Court was held inadmissible, since art. 19bis-17 applies only to proceedings before the trial courts.","k":"Motor liability — termination defence, ground raised by the court; Fund's intervention","law":"General principle of the rights of the defence; model contract RD 14.12.1992, art. 13; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 19bis-17","w":96,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-09-15","rol":"P.10.0476.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20100915.5","ch":"2F","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Le juge du fond apprécie en fait l'existence d'un dommage causé par un acte illicite et le montant destiné à le réparer intégralement; il peut recourir à une évaluation ex æquo et bono s'il indique la raison pour…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"The victim appealed against three judgments of the Liège Court of Appeal given against the defendant driver and the liability insurer that had intervened voluntarily. The Court held that a court may compensate non-pecuniary loss using the capitalisation method, even on a flat-rate daily value, and quashed the judgment awarding only €20,600 for non-pecuniary loss linked to permanent incapacity. Failing to rule on the claim to hold the insurer liable in solidum with its insured and on tax reservations for post-retirement loss breached art. 1138, 3° of the Judicial Code; however, the ground concerning the sums of €116,234.20 and €3,448.84 claimed from the insurer was rejected.","k":"Non-pecuniary loss and capitalisation; claim against the insurer in solidum","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1382 and 1383; Judicial Code, art. 1138, 3°; Cass. 22.4.2009","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-09-13","rol":"C.08.0314.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20100913.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"Il suit des articles 3, 8, alinéa 2 et 11 de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre, qui sont impératifs en faveur de l'assuré, que l'assureur qui se prévaut d'une clause d'exonération au sens de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The general conditions excluded losses caused by a driver whose alcohol intoxication was a punishable offence, unless the insured proved that this gross negligence was not causally linked to the loss; the Brussels court of first instance, on appeal, dismissed the insured's claim for lack of that proof. The Court held that arts. 3, 8 para. 2 and 11 LCAT, which are mandatory in the insured's favour, mean that an insurer relying on a gross negligence exclusion is released only if it itself proves a causal link between the gross negligence specified in the contract and the loss. The judgment placing that burden on the insured was quashed on the insured's appeal and the case referred to the Nivelles court of first instance.","k":"Gross negligence exclusion — alcohol and burden of proving causation","law":"LCAT arts. 3, 8 para. 2 and 11","w":46,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-09-07","rol":"2009/RG/624","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2010:ARR.20100907.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"En vertu de l'article 26 de la loi du 25 juin 1992, l'assuré a l'obligation de déclarer, en cours de contrat, les circonstances nouvelles ou les modifications de circonstances qui sont de nature à entraîner une…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The policy was taken out in the mother's name, but her son himself stated that he was the main driver and that the contract was in his mother's name to obtain a lower premium. The court held that under article 26 LCAT the insured must declare, during the contract, new circumstances that significantly and lastingly aggravate the risk, and that the insurer, when the vehicle was replaced, was not required to check each time whether the initial statements were still accurate; failure to declare the aggravation has the same effects as the intentional omission covered by articles 5 and 6. The judgment in the insurer's favour was upheld and the policyholder was ordered to pay €1,000 for a vexatious appeal.","k":"Motor liability — concealed main driver, duty to declare aggravation of risk","law":"LCAT art. 26, art. 5–6; Judicial Code art. 1022 §4","w":162,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-09-06","rol":"1997.AM.14874","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2010:ARR.20100906.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'incapacité de travail de la victime doit être appréciée globalement sans tenir compte de l'état de prédisposition antérieur de la victime, dès lors et aussi longtemps que l'accident du travail est, au moins en partie,…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A worker diagnosed with multiple sclerosis after a workplace accident on 5 January 1990 disputed the assessment of his incapacity. The court recalled that incapacity must be assessed as a whole, disregarding the pre-existing condition, as long as the accident is at least partly its cause; compensation is excluded only where the worsening stems exclusively from a prior condition evolving on its own. The expert report was endorsed insofar as it found a possible causal link between the trauma and the onset of the disease, periods of temporary incapacity, consolidation on 13 January 1992 and a 15% permanent incapacity for the eye sequelae; the workplace-accident insurer's cross-appeal was dismissed. A new expert was appointed on the paresthesias, which had not been sufficiently examined.","k":"Workplace accident — pre-existing condition (multiple sclerosis) and overall assessment of incapacity","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 9; Cass. 24.3.1981; Cass. 11.3.1987","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-06-29","rol":"2008 AR 1001","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2010:ARR.20100629.16","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"A tort, les Consorts X et Y prétendent disqualifier le contrat d'assurance-vie en un produit de « bancassurance », opération de placement ou contrat d'épargne avec stipulation pour autrui (donation indirecte). Ainsi que…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The deceased's grandsons, as forced heirs, argued that a single-premium unit-linked life policy taken out in favour of her siblings was really an investment or savings product amounting to an indirect gift; the insurer intervened only to inform the court. The court held that the contract is a genuine life insurance (class 23) compliant with article 97 LCAT, aleatory because neither the time of death nor the beneficiary's identity is known in advance, and cannot be reclassified. Even counting the death benefit (€47,801.58) in the article 922 mass, as the Constitutional Court's judgment of 26.6.2008 requires, the net estate exceeded that amount, so the reserved share was not infringed; the heirs' appeal was dismissed.","k":"Life insurance — nature of a unit-linked (class 23) contract and forced heirship","law":"LCAT arts 97, 121 and 124; former Civil Code, arts 913, 914 and 922; Constitutional Court, 26.6.2008, no. 96/2008","w":163,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-06-29","rol":"2008/AR/1001","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2010:ARR.20100629.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Selon l'article 121 de la loi du 25 juin 1992 qui est une application à l'assurance-vie des règles de la stipulation pour autrui, le bénéficiaire d'une assurance-vie a, par le seul fait de sa désignation, droit aux…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Forced heirs sought the reduction of the capital of a life policy taken out by the deceased in favour of her siblings. The court recalled that under article 121 LCAT the beneficiary is entitled to the benefits by the mere fact of designation and that article 124 allows only manifestly excessive premiums to be brought back or reduced; it nevertheless held that the Constitutional Court's preliminary ruling of 26.6.2008 (article 124 unconstitutional insofar as the reserved share cannot be asserted against the capital) must be followed in a similar case, so the death benefit enters the article 922 calculation mass. Here the net estate exceeded the capital paid (€47,801.58), so the reserved share was not infringed and the appeal was dismissed.","k":"Life insurance — beneficiary's right, forced heirship and effect of the Constitutional Court ruling","law":"LCAT arts 97, 121 and 124; former Civil Code, arts 913, 914 and 922; Constitutional Court, 26.6.2008, no. 96/2008","w":163,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-06-28","rol":"C.08.0084.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20100628.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsque l'une des personnes désignées à l'article 4, 1°, b), du contrat-type annexé à l'arrêté royal du 14 décembre 1992, conduit occasionnellement un véhicule appartenant à un tiers, la compagnie, qui, en vertu de…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"In a dispute between two insurers, the question was whether the insurer granting extended cover for a third party's vehicle driven occasionally by a cohabiting relative of the policyholder must also pay article 29bis compensation. The Court held that when a person referred to in art. 4, 1° b) of the model contract occasionally drives a vehicle belonging to a third party, the insurer covering that person's liability under the extension must, if the vehicle is involved in a road accident, compensate the losses referred to in article 29bis §1, first paragraph, suffered by any victim or their rightful claimants. Art. 4, 3° does not limit the extension to the recourse cases it lists but confirms it remains applicable in those cases; the appealing insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — extended cover and article 29bis compensation","law":"Model contract RD 14.12.1992, arts. 1, 4, 1° b) and 4, 3°; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1, para. 1","w":160,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-06-28","rol":"C.08.0169.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20100628.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"L'article 86 de la loi du 25 juin 1992 relative aux contrats d'assurances terrestres ne modifie pas substantiellement les obligations de l'assureur et n'établit pas une nouvelle règle de responsabilité; elle tend…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A fire insurer that had compensated its insured after a pharmacy fire in 1986 sued, in 1990, the family liability insurers of the parents of the minors who started the fire; the Brussels Court of Appeal held the claim inadmissible because a direct action could not be brought before it legally existed. The Court held that art. 86 LCAT does not substantially alter the insurer's obligations and essentially simplifies dispute resolution by giving the injured party a direct action and a right of its own; it therefore binds a court ruling after 1 January 1993, even for losses that occurred earlier, save for irrevocably fixed rights and provided the action is not time-barred. The judgment was quashed on the fire insurer's appeal and the case referred to the Mons Court of Appeal.","k":"Direct action — temporal application of article 86 LCAT","law":"LCAT arts. 86 and 149; former Civil Code, art. 2","w":125,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-06-24","rol":"8875/09","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2010:ARR.20100624.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Une chute ne cesse pas d'être un événement soudain au seul motif qu'elle a été causée par un défaut de l'organisme de la victime. Si les dispositions légales excluent l'application de la loi lorsque la présomption…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A worker died on 6.1.2005 after falling on the stairs while leaving his office; a high blood-alcohol level was found on admission to hospital. The workplace-accident insurer refused cover, arguing that the staircase met safety requirements and that the fall originated in the victim's own body. The court held that a fall remains a sudden event even if caused by a defect in the victim's organism, the Act not requiring an external cause, and that the serious fault of being under the influence of alcohol is not in itself an intentional act within article 48 of the Act of 10 April 1971; the presumption that the accident occurred in the course and by reason of the performance of the contract was not rebutted, and the fall was not shown to be even partly attributable to alcohol. The insurer's appeal was dismissed; the judgment awarding the widow and children the funeral allowance and statutory annuities was upheld.","k":"Workplace accident — fall of an intoxicated worker, no requirement of an external cause","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7, 9, 12–13 and 48","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-06-24","rol":"C.09.0188.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20100624.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"La société conjugale est constituée d'un patrimoine affecté soumis à une gestion simultanée des deux conjoints. Le conjoint qui porte préjudice à un bien de la société conjugale à la suite d'un acte illicite est tenu de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured spouse, married under the statutory regime, had negligently damaged property belonging to the community estate; the Ghent court of first instance, on appeal, allowed the non-negligent spouse to claim on behalf of the community against the motor liability insurer. The Court held that the negligent spouse must compensate damage caused to community property, that the principle and extent of this obligation can be determined at any time, and that the non-negligent spouse may immediately sue the negligent spouse's liability insurer on behalf of the community for part of the loss. Art. 3 §1 of the Act of 21 November 1989 does not wholly release the insurer where the loss is suffered by a community estate of which the insured is a co-owner; the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — damage caused by the insured spouse to community property","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 1 and 3 §1; former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-06-23","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2010:ARR.078","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 162bis du Code d'instruction criminelle, tel qu'il a été inséré par l'article 9 de la loi du 21 avril 2007 relative à la répétibilité des honoraires et des frais d'avocat, ne viole pas…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Bruges Police Court asked whether article 162bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure breached the equality principle by not expressly allowing the criminal court to order the Guarantee Fund to pay the procedural indemnity to the civil party. The Constitutional Court noted that under article 19bis-17 of the Act of 21.11.1989 the Fund may be joined before the criminal court on the same terms as before a civil court, so that court may impose the same orders, including the indemnity of article 1022 of the Judicial Code (Cass. 4.3.2009). As no difference in treatment exists, the provision does not violate articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution.","k":"Guarantee Fund — procedural indemnity before the criminal court","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 19bis-17; Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 162bis; Judicial Code, art. 1022; Cass. 4.3.2009","w":84,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-06-21","rol":"C.09.0640.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20100621.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"Si la simple présence d'un véhicule automoteur au moment d'un accident de la circulation ne suffit pas pour conclure que ce véhicule est impliqué dans l'accident au sens de l'article 29bis, §1er, de la loi du 21…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"In an accident in which a cyclist was injured, the insurer of the vehicle involved argued against the Guarantee Fund that five vehicles parked at the scene were also involved. The Court held that the mere presence of a vehicle is not enough; a vehicle is involved when it played some role in the accident, i.e. influenced it without being a necessary element, and no causal link is required. The Antwerp court of first instance's finding that the parked vehicles, although capable of obstructing the cyclist's view, played no role in this case was held lawful; the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Article 29bis — involvement of parked vehicles","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1 (before the Act of 19.1.2001); Cass. 3.10.2008; Cass. 22.10.2009; Cass. 15.3.2010","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-06-08","rol":"2008/RG/1451","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2010:ARR.20100608.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Pour que l'assurance RC automobile couvre un sinistre impliquant le véhicule assuré, il faut que celui-ci participe à la circulation lors de la survenance du sinistre et que le dommage au véhicule soit provoqué par…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A fire deliberately started by an occupant in a parked motorhome used only as living space is not covered by motor liability insurance, because the vehicle was not taking part in traffic. The vehicle need not be moving, but it must be taking part in traffic.","k":"Motor liability — \"traffic\" concept","law":"Loi 21.11.1989 art. 3; Benelux Court of Justice 6.6.1989; Cass. 6.1.2005","w":164,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-06-07","rol":"C.09.0352.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20100607.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"L'article 88, alinéa 2, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre implique qu'afin de sauvegarder son droit de recours, l'assureur est tenu de notifier clairement et sans ambiguïté aux intéressés…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The motor liability insurer, which under article 29bis had compensated the policyholder, a passenger in the car driven by an unlicensed and intoxicated driver, as well as other passengers, sought recourse against the driver and the policyholder. The Court held that art. 88 para. 2 LCAT requires the intention to seek recourse to be notified in clear and unequivocal terms, but not that the notice reproduce the policy conditions in detail. It also held that an insurer that paid under article 29bis may exercise the contractual recourse of art. 25, 3° b) of the model contract, limited to the amount it would have owed on account of its insured's liability, including for compensation paid to the policyholder personally as a passenger; the Ghent court's judgment was quashed on those points on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Motor insurer's recourse — clear notice and article 29bis payment","law":"LCAT art. 88 paras. 1-2; model contract RD 14.12.1992, arts. 24 and 25, 3° b); Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1","w":156,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-05-27","rol":"C.09.0103.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20100527.17","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Si la disposition légale qui prévoit que l'interruption de la prescription est regardée comme non avenue lorsque la demande est rejetée ne distingue pas suivant les motifs qui fondent ce rejet, le juge est néanmoins…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The victims of a fire had claimed compensation as civil parties from the defendant and the defendant's liability insurers; in 2002 the Ghent Court of Appeal dismissed their claims after an acquittal on the arson charge and for lack of causation. The Court held that a criminal court's dismissal of the civil claim because the offence is not proven or causation is lacking is a final dismissal within the meaning of art. 2247 of the former Civil Code, so the interruption of the limitation period is deemed never to have occurred. It also held that written submissions lodged by the insurer before the criminal court, communicated to the injured party and showing its refusal to pay, count as notice of refusal under art. 35 §4 LCAT and end the interruption; the victims' appeal was dismissed.","k":"Limitation of the direct action — end of interruption and refusal","law":"LCAT arts. 34 §2, 35 §4 and 86; former Civil Code, arts. 2244 and 2247","w":157,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-05-21","rol":"C.09.0295.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20100521.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"Il se déduit des articles 29bis de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs et 34 et 86 de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The victim of an accident on 22 July 1995 sued the motor liability insurer under article 29bis on 31 July 2002; the Dinant court of first instance, on appeal, held the claim time-barred. The Court inferred from article 29bis of the Act of 21 November 1989 and arts. 34 and 86 LCAT that the legislature intended to give a victim entitled to compensation under article 29bis the same guarantees as the injured party under art. 86, so that the claim is time-barred after five years. As more than five years had passed since 8 July 1997, the date of the first police court judgment referring to the submissions in which the insurer refused to pay, the claim was time-barred; the victim's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Article 29bis claim — five-year limitation period","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; LCAT arts. 34 §2, 35 §4 and 86","w":80,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-05-18","rol":"357.007","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTLIE:2010:JUG.20100518.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Les prestations en matière d'accidents du travail doivent être refusées lorsque l'accident qui est cause de l'incapacité a été provoqué intentionnellement par la victime.En l'espèce, le demandeur a volontairement porté…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A bus driver broke his hand while deliberately punching a third party who had provoked him, and claimed statutory benefits from the workplace-accident insurer. The court found that he struck repeatedly when he could have simply restrained the other person, ignored the provocation, called his colleague or stayed in his bus, and that the 'accident' consisted precisely of those deliberate blows. As the accident was intentionally caused, compensation was excluded under article 48; the insurer's claim to have the judgment declared binding on the third party was also dismissed.","k":"Workplace accident — accident intentionally caused by the victim (art. 48)","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 7 and 48","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-05-11","rol":"18819","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2010:ARR.20100511.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Vu son caractère d'ordre public, la loi du 10 avril 1971 est d'interprétation stricte, notamment en ses articles 28 et 33. Des séances de natation ne constituent pas des soins médicaux au sens de l'article 28 et les…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"A worker injured in a 1985 workplace accident sought reimbursement of care and travel costs from the workplace-accident insurer and the Workplace Accidents Fund. The court held that the Act of 10.4.1971, being a matter of public policy, must be read strictly: swimming sessions are not medical care under art. 28, and trips to the pharmacy are not travel for medical reasons under art. 33; those costs were refused for 1999 and 2000. However, the judgment was reversed insofar as it had declared the claim against the insurer inadmissible: the claim was admissible but had become moot after payments made in 2005, and the insurer was ordered to pay half the costs (€302.40). Proceedings were reopened on the remaining costs.","k":"Workplace accident — swimming sessions and trips to the pharmacy","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 28 and 33; RD 21.12.1971, art. 36; C. jud. art. 1020","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-05-06","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2010:ARR.053","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 162bis du Code d'instruction criminelle, tel qu'il a été inséré par l'article 9 de la loi du 21 avril 2007 relative à la répétibilité des honoraires et des frais d'avocat, ne viole pas…","court":"const","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"In claims by injured parties against the Belgian Bureau of Motor Insurers and the Motor Guarantee Fund, the Bruges and Kortrijk Police Courts asked whether article 162bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure was discriminatory in not providing that the convicted person's insurer be ordered to pay the civil party's procedural indemnity. The Court noted that the Bureau is treated as an insurer under article 2 §2 of the Act of 21.11.1989 and that, for the Fund, article 19bis-17 of the same Act contains a rule similar to article 89 §5 LCAT; since the police court could in civil proceedings order the insurer to pay damages and the procedural indemnity, it may make the same orders in criminal proceedings (Cass. 4.3.2009). No difference in treatment exists; article 162bis does not breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution.","k":"Procedural indemnity — Belgian Bureau and Guarantee Fund before the criminal court","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 2 §2 and 19bis-17; LCAT art. 89 §5; Code of Criminal Procedure art. 162bis; Cass. 4.3.2009","w":165,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-04-29","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2010:ARR.043","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 69 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail, tel qu'il était en vigueur avant sa modification par l'article 61 de la loi du 13 juillet 2006, viole les articles 10 et 11…","court":"const","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"In a dispute between a victim and the Workplace Accidents Fund, the Brussels Labour Court of Appeal asked whether article 69 of the Act of 10.4.1971, as in force before its amendment by article 61 of the Act of 13.7.2006, was discriminatory in subjecting claims for an aggravation allowance to a limitation period. The Court noted that, according to the Court of Cassation, the period runs from the moment the victim's condition worsens, which may start it while the victim is unaware that their condition gives rise to a right, and that the legislature itself acknowledged these unfair consequences by abolishing the limitation in 2006. The former article 69 disproportionately interferes with the victim's rights and breaches articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution.","k":"Workplace accident — limitation period for the aggravation allowance","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 69–70 and 72; Act of 13.7.2006, art. 61; Cass. 8.2.1993","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-04-14","rol":"P.09.1868.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20100414.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'assureur-loi qui demande au juge pénal que le tiers responsable du dommage soit condamné à lui rembourser l'indemnité qu'il est tenu de verser à la victime n'intente pas contre ce tiers une action civile distincte,…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The workplace-accident insurer of an employee assaulted on the way to work claimed from the attacker, before the criminal court, reimbursement of its outlays for incapacity and medical costs. The Court held that under art. 47 of the Act of 10 April 1971 the insurer does not bring a separate civil action but, by a separate claim, the victim's own action to which it is subrogated by law; where the victim properly joined the proceedings as a civil party before the public prosecution lapsed, the claim of the insurer that intervened after the limitation of the prosecution is admissible. The objection of lack of interest was also rejected, since the insurer's claim and the victim's (non-pecuniary loss and disability) had distinct subject matters; the defendant's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse against the third party — subrogation in criminal proceedings","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-04-02","rol":"2003/AR/904","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2010:ARR.20100402.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"alt","s":"After a road accident abroad, the legal expenses insurer had let the direct action against the liable party's insurer become time-barred and the appeal deadline expire. The court held that the claim for mishandling derives from the insurance contract and that the three-year period ran from when the insureds learned of the foreign judgment, so it was in time. The insurer was held liable up to what the foreign court would have awarded (e.g. €4,907.87 and €2,582.54 plus interest); the rest of the claim was rejected and the first-instance dismissal was set aside.","k":"Legal expenses insurer's mishandling of the file — limitation and damages","law":"LCAT art. 34","w":6,"c":"Hof van beroep Brussel","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-04-01","rol":"2006/AR/2548","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:2010:ARR.20100401.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Dat een ongeval met een motorvoertuig zich heeft voorgedaan op een niet-openbaar terrein, dat slechts voor een beperkt aantal personen toegankelijk is, belet niet dat het een verkeersongeval betreft, in de zin van…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A spectator hit by a riderless motorcycle during a motocross race and her health-insurance fund had sued the organiser's liability insurer before the court of first instance. The Ghent Court of Appeal held that the fact that the accident occurred on non-public ground open only to participants and spectators does not prevent it from being a traffic accident under article 601bis of the Judicial Code, falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the police court, irrespective of whether the motor liability statute applies. The judgment was set aside on jurisdiction and the case referred to the Ghent court of first instance sitting on appeal; the merits were not examined.","k":"Spectator injured at a motocross race — jurisdiction of the police court","law":"Judicial Code, art. 601bis, 643; Cass. 14.6.2005","w":35,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-03-31","rol":"2009AR92","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2010:ARR.20100331.19","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Daden van stuiting van de verzekerde t.a.v. de aansprakelijke vóór de subrogatie gelden in het voordeel van de gesubrogeerde verzekeraar. Dat geldt niet voor stuitingsdaden van de verzekerde na de subrogatie. De…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A health-insurance fund claimed in 2007 from the liability insurer of a public social-welfare body the €11,155.77 it had paid to a member injured on 2.10.1995 by a physiotherapy error at a rehabilitation centre. The court held that the subrogated claim was subject to the limitation rules of art. 34 §2 LCAT, whose 10-year maximum had expired, and that the victim's 1998 writ interrupts limitation for the subrogee only if it precedes the subrogation; since the payments predated that writ, the fund had to interrupt the period itself. Any failure by the liable party and its insurer to inform the fund under art. 136 §2 of the Act of 14.7.1994 does not alter this; the fund's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Health-insurance fund subrogation — interruption of the limitation period","law":"LCAT art. 34 §2, 35 §3bis, 86; Health Insurance Act of 14.7.1994, art. 136 §2","w":131,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-03-30","rol":"2009/RG/739","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2010:ARR.20100330.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insured, who had reported her car stolen, claimed under the theft cover. The court recalled that under article 870 of the Judicial Code and article 1315(1) of the former Civil Code the insured must prove that the theft actually occurred: her statement is to be believed if plausible and uncontradicted, but here the garage owner's statement that the car was to be sold, the hesitant statements of the insured's partner and a technical report finding traces of key-copying on both keys together cast doubt on its truth. The insurer's appeal was upheld, the insured's claim dismissed and she was ordered to pay the costs of both instances (€4,000).","k":"Vehicle theft insurance — proof of the theft","law":"Judicial Code art. 870; former Civil Code, art. 1315(1)","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-03-29","rol":"2009/RG/644","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2010:ARR.20100329.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"While a trench was dug for an underground car park, cracks appeared in the gable wall of a neighbouring building; the contractor carried out additional strengthening works demanded by the insurer's expert and sought reimbursement from the insurers under a construction ('assurance contrôle') policy. Relying on articles 52 and 20 LCAT and the duty to perform contracts in good faith, the court held these were rescue costs to be borne by the insurer: although the expert has no authority to grant cover, the insurer must assess the measures on the basis of his findings, and in any event they were urgent and reasonable. The insurers' appeal was dismissed and the award, net of the deductible, was fixed at €20,065.54.","k":"Construction insurance — rescue costs (frais de sauvetage)","law":"LCAT art. 20 and 52; former Civil Code, art. 1134 (good faith); Judicial Code art. 1022","w":166,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-03-29","rol":"S.09.0083.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20100329.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Il suit des articles 579, 1°, du Code judiciaire et 95, § 1er, de l'arrêté de l'Exécutif flamand du 21 décembre 1988 portant organisation de l'Office flamand de l'emploi et de la formation professionnelle que…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A trainee on a vocational course at a centre of the Flemish employment agency claimed compensation from the defendant insurer for an accident during the training; the Ghent Labour Court of Appeal declined jurisdiction. The Court held that the ordinary accident insurance taken out under art. 95 §1 of the Flemish Executive Decree of 21 December 1988 must give the trainee the same guarantees as workplace-accident insurance; since the nature of the accidents and the scope of cover are identical or similar, art. 579, 1° of the Judicial Code also gives the labour courts jurisdiction over such trainees' claims. The judgment was quashed on the trainee's appeal, except as to the admissibility of the appeal, and the case referred to the Antwerp Labour Court of Appeal.","k":"Vocational trainee — accident insurance and labour court jurisdiction","law":"Judicial Code, art. 579, 1°; Flemish Executive Decree 21.12.1988, art. 95 §1; Cass. 30.11.2009; Constitutional Court 4.6.2009, no. 94/2009","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-03-25","rol":"C.09.0117.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20100325.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Lorsque, lors de la réalisation du bail, la chose louée présente un vice clairement apparent et que le preneur a eu la possibilité et l'obligation de le connaître, le bailleur est dispensé de son obligation de garantie;…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The owner's fire insurer claimed the €52,013.34 paid to its insured from the head tenant, the subtenant and their liability insurers; the Antwerp Court of Appeal had found that the fire started in damaged electrical wiring that was visible when the lease began, and that the tenants had not rebutted the presumption of art. 1733. The Court held that the landlord is released from its warranty for a visible defect accepted by the tenant, that the tenant is as a rule liable for fire and cannot escape liability, where the fire arises from its use of the premises, by showing that it was due to a defective part it had accepted in that state. It added that the injured party's own right under art. 86 LCAT may also be exercised by a person subrogated to that party's rights; the appeals of the tenant and the liability insurers were dismissed.","k":"Tenant's fire liability and the subrogated insurer's direct action","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1719, 2°, 1720, 1721, 1731 §2, 1732, 1733 and 1735; LCAT art. 86","w":125,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-03-23","rol":"343.195","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTLIE:2010:JUG.20100323.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Ne peut être entériné le rapport d'expertise qui n'est pas basé sur des critères d'appréciation correct.Pour évaluer le taux d'incapacité permanente résultant d'un accident du travail, il faut tenir compte des «…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court approved the expert report on the temporary incapacity periods, consolidation date and base pay, which the workplace-accident insurer did not dispute, and ordered the insurer to pay on that basis. It refused, however, to approve the disputed 35% permanent incapacity rate: account must be taken of the victim's possibilities of adaptation and retraining even if unused and of his age at consolidation (42), but not of aesthetic damage unless it impairs re-employment, nor of an insufficiently foreseeable deterioration. A new expert was appointed on the rate and on medical costs and prostheses.","k":"Workplace accident — criteria for the permanent incapacity rate","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24 para. 2 and 28","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-03-18","rol":"2008-AR-0151","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:2010:ARR.20100318.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Geen inbreuk ingevolge art 95 1ste lid WLO : de verstrekking van de medische voorgeschiedenis hield alleen verband met het knieprobleem van geïntimeerde, waarvoor appellante is tussengekomen. De rechtstreekse mededeling…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insured's doctor breached article 95 LCAT by sending the medical certificate directly to the insurer's medical adviser instead of handing it to the insured; that irregularity did not affect the certificate's reliability, and the court admitted it as evidence. The insured had intentionally concealed in the proposal form the knee problem for which a prosthesis had already been suggested. The hospitalisation policy was annulled and the insured had to repay the €3,653.81 the insurer had paid to the hospital.","k":"Hospitalisation insurance — intentional non-disclosure and medical certificate","law":"LCAT art. 95; ECHR, art. 6 (unlawfully obtained evidence)","w":167,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-03-15","rol":"C.09.0472.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20100315.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"Un véhicule automoteur est impliqué au sens de l'article 29bis, § 1er, de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs lorsqu'il a eu une…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"After a first collision on the motorway, a driver trying to cross the carriageway on foot was killed by a second vehicle; the Ghent court, on appeal, treated that impact as a separate accident, held that only the second vehicle was involved within the meaning of article 29bis and dismissed its insurer's indemnity claim against the other insurers. The Court held that a vehicle is involved whenever it played any role in the accident, with no causal link required, and that making the involvement of the vehicles in the first accident depend on the second accident being its direct consequence breaches article 29bis. The judgment was quashed on that point and on the dismissal of the indemnity claim, on the insurer's appeal; the award to the victim's rightful claimants was not affected.","k":"Article 29bis — involvement in two successive collisions","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1; Cass. 3.10.2008; Cass. 22.10.2009","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-03-10","rol":"21173","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2010:ARR.20100310.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Dès lors que l'événement soudain est identifié comme étant le stress engendré par le comportement agressif d'un passager, la circonstance que par la suite, les choses aient dégénéré amenant le chauffeur du bus à porter…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer had refused cover for an incident of 13 February 2004, arguing that the bus driver had intentionally provoked the accident (art. 48 of the Act of 10.4.1971). The court held that the sudden event must first be identified: here, the stress caused by a passenger's aggressive behaviour (commotion, scene, threats). That matters later escalated and the driver punched the passenger has no bearing on the legal outcome. With the sudden event and the injury (medical certificate of 8 March 2004) proven, in particular through an independent witness, the insurer's appeal was dismissed, the judgment recognising the workplace accident and ordering an expert report was upheld, and the case was sent back to the first judge.","k":"Workplace accident — bus driver, aggressive passenger and intentional provocation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 48(1); Cass. 16.2.1987; C. jud. art. 1068(2)","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-03-05","rol":"C.08.0234.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20100305.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Sous réserve d'une dérogation contractuelle prévue au profit du preneur d'assurance ou de l'assuré, l'assureur en assurance automobile obligatoire dispose du droit de recours prévu aux articles 24 et 25 du contrat-type;…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court confirmed that, in compulsory motor liability insurance, parties who have not contractually departed from the model contract are presumed to have accepted its recourse provisions (arts. 24 and 25): the insurer need not prove that the policy reserves a right of recourse, and an insured relying on a derogation in its favour must prove it. The insured's ground against the recourse was dismissed. However, the order requiring the insured to pay the insurer €500 for a frivolous and vexatious appeal was quashed, because it misread the insured's submissions, which did set out a factual and legal defence.","k":"Motor liability — right of recourse, model contract and burden of proof","law":"LCAT art. 88; RD 14.12.1992, art. 1 and model contract, arts. 24–25; Judicial Code art. 870; Cass. 9.3.2007; Cass. 18.1.2010","w":156,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-03-02","rol":"2006/RG/124","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2010:ARR.20100302.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A temporary agency worker was injured on a machine at the user company's plant. The court upheld the workplace-accident insurer's recourse under articles 46 §1, 4° and 47 of the Act of 10.4.1971: the user company, although it exercised de facto authority over the worker, is not the employer within the meaning of the Act and does not enjoy the employer's immunity (Constitutional Court, judgment 88/2005). It was held liable for breaching machine-safety regulations and for its maintenance mechanic's negligence; a provisional euro was awarded and an expert appointed. The user company's claim against its own operational liability (RC exploitation) insurer was dismissed because the victim was its servant, not a third party under the policy.","k":"Workplace accident — temp worker, insurer's recourse against the user company","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46 §1, 4° and 47; Act of 24.7.1987, art. 7, 8 and 19; former Civil Code, art. 1382; Constitutional Court no. 88/2005 of 11.5.2005","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-02-26","rol":"2008/AR/1682","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2010:ARR.20100226.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"« KBC ne peut invoquer la déchéance de sa garantie sans méconnaître le prescrit de l'article 21 de la loi du 25 juin 1992 »","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"A building contractor sued by its clients sought cover from its business liability insurer, which relied on late notification and limitation. The court accepted that the insured had been negligent, but held that mandatory article 21 LCAT only lets the insurer reduce its performance by the prejudice it proves; the clause refusing cover for missing an 8-day deadline is contrary to the law. In liability insurance, the three-year limitation period runs from the injured party's court claim, so the action was not time-barred. Cover was granted in principle and proceedings were reopened on its extent.","k":"Business liability insurance — late notification and start of the limitation period","law":"LCAT art. 21, 34, para. 3","w":168,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-02-25","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2010:ARR.019","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 162bis du Code d'instruction criminelle, tel qu'il a été inséré par l'article 9 de la loi du 21 avril 2007 relative à la répétibilité des honoraires et des frais d'avocat, ne viole pas…","court":"const","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"In three claims by injured parties against motor liability insurers, the Bruges Police Court asked whether article 162bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure was discriminatory where the insured is no longer involved in settling the civil interests and only the insurer is ordered to pay damages, a situation in which, according to the referring court, the insurer could not be ordered to pay the procedural indemnity. The Court answered that, since the police court could in civil proceedings order the insurer to pay damages and the procedural indemnity under article 1022 of the Judicial Code, it may make the same orders when ruling on the civil claim in criminal proceedings, under article 89 §5 LCAT (Cass. 4.3.2009). No difference in treatment exists; article 162bis does not breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution.","k":"Procedural indemnity — insurer alone ordered to pay before the criminal court","law":"LCAT arts. 82(3) and 89 §5; Judicial Code arts. 601bis and 1022; Code of Criminal Procedure art. 162bis; Cass. 4.3.2009","w":165,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-02-22","rol":"2008/RG/1095","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2010:ARR.20100222.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A caravan used as a permanent home had been declared as a 'light prefabricated building', although the insurer's underwriting guide excluded that risk. The court held, under article 7 §2 LCAT, that the misrepresentation could not be attributed to the policyholder: the guide was a confidential document for brokers only, and the broker had neither questioned the client nor pointed out that the risk was uninsurable. The insurer was ordered to pay the insured €44,227.47 provisionally plus €2,150.46 in expert costs; the broker must indemnify the insurer for every sum it pays out.","k":"Fire insurance — misdescribed risk and broker's fault","law":"LCAT art. 5–7 (esp. art. 7 §2)","w":169,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-02-01","rol":"2008/RG/220","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2010:ARR.20100201.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"After a dog bit a neighbour's child on 13.8.1999, the family liability insurer refused cover, claiming the insured's daughter had ordered the dog to attack. The court found the intentional act unproven: only the victim said so, and eight years of hostility between the families made exaggeration plausible. On limitation, the victims' writ of 14.2.2000 interrupted the three-year period; the insurer's voluntary intervention did not amount to a refusal of cover and, as no written refusal before the judgment of 9.9.2003 was proved, the writ of 12.6.2006 was in time. The victims' submissions of 15.3.2004 had also notified the insurer of their intention to seek compensation. The insurer's appeal was dismissed; the debate was reopened on the legal-expenses cover.","k":"Family liability insurance — intentional act defence and limitation of the insured's action","law":"LCAT art. 8, 34 and 35","w":170,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-02-01","rol":"2008/RG/1453","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2010:ARR.20100201.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Under a decreasing-capital term life policy linked to a mortgage, the insured had answered 'no' to the medical questionnaire's question on nervous-system disorders, although he had made two suicide attempts around 1990 and been followed by a psychiatrist for nine years. The court found the omission intentional given the clarity of the questions and of the warning about consequences, and that it misled the insurer in assessing the risk; the omission is judged at the time of subscription (May 1998), so a later doctor's certificate was irrelevant. The 'insured's doctor' under art. 95(4) LCAT may be any treating doctor, including the one at the time of death, and the certificate given to the insurer's medical adviser did not breach professional secrecy. The contract was void; the beneficiary's and heirs' claims were dismissed.","k":"Life insurance — undisclosed suicide attempts, post-mortem certificate","law":"LCAT art. 5, 6 and 95(4); Cass. 16.11.2001","w":171,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-01-27","rol":"P.08.1577.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20100127.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La loi impose à l'assureur de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs de garantir l'indemnisation des personnes lésées chaque fois qu'est engagée la responsabilité civile du propriétaire, de tout…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"The daughter of a driver who was killed and found partly liable claimed compensation from the motor liability insurer of the vehicle's owner, who was also found at fault; the insurer argued it need not compensate the heirs of the insured vehicle's driver. The Court rejected that ground: article 3 §1 of the Act of 21.11.1989 requires cover for the liability of the owner, keeper and driver, and does not exclude compensation of a driver harmed by the owner's fault, even where the driver and a third party were also at fault. The judgment was nonetheless quashed on the amount, as the reasons (€109,549.19) contradicted the operative part (€141,714.19).","k":"Motor liability — cover for the heirs of a partly at-fault driver","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 3 §1; Judicial Code art. 1138, 4°","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-01-27","rol":"P.09.0770.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20100127.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Même si son destinataire a la possibilité de vérifier l'exactitude des mentions qu'une proposition d'assurance comporte, l'absence de sincérité quant à l'intention réelle pour le candidat preneur de conclure un contrat…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Policyholders had signed sham life insurance contracts, with no intention of being bound, so that the broker could collect undue commissions. The Court held that an insurance proposal containing an undertaking to pay at least the first premium is a protected document for forgery purposes, and that the insurer's contractual ability to recover the commissions from the broker, had he been solvent, is irrelevant when assessing causation between the fraud and the loss. The defendants' appeals against the judgment awarding the insurer, which was not at fault, full compensation were dismissed.","k":"Life insurance — fraud against the insurer through sham policies","law":"Criminal Code arts. 66 and 496; former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-01-25","rol":"2006/AA/401","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2010:ARR.20100125.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Uit artikel 241 van het K.B. van 04 november 1963 blijkt dat de verzekeringsinstelling het slachtoffer maar kan vergoeden (prestaties in afwachting) wanneer voldaan is aan alle voorwaarden van dit artikel. Worden er…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"After the Court of Cassation's reversal of 7.3.2005, the Antwerp Labour Court dismissed the health-insurance fund's claim against the Workplace Accidents Fund for adjustment allowances and interest. As the Fund had actually compensated the victim from 1.4.1984, the benefits the health-insurance fund paid thereafter were not provisional benefits but undue payments contrary to the prohibition on double compensation; the information duty under article 241 of the RD of 4.11.1963 rests on the victim, not the Fund, and the health-insurance fund cannot rely on subrogation for benefits granted without those conditions being met. Since the subrogated fund's claim is the victim's own claim, the three-year limitation period of article 69 of the Act of 10.4.1971 applies to it for all benefits, whatever their name, including adjustment allowances. The fund's appeal was dismissed; costs were charged to it under article 1017 C. jud., not article 68.","k":"Health-insurance fund's subrogation — adjustment allowances, no double compensation and limitation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 69; RD 21.12.1971, art. 6; RD 4.11.1963, art. 241; Coordinated Health Insurance Act 14.7.1994, art. 136 §2; Cass. 23.9.1991; Cass. 7.3.2005","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-01-21","rol":"C.08.0062.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20100121.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Il découle du système de la Convention C.M.R. que tant l'expéditeur que le destinataire peuvent en vertu de l'article 17 introduire une action en responsabilité contre le transporteur; ils ne sont pas tenus, à cet…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"In a road carriage governed by the CMR, the consignee, fully indemnified by its insurers, sued the carrier in its own name; the appeal court held the debate on its standing and on subrogation to be unnecessary. The Court restated that an insurer that has paid the claim is subrogated to the insured's rights against third parties, and that a consignee indemnified by its insurer no longer has standing to that extent: only the subrogated insurer does. On the appeal of the carrier's liability insurers, the judgment was quashed as to the main claim and the third-party claim brought against them.","k":"Subrogation — standing of an indemnified consignee against the carrier (CMR)","law":"LCAT art. 41; Act of 11.6.1874, art. 22; CMR arts. 13 and 17","w":16,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-01-20","rol":"P.09.1146.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20100120.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La partie civile, qui n'a pas été condamnée à des frais de l'action publique, est sans qualité pour se pourvoir contre la décision rendue sur l'action publique (1). (1) Voir les concl. du M.P. || Nonobstant les termes…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Brussels Court of Appeal had held inadmissible the civil parties' claim to have the defendant's insurer, which had intervened voluntarily, ordered to pay the procedural costs indemnity. The Court held that article 89 §5 LCAT, which lets the insurer take part in criminal proceedings on the same terms as in civil proceedings, allows an unsuccessful insurer to be ordered to pay that indemnity notwithstanding article 162bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment was quashed on that point; the civil parties' appeals concerning the public prosecution were inadmissible and the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Criminal proceedings — insurer ordered to pay procedural costs indemnity","law":"LCAT art. 89 §5; Code of Criminal Procedure art. 162bis; Judicial Code art. 1022","w":49,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-01-19","rol":"2008/AM/21108","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2010:ARR.20100119.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"S'agissant pour une juridiction d'apprécier si un acte à connotation suicidaire a été intentionnellement provoqué par la victime, il lui importe de vérifier si, compte tenu de l'état psychique de celle-ci, l'acte relève…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer had refused cover, treating the employee's suicide attempt of 19 February 2002 as an intentional act under article 48 of the Act of 10.4.1971. The court stated that a conscious suicide cannot be a workplace accident, whereas an unconscious suicide in a psychotic context can fall within that category; as the medical opinions conflicted, that question had to be settled first. The judgment, which had implicitly recognised a workplace accident by giving the expert the usual brief, was set aside and a neuropsychiatric expert appointed with a mission confined to that single issue; the merits remain to be decided.","k":"Workplace accident — suicide attempt: conscious or unconscious intentional act","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 48","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-01-18","rol":"C.09.0250.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20100118.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Il suit des articles 88 de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre, 1er de l'arrêté royal du 14 décembre 1992 relatif au contrat-type d'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Hasselt court, sitting on appeal, had dismissed the insurer's recourse claim against a moped rider who caused an accident while carrying a passenger before reaching the minimum age of 18, because the special conditions stipulated no recourse and the general conditions were not proved. The Court held that parties to a motor liability contract are presumed, absent derogation, to have accepted the model contract's recourse rules (arts. 24, 25 and 25, 3° b); the insurer need not prove that it reserved a right of recourse, and it is for the policyholder or insured to prove a derogation in its favour. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — recourse without an express policy clause","law":"LCAT art. 88; RD 14.12.1992, art. 1 and model contract, arts. 24, 25, 3° b); Judicial Code art. 870","w":156,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-01-11","rol":"C.09.0165.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20100111.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'accident qui survient au passager qui descend d'un train sur le quai d'une gare est un accident de la circulation relevant de la compétence du tribunal de police (1). (1) Voir conclusions écrites du ministère public.…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A passenger injured on the platform while getting off a train sued the national railway company. The Court held that article 29bis §1(2) covers every accident involving a rail-bound motor vehicle in which a vulnerable road user is injured, wherever it occurs, and that such an accident is a traffic accident within the police court's jurisdiction. Where it covers its own liability without insurance, the railway company counts as an insurer for article 15, so the victim may sue it before the court of her domicile. The company's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Article 29bis — rail vehicle, platform accident and jurisdiction","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1(2), art. 10 §1 and art. 15; Judicial Code art. 601bis","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-01-11","rol":"C.07.0434.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20100111.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Le mineur vivant au foyer de ses parents, auteur d'un acte intentionnel, qui est un assuré dans le cadre du contrat d'assurance responsabilité civile vie privée souscrit par ceux-ci, est un assuré au sens de l'article…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer sought, by way of subrogation, to recover from a child who had caused harm intentionally the sums paid to the victim to cover the parents' liability. The Court held that a minor living with his parents and insured under their family liability policy is an insured within article 88 LCAT even if the insurer paid only to cover the parents' liability, and therefore is not a third party within article 41. The insurer's appeal against the Mons Court of Appeal judgment, which held its action inadmissible for failure to notify its intention to exercise recourse (art. 88(2)), was dismissed.","k":"Family liability insurance — recourse against a minor who acted intentionally","law":"LCAT art. 41(1) and art. 88(1)–(2)","w":172,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2010-01-06","rol":"P.09.1152.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2010:ARR.20100106.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La victime d'un accident du travail ne peut réclamer au tiers responsable de l'accident la réparation de son dommage corporel que dans la mesure où la réparation de celui-ci en droit commun excède les indemnités qui lui…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"On the Guarantee Fund's appeal, the Court restated that a workplace-accident victim may claim personal-injury damages from the liable third party only to the extent that ordinary-law compensation exceeds the benefits under the Workplace Accidents Act, a comparison the court must make of its own motion if needed; it quashed the awards for administrative and travel costs and third-party assistance, as well as those for household loss during hospitalisation and non-pecuniary loss during temporary incapacity, which were inadequately reasoned. The Fund's argument that it need not pay the victim's medical adviser's fees was rejected: the Fund must make good the whole loss, including the fees of a technical adviser needed to assess it.","k":"Guarantee Fund — scope of compensation and overlap with workplace-accident benefits","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46 §2(2); Act of 21.11.1989, art. 19bis-11; former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1383","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-12-24","rol":"C.09.0024.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20091224.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"La disposition de l'article 88, alinéa 2, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre est de droit impératif au profit du preneur d'assurance; celui-ci peut, dès lors, expressément ou tacitement,…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"After the insurer notified its decision to exercise recourse by registered letter and demanded payment, the insured wrote that he would pay the loss. The Dendermonde court, sitting on appeal, treated this as a mere unilateral offer that had not been accepted, so that the forfeiture of recourse under article 88(2) LCAT stood. The Court held that this forfeiture is mandatory law protecting the insured, who may waive it expressly or tacitly, and that a waiver is a unilateral act requiring no acceptance; the judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Forfeiture of recourse — insured's waiver of that protection","law":"LCAT art. 88(2); general principle of law on waiver","w":11,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-12-21","rol":"C.08.0106.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20091221.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"La rupture des pourparlers entre la personne lésée et l'assureur de la responsabilité civile obligatoire en matière de véhicules automoteurs ne peut être déduite que de la notification par l'une des parties à l'autre,…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court restated that, under article 10(3) of the Act of 1 July 1956, negotiations between the injured party and the motor liability insurer interrupt the limitation period, and that they can be treated as broken off only upon notice from one party to the other by bailiff's writ or registered letter. The Mons court could not infer a break from the stance of the insurer's lawyer in the criminal proceedings or from a writ served by the injured party on the insured. The judgment was quashed on the injured party's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — breaking off negotiations and limitation","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 10(3)","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-12-15","rol":"2008/RG/1669","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2009:ARR.20091215.18","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The insured under a credit-protection policy covering loan instalments on death or total permanent disability had notified a claim in 2005; the insurer counterclaimed for nullity of the contract (art. 6 LCAT) for intentional concealment of lower-back pain. The court recalled that the insurer bears the burden of proving intentional misrepresentation, found the medical documents contradictory and the issue medical in nature; the absence of the treating doctor's certificate required by the policy does not by itself justify dismissal, since the health-insurance fund had recognised incapacity above 66 %. Before ruling on the merits, a medical expert was appointed.","k":"Credit insurance — total permanent disability, appointment of an expert","law":"LCAT art. 5 and 6; Judicial Code art. 962 et seq.; Cass. 16.11.2001","w":173,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-12-14","rol":"2006/RG/1153","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2009:ARR.20091214.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"As the premium due on 1.7.2000 had not been paid, cover was suspended at the time of the workplace accident of 26.9.2000. Whereas the first judge faulted the workplace-accident insurer for not spelling out the consequences of suspension, the court held that by reproducing article 15 of the general conditions in its registered reminders sent before the accident, the insurer had met its duty to inform; it did not also have to restate the recourse clause (article 19). The limitation period for the recourse action runs only from each payment, once it is established that the insurer is bound to indemnify (at the earliest 4.11.2002); the action was not time-barred. The employer was ordered to pay €12,474.40 provisionally and €1,208.87 in premiums.","k":"Workplace-accident insurance — unpaid premium, suspension and recourse against the employer","law":"Act of 10.4.1971; LCAT art. 34 §1; Cass. 12.10.2000","w":6,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-12-04","rol":"C.08.0505.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20091204.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Une loi nouvelle est en principe applicable aux situations nées postérieurement à son entrée en vigueur et aux effets futurs des situations nées sous le régime de la loi ancienne qui se produisent ou se prolongent sous…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The injured party, born in 1981, brought a direct action against the insurer of the driver liable for an accident on 26 December 1990; the Mons court held it time-barred, finding limitation governed by the Act of 21.11.1989, which provides no suspension for minors. The Court held that, under the principle of non-retroactivity, a statute introducing a ground of suspension unknown to the law in force when the claim arose applies to that limitation period from its entry into force: article 35 §1 LCAT, in force on 21 September 1992, therefore applied. The judgment was quashed on the injured party's appeal.","k":"Direct action — limitation suspended for minors, temporal application","law":"LCAT art. 35 §1; former Civil Code, art. 2; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 15 §1 (pre-2002 version)","w":3,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-11-30","rol":"C.08.0498.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20091130.1","ch":"3N","res":"r","t":"limitation","q":"Uit de wetsgeschiedenis blijkt dat de wetgever met de verwijzing in artikel 34, § 2 van de Wet Landverzekeringsovereenkomst naar artikel 86, alleen heeft willen verduidelijken dat de verjaringsregeling bepaald in…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The fire insurer of a building destroyed on 8 December 1985, subrogated to the owner's rights, claimed €155,723.41 from the tenant's liability insurer, but only made that claim in submissions of 19 June 2003; the 1992 summons merely sought a declaration of common judgment and was neither a direct action nor an interrupting act. The Court held that, absent a specific rule, the direct action under article 68 LCAT is subject to the limitation period of article 34 §2, that the new shorter period ran at the earliest from the Act's entry into force on 21 September 1992, and that the ten-year period had expired; the fire insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Tenant's liability insurance — limitation of the article 68 direct action","law":"LCAT arts. 34 §2, 68 and 86; former Civil Code, art. 2; Cass. 30.1.2009","w":174,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-11-30","rol":"C.09.0167.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20091130.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'assureur d'un employeur relevant de l'application de la loi du 3 juillet 1967 sur la prévention ou la réparation des dommages résultant des accidents du travail, des accidents survenus sur le chemin du travail et des…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The workplace-accident insurer of a public employer governed by the Act of 3 July 1967 sought to recover its outlays from the liable party's insurer on the basis of article 29bis. The Court held that such an insurer suffers no loss of its own from the victim's injury or death and cannot rely on an own right based directly on article 29bis; subrogation (art. 41 LCAT) had not been raised on appeal and so did not have to be examined. The workplace-accident insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Public-sector workplace-accident insurer — claim based on article 29bis","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; Act of 3.7.1967, art. 14 §3; LCAT art. 41","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-11-27","rol":"36180/09","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2009:ARR.20091127.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La preuve de l'événement soudain survenu dans l'exercice des tâches journalières habituelles et normales, comme, par exemple, celles qu'accomplit une caissière à son poste de travail, peut être considérée comme étant…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A cashier believed she was the target of an armed robbery at her till; the weapon was a child's toy stolen by a disabled youngster and being returned to the shop by his carer. The workplace-accident insurer denied a sudden event and the first-instance court had dismissed the claim. The court held that a sudden event during ordinary daily tasks is proven once a particular element capable of causing the injury can be identified, without it having to stand apart from the performance of the contract, and that these circumstances, apt to impress an average cashier in the same situation, constituted such an event; a pre-existing state of stress and depression concerns causation, which is presumed until proven otherwise, and a sudden event need not be instantaneous (Cass. 14.6.1993). The victim's appeal was upheld; the insurer was ordered to accept the workplace accident and pay the statutory benefits.","k":"Workplace accident — toy gun shown to a cashier as a sudden event","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 9; Cass. 14.6.1993","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-11-26","rol":"190/2009","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2009:ARR.190","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"On a preliminary question from the Mechelen Police Court, the Court held that article 14bis §3 of the Act of 3 July 1967 breaches articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution in that a public employer's workplace-accident insurer, unlike a private employer's, is not subrogated to the victim's rights under article 29bis and cannot sue the motor liability insurer or the Guarantee Fund as the victim could, up to its outlays. Since article 29bis rests on charging vulnerable road users' losses to all those who put motor vehicles on the road, the difference in status between the two kinds of insurer does not justify the different treatment. As the gap lies in the text itself, the referring court must remedy it.","k":"Public-sector workplace-accident insurer — subrogation to article 29bis rights","law":"Act of 3.7.1967, art. 14bis §3; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1(1); Constitution, art. 10–11","w":35,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle — CC 190/2009","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-11-26","rol":"C.08.0377.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20091126.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"La personne lésée qui dispose, en vertu de l'assurance, d'un droit propre contre l'assureur, peut ainsi exercer son action tendant à obtenir une indemnisation, soit contre l'assuré ou son assureur séparément, soit…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The injured party first sued the municipality's insurer, a claim dismissed for lack of liability, and then sued the municipality itself. The Court held that the injured party may sue the insured or the insurer separately or both together, and that the rule in article 89 §1 LCAT that a judgment is in principle binding only on those who were parties does not prevent the insured, sued later, from relying against the injured party on the judgment that dismissed the first claim for lack of liability. The injured party's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Direct action — insured relying on a judgment in the insurer's favour","law":"LCAT arts. 86 and 89 §1","w":175,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-11-22","rol":"2008/RG/1036","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2009:ARR.20091122.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insured must prove that the loss falls within the covered risk; since theft is hard to prove, the insured is to be believed if the statement is plausible and nothing casts doubt on it. The court held that the insured's shifting explanations about the 'hotel' key he could not hand over, and the expertise that stealing a car fitted with two protection systems in the city centre within three hours would have required, cast doubt on the statement, which alone does not prove the theft. The insurer's appeal was upheld and the insured's claim dismissed.","k":"Vehicle theft insurance — proof of theft and doubt","law":"Judicial Code art. 870; former Civil Code, art. 1315(1)","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-11-10","rol":"2007AR3251","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2009:ARR.20091110.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Overeenkomstig artikel 2 § 1 van de wet op de landverzekeringsovereenkomst is deze van toepassing op alle landverzekeringen voor zover er niet wordt van afgeweken door bijzondere wetten. De wet van 25 juni 1992 op de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The surviving pilot, co-owner of the aircraft that crashed in 1997, and the heirs of the deceased pilot claimed benefits from the insurer under individual 'flying personnel' policies; the insurer relied on the one-year forfeiture period in the policy. The court held that under article 2 §1 LCAT the Act does not apply to matters governed by special laws: aviation insurance, whether property, liability or personal, remains subject to the Act of 11 June 1874, which allows a shortened contractual period. Claims brought six years after the accident were therefore time-barred, and no waiver of the time bar by the insurer was established; the claim between co-owners over the aircraft's value was reserved.","k":"Aviation insurance — LCAT inapplicable, one-year contractual time limit","law":"LCAT arts 2 §1, 3 and 34; Insurance Act of 11 June 1874, art. 3; former Civil Code, art. 2262bis §1","w":176,"c":"Hof van beroep van Brussel","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-11-09","rol":"2007/RG/1658","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2009:ARR.20091109.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The car, insured in the father's name to obtain a better no-claims rating, was in fact used by the son; after a car-jacking reported on 2.5.2000 the vehicle was found burnt out and the insurer paid the indemnity on 23.6.2000. Relying on contradictions in the criminal file (distance walked, no mud traces, shifting statements) and a habit of lying, the court found that the loss was staged to obtain the insurer's payment: the payment lacked a legal basis and can be recovered; the three-year limitation period of the LCAT does not apply to this action. The policyholder was ordered to repay €20,248.74; the undue-payment claim cannot be brought against the son, who had no contract with the insurer, and the debate was reopened on third-party complicity.","k":"Motor insurance — staged car-jacking, recovery of undue payment","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1235 (undue payment); LCAT art. 34 (not applicable)","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-11-04","rol":"P.08.1526.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20091104.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"L'indemnité de procédure, qui est une indemnité forfaitaire dans les frais et honoraires d'avocat de la partie ayant obtenu gain de cause, est mise, en vertu de l'article 1022 du Code judiciaire, à charge de la partie…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that the Guarantee Fund, which under article 19bis-17 of the Act of 21.11.1989 may be joined or intervene in criminal proceedings on the same terms as in civil proceedings, may, as before a civil court, be ordered to pay the procedural costs indemnity to the civil party when it loses; article 162bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not prevent this. The complaint about subrogation, aimed at a superfluous ground, was inadmissible for lack of interest. The Fund's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Guarantee Fund — procedural costs indemnity in criminal proceedings","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 19bis-11 §1 and 19bis-17; Code of Criminal Procedure art. 162bis; Judicial Code art. 1022","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-10-29","rol":"2007/AR/2529","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:2009:ARR.20091029.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"De vordering van de verzekeraar tegen zijn verzekerde met betrekking tot een ten onrechte uitgevoerde betaling is geen regresvordering maar wel een vordering wegens onverschuldigde betaling. De toepasselijke…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Under the RDR agreement the insurer had paid its own insured for damage to her car, after which it emerged that the accident could not have happened as declared. The court held that the claim is not an insurer's recourse under the LCAT but a claim for repayment of an undue payment, subject not to the three-year period of article 34 LCAT but to the ten-year period of article 2262bis §1 of the former Civil Code. According to the experts the car rolled down the slope because the handbrake was not properly applied; the insured was ordered to repay €7,863.56.","k":"False claim — insurer's recovery of an undue payment","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1235, 1376–1381, 2262bis §1; LCAT art. 34, 88","w":177,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-10-28","rol":"2005AR1526","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2009:ARR.20091028.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Voor feiten of rechtshandelingen van voor 1 oktober 2004 (inwerkingtreding Wetboek IPR) blijven oude verwijzingsregels gelden (art. 127 § 1, 1ste zin W IPR) De IPR-regels op de rechtstreekse vordering van de benadeelde…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A lorry's motor liability insurer, having compensated a worker injured in Germany in 1996 by a pallet that fell during unloading, brought a subrogated direct action against the liability insurers of the stevedore and of the carrier. The court held that, for facts before 1.10.2004, the old conflict rules apply, that the direct action is governed by the law of the place of the tort (here German law), and that neither art. 28quater of the Insurance Supervision Act nor art. 86 LCAT is an overriding mandatory rule; German law at the time did not grant a direct action in such a case. Finding, moreover, that neither faulty stowage nor causation was proven, the court dismissed the insurer's appeal.","k":"Direct action — law applicable to an accident abroad","law":"Private International Law Code, art. 127 §1; Insurance Supervision Act of 9.7.1975, art. 28quater; LCAT art. 86; BGB § 823","w":178,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-10-23","rol":"C.07.0638.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20091023.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"L'article 29bis, § 2, de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs n'exclut de son champ d'application le conducteur d'un véhicule automoteur…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The driver claimed from the motor liability insurer, as her husband's successor in title, compensation for her derivative loss (and that of her children); the Huy court rejected the claim because, before the Act of 19 January 2001, article 29bis did not allow a driver to do so. The Court held that article 29bis §2, in the version applicable, excludes the driver and the driver's successors only as regards the driver's own bodily injury or death, and quashed the judgment. It was also quashed for failing to assess the loss as at the date of judgment, separating past and future loss, and for not addressing the claim for lawyers' fees.","k":"Article 29bis (pre-2001) — the driver's derivative loss","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §§1–2 (version before the Act of 19.1.2001); former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-10-23","rol":"C.08.0010.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20091023.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Lorsqu'en vertu de la convention de location-financement, en cas de perte totale ou de disparition de l'objet en raison de vol ou de cas de force majeure, le contrat prend fin à la date du préjudice et le preneur est,…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A leased vehicle was written off; under the leasing contract the lessee, having paid the sums due, had become its owner at the time of the accident. The Dinant court, sitting on appeal, held that the lessee, who had taken out the own-damage policy, was the only real insured and that the policy provided for payment of VAT on the vehicle's value to the owner, and ordered the insurer to pay €4,152.79 (50% of the VAT). The Court dismissed the insurer's appeal: the judgment neither misread the leasing contract nor disregarded the binding force of the insurance contract.","k":"Motor own-damage insurance — total loss of a leased vehicle and VAT","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1134, 1319–1320; VAT Code art. 45","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-10-23","rol":"C.08.0139.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20091023.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Celui qui prouve avoir été préjudicié sur le territoire belge par un véhicule portant une plaque d'immatriculation délivrée par un autre Etat membre ne doit en outre prouver ni que le véhicule a son stationnement…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The victim of an accident caused in Belgium by the driver of a Dutch-registered vehicle sued the Belgian Motor Insurers' Bureau. The Court held that a person who proves having suffered loss on Belgian territory caused by a vehicle bearing a registration plate issued by another Member State need not also prove that the vehicle is normally based in that State or that it bore the plate when crossing the border. The Bureau's appeal against the Charleroi judgment ordering it to compensate the loss was dismissed.","k":"Foreign-registered vehicle — the Bureau's liability and proof","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 2 §2; RD 13.2.1991, art. 1(a); Directive of 24.4.1972, arts. 1(4) and 2(2); Judicial Code art. 870","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-10-22","rol":"C.08.0420.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20091022.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"La simple présence d'un véhicule automoteur au moment de l'accident de la circulation ne suffit pas pour décider que ce véhicule est impliqué dans l'accident au sens de l'article 29bis, § 1er, de la loi du 21 novembre…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer of the car that struck a pedestrian crossing without looking beside a stationary refuse lorry, having compensated the victim under article 29bis, claimed against the lorry's insurer; the Dendermonde court found that the lorry had played no role. The Court restated that a vehicle's mere presence is not enough, but that it is involved as soon as it played any role in the accident, with no need for a causal link between its presence and the occurrence of the accident. The judgment, which in effect required such a link, was quashed on the appeal of the insurer that had paid.","k":"Article 29bis — 'involved vehicle' without causation","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1; Cass. 9.1.2006; Cass. 3.10.2008","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-10-19","rol":"20432","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2009:ARR.20091019.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"1. Les questions préjudicielles qui se posent devant les juridictions répressives au sujet de l'interprétation de la loi sur les accidents du travail sont tranchées par les juridictions du travail. Le mécanisme mis en…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A worker drawing incapacity benefits from his health-insurance fund while doing undeclared electrical work for a non-profit was injured on 10 December 1997; the written contract had been backdated after the accident. The court held that the criminal judgment, insofar as it found a contract of employment and an obligation to register with the social-security office, has res judicata effect erga omnes and binds the workplace-accident insurer; the criminal court did not have to refer a preliminary question, as it did not rule on the interpretation of the Act of 10.4.1971. A worker in a fraudulent employment relationship may still claim under the Act and has a legitimate interest. The insurer's main appeal was dismissed and the victim's cross-appeal allowed; the insurer's order to pay a provisional EUR 1 to the victim and to the subrogated health-insurance fund was upheld, with the terms of compensation reserved.","k":"Workplace accident — fraudulent employment and the binding effect of the criminal judgment","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7, 9 and 74; Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 15; Coordinated Act of 14.7.1994, arts. 101 and 103; Judicial Code, art. 17","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-10-12","rol":"2007rg1060","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2009:ARR.20091012.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insured's house was completely destroyed by arson on 30 April 2005; the insurer refused to pay. The court first held that a claim to recover a debt brought by a person admitted to collective debt settlement falls within the normal management of her estate and needs no leave from the enforcement judge (Judicial Code art. 1675/7 §3). The plea of nullity failed: the identity of the insured's partner is a private matter, and the insurer did not show that it had told the policyholder it regarded this as relevant to the risk (art. 5 LCAT; Cass. 18.1.2002); nothing was established about an earlier fire. The insured's financial difficulties alone are no sufficient presumption that she set the fire. The insurer's appeal was dismissed and the order to pay a provisional €80,000 into the hands of the mortgage lender was upheld.","k":"Fire insurance — disclosure (partner's identity), proof of arson and standing of an insured under debt settlement","law":"LCAT art. 5; Judicial Code art. 1675/7 §3; Cass. 18.1.2002","w":179,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-10-09","rol":"C.08.0328.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20091009.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"L'action par laquelle l'assureur poursuit contre l'assuré le remboursement d'indemnités qu'il lui a payées indûment ne dérive pas du contrat d'assurance mais des dispositions du Code civil relatives à la répétition de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer sought repayment of €26,222.77 paid after the reported theft of a car, disputing that the theft had occurred; the Mons Court of Appeal held the claim time-barred under the three-year period of article 34 §1 LCAT. The Court held that an insurer's claim for repayment of indemnities paid without being due does not derive from the insurance contract but from the Civil Code rules on undue payment, so the three-year period does not apply. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Theft insurance — recovery of an undue payment and limitation","law":"LCAT art. 34 §1; former Civil Code, arts. 1235, 1376–1377 and 2262bis","w":6,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-10-07","rol":"P.09.0812.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20091007.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Lorsque le jugement condamne l'assureur, par une décision rendue contradictoirement, à indemniser, solidairement avec l'assuré, prévenu, qui a fait défaut, le dommage dont ce prévenu a été reconnu responsable, il…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The civil party appealed against a judgment given by default against the defendant and after full hearing against his insurer, which had intervened voluntarily. The Court held the appeal premature, and so inadmissible, against the defendant, as the time to set aside the default judgment had not expired; since the insurer's joint liability depended on the outcome for the defendant, who could have been relieved on that challenge, the decision against the insurer was not final either at the date of the appeal. The appeal was dismissed without examining the merits.","k":"Criminal proceedings — premature appeal against the insurer","law":"Code of Criminal Procedure art. 416; Cass. 25.6.1997; Cass. 19.5.2004","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-10-02","rol":"C.08.0200.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20091002.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La créance que détient l'assureur sur l'usager faible en vertu du droit de recours que lui ouvre l'article 25, 3°, b), du contrat-type d'assurance ' R.C.Auto ', lorsque cet usager a, en tant qu'assuré, laissé le volant…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured, a seriously injured passenger, had let an unlicensed person drive; both the insurer's recourse under article 25, 3° b) of the model contract and the insured's claim under article 29bis were upheld. The Court held that the insurer's recourse claim against the vulnerable road user is a compensation claim arising from the traffic accident and that, under article 29bis §4(2), article 29bis payments cannot be set off against it. The insurer's appeal against the Neufchâteau judgment refusing set-off was dismissed.","k":"Article 29bis compensation and recourse claim — no set-off","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 3 and art. 29bis §4(2); model contract RD 14.12.1992, art. 25, 3° b); former Civil Code, arts. 1289–1290","w":180,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-10-02","rol":"C.08.0168.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20091002.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Le juge ne peut refuser de décréter le désistement d'action au motif qu'aucun acte de procédure n'a été déposé par la partie qui se désiste ou à son nom (1). (1) Voir Cass., 25 mars 1994, RG F.1991, Pas., 1994, n° 147.…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that, under article 8(2) LCAT, an insurer may exclude cover only for cases of gross negligence defined expressly and restrictively in the contract, and that a clause excluding 'such a breach of prudence or safety standards, laws, rules or practices of the insured activities that its harmful consequences were almost inevitable' does not define such conduct precisely enough and must be held void. It also restated that, between joint tortfeasors, liability is apportioned according to each fault's contribution to the loss, not its seriousness, and that a discontinuance requires no special formality. On the insured's appeal, the judgment was partly quashed, including its dismissal of the insured's claim for indemnity against his professional liability insurer.","k":"Professional liability insurance — invalid gross-negligence exclusion","law":"LCAT art. 8(2); former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1383; Judicial Code art. 824(2); Cass. 4.2.2008","w":17,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-09-21","rol":"33375/05","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2009:ARR.20090921.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Lorsque les père et mère de la victime d'un accident du travail mortel ne peuvent prétendre à la rente légale, l'assureur-loi doit payer au Fonds des accidents du travail le capital de cette rente, augmenté des intérêts…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Where the parents of the victim of a fatal workplace accident are not entitled to the statutory annuity, the workplace-accident insurer must pay the capital of that annuity to the Workplace Accident Fund. The court held that the insurer also owes the interest produced by that capital from the third month after the death, plus a surcharge and interest at the legal rate where the capital is paid after the end of the month following the Fund's and insurer's agreement on its amount; accrued interest on the capital and default interest are distinct and may be cumulated, and the regulatory provisions concerned comply with articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution. The Fund's appeal was upheld and the insurer ordered to pay EUR 18,431.50 in interest on the capital for the period 28.7.1994 to 12.6.1996; the insurer's counterclaim based on the Fund's excessive slowness was dismissed for want of proven loss.","k":"Fatal workplace accident — payment of the annuity capital to the Fund, cumulative interest","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 59quater and 59quinquies; RD 30.12.1976, art. 9; RD 12.4.1984, art. 6(2); former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-09-17","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2009:ARR.146","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 162bis du Code d'instruction criminelle, inséré par l'article 9 de la loi du 21 avril 2007 relative à la répétibilité des honoraires et des frais d'avocat, ne viole pas les articles 10…","court":"const","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"In a claim by injured parties against a driver and the Belgian Bureau of Motor Insurers, the Brussels Criminal Court asked whether article 162bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure was discriminatory in providing for the procedural indemnity due to the civil party only against the accused. The Court recalled that under article 89 §5 LCAT the police court may, where the accused and the voluntarily intervening insurer are ordered in solidum, award the procedural indemnity against both in solidum, and that the criminal court hearing an appeal from the police court on the civil claim may make the same orders (Cass. 4.3.2009). No difference in treatment exists; article 162bis does not breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution.","k":"Procedural indemnity — criminal appeal court and the insurer","law":"LCAT arts. 82(3) and 89 §5; Judicial Code arts. 601bis and 1022; Code of Criminal Procedure arts. 162bis and 174; Cass. 4.3.2009","w":165,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-09-15","rol":"A.R. (numara metinde eksik)","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAANT:2009:JUG.20090915.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"At a motocross race a riderless motorcycle left the track and struck a spectator, who sued the organiser's liability insurer. The court held that a closed circuit open to the public with a ticket is ground accessible to a certain number of people under article 29bis, and that sporting use does not deprive the accident of its traffic character; it declined to refer a question to the Benelux Court. As the spectator was not outside the course, the insurer could not rely on the policy exclusion; the €2,500 advance was upheld, while the tort claim under article 1382 failed for lack of proven fault.","k":"Article 29bis — spectator injured at a motocross race","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 2 §1, 29bis; former Civil Code, art. 1382; Cass. 15.5.2008","w":35,"c":"Rechtbank van eerste aanleg Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-09-14","rol":"2008/0339","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2009:ARR.20090914.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"The commercial court had annulled the workplace-accident policy under article 6 LCAT because the employer had intentionally misdescribed the risk (activities presented as limited to Belgium). Treating the employer as uninsured, the insurer claimed from the Occupational Accidents Fund the €35,955.15 it had paid the victim. The labour court of appeal held that workplace-accident insurance is compulsory liability insurance: under article 87 §1 LCAT, nullity, defences and forfeiture cannot be raised against the injured party. The insurer must therefore compensate the victim, and the Fund cannot be held liable under article 58 §1, 3° of the Act of 10 April 1971 (uninsured employer). The insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Workplace-accident insurance — nullity not enforceable against the victim","law":"LCAT art. 6 and 87 §1; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 49, 55 and 58 §1, 3°","w":181,"c":"Arbeidshof Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-09-14","rol":"2007/RG/1588","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2009:AVIS.20090914.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"After the insured's death the insurer refused to pay, alleging a breach of the duty of disclosure. Noting that the insured had consented in the policy to a certificate on the cause of death, the court heard the treating doctor under art. 95(4) LCAT; he answered only questions on the cause of death without breaching professional secrecy. No breach of the duty of disclosure was found and the judgment ordering the insurer to pay the beneficiary €106,527 was confirmed. Interest runs from 29.11.2006 rather than 27.8.2005, since the insurer was entitled to information on the cause and circumstances of death and obtained the criminal file only on 21.9.2006.","k":"Life insurance — certificate on the cause of death and hearing of the doctor","law":"LCAT art. 95(4)","w":182,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-09-11","rol":"C.08.0288.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20090911.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"L'obligation de l'assureur de notifier au preneur, et s'il y a lieu, à l'assuré autre que le preneur, son intention d'exercer un recours naît au moment où l'assureur prend connaissance des circonstances précises de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"On 26 February 2004 the insured told the insurer in writing that he had driven about 15 metres and then braked sharply to get rid of a drunk pedestrian clinging to his bonnet; the insurer notified its intention to exercise recourse, based on intentional causation, only on 12 July 2004. The Court restated that the duty to notify under article 88(2) LCAT arises as soon as the insurer knows the precise circumstances of the accident; since the intent was clear from the insured's statement, notice four and a half months later was too late. The insurer's appeal against the Liège judgment holding that it had forfeited its recourse was dismissed.","k":"Late notice of intended recourse — insurer's forfeiture","law":"LCAT art. 88(2); Cass. 12.9.2002","w":11,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-09-09","rol":"P.09.0360.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20090909.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Le juge peut recourir à une évaluation ex æquo et bono s'il indique la raison pour laquelle le mode de calcul proposé par la victime ne peut être admis, et constate en outre l'impossibilité de déterminer autrement le…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"On the civil party's appeal against the liability insurer that had intervened in the criminal case, the Court restated that a court may assess loss ex aequo et bono only if it explains why the victim's proposed method cannot be accepted and finds that the loss cannot be determined otherwise; it quashed the award for permanent household loss, as well as the rulings on the starting date of interest (self-contradictory) and on the interest rate, which had been reduced of the court's own motion although the parties did not dispute it. It also held that an insurer intervening in criminal proceedings may be ordered to pay the procedural costs indemnity under article 89 §5 LCAT, and quashed on that point. Only the ground concerning the change in the bench was rejected.","k":"Assessment of loss — ex aequo et bono and procedural indemnity against the insurer","law":"LCAT art. 89 §5; Code of Criminal Procedure art. 162bis; Judicial Code arts. 1022 and 1138, 4°; former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":49,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-07-24","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2009:ARR.129","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 162bis du Code d'instruction criminelle, inséré par l'article 9 de la loi du 21 avril 2007 relative à la répétibilité des honoraires et des frais d'avocat, ne viole pas les articles 10…","court":"const","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The Turnhout Police Court asked whether article 162bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure was discriminatory in that, in criminal proceedings, awarding the civil party a procedural indemnity against the voluntarily intervening insurer would be excluded, unlike in civil proceedings. The Court confirmed its judgment no. 70/2009: where the police court considers that in civil proceedings it could award the injured party a procedural indemnity against the liable person and his insurer, it may, in criminal proceedings where the accused and the intervening insurer are ordered in solidum, award the same indemnity against both in solidum under article 89 §5 LCAT (Cass. 4.3.2009). No difference in treatment exists; article 162bis does not breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution.","k":"Procedural indemnity — liable person and insurer ordered in solidum","law":"LCAT arts. 82(3) and 89 §5; Judicial Code arts. 601bis and 1022; Code of Criminal Procedure art. 162bis; Cass. 4.3.2009","w":165,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-07-09","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2009:ARR.110","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 162bis du Code d'instruction criminelle, inséré par l'article 9 de la loi du 21 avril 2007 relative à la répétibilité des honoraires et des frais d'avocat, ne viole pas les articles 10…","court":"const","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The Antwerp Police Court asked whether article 162bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure was discriminatory in not providing, where the accused is acquitted, that the civil party be ordered to pay a procedural indemnity to the insurer that voluntarily intervened alongside the insured. The Court recalled that under article 89 §5 LCAT the insurer takes part before the criminal court under the same conditions as in civil proceedings: when the accused is acquitted, the police court may award a procedural indemnity to the voluntarily intervening insurer if it considers it would do so sitting as a civil court (Cass. 4.3.2009). No difference in treatment exists; article 162bis does not breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution.","k":"Acquittal — procedural indemnity for the voluntarily intervening insurer","law":"LCAT art. 89 §5; Judicial Code arts. 601bis and 1022; Code of Criminal Procedure art. 162bis; Cass. 4.3.2009","w":165,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-06-30","rol":"2007/RG/6","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2009:ARR.20090630.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"An insured who drove without a valid roadworthiness certificate escapes the insurer's recourse by showing that the defects found at inspection had no causal link with the accident. The insurer cannot also demand proof that the vehicle's condition at the time of the accident played no role; that would add a condition to the text.","k":"Motor liability — insurer recourse (roadworthiness certificate)","law":"model contract RD 14.12.1992 art. 25, 3° c)","w":180,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-06-22","rol":"2006/Rg/651","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2009:ARR.20090622.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"In an earlier judgment the court had found that the insured, whose mental state made her incapable of controlling her acts, had caused damage by an objectively unlawful act within former Civil Code art. 1386bis, but that she should not be ordered to pay since she had no income. In this judgment it reiterated that the equitable reduction under art. 1386bis benefits only the protected person and that the insurer cannot argue it is bound no further than its insured. Following the Constitutional Court's ruling of 17.4.2008, and since the injured party's (the French Community's) right to compensation for its own loss and the amount were undisputed, the liability insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Family liability insurance — act of a mentally incapable person (art. 1386bis) and the insurer's duty","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1386bis; Constitutional Court, 17.4.2008","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-06-19","rol":"C.08.0362.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20090619.3","ch":"1N","res":"r","t":"motor","q":"De verzekeraar die in de polis een beding als bedoeld in artikel 25.3, b), van de Modelovereenkomst voor de verplichte aansprakelijkheidsverekering inzake motorvoertuigen opneemt, beschikt op contractuele grondslag over…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The motor liability insurer that had compensated the victims of an accident caused by a driver who did not meet the Belgian legal requirements to drive (no valid licence) took recourse under the article 25.3(b) model-contract clause included in the policy; the Antwerp court of first instance, on appeal, allowed it. The Court held that the insurer then has a contractual right of recourse without having to prove a causal link between the accident and the breach; article 11 LCAT does not prevent this, as the recourse rests on breach of a statutory, not a contractual, duty. The equality argument based on the different treatment of drunk driving was also rejected; the driver's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for driving without a licence, no causation needed","law":"Model contract RD 14.12.1992, arts. 24 and 25.3(b); LCAT arts. 11 and 88","w":183,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-06-19","rol":"C.08.0262.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20090619.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Le propriétaire d'un immeuble et son assureur subrogé disposent d'une action directe tendant à l'indemnisation des dégâts causés par l'incendie contre l'assureur incendie du sous-locataire tant lorsque l'incendie est né…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"After the leased building burned down, the owner's fire insurer, acting by subrogation, sued the subtenant's fire insurer, which the Leuven Commercial Court (on appeal) ordered to pay €114,251.80. The Court held that the owner and its subrogated insurer have a direct action against the subtenant's fire insurer, whether the fire was caused by the subtenant or by members of the subtenant's household. That insurer may raise every defence the subtenant could raise against the head tenant, but not the intentional and personal nature of the head tenant's fault where the head tenant is also a member of the subtenant's household. The subtenant's insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Fire insurance — direct action against the subtenant's insurer","law":"LCAT arts. 41 and 68; former Civil Code, arts. 1733 and 1735","w":184,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-06-18","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2009:ARR.102","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 72, alinéa 2, de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail viole les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution en ce que le délai de trois ans dont dispose la victime d'un…","court":"const","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"In a dispute between the workplace-accident insurer and the victim, the Huy Labour Court asked whether article 72(2) of the Act of 10.4.1971 was discriminatory in giving a private-sector victim a strict three-year period, which cannot be interrupted or suspended, to contest the insurer's decision of healing without permanent incapacity, whereas the public sector has a different regime. The Court held that such a challenge is not a revision request but resembles an action for payment of benefits, which is subject to an ordinary limitation period under article 69, and that neither the nature of the employment relationship, nor the compensation procedure, nor the private character of the insurers justifies a strict time limit. Article 72(2) breaches articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution insofar as the period is a strict time limit.","k":"Workplace accident — three-year strict time limit to contest the healing decision","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 69 and 72; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-06-18","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2009:ARR.103","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"La Cour, avant de statuer au fond, pose à la Cour de justice des Communautés européennes les questions préjudicielles suivantes : 1. L'article 5, paragraphe 2, de la directive 2004/113/CE du Conseil du 13 décembre 2004…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A consumer association and two individuals sought annulment of the Act of 21.12.2007 allowing sex-based differences in life insurance premiums and benefits (transposing article 5(2) of Directive 2004/113/EC). Finding that the criticisms of the Act applied equally to the Directive and that it has no power to rule on the validity of a Community act, the Court, before ruling on the merits, referred two questions to the Court of Justice: whether article 5(2) is compatible with the equality principle in article 6(2) TEU and, if not, whether a derogation limited to life insurance contracts is also incompatible. The merits were not decided.","k":"Sex-based insurance premiums — referral to the Court of Justice","law":"Act of 21.12.2007; Act of 10.5.2007; Directive 2004/113/EC, art. 5(2); TEU art. 6(2)","w":84,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-06-15","rol":"2006-0146","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2009:ARR.20090615.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The dispute concerned the basic wage of a worker injured in a workplace accident on 19.12.2002 while employed under a one-day temporary agency contract. The court held that an agency worker always performs temporary work and cannot be treated as a full-time worker with an incomplete reference period: for temporary incapacity only the wage due under the agency contract is taken into account (art. 37bis), with no top-up to a full-time wage. The basic wage for temporary incapacity was therefore set at EUR 5,085.65, while the basic wage for permanent incapacity was confirmed at EUR 21,635.55. The worker was ordered to repay EUR 6,816.07 overpaid to the workplace-accident insurer, with statutory interest from 23.12.2003; the medical expert examination was reopened for the remaining points.","k":"Workplace accident — basic wage of a temporary agency worker hired for one day","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 34, 36 and 37bis; RD 10.6.2001","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-06-11","rol":"C.08.0196.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20090611.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Lorsque l'obligation prévue par un contrat d'assurance de payer une indemnité constituant la réparation d'un dommage à des biens doit faire l'objet d'une évaluation après la survenance d'un sinistre, cette obligation ne…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"For vehicles lost in a garage fire, the Brussels Court of Appeal awarded the insured €98,661.62 but ran default interest only from the filing of the court expert's report on 23 April 2004. The Court held that where the insurer's duty to compensate property damage must be assessed after the loss, it is not a debt of a sum of money before that assessment, so default interest runs neither from the loss nor from the formal notice. The insured's appeal was dismissed, including the complaint about the rejected claim for loss of use of the premises.","k":"Property insurance — when default interest starts to run","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1153","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-06-04","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2009:ARR.094","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : Dans l'interprétation selon laquelle le tribunal du travail n'est pas compétent pour connaître des demandes relatives à la réparation de dommages découlant d'accidents couverts par une assurance…","court":"const","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"In a dispute between a vocational-training participant and two insurers, the Court of Cassation asked whether article 579, 1° of the Judicial Code, read as giving the labour court jurisdiction only over claims under workplace-accident legislation and not over claims arising from the common-law accident insurance taken out for such participants, was discriminatory. The Court noted that the nature of the accidents and the guarantees to be provided by insurers are identical or similar, that the mode of cover (statutory or common-law insurance) does not justify different courts, and that the labour court's procedural guarantees (manner of filing, representation by a union delegate, opinion of the labour prosecutor) cannot be denied to comparable persons. In that interpretation, article 579, 1° breaches articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution.","k":"Trainees' common-law accident insurance — labour court jurisdiction","law":"Judicial Code arts. 579, 1°, 704, 728 §3, 766; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-05-29","rol":"C.06.0500.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20090529.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Un assureur 'de la responsabilité civile' agit en une seule qualité lorsque, à l'occasion d'un sinistre, il agit pour plusieurs de ses assurés.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The liability insurer had intervened voluntarily at first instance as the insurer of one of its insureds; the Antwerp Court of Appeal held that it had acted in its own name and for its own account and could therefore also be held liable as the liability insurer of another insured involved in the same loss. The Court held that a liability insurer acting for several of its insureds in connection with one loss acts in a single capacity. The insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Liability insurance — capacity of an insurer acting for several insureds","law":"Judicial Code, arts. 13 and 17","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-05-19","rol":"2007/AR/1496","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2009:ARR.20090519.16","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"1. Le contrat d'assurance protection juridique ne fait naître, en principe, des droits et des obligations que dans le chef des parties contractantes ; Il s'ensuit que l'avocat choisi par l'assuré étant tiers par rapport…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The lawyer chosen by the insured claimed the balance of his fees directly from his client's legal expenses insurer. The court held that the contract creates rights and duties only between its parties, that no provision of the LCAT on legal expenses insurance grants the lawyer a direct action, that the insured contracts in his own interest (no third-party beneficiary clause) and that no personal undertaking by the insurer towards the lawyer (delegation) was proven. As the cover limits appear in the general conditions, the insurer had no duty to recall them; the lawyer's appeal was dismissed and the judgment upheld on other grounds.","k":"Legal expenses insurance — lawyer's direct fee claim against the insurer","law":"LCAT, provisions on legal expenses insurance; privity of contract","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-05-14","rol":"2007/AR/3086","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:2009:ARR.20090514.20","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The health-insurance fund of a passenger who fell on the platform while leaving a train in 1996 sought, as subrogee, reimbursement from the railway company under article 29bis. The court held that former article 29bis did not cover rail vehicles and that, for reasons of legitimate expectations and legal certainty, the Constitutional Court's finding of 15.7.1998 could not be applied to accidents before its publication. No fault by railway staff was proven; the first-instance judgment was reversed and the fund's claim dismissed.","k":"Article 29bis — rail accident before 1998","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis (former text); Constitutional Court, 15.7.1998; former Civil Code, art. 1384","w":35,"c":"Hof van beroep Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-05-05","rol":"49.558","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2009:ARR.20090505.19","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"A former employee claimed a correction of his pension capital from his former employer, which was also the insurer of the pension plan. The court held that a claim to determine rights arising from the pension plan is governed by the employment contract and the limitation period of article 15 of the Act of 3.7.1978; the claim was time-barred as regards correction of the statutory pension figure and the reference salary. It rejected two of the insurer's defences, however: extending the claim during the proceedings on the basis of the claimant's status as third-party beneficiary of the policy changes only the legal basis, not the capacity of the defendant; and signing an insurance receipt does not amount to a waiver absent an express clause. Proceedings were reopened on the capitalisation coefficient.","k":"Group insurance — limitation and claim against the insurer","law":"Act of 3.7.1978, art. 15; Judicial Code art. 807","w":84,"c":"Arbeidshof van Brussel","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-04-24","rol":"C.07.0471.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20090424.10","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"intent","q":"Een schadegeval is opzettelijk veroorzaakt, in de betekenis van artikel 8, eerste lid, wet landverzekeringsovereenkomst, wanneer de verzekerde vrijwillig en bewust schade heeft toegebracht; voor de toepassing van die…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Antwerp court of first instance, on appeal, found that the insured, convicted of involuntary manslaughter and injury and of drink-driving, had deliberately and knowingly run a red light and that the harm was reasonably foreseeable, and held that the insurer was not bound to provide cover. The Court clarified that, under article 8(1) LCAT, a loss is caused intentionally when the insured deliberately and knowingly inflicted harm, though he need not have intended the harm exactly as it occurred. Lacking such a finding, the judgment was quashed on the insured's appeal and referred to the Mechelen court.","k":"Intentional loss — running a red light is not an intentional act","law":"LCAT art. 8(1); Cass. 5.12.2000; Cass. 12.4.2002","w":17,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-04-24","rol":"C.07.0120.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20090424.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"L'autorité de chose jugée en matière répressive, qui empêche que les faits faisant l'objet de la décision pénale soient à nouveaux contestés lors d'une procédure ultérieure devant le juge civil, ne s'attache qu'à ce qui…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Injured in a moped accident, the claimant had been acquitted in criminal proceedings because it was not proven that he was driving, and then claimed compensation from the insurers under article 29bis; the Hasselt Court of First Instance (on appeal) dismissed the claim. The Court held that the authority of a criminal judgment covers only what the criminal court decided with certainty and necessarily: an acquittal on grounds of doubt does not establish that he was not the driver. A person relying on article 29bis must prove that he is a protected victim, i.e. that he was not the driver of the vehicle involved. The victim's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Article 29bis — burden of proving one was not the driver","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; former Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, art. 870","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-04-23","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2009:ARR.070","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 162bis du Code d'instruction criminelle, inséré par l'article 9 de la loi du 21 avril 2007 relative à la répétibilité des honoraires et des frais d'avocat, ne viole pas les articles 10…","court":"const","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"In road-accident cases, the Bruges Police Court asked whether article 162bis of the Code of Criminal Procedure was discriminatory in not providing that the accused and his insurer be ordered in solidum to pay the procedural indemnity to the civil party. The Court recalled that under article 89 §5 LCAT the insurer takes part before the criminal court under the same conditions as before a civil court: if the police court considers that in civil proceedings it could order the accused and his insurer in solidum to pay damages and the procedural indemnity (article 1022 Judicial Code), it may make the same orders when ruling on the civil claim in criminal proceedings. The alleged difference in treatment therefore does not exist; article 162bis does not breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution.","k":"Procedural indemnity — insurer ordered in solidum before the criminal court","law":"LCAT arts. 82(3) and 89 §5; Judicial Code arts. 601bis and 1022; Code of Criminal Procedure art. 162bis","w":165,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-04-21","rol":"2008/RG/574","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2009:ARR.20090421.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"After the fire of 19.2.2005 the insurer first offered to cover 50 %, then agreed to cover 100 % provided the insureds claimed nothing beyond the items in the loss-assessment report. The court held that this agreement binds both sides: the insureds can no longer claim the €12,809.60 deduction for lack of preventive measures, temporary housing costs or loss of use; the insurer, for its part, could not cap the building item at 80 % of the report's figure and owes the €19,482.41 balance. Each party's appeal succeeded in part.","k":"Fire insurance — binding effect of the loss-assessment report","law":"Policy general conditions; binding force of the loss-assessment report","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-04-20","rol":"2007-0072-2007-0073","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2009:ARR.20090420.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A hospital nurse was injured on 13.6.2004 while performing a twisting and lifting movement to lift a patient; the employing hospital refused to recognise a workplace accident. The court recalled that the sudden event need not be distinct from the normal daily task, nor involve abnormal effort or working conditions: an element identifiable in time and place that could have caused the injury suffices, and the fact that lifting patients is part of nursing work is not a criterion. Proof of an external force is not required and, as long as the injury is not due solely to the victim's internal condition, the presumption of article 9 applies; counter-evidence requires showing that the injury would have occurred in the same way without that event. The employer's appeals were dismissed and the judgment appointing an expert confirmed.","k":"Workplace accident — sudden event within a nurse's normal daily task","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 9; Cass. 6.3.2006; Cass. 30.10.2006","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-04-10","rol":"49.795","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2009:ARR.20090410.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A former employee argued that the employer and the group insurer were jointly liable for the pension capital under a group insurance scheme. The court distinguished the pension promise, which belongs to the employer, from its performance, which rests with the pension institution: the group insurance contract is a stipulation for the benefit of a third party (former Civil Code art. 1121) giving the employee a direct action against the insurer; responsibility for performance lies first with the insurer and only subsidiarily with the employer, where the insurance falls short of what was promised. As no breach by the employer was established, only the insurer was ordered to pay €322,152.42 plus statutory interest; the claim against the employer was dismissed.","k":"Group insurance — insurer's and employer's liability","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1121; Act of 28.4.2003 (supplementary pensions), art. 5","w":84,"c":"Arbeidshof van Brussel","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-04-03","rol":"C.08.0269.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20090403.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Pour l'application de la disposition du contrat-type d'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs conformément à laquelle l'assureur a un droit de recours contre le preneur…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Dendermonde Court of First Instance (on appeal) had upheld the insurer's recourse against a driver who had raced another driver without any prior organisation. The Court held that for the recourse under article 25, 3° a) of the model contract (taking part in an unauthorised speed, regularity or skill race or contest), it is irrelevant whether the race was casual or improvised. The driver's appeal was dismissed and the insurer's recourse stands.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for an unauthorised speed race","law":"Model contract RD 14.12.1992, arts. 24 and 25, 3° a)","w":180,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-03-30","rol":"2007/RG/1296","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2009:ARR.20090330.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The insured, whose building was damaged by a gas explosion, sued his fire insurer, the gas distributor and its liability insurer. The court held that the fire insurer's written notification of its position on 4.8.1998 ended the interruption under art. 35 §3 LCAT, so the three-year limitation expired on 5.8.2001; however, a time-barred debt survives as a natural obligation and advances paid voluntarily cannot be recovered (former Civil Code art. 1235). Only the €75,000 paid under provisional enforcement must be returned. The distributor and its liability insurer were ordered, under art. 1384(1), to pay €41,475.89 and €75,000 to the insured and €100,829.97 to the subrogated fire insurer.","k":"Gas explosion — limitation against the fire insurer, voluntary payments","law":"LCAT art. 34 and 35; former Civil Code, art. 1235 and 1384(1); Cass. 24.9.1981","w":57,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-03-29","rol":"C.08.0003.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20090329.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"L'article 8, alinéa 2, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre, qui permet à l'assureur de s'exonérer de ses obligations pour les cas de faute lourde déterminés expressément et limitativement dans…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The party harmed by a contractor's defective works brought a direct action against the contractor's business liability insurer; the Brussels Court of Appeal dismissed it, giving effect to a clause excluding damage resulting from the choice of working methods, \"including insufficient basic preventive measures\". The Court held that article 8(2) LCAT allows the insurer to exclude cover only for cases of gross negligence specified expressly and exhaustively in the contract, and rules out exclusions for gross negligence described in general terms. The judgment was quashed as regards the claim against the insurer and referred to the Mons Court of Appeal.","k":"Business liability insurance — gross-negligence exclusion in general terms","law":"LCAT art. 8(2) and art. 86; Cass. 12.1.2007","w":185,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-03-25","rol":"2007/AR/1653","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2009:ARR.20090325.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The parents of the deceased insured claimed the benefit of a mortgage protection policy as named beneficiaries. The court first excluded a medical certificate drawn up after the death for breach of medical secrecy: the insured's authorisation to her doctors covered only the causes of death, and article 95 LCAT is mandatory. However, although a beneficiary's right arises from the designation alone, the designation remains revocable until accepted; by a rider signed the same day, the policy had been pledged and the benefit assigned to the mortgage-lending bank, and the parents could show acceptance only after the insured event. The insurer's appeal was upheld and the claim dismissed.","k":"Mortgage protection insurance — benefit assigned to the mortgage lender","law":"LCAT art. 3, 95, 121","w":186,"c":"Hof van beroep Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-03-11","rol":"P.08.1778.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20090311.18","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Lorsque la mise en mouvement de l'action publique ne procède que de la citation directe lancée par la partie civile qui succombe, le juge condamne celle-ci à payer une indemnité de procédure au prévenu acquitté, mais…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"After the defendant's acquittal, the civil party had been ordered by the Brussels Criminal Court (on appeal) to pay a procedural indemnity of €5,000 to the defendant and the same to his insurer, which had intervened voluntarily. The Court rejected the complaints against the acquittal but held that articles 162bis and 194 of the Code of Criminal Procedure do not allow a civil party to be ordered to pay a procedural indemnity to the acquitted defendant's insurer, nor to the defendant where the prosecution was brought by the public prosecutor. Those orders were quashed without referral.","k":"Criminal trial — procedural indemnity owed to the acquitted defendant's insurer","law":"Code of Criminal Procedure, arts. 162bis and 194; Judicial Code, art. 1022","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-03-03","rol":"2006/RG/1561","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2009:ARR.20090303.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"For a machine fire of 9.5.2001, the insured had received the insurer's final refusal in a letter of 7.3.2002 from the agent handling the claim, a written notification under art. 35 §4 LCAT. It first sued the agent, then a company unrelated to the contract; the third-party notice against the insurer was served only on 7.4.2005. The court held that mistaking the agent for the insurer was neither an invincible error nor force majeure (art. 35 §2) and declared the action time-barred; the judgment ordering the insurer to pay €99,925 was reversed.","k":"Machinery breakdown — limitation period and the insurer's written refusal","law":"LCAT art. 34 §1, 35 §2 and §4; Act of 9.7.1975, art. 12 §3","w":57,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-03-03","rol":"2004/RG/301","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2009:ARR.20090303.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A cleaning worker had been slapped by an employee of the company where he was working; the workplace-accident insurer claimed its outlay (€6,220.91) from the liability insurer of the assailant's employer. The court accepted that the recourse rests on subrogation under art. 47 of the Act of 10.4.1971 rather than on former Civil Code art. 1382, but found that the necessary causal link between a slap leaving neither wound nor bruise and the alleged five months' total incapacity was not proved, given the victim's psychological predisposition and alcohol problem. No expert examination was ordered; the loss was assessed ex aequo et bono at €3,000, which the liability insurer was ordered to pay.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's subrogated recourse — slap and causation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47; former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-03-02","rol":"2006/RG/617","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2009:ARR.20090302.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The policyholder had not disclosed his previous claims (at fault in three out of four) despite a clear and unambiguous question on the proposal form. The court found that those claims revealed the driver's qualities, an essential element for assessing the risk even for third-party cover only, and that the insurer was not required to ask the former insurer; since intentional misrepresentation was proved, the contract is void (art. 6 LCAT) without examining art. 7. The insured's appeal was dismissed and the judgment confirmed.","k":"Motor insurance — intentional concealment of previous claims","law":"LCAT art. 5 and 6","w":173,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-03-02","rol":"34876/07","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2009:ARR.20090302.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"En cas d'accident du travail survenu à un membre du personnel d'une Commune, l'action subrogatoire de sa mutuelle exercée contre l'assureur de l'administration communale est irrecevable. De plus, la citation signifiée à…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"After a workplace accident suffered by a municipal employee, the health-insurance fund, subrogated to the victim's rights, claimed reimbursement of its outlays from the municipality's insurer and later joined the municipality itself. The court held that, under the public-sector scheme (Act of 3 July 1967), the debtor of compensation is the public authority itself and the fund has no direct action against that authority's insurer: the claim against the insurer is inadmissible. The writ served on the insurer did not interrupt the limitation period for the subrogated claim against the municipality, since under article 2244 of the Civil Code only a writ served on the party one wishes to prevent from relying on limitation has that effect; the claim against the municipality was time-barred for the period before 11.5.2002, three years before its voluntary intervention on 11.5.2005. The fund's main appeal was dismissed and the municipality's cross-appeal upheld.","k":"Public-sector workplace accident — health fund's subrogated claim against the authority's insurer","law":"Act of 3.7.1967, arts. 1 and 20; RD 13.7.1970, arts. 26 §1 and 27; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 70; Coordinated Act of 14.7.1994, art. 136 §2(4); former Civil Code, arts. 2244 and 2248","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-02-24","rol":"2006/RG/12","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2009:ARR.20090224.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Held liable by the youth court as the person civilly responsible for his minor son, the insured claimed €3,357.82 from his family liability insurer; the insurer had been told neither of the hearing nor of the judgment. The court held that the judgment was not enforceable against the insurer (art. 89 §1 LCAT) and that the insured had to prove that the sums paid matched the victims' actual loss, which he failed to do; the parental presumption of former Civil Code art. 1384 was rebuttable and there had been a real chance of rebutting it. The claim was dismissed under clause 9.1.c of the general conditions and art. 85 LCAT; the first-instance judgment was reversed.","k":"Family liability insurance — judgment obtained without the insurer","law":"LCAT art. 85 and 89 §1; former Civil Code, art. 1384","w":187,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-02-20","rol":"34820/07","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2009:ARR.20090220.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'incapacité permanente de travail, évaluée au taux de 34 %, découlant d'une lésion lombaire qui résulte simultanément de la dégénérescence de la colonne vertébrale, d'une maladie professionnelle (provoquée par des…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The victim's lumbar injury, causing 34% permanent incapacity, resulted at once from spinal degeneration, an occupational disease due to vibrations transmitted through the seat and a workplace accident (an awkward movement of the trunk). The court held that the principle that a pre-existing condition is disregarded does not allow the same damage to be compensated twice: the rate charged to the workplace-accident insurer was reduced from 34% to 17%, and the Occupational Diseases Fund was ordered to pay on the basis of 17% (9% physical incapacity and 8% socio-economic factors), an apportionment the medical advisers of both bodies had suggested during the expert proceedings. The insurer's main appeal and the widow's cross-appeal were both upheld; the supplementary expert assignment was cancelled and the hearing reopened to fix the basic remuneration for the occupational disease.","k":"Workplace accident and occupational disease — no double compensation, apportionment","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24(2); Coordinated Acts of 3.6.1970, art. 35; Judicial Code, arts. 774–775","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-02-19","rol":"2005/AR/2846","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:2009:ARR.20090219.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The policyholder declared in the proposal that he had never been insured and had no accidents in the last five years, whereas he had long been insured elsewhere with three recorded claims. The court held it irrelevant that his father filled in the form, found intentional concealment and confirmed nullity under art. 6 LCAT: the comprehensive claim was dismissed and the insurer's recourse under art. 25 of the model contract upheld. The insurer's claim against the father, whose knowing involvement was not proven, was however dismissed, as was the claim against the broker, no fault being shown.","k":"Motor insurance — concealed prior insurance and accidents, nullity","law":"LCAT arts. 5, 6, 7; model contract RD 14.12.1992, art. 25","w":188,"c":"Hof van beroep Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-02-19","rol":"2007/AR/1544","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:2009:ARR.20090219.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Nu de verzekeraar geen overtuigende elementen aanbrengen ter ondersteuning van hun stelling dat moderne, losse juwelen een meer gegeerde buit voor dieven zijn dan antieke juwelen en dus een groter risico op diefstal…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insurers refused to pay for an armed robbery on the ground that the shift from selling antique jewellery to modern jewellery and loose diamonds had not been notified. The court found that a higher theft risk was not proven, that the proposal form did not distinguish antique from modern jewellery and that the insurers gave no information on how the premium was calculated, so they could not rely on article 26 LCAT. Jewellery held on consignment was insured for the owners' account and the owners could claim directly from the insurer; only default interest from the date of formal notice was due.","k":"Jeweller's theft insurance — failure to notify an aggravation of risk","law":"LCAT art. 5, 26; former Civil Code, art. 1153","w":189,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-02-19","rol":"C.06.0656.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20090219.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le recours de l'assureur contre l'assuré n'est pas subordonné à la condition que la responsabilité de l'assuré ait été engagée dans la survenance de l'accident ou à la condition que le non-respect de la loi, des…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Nivelles Court of First Instance (on appeal) had dismissed the insurer's recourse claim against the insured keeper of the vehicle because she was not liable for the accident and the breach was not causally linked to it. The Court held that article 25, 3°, b) (driver not meeting the legal requirements) and d) (carrying too many or irregularly carried passengers) of the model contract impose no condition other than breach of the law, regulations or contract, so the recourse depends neither on the insured's liability nor on causation. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — recourse needs no causal link or liability","law":"Model contract RD 14.12.1992, arts. 24 and 25, 3°, b) and d)","w":180,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-02-19","rol":"C.07.0042.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20090219.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'assuré qui prétend que le sinistre répond au risque défini par le contrat doit prouver que la propriété du véhicule désigné dans le contrat a été transférée préalablement au sinistre et que ce dernier a eu lieu dans…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The accident involved a vehicle other than the one named in the policy; the Huy Court of First Instance (on appeal) placed on the insurer the burden of proving that the named vehicle had not been transferred and that both vehicles were used under one policy, ordered the insurer to compensate the injured parties and released the Guarantee Fund. The Court held, under article 17 of the Act of 21.11.1989 and article 33 of the model contract, that whoever claims the loss is covered must prove that ownership of the named vehicle was transferred before the loss and that the loss occurred within sixteen days of the transfer. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal and referred to the Verviers Court of First Instance.","k":"Motor liability — replacement vehicle, 16-day cover, burden of proof","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 17; model contract RD 14.12.1992, art. 33; former Civil Code, art. 1315","w":152,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-02-16","rol":"2008/RG/482","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2009:ARR.20090216.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A legal expenses insurer that refused to apply the insolvency clause by adding a condition not in the policy (insolvency established by a court) breached its duty of good-faith performance. It was ordered to pay, and its appeal was held vexatious.","k":"Legal expenses insurance — insolvent liable third party","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1134 (good-faith performance); policy terms","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-02-16","rol":"2008/RG/482","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2009:ARR.20090216.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"After a road accident on 17.10.2004 the liable third party died and his estate was renounced; the legal-expenses insurer refused to apply the insolvency clause because no court had declared insolvency and the third party had begun paying. The court held that the insurer was adding a condition to the contract, that clear, precise and consistent presumptions established insolvency and that the insurer had implicitly admitted it; it recalled the duty to perform contracts in good faith. The insurer's appeal was dismissed and it was ordered to pay €3,747.72 in compensation, €1,000 for first-instance defence costs and €1 for a vexatious appeal.","k":"Legal expenses insurance — insolvency clause for the liable third party","law":"Legal-expenses special conditions, art. 3 (insolvency clause); good-faith performance of contracts; Cass. 31.10.2003","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-02-09","rol":"2007/RG/1730","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2009:ARR.20090209.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The beneficiary of an account-linked accidental death cover claimed the benefit after her mother died of a skull fracture caused by a fall on the stairs; the insurer argued the event did not meet the policy's definition of an accident. The court held that the fall fits that definition exactly: an event arising from the sudden and fortuitous action of an external cause beyond the insured's will. Even if the fall had been caused by dizziness or a fainting spell, the loss would still be covered, since the definition does not require a cause external to the insured's own body. The insurer's appeal was dismissed and the first-instance judgment upheld.","k":"Accidental death cover — fall on the stairs, notion of accident","law":"Policy, art. I (contractual definition of accident)","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-02-09","rol":"2007/RG/1725","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2009:ARR.20090209.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insured's contracting partner sought compensation from the insured's post-delivery liability insurer for loss suffered in its business after a wrong delivery (gearbox oil instead of engine oil). The Liège Court of Appeal held that under article 10 of the general conditions, the insured's contractual liability for defective performance of the very object of the contract is not covered; clause c) listing damaging events and the deductible for 'delivery error' do not extend the cover defined in clause a). The claim was dismissed.","k":"Product liability cover — defective performance of the contract itself not covered","law":"Policy general conditions, art. 10 (post-delivery liability)","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-01-30","rol":"C.06.0234.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20090130.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"L'article 68, alinéa 3, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre qui constitue une application particulière de l'article 86 de cette même loi, confère aux tiers, en cas d'incendie dans un immeuble,…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"A gas explosion and fire on 14 December 1991 damaged neighbouring houses; the injured parties and their insurer brought a direct action against the insurer of those liable. The Court held that article 68(3) LCAT, which gives third parties a direct action against the third-party fire recourse insurer, is a specific application of article 86, and that the new, shorter five-year limitation period (art. 34 §2 LCAT), replacing the thirty-year period of the old law, starts for rights that arose earlier no sooner than the Act's entry into force on 21 September 1992; the claims filed on 18 February 1997 were therefore not time-barred. The insurer's appeal was dismissed on that point; the judgment was quashed only where it contradictorily held two other parties' claim both timely and time-barred.","k":"Neighbours' recourse cover — direct action and transitional limitation","law":"LCAT art. 34 §2, art. 68(3) and art. 86; former Civil Code, art. 2; Act of 11.6.1874, art. 38","w":190,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-01-28","rol":"P.08.1364.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20090128.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Lorsque l'assureur demande à la juridiction répressive de condamner le tiers responsable du dommage à lui rembourser le montant de l'indemnité qu'il a versée en réparation de celui-ci, il n'exerce pas une action…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The victim's insurer, subrogated up to the indemnity it had paid, joined the criminal proceedings as civil party against the defendant's heir and the defendant's insurer; the Charleroi Criminal Court (on appeal) held its claim inadmissible because it was filed after the defendant's death. The Court held that under article 41 LCAT a subrogated insurer does not bring a separate action but, by a separate claim, exercises the victim's own action; since the victim had joined as civil party before the prosecution lapsed, the subrogee's claim could not be held inadmissible on that ground. The judgment was quashed on that point and referred to the Mons Criminal Court.","k":"Subrogation — subrogated insurer joining criminal proceedings","law":"LCAT art. 41","w":16,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-01-22","rol":"C.06.0372.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20090122.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La circonstance qu'après que son conducteur l'eut stationné près d'un fleuve, un véhicule y a été poussé par un auteur inconnu justifie l'intervention du Fonds commun de garantie automobile en vue de réparer le dommage…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A stolen car parked near the Sambre was pushed into the river by an unknown person and struck by a barge; the Walloon Region, held liable as keeper of the waterway to compensate the bargeman, sought reimbursement from the Guarantee Fund, and the Liège Court of Appeal dismissed the claim, notably because the submerged car had become a wreck. The Court held that the fact that the car was pushed into the river by an unknown perpetrator justified the Fund's intervention and that none of the judgment's other reasons lawfully supported the dismissal. The judgment was quashed as regards the claim against the Fund and referred to the Mons Court of Appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund — car pushed into a river, damage to a barge","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 2 §1 and art. 19bis-11 §1, 4°; Cass. 15.5.2003","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-01-19","rol":"2007-0104","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2009:ARR.20090119.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A cleaner, shortly after starting work on 23.2.2005, made a backward movement with her right arm to catch a falling chair and fractured a rib. The first judge had dismissed the claim; the appeal court held that there was no doubt the facts occurred during performance of the employment contract, that the worker proved the injury (fracture of the right sixth rib) and the sudden event, and that the workplace-accident insurer provided no counter-evidence, although it should have contacted the direct witness named. The insurer was ordered to pay the statutory benefits for total temporary incapacity from 23.2.2005 to 18.4.2005 on a basic wage of EUR 32,748.12, EUR 36.80 of medical co-payment and interest.","k":"Workplace accident — rib fracture catching a falling chair, proof of a sudden event","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 9; Cass. 6.9.2004; Cass. 30.10.2006","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-01-15","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2009:ARR.008","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"La Cour - annule l'article 28, § 3, alinéa 2, de la loi du 15 mai 2007 relative à l'indemnisation des dommages résultant de soins de santé; - rejette le recours pour le surplus.","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A mutual insurance undertaking sought annulment of the 'Payment and allocation key' section of the Act of 15.5.2007 on compensation for healthcare damage and of the second Act of 15.5.2007 on dispute settlement (delegation to the King of the allocation key between the Fund and the insurer, insurers' contributions to the Guarantee Fund for uninsured providers, compulsory arbitration panel). The Court annulled article 28 §3(2) of the first Act and dismissed the rest; in particular, article 144 of the Constitution does not preclude prior arbitration as long as a full appeal to the labour court remains open against the panel's decisions.","k":"Healthcare damage compensation — allocation key and arbitration panel","law":"Act of 15.5.2007 (healthcare damage), art. 28 §3; Constitution, art. 144","w":84,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-01-14","rol":"21044","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2009:ARR.20090114.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"En vertu de l'article 63, §4, de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail, l'entreprise d'assurances est tenue, en cas de litige quant à la nature ou au taux d'incapacité de travail de la victime, de payer à…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A workplace-accident insurer that pays advances during a dispute under article 63 §4 of the Act of 10.4.1971, based on the rate it proposes, may recover permanent-incapacity benefits overpaid when the rate is later reduced: the consolidation date and the rate are legal data of public order, and payment is not an acknowledgement of right. By contrast, paying temporary-incapacity benefits de facto acknowledges that the incapacity was justified and cannot be reclaimed. The victim's claim for temporary incapacity from 1 November 1998 to 31 December 2000 was founded in principle but set off against the overpayment; article 17 of the Social Insured Charter does not apply. The victim's appeal was dismissed and the debates reopened on costs.","k":"Workplace accident — recovery of advances: temporary versus permanent incapacity","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 24(2) and 63 §4; Act of 11.4.1995 (Social Insured Charter), art. 17","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-01-08","rol":"8591/08","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2009:ARR.20090108.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'article 68 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail qui prévoit, sauf demande téméraire et vexatoire, que les dépens sont mis à charge de l'assureur-loi ne s'applique pas dans le cadre d'un litige…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Workplace Accident Fund, having intervened in the case, had obtained from the first-instance court a ruling that the employer's group-insurance premium be included in basic remuneration and that the insurer compensate the victim accordingly; the insurer contested being ordered to pay the intervener's costs. The court held that article 68 of the Act of 10 April 1971, which in principle places costs on the workplace-accident insurer, does not apply to a dispute between the Fund and the insurer over basic remuneration, and that article 1017, first paragraph, of the Judicial Code applies instead: a Fund that seeks and obtains an order against the insurer has a procedural link with it, and the losing insurer must bear the voluntary intervener's costs (Cass. 14.12.2001). The appeal succeeded only in reducing the first-instance procedural indemnity from EUR 111.55 to the basic amount of EUR 109.32.","k":"Workplace accident — costs in a dispute between the Fund and the insurer","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 65 and 68; Judicial Code, arts. 1017 and 1022; Cass. 14.12.2001","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-01-08","rol":"7553/04","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2009:ARR.20090108.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Les appareils de prothèse et d'orthopédie nécessités par l'accident du travail s'entendent de tout moyen artificiel remplaçant une partie du corps ou sa fonction, qu'il soit placé à l'intérieur ou à l'extérieur du…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer argued that the list of home adaptations in article 35, para. 1, 4°, of the Royal Decree of 21.12.1971 was exhaustive and refused part of the adaptations requested. The court held that prosthetic and orthopaedic appliances broadly include any technical means of assisting or replacing a lost function and that, while article 28 of the Act of 10.4.1971 lets the King set conditions, nothing authorises an exhaustive list; the list is therefore not exhaustive. The insurer was ordered to pay for an electric wheelchair costing EUR 15,871 (renewed every seven years, maintenance at 10% of cost), the ten-yearly renewal of the manual wheelchair, handrails, a trapeze by the bath, metal reinforcements on corners and door frames and electric openers for two garage doors; garden paving, an alarm subscription and a guard dog were refused for lack of necessity resulting from the accident.","k":"Workplace accident — meaning of prosthesis, non-exhaustive list of home adaptations","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 28; RD 21.12.1971, art. 35(1)","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-01-08","rol":"C.07.0249.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20090108.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'article 80, § 2, alinéa 1, de la loi du 9 juillet 1975 n'exclut pas que, lorsque les conditions auxquelles le Fonds commun de garantie automobile pourrait être amené à réparer le dommage sont remplies, celui-ci…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"In an accident caused by an uninsured vehicle, the Guarantee Fund had paid €6,307.25 to the injured party's insurer and a further €5,915.51; the Namur Court of First Instance (on appeal) did not order the liable owner to repay these sums and dismissed the Fund's claim for an indemnity against future awards, holding that subrogation only operates after payment. The Court held that under article 80 §2(1) of the Act of 9.7.1975 the Fund is subrogated, to the extent of its payments, to the injured party's rights against those liable, and that this does not prevent the Fund, once the conditions for its intervention are met, from obtaining an indemnity from the liable person for future awards. The judgment was quashed insofar as it dismissed the Fund's claims.","k":"Guarantee Fund — subrogation and indemnity claim against an uninsured driver","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 80 §1 and §2(1) (now moved into the Act of 21.11.1989)","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2009-01-07","rol":"P.07.1891.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2009:ARR.20090107.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En considérant que le bénéfice de l'intervention du Fonds commun de garantie automobile n'est pas réservé à l'automobiliste non assuré victime de la faute d'un autre usager parce que le système d'indemnisation par le…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The driver of an uninsured vehicle, injured in the accident, claimed compensation from the Guarantee Fund; the Liège Criminal Court (on appeal) dismissed the claim. The Court held that under article 21, 2° of the Royal Decree of 11.7.2003, where the insurance obligation was not complied with, the Fund need not compensate the owner, driver, keeper or policyholder of the vehicle that caused the damage or was involved in the accident; a vehicle is involved as soon as there is any link between it and the accident, without any fault of its driver being required. The Court also held that this rule is not discriminatory under articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution and dismissed the driver's appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund — uninsured driver excluded from compensation","law":"Royal Decree of 11.7.2003, art. 21, 2°; Constitution, arts. 10 and 11; Cass. 9.1.2006","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-12-18","rol":"2007/AR/2163","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:2008:ARR.20081218.19","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Het hof beoordeelt het verstrekken van een groene kaart door een professioneel makelaar niet als een fout. De vordering van de verzekeraar tegen de makelaar voor uitgaven wegens een aldus gedekt verkeersongeval is…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The motor liability insurer sought to recover from the broker, on the ground of fault, what it had paid after its insured's accident, because the broker had issued a green card. The court held that under article 33 of the model contract cover continues for the replacement vehicle where the insured vehicle has unequivocally been taken out of use, that the notice need not be in writing, and that a broker authorised to issue green cards on the insurer's behalf is its agent for receiving it. The insurer had paid under its statutory duty; as the broker committed no fault, the claim was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — liability of the broker who issued the green card, vehicle replacement","law":"Model contract RD 14.12.1992, art. 33; Act of 21.11.1989","w":191,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-12-15","rol":"2006-0615","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2008:ARR.20081215.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"After a commuting accident of 23.6.1997, the victim sought annulment of the compensation agreement ratified by the Workplace Accidents Fund on 23.5.2000 for excusable mistake, relying on a fracture of the dens axis (C2) diagnosed later. The court found that no fracture had been identified when the agreement was made and that any mistake would not be excusable: bad advice, even from an expert, does not make a mistake excusable, and the victim had not done everything possible at the time to discover it. By contrast, the revision claim, brought within three years of ratification, was admissible and a panel of medical experts was appointed to examine whether an unforeseeable deterioration occurred after the agreement. The workplace-accident insurer's cross-appeal was dismissed as premature; the judgment was declared binding on the motor liability insurer of the driver at fault.","k":"Workplace accident — annulment of ratified compensation agreement for mistake, and revision","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 24 and 72; former Civil Code, art. 1110; Cass. 31.10.1994; Cass. 10.2.1997","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-12-15","rol":"34.572/07","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2008:ARR.20081215.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'assureur ne peut contester la réalité du handicap physique permanent reconnu par plusieurs experts judiciaires à la victime d'un accident du travail, au moyen d'un rapport d'enquête et du montage vidéo réalisés par un…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer disputed the permanent physical disability found in the victim by several court experts, relying on a private detective's investigation report and edited video and on a bailiff's report. The court held that this evidence could not be used: the detective's assignment was to gather information on the victim's functional ability, i.e. his state of health, and the bailiff, far from confining himself to purely factual observations, had recorded the elements of a medical thesis in a slanted way. The latest expert report was endorsed; the appeal was dismissed and the insurer ordered to pay the statutory benefits with interest for the accident of 4.11.1996 on the basis of 80% permanent incapacity and an annual basic remuneration of EUR 22,993.11.","k":"Workplace accident — challenging disability with a private detective's video and bailiff's report","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 24(2) and 68; Act of 19.7.1991, art. 7(3); Judicial Code, art. 516(2)","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-12-10","rol":"P.08.0867.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2008:ARR.20081210.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsqu'il est intervenu devant la juridiction répressive pour réparer le dommage subi par les victimes d'un accident causé par le conducteur d'un véhicule volé et dont, en raison de ce vol, la responsabilité civile…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Ordered jointly with the defendant, who had caused an accident driving a stolen car, to compensate the injured parties, the Guarantee Fund joined the criminal proceedings as civil party to recover its payments from the defendant; the Verviers Criminal Court (on appeal) dismissed the claim, holding that the Fund may do so only in cases of non-insurance, whereas here its intervention was due to theft. The Court held that when the Fund compensates the victims of a driver of a stolen vehicle whose liability is uninsured because of the theft, it pays in a case of non-insurance and may, under article 19bis-17 of the Act of 21.11.1989, claim as civil party against the liable person. The judgment was quashed as to the Fund's claim against the defendant; the awards to the injured parties against the Fund stand.","k":"Guarantee Fund — stolen vehicle, civil claim against the liable driver","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 19bis-11 §1, 4° and art. 19bis-17(1)","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-12-09","rol":"2006/RG/1363","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2008:ARR.20081209.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insured, who alone had taken out theft cover for a car bought with his partner, claimed the indemnity after the vehicle was stolen and burnt out. The court held that a co-owner has the insurable interest required by article 37 LCAT, an economic interest in preserving the property, and may recover the full indemnity. The burden of proving the theft lies on the insured, but he must be believed as long as his statement is plausible and nothing casts doubt on it; the inspector's report relied on by the insurer was not even filed. Although the insured wrongly declared himself the sole habitual driver, the insurer did not show that this misled it in assessing the risk; the plea of nullity under article 6 LCAT was rejected. The insurer was ordered to pay the full contractual indemnity with statutory interest from the due date following the notice of loss; the claim for defence costs under the legal expenses cover was dismissed.","k":"Vehicle theft insurance — co-owner's claim and proof of theft","law":"LCAT arts. 5–6 and 37; former Civil Code, arts. 1139, 1153, 1315; Cass. 25.2.1993","w":192,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-12-08","rol":"2003AR1965","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2008:ARR.20081208.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"After a fire caused by a gas explosion in a rented flat in 1988, the landlord, his insurer and a third party whose car was damaged sued the tenant, while the tenant's insurer brought a subrogated recourse against the landlord. The court held that the presumption of article 1733 also covers a fire resulting from an explosion but applies only between landlord and tenant, and that the tenant proved the fire occurred without her fault since the gas leaks came from other flats; all claims against her were dismissed. The third party's claim succeeded against the landlord and his insurer under article 1384(1) (€1,659.55), while the tenant's insurer's recourse failed because of the lease's waiver-of-recourse clause, valid but to be interpreted restrictively.","k":"Fire after gas explosion — tenant's liability and insurers' recourse","law":"Former Civil Code, arts 1382–1384(1), 1386, 1721, 1724, 1732–1735","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Brussel","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-12-03","rol":"2007AR2791","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2008:ARR.20081203.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"Het rechtsverval met toepassing van art. 8 1° lid WLVO is van persoonlijke aard, zodat de verzekeraar het bewijs moet leveren dat de gronden van verval bestaan bij de verzekerde die op de begunstiging van de waarborg…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A mother and daughter, co-owners of a house deliberately set on fire by the minor son, claimed their shares from their fire insurer; the insurer relied on art. 8 para. 1 LCAT, arguing that the intentional act was attributable to the mother, who was vicariously liable for her son (art. 1384 para. 2). The court held that forfeiture for intentional acts is personal and that parental liability rests on a presumed failure of upbringing, not on any intentional act of the parent, so the insurer owed cover to the mother and, a fortiori, to the sister, who had nothing to do with the act. The limitation defence against the sister also failed, as the insurer had sent no written decision after the writ that served as notice of the claim; the hearing was reopened on the amounts.","k":"Fire insurance — personal nature of forfeiture for intentional acts","law":"LCAT art. 8 para. 1, 34 §1, 35 §3; former Civil Code, art. 1384 para. 2","w":170,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-12-01","rol":"2007/RG/1588","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2008:ARR.20081201.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"After the insured's suicide, the beneficiary claimed the death benefit; relying on article 95, paragraph 4, LCAT, the insurer had asked the treating doctor whether the suicide could be explained by a pre-existing health condition, but received no reply. The court recalled that, where the insured consented during her lifetime, the doctor is obliged to send the insurer's medical adviser the certificate stating the cause of death, which serves to verify that death was not due to an excluded risk and that the policyholder made no omission or misstatement when declaring the risk. As the criminal file did not explain the suicide, the insurer's request was legitimate. Before ruling on the merits, the court ordered the treating doctor to appear in person and be heard.","k":"Life insurance — post-mortem certificate after suicide (art. 95 LCAT)","law":"LCAT art. 95, para. 4","w":182,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-12-01","rol":"46.322","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2008:ARR.20081201.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer argued that incapacity after 30.6.2000 was no longer linked to the accident of 11.5.2000. The court held that either the pain is real and must be attributed to the accident under the statutory presumption, or there is an opiate dependence resulting from the treatment started because of the accident; in both cases the incapacity is a consequence of the workplace accident. It declared that the injuries and incapacity after 30.6.2000 are causally linked to the accident and gave the first-instance expert a supplementary assignment on temporary incapacity periods, consolidation and the permanent incapacity rate.","k":"Workplace accident — medication dependence caused by treatment","law":"Act of 10.4.1971 (presumption under art. 9)","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Brussel","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-12-01","rol":"20858 et 20876","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2008:ARR.20081201.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Lors d'une assemblée générale extraordinaire tenue le 3 décembre 2003, le Groupe SMAP qui comprenait quatre associations d'assurances mutuelles distinctes dotées chacune de la personnalité juridique ( à savoir la SMAP -…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Before the revision period expired (4 April 2006), the victim sued on 3 April 2006 the group's 'common law' mutual insurance association and the Fund; the workplace-accident insurer, a separate association within the same group, was sued only on 26 May 2006. The court held that the group name is purely commercial, that each mutual insurance association has its own legal personality and that a writ served on the wrong person makes the claim inadmissible, the nullity rules (Judicial Code arts. 860 et seq.) being irrelevant to such a plea; the first writ did not interrupt the three-year peremptory period of article 72 of the Act of 10.4.1971. The revision claim was time-barred; the workplace-accident insurer's appeal succeeded, the victim's cross-appeal failed and costs were set off between the victim and the insurers.","k":"Workplace accident — revision claim brought against the wrong insurer entity","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 72; Act of 11.6.1874, art. 2; Judicial Code, arts. 860 et seq., 1017; Cass. 23.4.1999; Cass. 29.6.2006","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-11-28","rol":"35.287/08","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2008:ARR.20081128.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Ne peut être considérée comme période d'incapacité temporaire de travail la période durant laquelle la victime d'un accident du travail soit travaille, soit est inscrite comme demandeuse d'emploi. Lorsque la victime…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer appealed against the first-instance judgment based on the expert report; the victim, for her part, sought reimbursement of her medical adviser's fees. The court noted that a period in which the victim works or is registered as a job-seeker cannot count as temporary incapacity, found the expert report objective, clear and precise, refused to appoint a new expert and, dismissing the appeal, fixed the periods of temporary incapacity, the consolidation date (1.12.2006) and basic remuneration (EUR 21,306.32). Using a medical adviser is the victim's own choice; as its necessity was not shown, the cost stays with her, and the flat-rate procedural indemnity under article 1022 of the Judicial Code cannot be increased by it.","k":"Workplace accident — unemployment versus temporary incapacity, medical adviser's fees","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 22–23; Judicial Code, arts. 1018 and 1022; Act of 21.4.2007","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-11-28","rol":"C.08.0016.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2008:ARR.20081128.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Si un assuré paye le montant du dommage à la personne lésée, en-dehors de toute procédure judiciaire, de sorte que cette dernière n'a plus aucun intérêt à introduire une action, le paiement par l'assuré, est l'événement…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured paid the injured party's loss herself without any court proceedings and then sought reimbursement from her liability insurer; the Antwerp Court of Appeal ran the limitation period from the original loss. The Court held that under article 34 §1(3) LCAT the limitation period for the insured's recourse claim against the liability insurer runs from the injured party's court claim; where the insured pays the injured party outside proceedings, so that the latter no longer needs to sue, that payment is the event giving rise to the claim and the period runs from that date. The judgment was quashed on the insured's appeal and referred to the Ghent Court of Appeal.","k":"Liability insurance — when the insured's recourse claim becomes time-barred","law":"LCAT art. 34 §1","w":6,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-11-24","rol":"C.06.0392.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2008:ARR.20081124.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Le moyen qui reproche à l'arrêt de considérer que la partie demanderesse invoque une cause d'exclusion alors qu'elle se borne à soutenir que le sinistre ne répond pas à la définition conventionnelle du risque, est un…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"After a person covered by a personal accident policy died by drowning, the claimant sought the benefit and the insurer argued that death had an endogenous cause; the Liège Court of Appeal ordered the insurer to pay €18,298.38 plus interest. The Court noted that the judgment found, on serious, precise and consistent presumptions, that the death prima facie matched the insured risk, and treated the requirement of a non-endogenous cause of death as an exclusion; as that characterisation was not validly challenged, placing the burden of proving the exclusion on the insurer did not reverse the burden of proof. The complaint about damages awarded for legal fees, raised for the first time before the Court, was inadmissible, and the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Personal accident insurance — exclusion and burden of proof (drowning)","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, art. 870; Cass. 2.4.2004","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-11-24","rol":"C.07.0432.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2008:ARR.20081124.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La règle de procédure énoncée par l'article 701, du Code judiciaire n'est pas d'ordre public (1). (1) Voir les concl. du M.P. || La règle de procédure énoncée à l'article 701, du Code judiciaire n'est pas d'ordre public…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"An insurer that had compensated its insureds after accidents caused by uninsured drivers sought reimbursement from the Guarantee Fund by subrogation; the Brussels Court of First Instance (on appeal), raising of its own motion the lack of connection, held inadmissible all claims brought by a single writ except the first, and dismissed the recourse on the merits. The Court held that article 701 of the Judicial Code is not a matter of public policy and cannot be raised by the court of its own motion, and quashed that part. On the merits, since an injured party covered by insurance has no claim against the Fund for the insured loss, the subrogated insurer has no such recourse either and is not an injured party within article 80 §1 of the Act of 9.7.1975; the rest of the appeal was dismissed.","k":"Subrogated property insurer's recourse against the Guarantee Fund","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, arts. 79-80; Royal Decree of 16.12.1981, arts. 14 and 16; former Civil Code, arts. 1249-1252; Judicial Code, art. 701","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-11-21","rol":"C.08.0144.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2008:ARR.20081121.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"L'article 29bis, de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs, n'opère pas de distinction selon que le conducteur invoque le dommage qu'il a…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The woman driving in an accident of 21 January 2001 claimed compensation under article 29bis as the dependant of her husband, a passenger who died in the accident; the Bruges Court of First Instance (on appeal) ordered the insurer to pay. The Court held that article 29bis §2 does not distinguish between the driver's own loss and the loss suffered as dependant of a vulnerable road user victim, so the driver's exclusion applies in the latter case too. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal insofar as it ordered payment under article 29bis and referred to the Kortrijk Court of First Instance.","k":"Article 29bis — driver excluded even as the victim's dependant","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis (as amended by the Act of 13.4.1995); Cass. 17.6.2004","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-11-20","rol":"2006/AR/2496","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:2008:ARR.20081120.17","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"In de waarborg van de verzekeringsovereenkomst 'eigen schade' van een vortuig waarin dekking voorzien is van de schade aan het voertuig ingevolge het omslaan, het zinken, een botsing, de aanraking met elk ander voorwerp…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"\"Own damage\" cover for overturning, sinking, collision, contact with any other object or vandalism also covers engine damage caused by filling up with petrol instead of diesel. The court rejected the insurer's challenge to cover; it did, however, strike out the €90 awarded for loss of use, which the policy does not provide for, and reduced the indemnity to €2,970.22 after the deductible. The insurer's appeal succeeded only to that extent.","k":"Comprehensive motor cover — engine damage from wrong fuel","law":"Comprehensive policy cover terms (interpretation)","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-11-17","rol":"2008-0044","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2008:ARR.20081117.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Een aan de hand van latere medische stukken gedocumenteerde en aldus geobjectiveerde vooraf bestaande rugproblematiek, die bij het medisch onderzoek dat aanleiding gaf tot de overeenkomstvergoeding helemaal onbekend…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer sought revision of the compensation agreement ratified by the Workplace Accidents Fund on 8.12.2003. The court held that a pre-existing back condition, entirely unknown at the medical examination underlying the agreement and later objectified by medical records, may count as a new fact justifying revision; the change in capacity was unforeseeable when the agreement was concluded and occurred within the three-year period. Adopting the expert report, the court fixed permanent incapacity for the accident of 6.4.2001 at 6% from 2.7.2001 to 5.3.2006 and 0% from 6.3.2006 (basic wage EUR 24,888.76). The victim's appeal was dismissed; costs were charged to the insurer.","k":"Workplace accident — pre-existing condition documented later, new fact in revision","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 72","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-11-10","rol":"2007-0285","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2008:ARR.20081110.18","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A municipal employee claimed the statutory benefits for a workplace accident of 19.1.2004 both from the municipality and from its workplace-accident insurer. The court held that under the Act of 3.7.1967 the debtor of the benefits is the authority that employed the victim, and that the authority's taking out insurance changes nothing: there is no legal basis for a direct action by the victim against the insurer, and the direct action of article 86 LCAT does not apply here. The victim's only interest is to have the judgment declared binding on the insurer as a precautionary measure, which is why the insurer was not dismissed from the case. The insurer's appeal was upheld and the victim's claim against it declared inadmissible; the expert examination was confirmed and costs were charged to the municipality.","k":"Public-sector workplace accident — victim's claim against the authority's insurer","law":"Act of 3.7.1967, art. 16; LCAT art. 86","w":178,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-11-10","rol":"2004/RG/1589","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2008:ARR.20081110.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A Luxembourg pension fund that had paid an invalidity pension to a person injured in a road accident in Belgium sought reimbursement from the liable driver's motor insurer. The court held that under article 93 of Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, the existence, scope and limitation period of the social security institution's recourse are governed by the law of the State to which it belongs, here Luxembourg law (articles 232 and 233 of the Social Insurance Code); those provisions give the institution a direct right of its own against the liable party and its insurer, and the action was not time-barred. The claim that the victim was not affiliated at the time of the accident was not proved. The insurer's appeal was dismissed and the first-instance judgment upheld.","k":"Road accident — foreign social security institution's recourse against the motor insurer","law":"Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71, art. 93; Luxembourg Social Insurance Code, arts. 232–233; ECJ 2.6.1994","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-11-03","rol":"20847","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2008:ARR.20081103.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La loi du 07/07/1978 modifiant le dernier alinéa du paragraphe 2 de l'article 46 de la loi du 10/04/1971 a supprimé l'option de la victime entre les deux règlements (choix entre le règlement en droit commun ou en « loi…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The victim asked the court to stay its decision until the expert report in the common-law proceedings was filed. The court recalled that since 1978 the statutory scheme takes priority and that a common-law judgment fixing the consolidation date cannot be relied on before the labour courts (and vice versa); the stay was refused. The court-appointed expert's report was endorsed: since a high degree of probability suffices under Court of Cassation case law, the workplace-accident insurer had rebutted the causation presumption of article 9 of the Act of 10.4.1971. The victim's appeal was dismissed; appeal costs were charged to the insurer.","k":"Workplace accident — rebutting the causation presumption; no stay for the common-law expert report","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 9 and 46; Cass. 19.10.1987","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-11-03","rol":"S.08.0007.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2008:ARR.20081103.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'employeur qui, en vertu de l'article 49, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail, est tenu de souscrire une assurance contre les accidents du travail auprès d'une entreprise d'assurance et…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"After a worker without workplace-accident cover was injured on her way home from work, the Workplace Accidents Fund paid out and the Antwerp Labour Court of Appeal allowed its recourse against the manager of a public leisure centre, treated as the employer in default of insurance. The Court held that the employer referred to in articles 49 and 60 of the Act of 10.4.1971 is the person who employs workers in his own name and for his own account under an employment contract. By accepting that the manager acted as an employee and agent of the Belgian State while holding him to be the employer, the judgment misapplied that notion; the part allowing the Fund's recourse was quashed and referred to the Brussels Labour Court of Appeal.","k":"Workplace accident — who is the employer for the Fund's recourse against a defaulting employer","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 49(1) and art. 60","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-10-13","rol":"2007/RG/1495","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2008:ARR.20081013.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A policyholder who, in the motor insurance proposal, concealed its previous insurer and three claims in the preceding year was met, after a loss, with the insurer's plea of nullity under article 6 LCAT, and blamed the broker for breaching its duty to inform and advise. The court held that the insurer was right to invoke nullity: the false statements were made to obtain a more favourable bonus-malus level and misled the insurer in assessing the risk. The broker is not required to check the accuracy of answers to such simple questions by consulting databases; the insured alone bears the consequences of its false statements. The insured's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Intentional misrepresentation — nullity of the contract, broker's fault","law":"LCAT art. 6; broker's duty to inform and advise","w":193,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-10-06","rol":"2007/RG/566","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2008:ARR.20081006.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"After a road accident that led to mutual assault charges before the criminal court, the insured sought his lawyer's fees from his legal expenses insurer. The court found that, under the general conditions, the exclusions in the liability section also apply to the legal expenses cover and that intentionally caused damage is excluded; defence costs for intentional assault are therefore not covered. As for the costs of recovering his own loss, the value in dispute did not exceed the €123.95 minimum threshold. The insurer's appeal was upheld and the insured was ordered to repay the €500 advance.","k":"Legal expenses insurance — intentional act exclusion and minimum threshold","law":"Policy general conditions, art. 14 c), 19 and 24; undue payment","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-10-03","rol":"C.07.0130.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2008:ARR.20081003.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"Un véhicule automoteur est impliqué dans un accident de la circulation lorsqu'il a joué un rôle quelconque dans cet accident ; il n'est pas requis à cet égard qu'il existe un lien de causalité entre la présence du…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A cyclist hit by a car was thrown against a parked vehicle and died; the striking car's insurer claimed half of the compensation paid under article 29bis from the parked car's insurer, which the Brussels Court of First Instance (on appeal) refused because the parked car had not contributed to causing the accident. The Court held that a vehicle is involved if it played any role in the accident, without any causal link being required between its presence and the occurrence of the accident, and that the impact with the first vehicle and the subsequent contact with the second form a single accident. The judgment was quashed and referred to the Leuven Court of First Instance.","k":"Article 29bis — involvement of a parked vehicle","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1; Cass. 9.1.2006","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-09-23","rol":"2007/RG/748","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2008:ARR.20080923.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The spouses' jointly owned building burned down on 4 November 2000; the insurer refused cover, alleging that the husband had set the fire. The court found, on presumptions (use of an accelerant, the expert's findings, the timeline, the heavy debts of the husband's company), that the fire was attributable to him. However, as the policy insured the whole building on behalf of \"the owner\", the co-owning wife had an insurable interest even though not named, and a clause narrowing the insurer's commitment is construed against it; art. 8(1) LCAT does not remove cover for beneficiaries unconnected with the deliberate loss, such as a co-owner. The wife was held entitled to half the indemnity: a provisional €1 was awarded and the hearing reopened; the husband's liability for the insurer's defence costs was reduced to €7,952.42.","k":"Fire insurance — arson by one spouse and the co-owning spouse's right to indemnity","law":"LCAT art. 8(1); former Civil Code, arts. 1156, 1161 and 1162; Cass. 23.6.1983","w":17,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-09-19","rol":"C.07.0357.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2008:ARR.20080919.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"Les ayants droit du propriétaire d'un véhicule non assuré ayant causé un dommage qui, à la suite du dommage subi par ce propriétaire visé à l'article 29bis, § 1er, de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The owner of an uninsured vehicle died in the accident; a dependant, for herself and for her two minor daughters, claimed compensation from the Guarantee Fund under article 29bis for their own loss resulting from his death, which the Turnhout Court of First Instance (on appeal) allowed. The Court held that where no insurer is liable because the insurance obligation was not met, the owner of the vehicle that caused the damage cannot obtain article 29bis compensation from the Fund, and that this limit applies equally to dependants who suffer their own loss because of their tie to him. The judgment was quashed on the Fund's appeal and referred to the Antwerp Court of First Instance.","k":"Guarantee Fund — dependants of the uninsured owner excluded from article 29bis","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1; Act of 9.7.1975, art. 80 §1; Royal Decree of 16.12.1981, art. 17 §1, 3°; Cass. 10.4.2003","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-09-15","rol":"07/870/A","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAANT:2008:JUG.20080915.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"1. De brandverzekeraar die beweert dat hij per brief voorbehoud heeft geformuleerd voor inzage van het strafdossier, moet dit in geval van betwisting bewijzen. 2. Een verslag van een privé-detective is geen expertise…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court ordered the fire insurer, which had been slow to pay undisputed loss amounts after the fire of 30.4.2006, to pay €220,400.65 plus default interest at twice the statutory rate (14% in 2006, 12% in 2007) under article 67 LCAT. An insurer claiming to have reserved its position by letter pending access to the criminal file must prove this if disputed; without a timely reservation it cannot rely on its inability to consult that file to avoid the doubled interest. A private detective's report is not an expert examination that would justify deferring payment.","k":"Fire insurance — late payment and doubled default interest","law":"LCAT art. 67; Judicial Code, arts. 557 and 618","w":54,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-09-08","rol":"49.644","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2008:ARR.20080908.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Onder de zorgen verschuldigd aan het slachtoffer dienen, krachtens artikel 28 van de wet van 10 april 1971, te worden verstaan alle zorgen van aard het slachtoffer te herstellen (en te behouden) in een fysieke staat die…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The victim and his health-insurance fund sought reimbursement from the workplace-accident insurer of pain treatment given after consolidation. The court held that 'necessary care' under article 28 of the Act of 10.4.1971 covers all treatment apt to restore the victim as closely as possible to the pre-accident state; the treatment need not reduce incapacity, and whether it was given before or after consolidation is irrelevant. Its usefulness is assessed as of the time it was started, not with hindsight; before ruling further, the court appointed a panel of three experts.","k":"Workplace accident — pain-treatment costs after consolidation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 28; Judicial Code art. 972","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Brussel","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-09-03","rol":"2004/AR/3063","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2008:ARR.20080903.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"After an arson fire in a rented building, the owner's insurer brought a direct action against the tenant's rental-liability insurer, which refused cover on the ground that its insured had set the fire deliberately. The court held that under article 1315(2) of the former Civil Code the insurer seeking to escape cover must prove the insured's intentional act; the deliberate nature of the fire does not show that the tenant was the perpetrator. The tenant, who had left the door between garage and kitchen unlocked, did not rebut the presumption of article 1733; the insurer's appeal was dismissed and it must reimburse the owner's insurer and indemnify its own insured for the furniture.","k":"Fire insurance — proof of intent and direct action against the tenant's insurer","law":"LCAT arts 8 and 87 §2; former Civil Code, arts 1315(2) and 1733","w":194,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-06-26","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2008:ARR.096","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 124 de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre viole les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution en ce que cette disposition a pour effet que la réserve ne peut être…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"In a dispute between heirs, the Ghent Court of Appeal asked whether article 124 LCAT (in life insurance only manifestly excessive premiums are subject to hotchpot or reduction) was discriminatory in preventing forced heirs from asserting their reserved share against the capital where the deceased had saved through a mixed life insurance policy. The Court noted that the favourable regime assumed an ordinary act of providence funded by reasonable periodic premiums, whereas some insurance products have become genuine investment vehicles, so that non-beneficiary forced heirs may in fact be disinherited; there is no longer any justification for treating them differently from heirs faced with a gift. To that extent, article 124 LCAT breaches articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution.","k":"Mixed life insurance — forced heirship and the capital","law":"LCAT art. 124; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":91,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-06-26","rol":"C.07.0494.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2008:ARR.20080626.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"Il résulte de l'article 29bis, §1er, de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs, qui entend faire concorder les droits des ayants droit et…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The mother of a young man killed in a road accident claimed compensation under article 29bis; the Hasselt Court of First Instance (on appeal) granted it, holding that the deceased's intent to cause the accident and its consequences could not be set up against his dependants. The Court held that article 29bis §1 aligns the dependants' rights with the victim's: where a victim over fourteen who intended the accident and its consequences has no right to compensation, the dependants cannot claim compensation for loss resulting from his injury or death either. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal and referred to the Tongeren Court of First Instance.","k":"Article 29bis — dependants of a victim who intended the accident","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1, paras. 1 and 6","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-06-25","rol":"2005/RG/1708","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2008:ARR.20080625.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"A building insured as a restaurant under renovation was opened for business without the insurer being told, and was then destroyed by fire. The court held this was an aggravation of the risk under article 26 LCAT; since the failure to declare was attributable to the policyholder, the insurer's benefit is limited to the ratio between the premium paid and the premium that should have been paid, and the claim for commercial loss against the insurer was rejected, with only statutory interest due. The insurance agent who failed to pass on the fire-service document and the information that the restaurant was operating was held liable under article 1382 of the former Civil Code for the loss of more favourable cover; proceedings were reopened on the policyholder's share of responsibility.","k":"Fire insurance — aggravation of risk, proportional reduction","law":"LCAT art. 26 §1 and §3 b) para. 1; former Civil Code, art. 1382, 1153","w":31,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-06-24","rol":"2007/RG/1054","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2008:ARR.20080624.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"L'article 12 de la loi du 25 février 1991 précise le point de départ de cette prescription triennale. Le §2 de l'article 12 précise que cette prescription de l'action directe du tiers sinistré contre l'assureur ne…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Liège Court of Appeal held that under article 12 §2 of the Act of 25 February 1991 the three-year limitation period for the direct action only starts once the injured party knows, or should reasonably know, of the damage, the defect and the insurer's identity. An insurer approached by a victim owes an accurate answer about whether it covers the product; one that wrongly denies it, deliberately or carelessly, prevents the period from running. A victim who sues the wrong insurer without checking commits a fault. The outcome is not stated.","k":"Product liability — limitation period for the direct action against the insurer","law":"Act of 25 February 1991, art. 12 §2","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"2008-06-18","rol":"2005/AR/2271","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2008:ARR.20080618.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"L'accident survenu sur un jet Ski est exclu de la couverture d'assurance dès lors qu'aux termes du contrat ' les dommages résultant de l'usage de bateaux à moteur de plus de 10 CV DIN ' sont exclus et que le jet ski en…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Injured in Spain as a passenger on a jet-ski driven by someone else, the victim claimed against the driver's private liability insurer. The court applied the exclusion for 'damage resulting from the use of motor boats of more than 10 CV DIN': a jet-ski of over 60 CV is a 'boat' in the ordinary sense of the word, since the policy refers to no technical regulation, and specialised rules that classify jet-skis separately do not change that reading. The first-instance judgment was overturned and the victim's claim dismissed.","k":"Private liability insurance — jet-ski accident, motor-boat exclusion","law":"Policy exclusion clause (motor boats over 10 CV DIN); interpretation of the contract in its ordinary meaning","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-06-10","rol":"20892","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2008:ARR.20080610.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Il convient de faire courir les intérêts - qui sont dus de plein droit - sur les rentes et capitaux prévus par l'article 20bis de la loi du 3 juillet 1967 à partir du premier jour du troisième mois qui suit la date de…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Ruling after a cassation, the court held that interest, due automatically, on the annuities and capital sums under article 20bis of the Act of 3.7.1967 runs from the first day of the third month after the consolidation date, even where that date was fixed by a later court decision. It relied on the Court of Arbitration ruling that found the Court of Cassation's contrary reading in breach of articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution, and on circular no. 523 implementing it. The public employer's insurer was ordered to pay statutory interest on the annuity arrears from 1 June 1987 (consolidation on 27 March 1987) until 4 June 1991, when the capital was paid; costs were reserved.","k":"Public-sector workplace accident — interest on the annuity from consolidation","law":"Act of 3.7.1967, art. 20bis; Constitution, arts. 10–11; Court of Arbitration case law; circular no. 523 of 5.6.2002","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-06-09","rol":"S.06.0076.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2008:ARR.20080609.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Lorsque, dans un dossier où le délai de révision expire en décembre, l'assureur constitue auprès d'un établissement agréé le capital d'une rente en janvier de l'année suivante, le montant de réserve mathématique…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A workplace-accident insurer and the Workplace Accidents Fund disagreed on when the contribution on annuity capital falls due in files where the revision period expired in December; the Brussels Labour Court of Appeal held that the duty to constitute the capital itself triggers the contribution, payable three months after the end of 1990, 1991 and 1992. The Court held that since article 51(1), 2° of the Act of 10.4.1971 gives the insurer one month to constitute the capital with an approved institution, where the capital is constituted in January of the following year the mathematical reserve belongs only in that year's return and the contribution is due by 31 March of the next year at the latest. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal and referred to the Mons Labour Court of Appeal.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer — when the contribution to the Fund on annuity capital falls due","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 51(1), 2°; Royal Decree of 30.12.1976, arts. 7-8; Cass. 9.9.2002","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-06-05","rol":"C.06.0019.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2008:ARR.20080605.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"Il appartient au pouvoir judiciaire, lors de l'interprétation de la loi, de fixer dans le temps les effets de la violation de la Constitution à laquelle conclut la Cour constitutionnelle dans une réponse à une question…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Kortrijk Court of First Instance had ordered the railway company, operator of a rail-bound vehicle, to compensate under article 29bis the health-insurance fund subrogated to the victim of an accident on 3 July 1997. The Court of Cassation held that it is for the courts to determine the temporal effect of the unconstitutionality found by the Constitutional Court on 15 July 1998 (exclusion of rail-bound vehicles), and that legitimate expectations and legal certainty preclude applying the article 29bis compensation duty to accidents with rail-bound vehicles that occurred before that ruling was published. The judgment was quashed on the railway company's appeal insofar as it rested on article 29bis, and remitted to the Bruges Court of First Instance.","k":"Article 29bis — rail-bound vehicles, temporal effect of a Constitutional Court ruling","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1 (before the Act of 19.1.2001); Const. Court 15.7.1998, no. 92/98; Cass. 20.12.2007","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-06-04","rol":"2006/RG/1604","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2008:ARR.20080604.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A company that had insured its vehicle fleet disputed the broker's claim for premiums, arguing it had never agreed to the premium amount. The court recalled that an insurance contract must be proved in writing, but that where there is prima facie written evidence, proof by presumption is allowed: months of use of the green cards, requests to renew dealer plates and silence in the face of reminders are serious, precise and consistent presumptions that the contract, premiums included, was accepted. The policyholder was ordered to pay €34,558.86; its request to set off claim payments was rejected, as the broker does not owe those indemnities.","k":"Proof of the insurance contract — unpaid premiums","law":"LCAT art. 1 A and art. 10","w":119,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-05-26","rol":"2006/RG/927","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2008:ARR.20080526.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A mentally ill man set fire to his brother's house; the brother's fire insurer, subrogated (art. 41 LCAT), claimed EUR 149,354.75 from the arsonist and his parents' family liability insurer. The court held that the equitable reduction under article 1386bis benefits only the insured, not the insurer (Cass. 22.9.2000), and that the existence of liability insurance precludes any reduction of the compensation. The exclusion in clause 6.9 of the policy covers damage caused to third parties by a building the insured owns, rents or occupies, not damage to the burnt building itself. The liability insurer must provide cover; the judgment was upheld.","k":"Family liability cover — fire caused by a mentally ill person, art. 1386bis and exclusion","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1386bis; LCAT art. 41; RD 12.1.1984; Cass. 22.9.2000","w":16,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-05-20","rol":"2007/RG/1148","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2008:ARR.20080520.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"La nature du contrat d'assurance implique que le sinistre couvert soit statistiquement prévisible mais que sa réalisation dans le chef de l'assuré reste aléatoire. Le principe d'exécution de bonne foi des contrats…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The Liège Court of Appeal held that non-negotiable clauses drafted by the insurer are construed in the insured's favour and that exclusions must be read so as to give the contract a purpose (art. 1162 of the former Civil Code). A company's regular rental of mobile homes, known to the insurer when the contract was made, is 'renting' in insurance terms. Damage to the insured vehicle rented out in that context is not excluded from cover under the insurer's own standard terms.","k":"Vehicle damage cover — rental activity and exclusion clause","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1162; good-faith performance","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"2008-05-15","rol":"C.07.0306.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2008:ARR.20080515.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"La notion de dommage subi par la victime d'un accident de la circulation, au sens de l'article 29bis de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court of Cassation held that a road traffic accident under article 29bis is one occurring on the public highway and on land, even private, open to a number of persons entitled to access it; the fact that it happened during a speed, regularity or skill race on a closed circuit does not prevent that qualification. The Oudenaarde Court of First Instance was therefore entitled to find that using the vehicle for sport did not stop the damage from being caused in traffic. The motor liability insurer's appeal against the health-insurance fund was dismissed.","k":"Article 29bis — rally accident on a closed circuit is a road traffic accident","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; Cass. 25.1.2008","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-04-30","rol":"2006/RG/1435","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2008:ARR.20080430.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Defence costs of insureds prosecuted for drug trafficking are not covered by legal expenses insurance: the prosecution was the foreseeable result of conduct knowingly adopted. The intentional-loss exclusion is a matter of public policy.","k":"Legal expenses insurance — intentional act exclusion","law":"LCAT (1992 Act) art. 8 para. 1; Cass. 5.12.2000","w":195,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-04-21","rol":"C.06.0675.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2008:ARR.20080421.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'organisme assureur, qui a fourni à la victime d'un dommage résultant d'une maladie, de lésions, de troubles fonctionnels ou du décès l'une des prestations prévues par l'assurance obligatoire, est subrogé à la victime,…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"The liability insurer of the liable third party challenged a Liège Court of Appeal judgment which, in a case of shared liability, had ordered it to pay both the victim and the health-insurance fund that had paid €13,297.45 in medical costs. The Court of Cassation held that the fund's subrogation extends, up to its outlay, to all sums compensating heads of loss capable of justifying a compulsory-insurance benefit (medical costs, professional and schooling loss, incapacity for work), and rejected that ground. However, subrogation cannot burden the liable party and its insurer beyond the compensation due under general law: the judgment, which counted the same sums both in the fund's recourse and in the award to the victim, was quashed as to the awards and remitted to the Brussels Court of Appeal.","k":"Health-insurance fund subrogation — scope and bar on double payment","law":"Act of 9.8.1963, art. 76quater §2; Coordinated Act of 14.7.1994, art. 136 §2; former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1383","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-04-18","rol":"C.06.0564.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2008:ARR.20080418.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Dès lors que l'article 82 de la loi du 25 juin 1992 s'applique à un contrat en cours, il régit l'étendue de la garantie due en vertu de celui-ci pour autant que l'événement dommageable qui est couvert soit survenu après…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"An accountancy firm insured for professional liability claimed interest and costs above the cover limit from its insurer; the Liège Court of Appeal refused, relying on the triggering fact, the drafting of articles of association in December 1987. The Court of Cassation held that once article 82 LCAT applies to an ongoing contract, it governs the extent of cover for damaging events occurring after that time, and here the loss arose with the tax authority's decision of 4 October 1994. The judgment was quashed to that extent on the insured's appeal and remitted to the Mons Court of Appeal.","k":"Liability insurance — interest and costs above the cover limit, ongoing contract","law":"LCAT arts. 77, 82 and 148; Cass. 6.4.2006","w":196,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-04-17","rol":"8480/07","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2008:ARR.20080417.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'article 79, § 10, de l'arrêté royal du 25 novembre 1991 portant réglementation du chômage, tel que modifié par l'article 2.1., de l'arrêté royal du 13 juin 1999 prévoit que le travailleur ALE est assuré contre les…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The health-insurance fund sought reimbursement of its outlays from the insurer with which the national employment office (ONEm) had taken out the policy covering local employment agency (ALE) workers, alleging breach of the notification duties in article 63 of the Act of 10 April 1971. The court held that an ALE worker keeps unemployed status, that the sui generis contract is not an employment contract and that the Act of 10 April 1971 does not apply: the policy taken out under article 79 of the Royal Decree of 25 November 1991 provides the same benefits, but the insurer acts only as an ordinary insurer, not as a statutory workplace-accident insurer, so article 63 is not binding on it. The fund cannot, by subrogation, claim its outlays from an insurer that has paid what it owed to the victim; any undue payments had to be recovered from the victim. The insurer's appeal was upheld and the fund's claim dismissed.","k":"Local employment agency worker — ONEm's insurer not a statutory insurer, health fund's recourse","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63; RD 25.11.1991, art. 79 §§ 9–10; Coordinated Act of 14.7.1994, art. 136","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-04-17","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2008:ARR.065","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : 1. L'article 1382 du Code civil ne viole pas les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution en ce qu'il est interprété comme ne pouvant être invoqué par un employeur du secteur privé qui, pour obtenir…","court":"const","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"On questions from the Brussels Police Court (in a dispute between two insurers) and the Liège Court of Appeal, the Court restated its judgment no. 135/2007. The reading under which a private employer cannot rely on article 1382 of the former Civil Code to recover from the liable third party the pay given to a worker incapacitated by a commuting accident is constitutional; for an accident other than a workplace or commuting accident, the reading that excludes such a claim breaches articles 10 and 11, while the reading that allows it does not. As none of the cases involved shared liability, the second question concerning the victim required no answer.","k":"Private employer's claim against third party — commuting and other accidents","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1382; Const. Court 7.11.2007, no. 135/2007","w":84,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-04-14","rol":"45.038","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2008:ARR.20080414.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La lésion provoquée - même indirectement - par l'accident du travail doit être indemnisée si elle cause un dommage. Le dommage réparable est l'atteinte à la capacité économique de la victime résultant de l'accident.…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The court endorsed the expert panel's reports finding that the victim's spinal condition stemmed exclusively from a pre-existing degenerative state, not from the accidents; no permanent incapacity was recognised. However, because the sudden events of 29.5.1990 and 19.3.1991 hastened the onset of symptoms, the periods of temporary total and partial incapacity (100% then 50%) were held causally linked to the accidents and payable by the workplace-accident insurer. The court recalled that it suffices for the accident to be a partial cause of the incapacity for it to be fully compensated regardless of the prior condition; costs and expert fees were charged to the insurer.","k":"Workplace accident — pre-existing condition and causation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 24 and 68","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-04-14","rol":"C.07.0380.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2008:ARR.20080414.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"L'article 88, alinéa 2, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre implique que, pour ne pas perdre son droit de recours, l'assureur est tenu de notifier clairement et sans ambiguïté à l'intéressé…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Article 88(2) LCAT requires the insurer, to keep its right of recourse, to give clear and unequivocal notice of its intention to exercise it. In its letter of 21 August 2001 the insurer stated that the driver may have been drunk at the time of the accident, that it had a right of recourse under articles 24 and 25 of the model contract, and invited him to appoint a lawyer; the Ghent Court of First Instance was entitled to treat this as an unequivocal decision to seek recourse, unless drunkenness or its causal link were not proven. The insured driver's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — clear notice of the insurer's intention to seek recourse","law":"LCAT art. 88(2); Model contract RD 14.12.1992, arts. 24–25; Cass. 12.10.2000","w":156,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-04-11","rol":"C.06.0492.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2008:ARR.20080411.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Viole la disposition impérative de l'article 41, alinéa 4, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 l'arrêt qui, sans constater de malveillance dans le chef du fils de l'assuré, le condamne à rembourser à l'assureur l'indemnité qu'il…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured had entrusted his vehicle and furniture to his son, whose house burned down; the insurer paid the insured for the loss of the vehicle and then sued the son as subrogee (the son's fire insurer had suspended cover for non-payment of premium). The Mons Court of Appeal ordered the son to repay the indemnity. The Court of Cassation held that, save in case of malice, the insurer has no recourse against the insured's descendants (art. 41(4) LCAT); ordering the son to pay without any finding of malice breached that mandatory rule. The judgment was quashed and remitted to the Brussels Court of Appeal.","k":"Subrogation — no recourse against the insured's descendants","law":"LCAT art. 41(1), (4) and (5)","w":16,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-04-08","rol":"20741","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2008:ARR.20080408.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Un accident qui survient pendant la suspension du contrat de travail n'est, en règle, pas un accident du travail, le travailleur ne se trouvant pas sous l'autorité de l'employeur, mais il peut en être autrement si le…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A worker off work after a first workplace accident was injured on 30 September 1989 while returning home from a clinic where he had attended a rehabilitation session and been examined by the doctor empowered to decide his return to work. The court recalled that an accident during suspension of the contract is normally not a workplace accident, unless the worker was then performing an obligation, even an ancillary one, under the contract; the doctor's surgery was treated as a place of work within article 8 of the Act of 10.4.1971 and the accident was recognised as a commuting accident. The judgment in the insurer's favour was reversed and a medical expert appointed.","k":"Workplace accident — return journey from a clinic during contract suspension","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 8 §1","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-03-10","rol":"2006/RG/1326","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2008:ARR.20080310.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Ruling after remand from the Court of Cassation, the court examined whether the theft cover the broker admitted having granted orally on 31 March 1989 bound the insurer. It held that the broker's note was neither an insurance proposal nor a cover note, that the independent broker had no authority to bind the company outside motor liability, and that the insurer's precautionary payment did not amount to ratification. Although the insured's mistake was legitimate, the appearance of authority could not be attributed to the insurer's conduct; the insured's claim against the insurer was dismissed.","k":"Theft insurance — broker's oral cover and apparent authority","law":"Doctrine of apparent authority; Cass. 28.9.2000 (quashing)","w":35,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-03-04","rol":"2005/RG/377","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2008:ARR.20080304.23","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Where medical history was omitted unintentionally, the insurer may propose an amendment only within one month of learning of the omission; having failed to prove it met that deadline, it lost the right and the policies stood unchanged. A late claim notification allows a reduction only if the insurer proves prejudice, which it did not.","k":"Duty of disclosure — unintentional omission and one-month deadline","law":"LCAT (1992 Act) art. 7 and art. 21","w":197,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-03-04","rol":"2002/RG/1086","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2008:ARR.20080304.22","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insured declared that, while reversing, a steel beam on his trailer had struck a company's parked lorry; the motor liability insurer paid the lorry owner BEF 327,277. On later learning that the cab damage came from a downward rather than a lateral impact, the insurer sought recovery of the undue payment. The court held that the insurer need only prove that the damage was not caused by its insured's driving fault, not establish the actual cause; the expert report and objective data (the 300 kg beam would have had to rise 80 cm) contradicted the declaration. The dismissal of the criminal complaint has no res judicata effect in civil proceedings. The joint and several order against the insured and the company to repay €8,112.99 was upheld.","k":"False accident declaration — recovery of the indemnity paid","law":"Recovery of undue payment (former Civil Code); Judicial Code art. 601","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-03-04","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2008:ARR.040","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The insurers' professional association sought annulment of article 177 of the Act of 27.12.2006 amending the Act of 10.4.1971 (adjustment of employers' workplace-accident premiums, by set percentages, according to their accident record), relying on EU freedom to provide services and of establishment, the right to work and freedom of trade and industry. The Court recalled that this freedom is not absolute: when pursuing a policy of preventing workplace accidents, the legislature may impose limits on those offering such insurance, provided they are not unnecessary or manifestly disproportionate. The action was dismissed.","k":"Workplace-accident insurance — premium adjustment by claims record","law":"Act of 27.12.2006, art. 177; Act of 10.4.1971; Constitution, art. 23","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-03-04","rol":"2007AR1044","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2008:ARR.20080304.24","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"1. Artikel 1384 lid 2 B.W. laat in de regel weliswaar toe dat de verzekeraar die in de rechten van de burgerrechtelijk aansprakelijke ouders is getreden, zijn vordering tegen de aansprakelijke minderjarige uitoefent,…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The family liability insurer had paid €21,310.34 to the victim of an intentional assault in which its policyholder's son, then almost 17, took part and for which he and his parents were held liable; subrogated to the father's rights, it sought repayment from the now-adult son. The court held that the son, who lived with his father, was an insured under the policy, a status not lost because his intentional act excluded him from cover, and that subrogation under art. 41 para. 1 LCAT can be exercised only against liable third parties. The judgment dismissing the insurer's claim was upheld; reliance on art. 8 para. 1 LCAT was held irrelevant.","k":"Family liability insurance — recourse against an insured child who acted intentionally","law":"LCAT art. 41 paras. 1 and 4, art. 8 para. 1; former Civil Code, art. 1384 para. 2","w":198,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-02-28","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2008:ARR.033","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 34, § 2, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre ne viole pas les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution.","court":"const","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The Nivelles Court of First Instance asked whether article 34 §2 LCAT was discriminatory in subjecting the injured party's direct right against the liability insurer to a five-year limitation period, while a victim of contractual fault has ten years (article 2262bis Civil Code) against the wrongdoer. The Court found the difference justified: article 34 §2 applies equally to victims of criminal offences and civil faults, the direct right under article 86 LCAT protects the victim against the wrongdoer's insolvency and mainly concerns non-contractual liability, and the two actions have different defendants (the insurer rather than the liable person). The legislature was not bound to apply identical periods; article 34 §2 LCAT does not breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution.","k":"Direct action against the insurer — five-year limitation period","law":"LCAT arts. 34 §2 and 86; former Civil Code, art. 2262bis","w":6,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-02-27","rol":"07/615/A","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:2008:JUG.20080227.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Nonobstant son caractère inique pour les preneurs d'assurance dont le véhicule automoteur est sujet à un système de personnalisation a postériori, le législateur permet à l'assureur R.C. auto de stipuler…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The motor liability insurer claimed from the policyholder a €1,000 deductible set out in the special conditions; the first judge had dismissed the claim. The court noted that the law merely makes deductibles unenforceable against the injured party (former art. 5 of the Act of 21.11.1989, a rule later moved to art. 87 §1 LCAT) and that no provision bans deductibles for vehicles under a bonus-malus system: the clause is valid. In a default judgment the policyholder was ordered to pay €1,000 plus interest.","k":"Motor liability — validity of a contractual deductible","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 5 (repealed); LCAT art. 87 §1; RD 14.12.1992","w":181,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-02-20","rol":"AR 2101/06","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ORGNT:2008:JUG.20080220.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"In a dispute over a chain of parts with a hidden defect, the injured parties had sued the supplier's product liability insurer directly and the buyer had joined its own and the supplier's insurers. Since the main claims against the insureds were late or unfounded, the court also dismissed the direct action and third-party claims against the insurers: under a direct action the insurer cannot be liable for more than its insured. A contractual warranty period does not relieve the buyer of the duty to sue for a hidden defect within a reasonable time.","k":"Product liability insurance — direct action depends on the insured's liability","law":"LCAT art. 86; former Civil Code, art. 1641–1648","w":199,"c":"Ondernemingsrechtbank Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-02-12","rol":"P.07.1185.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2008:ARR.20080212.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"Un sinistre a été causé intentionnellement au sens de l'article 8, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurances terrestres, lorsque l'assuré a posé un acte ou s'en est abstenu sciemment et…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court of Cassation recalled that a loss is caused intentionally under article 8(1) LCAT when the insured knowingly and deliberately acts or refrains from acting and that risky conduct causes reasonably foreseeable harm to a third party. A perpetrator acquitted under article 71 of the Criminal Code, because at the time of the act he suffered a serious mental disorder making him unable to control his actions, can in no way have caused the loss intentionally. The appeal of the insurer, which had voluntarily intervened in the criminal proceedings, was dismissed; the Antwerp Court of Appeal judgment stands.","k":"Intentional loss exclusion — perpetrator acquitted for mental disorder","law":"LCAT art. 8(1); Criminal Code, art. 71; Cass. 5.12.2000","w":17,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-01-31","rol":"C.06.0186.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2008:ARR.20080131.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'obligation de l'assureur de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs de couvrir la responsabilité civile de chaque conducteur, ne vaut qu'en ce qui concerne le véhicule automoteur désigné dans la police,…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The accident was caused with a vehicle temporarily replacing the insured vehicle, driven by someone who was neither the policyholder's spouse nor a cohabiting child; the Antwerp Court of Appeal held that the clause limiting replacement-vehicle cover to those persons could not be raised against the injured parties. The Court of Cassation held that the motor liability insurer's duty to cover any driver applies only to the vehicle described in the policy, and that the absence of cover for other drivers of a replacement vehicle is not a defence within article 16 of the Act of 21 November 1989, so it can be raised against injured parties. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal and remitted to the Brussels Court of Appeal.","k":"Motor liability — temporary replacement vehicle, insured drivers","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 1, 2, 3 §1 and 16(1) (before the Act of 22.8.2002); Model contract RD 14.12.1992, art. 4, 1°; Benelux Convention of 24.5.1966","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-01-28","rol":"48.656","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2008:ARR.20080128.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La victime a droit, jusqu'à la consolidation, aux indemnités d'incapacité temporaire si, peu importe la raison, elle n'est pas remise au travail ou si aucun traitement ne lui est proposé pour se réadapter. Même si la…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"After the accident of 25.10.1999 the expert had found 50% partial temporary incapacity from 9.1.2001 to 29.8.2001; the tribunal had omitted to rule on compensation for that period. The article 23 return-to-work procedure had not been followed because the workplace-accident insurer considered the incapacity over, and the victim had not been put back to work. Following the Court of Cassation, the court held that until full return to work or consolidation, a victim who for whatever reason is not put back to work or offered rehabilitation treatment is entitled to total temporary-incapacity benefits, and that the failure to follow the procedure cannot prejudice him; the insurer was ordered to pay total-incapacity benefits for that period. The appeal directed against the motor-liability insurer of the vehicle involved was declared inadmissible for lack of jurisdiction.","k":"Workplace accident — partial temporary incapacity without return to work","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 23 and 68; Cass. 11.2.1998","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-01-25","rol":"C.07.0261.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2008:ARR.20080125.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La notion d'accident de la circulation au sens de l'article 29bis de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 vise aussi bien un accident de la circulation routière impliquant un véhicule automoteur empruntant la voie publique que…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court of Cassation held that the notion of road traffic accident in article 29bis covers accidents on the public highway as well as on land open to the public and on non-public land open to a number of persons. The fact that the vehicle involved was taking part in a sports competition at the time does not mean that the accident is not a traffic accident. The motor liability insurer's appeal, arguing that a vehicle racing on a closed circuit does not take part in traffic, was dismissed; the Nivelles Court of First Instance ruling in favour of the victim stands.","k":"Article 29bis — accident during a motocross competition","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 2 §1 and 29bis §1(1); Cass. 26.9.2001","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-01-23","rol":"2007AR1332","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2008:ARR.20080123.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"1. Aan de vereisten van art. 79, 1ste en 2de lid Wet Landverzekeringsovereenkomst was voldaan: er was door de aangifte van het schadegeval een aanspraak op de dekking, het ging om een schadegeval klaarblijkelijk onder…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A childminder sued over serious injuries to a baby in her care saw her liability insurer take control of the defence and appoint lawyers; she sought to disavow their procedural acts. The court found the conditions of art. 79 LCAT met (claim notified, loss apparently covered, interests aligned) and held that, as both insurer and insured had been sued, the insurer could appoint lawyers under that statutory mandate; the lawyers had followed instructions, and any breach of the right of defence could only raise a liability issue between insured and insurer. The disavowal was rejected and the insured was ordered to pay the lawyers €1 for vexatious proceedings.","k":"Liability insurance — control of the defence and disavowal of counsel","law":"LCAT art. 79; Judicial Code (disavowal of procedural acts)","w":107,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-01-21","rol":"2005AR1697","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2008:ARR.20080121.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Passengers living in Belgium who were injured, or lost relatives, in a 1981 chain collision in France involving a Spanish-registered coach brought a direct action against the coach's motor liability insurer. The court held that under article 9(2) of the Hague Convention of 4.5.1971 the law of the place of the accident (the French Insurance Code) grants a direct action and that the Badinter Act applies by virtue of its transitional article 47(2), so the driver's fault need not be examined. The insurer was ordered to pay, among other sums, €75,475.03 to the heirs of the deceased passenger and €28,887.52 and €152,228.92 to the injured, plus moral damages; the penalty under article 12 of the Badinter Act was refused given the accident date, and lost luggage was not compensated.","k":"Road accident abroad — direct action against the insurer, applicable law","law":"Hague Convention of 4.5.1971, arts 3 and 9(2); French Insurance Code, art. R124; French Badinter Act of 5.7.1985, arts 1–6, 12 and 47","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Brussel","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-01-17","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2008:ARR.007","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 46, § 1er, de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail ne viole pas les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution.","court":"const","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"In a dispute between a company and the workplace-accident insurer, the Ghent Court of Appeal asked whether article 46 of the Act of 10.4.1971, combined with the rules on contribution between debtors liable in solidum, was discriminatory in that a third party whose fault concurred with the employer's faces the insurer's recourse without any contribution claim against the immune employer. The Court noted that the workplace-accident compensation rules form a coherent whole, that the immunity protects industrial peace and avoids increasing the financial burden of employers who pay compulsory premiums, and that this insurance covers the worker's risk, not the employer's. Article 46 §1 does not breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution.","k":"Workplace accident — co-liable third party's recourse against the employer","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46 §§1–2; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2008-01-10","rol":"2004/RG/1306","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2008:ARR.20080110.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"En contrepartie du paiement des primes, l'assureur s'engage à prendre en charge la dette de responsabilité qui pourrait incomber à son assuré. En intervenant auprès de la victime, l'assureur paie une dette qui lui est…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"After the roof of a hall collapsed, the architect's liability insurer, relying on a suspension of cover, brought a guarantee claim against its own insured. The court recalled that a liability insurer pays its own debt when compensating the victim and is never subrogated against its insured; the claim can only be a recourse action under article 88 LCAT. The intention to seek recourse must be notified clearly, after the loss has occurred, to the person against whom recourse is contemplated: general letters sent before the loss and letters addressed to the broker do not suffice. Absent such notice, the claim was inadmissible.","k":"Professional liability — insurer's recourse against its insured and notice requirement","law":"LCAT art. 88(2); policy, art. 14","w":11,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-12-24","rol":"2006/RG/421","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2007:ARR.20071224.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insured sought legal-expenses cover for two disputes with a religious congregation (Jehovah's Witnesses); the insurer refused, arguing that the membership had not been disclosed and created an abnormal risk. The court found no proof that membership created a risk beyond the contract's normal contemplation or an aggravation of risk, that the insurer had not shown it would have refused cover had it known, and that no insurance document referred to religious or philosophical beliefs. The insurer's appeal was dismissed; the insured's claim for defence costs was rejected because no fault by the insurer was established.","k":"Legal-expenses insurance — membership of a religious congregation and risk","law":"Legal-expenses policy, art. 1 and 16; LCAT principles on disclosure and aggravation of risk","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-12-20","rol":"C.07.0227.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2007:ARR.20071220.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"Il appartient au pouvoir judiciaire, lors de l'interprétation de la loi, de fixer dans le temps les effets de la violation de la Constitution à laquelle conclut la Cour constitutionnelle dans une réponse à une question…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"On 15 February 1995 a person was hit by a tram owned by the public transport company; the victim's health-insurance fund, as subrogee, claimed compensation under article 29bis. The Court of Cassation noted that on 15 July 1998 the Constitutional Court had found the exclusion of rail-bound vehicles unconstitutional, but that legitimate expectations and legal certainty preclude applying the compensation duty to accidents that occurred before that ruling was published. The Brussels Court of First Instance was right not to apply article 29bis to the tram operator, and the fund's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Article 29bis — tram accident, temporal effect of unconstitutionality","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1(1); Const. Court 15.7.1998, no. 92/98","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-12-20","rol":"C.06.0301.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2007:ARR.20071220.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"L'autorité de la chose jugée en matière répressive ne s'attache qu'à ce qui a été certainement et nécessairement jugé par le juge pénal concernant l'existence de faits mis à charge du prévenu et en prenant en…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court of Cassation held that a person claiming compensation under article 29bis must prove that the risk that materialised falls within the insured risk, i.e. that he belongs to the protected category and was not the driver of a vehicle involved (former Civil Code, art. 1315(1); Judicial Code, art. 870). The argument that the driver exclusion is an exception to be proved by the insurer was wrong in law. The Court also recalled that res judicata in criminal matters covers only what the criminal court decided certainly and necessarily; the victim's appeal was dismissed and the Hasselt Court of First Instance judgment stands.","k":"Article 29bis — burden of proving one was not the driver","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; former Civil Code, art. 1315(1); Judicial Code, art. 870; Cass. 23.9.2004","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-12-12","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2007:ARR.152","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 8, § 1er, alinéa 2, de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail ne viole pas les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution.","court":"const","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"In a dispute between a victim's relatives and the workplace-accident insurer, the Ghent Labour Court of Appeal asked whether article 8 §1(2) of the Act of 10.4.1971 was discriminatory in requiring the victim of a commuting accident to prove a normal route and a legitimate reason for any interruption. The Court held that the provision does not breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution; the settled case law of the Court of Cassation, under which a minor interruption must be justified by a legitimate cause, has never been questioned by the legislature. The fourth question, based on a distinction matching neither the text, nor the legislature's intent, nor that case law, required no answer.","k":"Commuting accident — normal route and burden of proof","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 8 §1; Cass. 11.5.1977; Cass. 6.11.1978","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-12-03","rol":"C.06.0421.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2007:ARR.20071203.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"Lorsque la Cour constitutionnelle dit pour droit que l'article 29bis de la loi du 21 novembre 1989, dans sa rédaction antérieure à sa modification par l'article 1er de la loi du 13 avril 1995, viole les articles 10 et…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Brussels Court of First Instance, following the Constitutional Court ruling of 15 July 1998, had held the public transport company, owner of the tram involved, liable to the victim under article 29bis. The Court of Cassation held that the compensation duty lies with the insurer covering liability for the vehicle and cannot be extended to the owner without a finding that the owner, under article 10 of the Act of 21 November 1989, is bound towards the injured party on the same terms as an insurer. The judgment was quashed on the transport company's appeal and remitted to the Nivelles Court of First Instance.","k":"Article 29bis — owner of a rail-bound vehicle, liability as an insurer","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 10 and 29bis §1 and §3; Const. Court 15.7.1998, no. 92/98","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-11-15","rol":"C.06.0398.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2007:ARR.20071115.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Les dispositions en vertu desquelles le Fonds n'est pas tenu à indemnisation vis-à-vis des personnes lésées si elles ont laissé prescrire leur action à l'égard d'une des personnes responsables, ne font pas distinction…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The injured parties had sued the Guarantee Fund but then let their claim against one of the liable parties, the Region, become time-barred. The Court of Cassation held that under article 18.b of the Royal Decree of 16 December 1981 and article 22, 2° of the Royal Decree of 11 July 2003, the Fund owes nothing to injured parties who let their claim against one of the liable parties lapse, regardless of whether the claim against the Fund was brought before or after that limitation period expired. The injured parties' appeal was dismissed; the Ghent Court of Appeal judgment stands.","k":"Guarantee Fund — claim against a liable party time-barred","law":"Royal Decree 16.12.1981, art. 18.b; Royal Decree 11.7.2003, art. 22, 2°; Cass. 13.9.2001","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-11-08","rol":"2005/RG/81","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2007:ARR.20071108.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"In 1993 a refuse truck rolled down a street and hit several vehicles; its driver had allegedly lost consciousness after a sudden coughing fit. The court held that an unforeseeable event may be proven by serious, precise and consistent presumptions and found it proven here: since the driver and his motor insurer were released, the claim of the injured party and his subrogated property insurer lay against the Guarantee Fund. Ruling after a Cassation referral, the court dismissed the Fund's appeal; the injured party received €1,917.20 definitively and the property insurer's claim was confirmed at €13,661.41.","k":"Guarantee Fund — driver's loss of consciousness, unforeseeable event","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 19bis-11; former Civil Code, art. 1349, 1353","w":35,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-11-08","rol":"20238","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2007:ARR.20071108.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The Workplace Accidents Fund had refused to approve the compensation agreement because the base pay excluded the employer's group-insurance premiums. The court confirmed that premiums paid by the employer for a group insurance for its staff are indirect, money-valued benefits granted by reason of the employment and form part of base pay (EUR 24,238.72); they are not themselves a supplement to social security but serve to provide one. However, the costs of the Fund, which intervened voluntarily without making any claim against the insurer, cannot be charged to the insurer: article 68 covers only actions based on the Act and article 65 is not a costs rule. The workplace-accident insurer's appeal succeeded on that point only.","k":"Workplace accident — group-insurance premiums in base pay; the Fund's costs","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 35, 65 and 68; Judicial Code, art. 1017(1); Cass. 16.1.1978","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-11-07","rol":"2006/AR/2942","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2007:ARR.20071107.24","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"In 2001 a woman fell from a station platform onto the tracks and was hit by a train; her husband and daughter claimed compensation from the railway company under article 29bis. The court held that since the 2001 amendment article 29bis also covers rail vehicles, that 'traffic accident' is to be read broadly, and that train and tram accidents involving vulnerable road users are covered outside crossings, including on the railway's own track. Neither intent nor fault of the victim was proven; the company's appeal and its €1,754.10 counterclaim were dismissed, as was the cross-appeal, and the judgment upheld in full.","k":"Article 29bis — pedestrian hit by a train in a station","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1, para. 2; Constitutional Court, 7.6.2006 (no. 93/2006); Cass. 9.1.2004","w":35,"c":"Hof van beroep Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-11-07","rol":"2006/RG/1549","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2007:ARR.20071107.18","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insured's chalet was destroyed by fire on 13 March 2004; his wife told the police the same day that she had set it alight deliberately. The court held that article 17 of the general conditions, excluding damage caused by the intentional act of the policyholder's spouse, does not conflict with article 8 LCAT or any other mandatory rule. The letter the wife wrote a year later retracting her statement casts no doubt on the coherent, detailed statement given on the day; the intentional act is established by the criminal file. The insured's claim was dismissed and the insurer's appeal upheld.","k":"Fire insurance — validity of exclusion for spouse's intentional act","law":"LCAT art. 8; general conditions, art. 17","w":17,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-11-07","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2007:ARR.135","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : 1. L'article 1382 du Code civil ne viole pas les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution en ce qu'il est interprété comme ne pouvant être invoqué par un employeur du secteur privé qui, pour obtenir…","court":"const","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The Charleroi Court of First Instance and the Liège and Verviers Police Courts asked whether article 1382 of the former Civil Code, as construed by the Court of Cassation, was discriminatory in that a public employer may recover from the liable third party (and its liability insurer) the pay given to an incapacitated civil servant, while a private employer could not. The Court distinguished: for a workplace or commuting accident, the private employer's inability to rely on article 1382 is constitutional; for any other accident, the reading that denies the private employer this claim breaches articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution, while the reading that allows it does not. The second question concerning the victim required no answer, as the dispute involved no shared liability.","k":"Private employer's claim against liable third party — wages paid during incapacity","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1382; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":84,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-11-07","rol":"AR 1230/06","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ORGNT:2007:JUG.20071107.21","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"first","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"After a fire, the co-insurers had not paid for goods seized during the dioxin crisis or for clearance and destruction costs, pending possible public compensation. The court ordered the insurers to pay €79,586.22 in clearance and destruction costs according to their shares, with only default interest because the indemnity is a money debt. The claim of the other company, which had signed a receipt, was dismissed because the receipt was a final settlement; article 84 LCAT does not apply to property insurance; and the insured, not being subrogated, could not claim the indemnity for a third company's goods.","k":"Fire insurance — clearance costs and final discharge receipt","law":"LCAT art. 84; Cass. 27.10.1995","w":159,"c":"Ondernemingsrechtbank Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-11-07","rol":"AR 2170/04","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ORGNT:2007:JUG.20071107.23","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The temporary-work agency's workplace-accident insurer sought repayment of advances from the end user, which exercised de facto authority over the temporary worker. The court held that only the agency enjoys employer immunity and that the user, having breached safety rules, is liable under ordinary law; it was ordered to pay an advance of €52,361.99. The user's third-party claims against its own liability insurers failed: the operations liability policy treated the temporary worker, as the user's appointee, as an insured rather than a third party, and the other policy did not cover a loss that occurred before it took effect.","k":"Workplace accident — temporary worker, recourse against the user firm and liability cover","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46; former Civil Code, art. 1382; Act of 24.7.1987, art. 31","w":84,"c":"Ondernemingsrechtbank Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-11-05","rol":"2006/RG/418","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2007:ARR.20071105.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The policyholder had concealed in the proposal form that the vehicle belonged to her husband, the usual driver, who had a high bonus-malus rating with his previous insurer. The court held that any reasonably prudent policyholder knows this is relevant to assessing the risk, that the omission was intentional and misled the insurer: the contract is void (art. 6 LCAT). The nullity extends to the theft cover, which is governed by the liability policy's general conditions; the policyholder was ordered to repay the indemnity received and the insurer's handling and investigation costs (EUR 4,843.05 in total), and her claim for the theft of 26 November 2003 was dismissed.","k":"Motor insurance — concealed usual driver, nullity extended to theft cover","law":"LCAT art. 5 and 6","w":173,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-11-02","rol":"C.06.0646.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2007:ARR.20071102.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"N'est pas légalement justifié le jugement qui rejette l'action subrogatoire du Fonds commun de garantie automobile qui, ayant réparé le dommage qu'a subi la personne lésée, en réclame le remboursement à la personne…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The driver caused an accident with a third party's vehicle that was uninsured for non-payment of premium; the Guarantee Fund, having compensated the injured party, sought recourse against the driver and against the motor liability insurer of the driver's own vehicle. The Charleroi Court of First Instance dismissed the recourse, holding that the extension of cover in article 4, 1°, b) of the model contract did not apply where the third party's vehicle was uninsured for non-payment of premium, and that the Fund had not shown that no insurer was liable. The Court of Cassation held that no provision excludes the extension in that case and that the Fund's subrogation claim could not be rejected on that ground; the judgments were quashed on the Fund's appeal and remitted to the Tournai Court of First Instance.","k":"Guarantee Fund recourse — cover for occasionally driving a third party's vehicle","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 80 §1; Model contract RD 14.12.1992, art. 4, 1°, b); Cass. 16.12.2004","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-10-26","rol":"C.06.0341.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2007:ARR.20071026.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"La partie qui poursuit la réparation d'un dommage sur la base de l'article 29bis de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire en matière de véhicules automoteurs doit prouver que le sinistre répond…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Namur Court of First Instance had held that the insurer, which invoked the exclusion of cover, had to prove that the person killed in the accident was the driver. The Court of Cassation held that a party seeking compensation under article 29bis must prove that the loss falls within the risk defined by that article, and therefore that it is a protected victim and not the driver of a vehicle involved or that driver's successor (former Civil Code, art. 1315(1)). The judgment was quashed on the motor liability insurer's appeal and remitted to the Dinant Court of First Instance.","k":"Article 29bis — burden on claimants to prove the victim was not the driver","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1 and §2; former Civil Code, art. 1315(1)","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-10-24","rol":"2006/Rg/837","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2007:ARR.20071024.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"When taking out two loan-balance policies, the insured signed a health declaration stating he was in good health and had not been hospitalised for a serious condition in the previous five years, although he had just been hospitalised for a transient ischaemic attack and suffered from chronic alcoholism. The court held that he should reasonably have regarded these facts as relevant to the insurer's assessment of the risk, that the omission was intentional and that it misled the insurer: the contracts are void under article 6 LCAT and the insurer keeps the premiums. The beneficiary's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Loan-balance insurance — intentional non-disclosure, nullity of contract","law":"LCAT art. 5 and 6","w":173,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-10-24","rol":"2007AR315","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2007:ARR.20071024.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"1) De opzegging werd in casu ondertekend door de makelaar 'bij sterkmaking'. Nergens in artikel 29 WLVO wordt voorgeschreven dat de opzegging dient te worden ondertekend. De enige vereiste is dat de contractspartij…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer claimed unpaid premiums from the policyholder, which argued it had cancelled the policies through its broker. The court held that art. 29 LCAT does not require a signed notice, only that the other party be unequivocally informed of the intention to end the contract, nor that the start date of the notice period be stated; the registered letter on the policyholder's letterhead, later confirmed, was valid, and the insurer relying on the broker's mistaken wording ('as guarantor') acted in bad faith. Extending the claim during the proceedings to two other policies was admissible, being based on the same legal fact (unpaid premiums), but the insurer's claim was dismissed.","k":"Termination of the policy — cancellation letter sent by the broker","law":"LCAT art. 29 §§1–2, 32","w":200,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-10-17","rol":"2006/RG/1120","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2007:ARR.20071017.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insured, who held a guaranteed-income policy and was incapacitated, went bankrupt; the insurer stopped paying after 4 November 2003. The court rejected the argument that the insurability conditions had lapsed: under the tariff conditions, cover continues where the cessation of activity is linked to an insured event. It held, however, that the formal demand and termination for non-payment of premium complied with articles 14 to 16 LCAT, that the insured's plea of non-performance was unfounded and that after the bankruptcy only the physiological rate (20%) could be applied. The insured's claims were dismissed; proceedings were reopened on the termination date and the accounts. Late submissions were excluded.","k":"Guaranteed-income insurance — bankruptcy, unpaid premium and termination","law":"LCAT art. 14–16; Judicial Code, art. 747 §2","w":201,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-10-12","rol":"C.05.0520.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2007:ARR.20071012.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"La Cour vérifie si, dans le cadre de son appréciation, le juge du fond n'a pas méconnu la notion légale de déséquilibre manifeste entre les droits et les obligations des parties d'une clause abusive au sens de la loi…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"A car dealer, as creditor of the insured, used the indirect (oblique) action (former Civil Code, art. 1166) against the own-damage insurer of a driver who was intoxicated; the Marche-en-Famenne Court of First Instance annulled as unfair the policy term putting on the insured the burden of proving no causal link, and extended the nullity to the exclusion itself. The Court of Cassation upheld the finding that the term was unfair, but held that under articles 8(2) and 11 LCAT an insurer relying on a gross-negligence exclusion must in any event prove the causal link between that fault and the loss, so the judgment, which assumed the law did not allocate that burden, breached those provisions. The judgment was quashed except for the annulment of the burden-of-proof term and remitted to the Neufchâteau Court of First Instance.","k":"Alcohol exclusion — burden of proving causation, unfair term","law":"LCAT arts. 8(2) and 11; Trade Practices Act of 14.7.1991, arts. 31 and 33; former Civil Code, art. 1166","w":46,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-10-10","rol":"2006AR1837","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2007:ARR.20071010.18","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Artikel 601 bis van het Gerechtelijk Wetboek, bepaalt dat de politierechtbank ongeacht het bedrag, kennis neemt van alle vorderingen tot vergoeding van schade ontstaan uit een verkeersongeval zelfs indien het zich heeft…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A pedestrian who tripped over an unmarked electricity cable on the pavement sued, before the court of first instance, the liability insurer of the company that laid the cable (direct action, art. 86 LCAT), the adjoining owner and the city. The court held that a road traffic accident does not require a moving vehicle: the general traffic regulation of 1.12.1975 also covers pedestrians and defines the pavement as the part of the public road intended for them, so the claim belonged to the police court. The court of appeal declined jurisdiction and referred the case to the court of first instance sitting on appeal.","k":"Jurisdiction — pedestrian's fall on a pavement as a road traffic accident","law":"Judicial Code, art. 601bis, 643; RD 1.12.1975, art. 1–2; LCAT art. 86","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-10-08","rol":"47.312","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2007:ARR.20071008.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La victime d'un accident survenu sur le chemin du travail doit prouver l'événement soudain et la lésion, et établir qu'elle se trouvait sur le chemin du travail. La victime doit jusitifier; le cas échéant, les…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The victim claimed that the road accident of 17.5.2003 occurred on his way to work; the tribunal had accepted this and ordered an expert examination, and the workplace-accident insurer appealed. The court held that the victim of a commuting accident must prove the sudden event and the injury, but also that he was on the way to work and, where relevant, justify unusual circumstances of place or time; it is not for the insurer to prove the contrary. As the high blood-alcohol level recorded was unexplained and the victim had made false statements about it, the location requirement was not established: the judgment was reversed and the claim dismissed. The insurer's request to have the action declared reckless and vexatious was refused and costs remained with the insurer under article 68.","k":"Commuting accident — burden of proof, alcohol level","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 8 and 68; Cass. 31.10.2003","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-10-08","rol":"C.05.0496.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2007:ARR.20071008.2","ch":"3F","res":"c","t":"subrogation","q":"La partie subrogée dans les droits de la victime n'est en droit d'obtenir du tiers responsable de l'accident ou de son assureur le remboursement des montants bruts qu'elle a décaissés au profit de la victime à titre de…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The workplace-accident insurer, having compensated a commuting accident, brought a subrogated claim against the Motor Guarantee Fund; the Namur court of first instance, on appeal, extended it to the social contributions borne by the insurer, on the ground that the victim owes such contributions under the workplace-accident legislation. The Court held that the subrogated party may recover gross replacement income from the liable party or its insurer only if the judge finds that the common-law compensation would have borne charges equivalent to those on the salary. That reasoning was insufficient; the judgment was quashed on the Fund's appeal and referred to the Dinant court.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's subrogation — gross amounts and social contributions","law":"Act of 10.4.1971 arts. 43, 46 §2 and 47; Royal Decree of 21.12.1971 arts. 31–32; former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1383","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-09-19","rol":"115/2007","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2007:ARR.115","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"The French- and German-speaking bar association sought annulment of the paragraph added to article 13 LCAT by article 33, 2° of the Act of 22 February 2006: where the insurer does not pay the insured directly, only actual receipt of the payment by the insured discharges it. It argued that, if applied to lawyers, the rule would deter insurers from paying into lawyers' client accounts. Relying on the preparatory works and the Act of 1 March 2007, the Court found that the provision covers only payments made to an insurance intermediary within the meaning of the Act of 27 March 1995, not payments through a lawyer. As the two categories are not treated alike, the action was dismissed.","k":"Insurer's indirect payment — payment through a lawyer","law":"LCAT art. 13(3); Act of 22.2.2006, art. 33, 2°; Act of 27.3.1995, art. 1; Constitution, art. 10–11","w":52,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle — CC 115/2007","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-09-18","rol":"P.07.0116.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2007:ARR.20070918.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La décision du juge pénal de savoir si la couverture incombe oui ou non à l'assureur de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs, est une décision ressortissant aux dispositions d'exception,…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"In criminal proceedings, the Dendermonde Criminal Court, sitting on appeal, accepted that the motor liability insurer had validly terminated the policy for non-payment of premium by registered letter of 2 March 2004 with its annex, that it was therefore no longer the defendant's insurer at the time of the accident, and that the Guarantee Fund had to compensate the injured parties. The Court of Cassation held that the annex, stating the premiums due and the periods concerned, formed part of the letter and recalled the due date, and that the appeal judges had not misread that document; the Fund's ground based on articles 14 to 16 LCAT was rejected. The other appeals were inadmissible or dismissed; the dispute concerned whether the insurer or the Fund bears the compensation.","k":"Motor liability — termination for non-payment of premium, Guarantee Fund liability","law":"LCAT arts. 3, 14–16; Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 416","w":201,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-08-30","rol":"2005/RG/1171","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2007:ARR.20070830.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"La responsabilité du courtier est bien engagée dans la mesure où il admet que l'absence de couverture des garanties incendie et vol est due au fait du préposé, qui n'a pas envoyé en temps utile la demande correcte de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"After his motorhome burned on 13 April 1998 and the insurer refused payment for lack of fire and theft cover, the insured turned against his broker. The court found that the brokerage company had admitted in writing that its employee had failed to send the correct cover request in time and that this delay caused the insurer's refusal. The confusion maintained between the company and the broker as an individual made the action admissible against both; the liquidator of the bankrupt company was ordered to pay EUR 12,642.57 plus interest, while the subsidiary claim against the individual was dismissed.","k":"Broker's liability — late transmission of cover request","law":"Broker's professional liability; Judicial Code, art. 751","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-08-27","rol":"45.956","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2007:ARR.20070827.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Vu le caractère d'ordre public de la loi, la prise en charge de l'accident ne préjuge pas de la réalité de celui-ci et ne lie pas l'entreprise d'assurances pour l'avenir. Le juge doit dès lors trancher le litige sans…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer wrote on 3.8.1999 that the shoulder dislocation of 11.6.1999 would be covered as a workplace accident and agreed to the appointment of an expert on its consequences; after the expert attributed the recurrent dislocations to the accident and set permanent incapacity at 18%, it argued in December 2002 that the sudden event was unproven. The court accepted that, the statute being a matter of public policy, earlier acceptance does not bind the insurer and the judge cannot rely on the parties' agreement; it held, however, that the principle of procedural good faith, which governs the law of evidence, bars the insurer from contradicting itself without any new element, more than three years after the facts, solely because the sequelae proved serious. The expert report was endorsed (consolidation 19.12.2000, 18% permanent incapacity), the insurer's appeal dismissed and costs charged to it.","k":"Workplace accident — late denial of an accepted accident, duty of procedural good faith","law":"Act of 10.4.1971; Cass. 17.10.1988; Cass. 28.2.1994","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-07-24","rol":"03/759/A","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRW:2007:JUG.20070724.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"In winding up the matrimonial property regime of former spouses, the issue was whether two group insurance contracts held by one spouse through his employer formed part of the community. The court held that the unconstitutionality of articles 127, 128 and 148, §3 LCAT found by the Court of Arbitration on 26.5.1999 extends to group insurance, and that the capital, a savings asset built from deferred common income, is common property. The amount to be shared is the net value (after INAMI and special contributions and tax) on an early surrender at the date the regime was dissolved, 4.4.2003.","k":"Group insurance — status of the capital under community of property","law":"LCAT art. 97, 127–128, 148 §3; former Civil Code, art. 1401, 4° and 1405, 1°; Court of Arbitration, 26.5.1999","w":202,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Brabant Wallon","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-06-28","rol":"2004/RG/1196","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2007:ARR.20070628.29","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"After compensating the victim assaulted by its insureds' minor daughter, the family liability insurer sought EUR 9,088.56 from her. The court held that subrogation (art. 41 LCAT) lies only against third parties: an insured child deprived of cover by an intentional act does not lose the status of insured and does not become a third party. The insurer's claim against its insured is a recourse action governed by article 88 LCAT; as the notice required by article 88(2) was never given, the action was inadmissible.","k":"Family liability cover — subrogation and recourse against the insured child","law":"LCAT art. 41 and 88(2); RD 12.1.1984, art. 6, 6°; Cass. 25.3.2003","w":203,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-06-28","rol":"C.06.0608.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2007:ARR.20070628.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"Dérogeant au principe de la responsabilité civile des personnes assurées contenu dans l'article 3, de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The vehicle's owner, insured with the motor liability insurer, had parked her car, got out and closed the door when she was injured while standing behind it; the Dinant Court of First Instance dismissed her subrogated health-insurance fund's claim, holding that an insured who caused the accident cannot also be a third-party victim. The Court of Cassation held that article 29bis excludes only drivers and victims whose inexcusable fault was the sole cause of the accident; it does not exclude a victim responsible for her own loss who committed no inexcusable fault. The judgment was quashed on the fund's appeal and remitted to the Namur Court of First Instance.","k":"Article 29bis — owner who had left her car is a protected victim","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 2 §1, 3 and 29bis (version between the Acts of 13.4.1995 and 19.1.2001)","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-06-25","rol":"48.980","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2007:ARR.20070625.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'information, erronée tant en fait qu'en droit, émanant de l'institution de sécurité sociale qualifiée pour, et spécialement chargée de, fournir l'information à l'assuré social, qui est transmise sans réserve à…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer notified recovery decisions without permanent incapacity on 23.3.2000 and 2.4.2003. Asked in writing by the victim's lawyer, it confirmed that the three-year 'limitation period' had been interrupted by its letter of 17.3.2003, although the article 72 period is a forfeiture period that cannot be interrupted. Proceedings were brought on 4.5.2005. The court held that information wrong in fact and in law, coming from the social-security institution responsible for informing the insured person and passed on without reservation by his lawyer, caused an invincible error of law that extended the time limit for the period indicated; the victim acted as any reasonable and prudent person would. The action was declared admissible and an expert appointed on the consequences of the accident; the insurer's appeal succeeded only very partially and the appeal costs were charged to it.","k":"Workplace accident — time limit to contest a recovery decision, invincible error","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 72; Charter of the Socially Insured, art. 3; Cass. 8.1.1996; Cass. 16.9.2005","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-06-18","rol":"C.05.0058.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2007:ARR.20070618.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"Sur la base de la constatation que la victime, après être tombée sur la chaussée, a tenté vainement de se relever avant d'être heurtée par le véhicule, d'où il résulte que la victime, tout en ayant conservé la…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The victim had fallen on the road and tried in vain to get up before being hit by the insured vehicle. The Court of Cassation held that the Namur Court of First Instance could infer from this that the victim, while still aware of his actions, did not intend to be lying in the middle of the road, and so committed no deliberate fault and no inexcusable fault. The complaint against the other reasoning (conduct 'not wholly unusual') lacked interest, since the decision was supported by the reasons unsuccessfully challenged. The motor liability insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Article 29bis — victim who fell on the road, no inexcusable fault","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1(1), (5) and (6) (before the Act of 19.1.2001); Cass. 12.10.2006","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-06-04","rol":"46.389","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2007:ARR.20070604.26","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'effort accompli pour soulever un bac de fleurs de 40 kg est un élément distinct, le fait soudain et précis qui peut être épinglé dans l'exécution du contrat de travail et qui a pu produire la hernie discale dont…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A removal worker claimed a herniated disc suffered on 6.5.2002 while lifting a 40 kg flower tub from a crouching to a standing position; the tribunal had asked an expert whether the hernia was of traumatic origin. The court held that the repetitive nature of the task does not exclude a sudden event, that the lifting effort is a specific fact identifiable in the performance of the contract that could have caused the injury, and that requiring the victim to prove causation would reverse the burden of proof. The judgment was set aside, the sudden event declared established, and an expert examination ordered to allow the workplace-accident insurer, if it can, to rebut the presumption with a high degree of medical probability.","k":"Workplace accident — sudden event in repetitive work, lifting a load","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 9","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-06-04","rol":"48.245","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2007:ARR.20070604.34","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"A partir du moment où une relation causale, même partielle, même indirecte, est raisonnablement établie entre l'aggravation de l'état de santé de la victime et l'accident, la réparation légale couvre la totalité du…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A public-transport employee who suffered two assault-type workplace accidents developed a psychological injury; the workplace-accident insurer appealed, arguing it stemmed from his borderline personality. The court held that once a causal link, even partial or indirect, is reasonably established between the deterioration of health and the accident, statutory compensation covers the whole loss; the expert had excluded that the mental state resulted solely from the predisposed personality, which had functioned normally before the accident. Because the former job was medically contraindicated, the victim's economic value was affected and the psychological consequences must be compensated. The insurer's appeal was dismissed, the judgment confirmed and costs charged to the insurer.","k":"Workplace accident — psychological sequelae and predisposed personality","law":"Act of 10.4.1971","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-05-25","rol":"C.05.0521.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2007:ARR.20070525.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"L'état d'intoxication alcoolique qui est la cause ou l'une des causes d'un accident n'est pas un fait antérieur au sinistre de sorte que les exceptions, nullité et déchéances découlant de la loi ou du contrat, trouvant…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The injured party brought a direct action against the insured's family liability insurer; the Mechelen Court of First Instance held that the insured's alcohol intoxication (1.62 per mille) was a fact preceding the loss and that the policy's gross-negligence exclusion could be raised against the injured party. The Court of Cassation recalled that in non-compulsory liability insurance the insurer may raise defences, nullities and forfeitures against the injured party only if they stem from a fact prior to the loss (art. 87 §2 LCAT), and that alcohol intoxication causing or contributing to the accident is not such a fact. The judgments were quashed on the injured party's appeal and remitted to the Antwerp Court of First Instance.","k":"Family liability insurance — alcohol exclusion not opposable to the injured party","law":"LCAT art. 87 §2; Cass. 24.10.2000","w":204,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-05-21","rol":"C.06.0140.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2007:ARR.20070521.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le certificat international d'assurance automobile, dit \"carte verte\", permet de présumer l'existence d'une assurance qui couvre le risque à partir de la date mentionnée sur la carte verte; même s'il a délivré la carte…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The vehicle owner had obtained, after the accident, a retroactive green card; the Turnhout Court of First Instance refused to treat it as proof of insurance, dismissed the claims against the vehicle's insurer and placed compensation of the article 29bis victim and of the subrogated accident insurer on the driver's insurer, under the extension for occasionally driven vehicles (model contract, art. 4, 1°, b). The Court of Cassation held that a green card raises a presumption of cover from the date shown on it, that this presumption is not rebutted merely because the card was issued after the accident, and that the nullity under articles 6 and 24 LCAT only entitles the insurer to seek annulment, the contract existing until a court pronounces it. The judgment was quashed, on the driver's insurer's appeal, as to the claims against both insurers and the Guarantee Fund; the dispute is about which insurer (or the Fund) bears the loss.","k":"Motor liability — green card issued after the accident, presumption of cover","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 2, 7 and 29bis; LCAT arts. 6 and 24; former Civil Code, arts. 1349, 1350, 1352; Cass. 26.4.1990","w":205,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-05-10","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2007:ARR.073","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 34, § 1er, 1°, du Code des impôts sur les revenus 1992, avant sa modification par la loi du 19 juillet 2000, ne viole pas les articles 10, 11 et 172 de la Constitution en tant qu'il…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"On a question from the Brussels Court of Appeal, the Court examined article 34 §1, 1° of the Income Tax Code 1992 as it stood before the Act of 19.7.2000: a benefit paid by an individual policy covering incapacity for work due to sickness and invalidity, with no loss of income, is taxable when the premium was deducted as a professional expense. The criterion is objective (whether the premium was deducted); since judgment no. 120/2001 exempted benefits whose premiums were not deducted, taxing the benefit matching a deducted premium is the justified counterpart. The provision does not breach articles 10, 11 and 172 of the Constitution.","k":"Individual disability insurance — taxation of the benefit","law":"Income Tax Code 1992, arts. 34 §1, 1°, 49, 52, 10°; Const. Court 10.10.2001, no. 120/2001","w":84,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-05-04","rol":"C.06.0314.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2007:ARR.20070504.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"L'annulation du contrat d'assurance du chef d'omission ou d'inexactitude intentionnelle dans la déclaration d'éléments concernant le risque lors de la conclusion du contrat, induisant l'assureur en erreur dans…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Kortrijk Court of First Instance found the motor liability policy void for the policyholders' fraudulent non-disclosure, but refused to let the insurer recover the compensation it had paid, because it had not given timely notice of its intention to seek recourse (art. 88(2) LCAT). The Court of Cassation held that annulment for intentional misrepresentation undoes the contract retroactively and extends, between the parties, to all the insurer's payments, including compensation paid to injured parties holding a direct action. Such recovery is distinct from recourse under article 88 and is not subject to the forfeiture provided there; the judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal, except as regards the comprehensive (omnium) cover, and remitted to the Bruges Court of First Instance.","k":"Intentional misrepresentation — recovery of payments after annulment","law":"LCAT arts. 2 §1(1), 5, 6 and 88(1)–(2); Cass. 25.2.2005","w":206,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-04-30","rol":"37.220","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2007:ARR.20070430.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"A defaut pour l'entreprise d'assurances d'apporter la preuve de la notification de la décision de guérison sans séquelles, le délai pour agir ne commence à courir qu'à partir du moment où la victime de l'accident a été…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that if the insurer cannot prove notification of its decision that the victim recovered without after-effects, the time limit for bringing proceedings only starts once the victim has been validly informed of that decision. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — notice of recovery without after-effects and time limit","law":"Act of 10.4.1971","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"2007-04-26","rol":"2005/AR/424","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:2007:ARR.20070426.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Een levensverzekeringscontract maakt de toepassing uit van een beding ten behoeve van een derde. Louter door het feit van zijn aanwijzing, en voor zover niet herroepen, verkrijgt de derde- begunstigde een eigen en…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A life insurance contract is a stipulation for the benefit of a third party: by the mere designation, unless revoked, the beneficiary acquires an own and direct right to the benefits, which fall outside the policyholder's estate. The court therefore rejected the claim by relatives of the deceased policyholder for the surrender, by the party held to be the heir, of the capital paid or payable under the life policies. The insurer was not a party.","k":"Life insurance — beneficiary's own right and the estate","law":"Stipulation for a third party; former Civil Code, art. 745bis","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-04-23","rol":"RG 06 455 A","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:2007:JUG.20070423.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"1) Un intermédiaire d'assurance ne peut être tenu, en cette qualité, à fournir la garantie née d'un contrat d'assurance. 2) Un assuré qui assigne un intermédiaire d'assurance et lui demande de couvrir le risque survenu,…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The owner of a horse that died claimed €7,500 from the intermediary who had passed him an animal mortality insurance proposal. The court held that an intermediary, as such, cannot be bound to provide the cover arising from the insurance contract; it was shown neither that it represented the foreign insurer nor that a policy had been concluded, and no fault was alleged against it: the claim was inadmissible. Suing an intermediary for cover not being the conduct of a prudent and diligent person, the claimant was ordered to pay €500 for vexatious proceedings.","k":"Insurance intermediary — no duty to provide cover, vexatious proceedings","law":"Cass. 31.10.2003 (vexatious proceedings)","w":84,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-04-23","rol":"RG : 99/4030/A","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:2007:JUG.20070423.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"","court":"first","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The health-insurance fund, subrogated to its member injured in a road accident, claimed in the civil court from the liable driver and his liability insurer benefits on which the criminal court had not ruled. The court held that other losses arising from the offence may later be brought before the civil court, and that although the victim bore 12.5% of his loss for not wearing a seatbelt, the fund's subrogation covers the full amount owed by the liable third party, up to the benefits paid. The driver and insurer were ordered to pay €11,723.88; as regards the insurer, compensatory interest was suspended from 15.3.2001 to 14.2.2006 owing to the fund's inaction, and the fund bore the costs of joining the insurer.","k":"Health-insurance fund subrogation — full recourse despite shared fault, interest suspended","law":"Act of 9.8.1963 (compulsory health insurance), subrogation; Cass. 11.4.1988; Cass. 13.1.2005","w":84,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-04-20","rol":"C.05.0271.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2007:ARR.20070420.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Doivent être considérés comme frais de sauvetage qui sont supportés par l'assureur en cas de sinistre, les frais causés par les mesures prises d'initiative par l'assuré, indépendamment du fait que ces mesures auraient…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured haulage company's lorry overturned on a bend, damaging the crash barrier and scattering its load of television tubes over the verge; the company claimed from its motor liability insurer the clearing and waste-disposal costs incurred to prevent and limit damage to the verge. The Antwerp Court of First Instance dismissed the claim, finding that the company was not subrogated to the injured third party and was claiming its own loss. The Court of Cassation held that salvage costs borne by the insurer (art. 52 LCAT) include the cost of measures taken by the insured on its own initiative, even if the injured third party could have taken them and whether the consequences to be avoided threaten the insured or a third party; the judgment was quashed on the insured's appeal and remitted to the Turnhout Court of First Instance.","k":"Salvage costs — clearing the load of an overturned lorry","law":"LCAT art. 52","w":36,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-04-19","rol":"C.06.0565.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2007:ARR.20070419.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Le juge ne peut retenir d'une quittance signée l'existence d'une renonciation à une demande s'il ne constate pas que les éléments du dommage sur lesquels porte cette quittance comprennent les postes formant l'objet de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The injured company had signed on 30 October 1995 a 'claim settlement' for BEF 156,000 as an 'amicable, lump-sum and final' settlement, and later claimed further compensation; the Brussels Court of First Instance held that, although not a settlement agreement, the document amounted to a waiver because the company had accepted less than it claimed. The Court of Cassation recalled that under article 84 LCAT a receipt in partial or full settlement does not imply that the injured party waives its rights, and that a receipt in full settlement must list the heads of loss it covers. Since the court did not find that the receipt covered the heads now claimed, the judgment was quashed on the injured party's appeal and remitted to the Nivelles Court of First Instance.","k":"Settlement receipt — no waiver by the injured party","law":"LCAT art. 84","w":159,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-04-16","rol":"47.217","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2007:ARR.20070416.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The permanent-incapacity rate for the workplace accident of 5.7.1996 had been fixed by judgment in 2001; within the revision period the victim brought a revision action based on worsening lower-back pain and a deformation of the right ankle bone. The court held that a revision action (art. 72) requires a new medical fact, causally linked to the accident, altering working capacity and arising within the revision period; the victim does not benefit from the article 9 presumption and bears the burden of proof. The back pain had already been noted at the first expert examination and no causal link had been accepted, so it was not a new fact: the victim's appeal was dismissed on that point. For the deformation, in line with the unchallenged part of the judgment, an expert was appointed.","k":"Workplace accident — revision action, new medical fact","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 72 and 9; Cass. 17.10.1988","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-04-13","rol":"C.05.0399.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2007:ARR.20070413.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'assureur qui affirme être exonéré de la couverture de l'assurance en vertu de l'article 4, § 2, de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A co-driver leaning out of the window as a counterweight was injured when a 4x4 overturned during an off-road skills event. The Court held that an insurer relying on the racing exclusion in art. 4 §2 of the Act of 21.11.1989 must prove that the loss occurred in the circumstances that provision describes (an authorised event covered by special insurance), and that a passenger who had no influence whatsoever on steering the vehicle is not a 'driver' within art. 29bis. The insurer's appeal was dismissed; the Antwerp Court of First Instance (on appeal) judgment ordering it to pay stands.","k":"Motor liability — racing exclusion burden of proof and 'driver' under art. 29bis","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 4 §2, 8 and 29bis; former Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, art. 870","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-04-04","rol":"AR 1433/03","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ORGNT:2007:JUG.20070404.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insured, seeking cover from its operations liability insurer for pollution at a fuel trading site, had notified the loss at least eight months after the eight-day deadline in the policy, without proving that it did so as soon as reasonably possible. Absent timely notification, it could not rely on the interruption of limitation under article 35 §3 LCAT. As more than three years had passed between the loss and the writ, the claim against the insurer was time-barred under article 34 §1 LCAT.","k":"Operations liability insurance — pollution, late notification and limitation","law":"LCAT art. 19, 34 §1, 35 §3","w":207,"c":"Ondernemingsrechtbank Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-04-02","rol":"C.05.0564.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2007:ARR.20070402.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"Lorsque l'accident résulte d'un cas fortuit, seuls les assureurs des véhicules automoteurs impliqués dans l'accident de la circulation, et non le Fonds commun de garantie automobile, sont tenus à la réparation prévue à…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"In an accident where one car skidded on an oil patch and hit another, the motor liability insurer compensated a passenger in its policyholder's car under art. 29bis and then claimed the full amount from the Guarantee Fund. The Court held that where an accident is fortuitous, only the insurers of the vehicles involved must pay under art. 29bis, not the Fund, and those insurers cannot recover their payments from the Fund. The Bruges Court of First Instance (on appeal) judgment ordering the Fund to reimburse the insurer was quashed to that extent on the Fund's appeal.","k":"Art. 29bis — fortuitous accident and recourse against the Guarantee Fund","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1; Act of 9.7.1975, art. 80","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-03-28","rol":"P.06.1585.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2007:ARR.20070328.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"N'est pas légalement justifié, le jugement qui, après avoir énoncé qu'il est avéré que l'envoi recommandé, notifiant au preneur d'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicule automoteurs la…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The registered letter in which the insurer gave notice of termination for unpaid premium had been sent to a partly wrong address. The Court held that, since under the model contract termination for non-payment only takes effect after formal notice by bailiff's writ or registered letter, the mere fact that the policyholder had chosen half-yearly payment and could show no payments for some time did not establish the offence of driving uninsured; the criminal court must apply civil-law rules to the existence of the contract. The Brussels Criminal Court (on appeal) conviction was quashed as to that offence and the appeal otherwise dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — termination for unpaid premium and uninsured-driving offence","law":"RD 14.12.1992, art. 1; model contract, art. 13 and 26, 4°; Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 16","w":152,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-03-15","rol":"39/2007","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2007:ARR.039","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"On annulment actions brought by insurers, the Court reviewed the Act of 17 September 2005 bringing natural catastrophes within fire cover. The flat amounts of €3 million and €8 million in the formula capping each insurer's liability for a natural catastrophe or earthquake may weigh disproportionately on the results and solvency of insurers with a small turnover in this line, and their choice was not adequately justified. Article 11, 2°, 3° and 4° was annulled; its effects were maintained until new provisions take effect and at the latest until 30 June 2008; the action was otherwise dismissed.","k":"Natural catastrophes — formula capping insurers' liability","law":"Act of 17.9.2005, art. 11; LCAT art. 68-8 §2; Constitution, art. 10–11","w":81,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle — CC 39/2007","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-03-15","rol":"2005/RG/5","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2007:ARR.20070315.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Pour qu'il y ait accident, il suffit d'un événement soudain dont la cause ou l'une des causes est extérieure à l'organisme de la victime. (1315 al 2 du Code civil ). En vertu de l'article 8 al. 2 de la loi du 25 juin…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The heir of an account holder killed in a road accident after running a red light claimed under two current-account and securities-account policies. The court held that the death was an accident within the policy (sudden event with an external cause). Under article 8(2) LCAT the insurer may escape liability for gross negligence only in cases expressly and exhaustively defined in the contract; the undefined notion of 'reckless act' is too vague, and a momentary lapse of attention is not gross negligence. The clause was set aside under article 3 LCAT; the insurer was ordered to pay the benefits and to produce the account statements.","k":"Account insurance — notion of accident and vague gross-negligence exclusion","law":"LCAT art. 3 and 8(2); former Civil Code, art. 1315","w":208,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-03-14","rol":"P.06.1521.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2007:ARR.20070314.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'article 65, alinéa 2, du Code pénal ne vise pas l'hypothèse de l'infraction continue mais celle de l'infraction continuée, encore appelée délit collectif par unité d'intention (1). (1) Voir Cass., 31 mai 2006, RG…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The defendant, convicted of driving an uninsured vehicle, argued that the offence was a continuous one. The Court held that putting a vehicle on the public road in breach of the statutory conditions is an instantaneous, not a continuous, offence, and that art. 65(2) of the Criminal Code concerns a series of acts committed with a single intent, not a continuous offence. The appeal was dismissed.","k":"Uninsured driving — an instantaneous offence","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 1, 2 §1, 22 §1 and 24; Criminal Code, art. 65(2)","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-03-09","rol":"C.06.0003.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2007:ARR.20070309.2","ch":"1N","res":"c","t":"motor","q":"De W.A.M.-verzekeraar beschikt, behoudens afwijkende overeenkomst ten gunste van de verzekeringnemer of de verzekerde, over een recht van verhaal zoals bepaald in de artikelen 24 en 25 van de modelovereenkomst. [resmî…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The motor liability insurer that had compensated the victims of an accident caused by a drunk driver sought recourse against him; the Leuven court of first instance, on appeal, dismissed the claim because the insurer had not proved that the policy reserved a right of recourse. The Court held that, unless they contractually derogated, the parties are deemed to have accepted the model contract, including the recourse provisions of articles 24 and 25, so the insurer need not prove that the policy provides for recourse. A policyholder or insured relying on a derogation in their favour must prove it (art. 870 Judicial Code); the judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — model-contract recourse and burden of proof","law":"Model contract RD 14.12.1992, arts. 1, 24–25; LCAT art. 88; Judicial Code art. 870","w":156,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-02-26","rol":"45.185","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2007:ARR.20070226.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Het volstaat, maar is ook onontbeerlijk dat de getroffene het bewijs levert van het bestaand van een letsel en van een plotse gebeurtenis tijdens de uitvoering van de arbeidsovereenkomst waardoor het letsel kan zijn…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"On 25.7.1998, during removal work, the victim slipped on a lorry platform and fell; a muscle rupture was diagnosed. The workplace-accident insurer, arguing a spontaneous rupture, appealed. The court held that it is sufficient, and necessary, for the victim to prove the injury and a sudden event in the course of work that could have caused it; the injury is then presumed to result from the accident. To rebut the article 9 presumption it is not enough to show that other causes contributed: the insurer must prove, with a high degree of medical probability, that the injury resulted exclusively from a pre-existing condition or occurred spontaneously. The insurer's appeal was dismissed, the judgment confirmed with a redefinition of the sudden event, the case sent back to the labour tribunal for that rebuttal evidence, and costs charged to the insurer.","k":"Workplace accident — rebutting the presumption of causation, pre-existing condition","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 9; Judicial Code art. 1068","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Brussel","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-02-26","rol":"C.05.0004.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2007:ARR.20070226.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"L'événement qui donne ouverture à l'action fondée sur une cause de déchéance prévue à la police d'assurance et exercée par l'assureur contre l'assuré en répétition des sommes payées à la victime d'un accident, événement…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer, relying on a forfeiture ground in the policy, was claiming back from the insured the sums it had paid to the victim. The Court held that the three-year limitation period of art. 32 of the Act of 11.6.1874 runs from each payment the insurer makes once it is established that it is legally bound to compensate the injured party; with successive payments, each payment has its own starting date, and a writ cannot interrupt a limitation period that has not yet begun. The Mons Court of Appeal judgment, which held that a writ of 16.9.1983 had interrupted limitation for later payments and ordered the insured to pay €92,751.32, was quashed on the insured's appeal.","k":"Insurer's recourse against the insured — start of the limitation period","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 32; Cass. 29.5.1986","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-02-21","rol":"2005AR658-2005AR869","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2007:ARR.20070221.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"1. Het niet-contradictoir karakter van een deskundigenonderzoek bevolen door de onderzoeksrechter in het kader van een gerechtelijk onderzoek heeft geen nietigheid van het onderzoek of het deskundige verslag tot gevolg.…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A fire in a building on 4.11.1999 damaged two cars nearby; the injured parties sued the owner and his insurer under art. 86 LCAT. The court treated the non-adversarial report ordered by the investigating judge as mere information and held that the fire alone did not prove a defect in the building; it found, however, that the rubbish bag holding a smouldering cigarette butt was a defective thing and, since the alleged lease was not proven, held the owner liable as keeper (art. 1384 para. 1). The insurer was ordered to pay €5,747.20, jointly with the owner, to one injured party and €1,949.66 to the other.","k":"Fire — owner as keeper of a defective thing and direct action","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1384 para. 1; LCAT art. 86; Judicial Code, art. 962 ff.","w":125,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-02-19","rol":"2005-0176","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2007:ARR.20070219.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A worker died of a thrombosis after sitting for a long time on a nine-hour intercontinental flight. The court held that the prolonged sitting during the flight is a sudden event identifiable in time and place, and that the first judge rightly entrusted a panel of experts with examining the causal link between that event and the fatal injury, given a possible pre-existing condition; such an appointment is not a delegation of judicial power. The workplace-accident insurer's appeal was dismissed, the interim judgment confirmed and the case sent back for the expert examination.","k":"Workplace accident — death after immobility on a long-haul flight, sudden event","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 9; Cass. 6.9.2004","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-02-19","rol":"47.183","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2007:ARR.20070219.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Lorsque la capacité de travail de la victime a déjà été entamée par une maladie, à tel point qu'elle ne peut plus effectuer de travail manuel, l'appréciation de la perte de capacité liée à ['accident du travail doit se…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The victim, already unable to do manual work because of a nervous-system disease predating the workplace accident of 23.8.2000, challenged the 18% permanent-incapacity rate proposed by the expert and claimed 100%; the workplace-accident insurer sought confirmation of the judgment. The court held that the loss of capacity caused by the accident must be assessed against the already heavily reduced capacity the victim retained before it, so that the handicap is far greater than for an average person. Before ruling on the merits it ordered a supplementary expert examination including an ergologist's opinion and reserved costs.","k":"Workplace accident — pre-existing reduced capacity and permanent incapacity","law":"Act of 10.4.1971; Judicial Code art. 965","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-02-16","rol":"C.03.0572.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2007:ARR.20070216.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"La personne lésée qui prouve qu'elle n'a eu connaissance de l'identité de l'assureur qu'à un moment ultérieur au délai prévu par l'article 34, § 2, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 25 juin 1992, satisfait à la charge de la…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The owners of a building destroyed by fire, and their subrogated insurers, brought a direct action against the co-insurers of the tenant's liability; the co-insurers' identity only became known after production of the policy ordered by an interim judgment of 27.2.1997. The Court held that the injured party knows of its right against the insurer within art. 34 §2 LCAT only once it also knows the insurer's identity, and that it is enough to prove it learnt this later; the five-year period runs from then. The Court also upheld the reading of the policy as a stipulation for the benefit of the operating tenant and dismissed the insurers' appeal.","k":"Direct action — limitation and knowledge of the insurer's identity","law":"LCAT art. 34 §2 and 86; former Civil Code, art. 1121","w":59,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-02-09","rol":"2004/RG/52","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2007:ARR.20070209.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"En cours de contrat, toute aggravation sensible et durable du risque de survenance de l'évènement assuré doit être déclarée (article 26§1 Loi ass.). Si le preneur n'a pas agi dans une intention frauduleuse mais que le…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The building insured under a home fire policy became the headquarters of a political party targeted by violence and was then deliberately set on fire. The court found a significant and lasting aggravation of risk that should have been declared (art. 26 §1 LCAT); the policyholder, though not fraudulent, was at fault for the omission, and the insurer proved through similar files that it would never have covered the aggravated risk. It therefore owes only a refund of premiums (art. 26 §3 b, para. 2). As the broker is not the insurer's agent, any failure to inform cannot be attributed to the insurer; the insureds' appeal was dismissed.","k":"Fire insurance — undeclared aggravation of risk","law":"LCAT art. 26 §1 and §3 b), para. 2","w":82,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-02-07","rol":"2003/AR/1822","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2007:ARR.20070207.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"De arbeidsongevallenwet is niet van toepassing op een uitkeringsgerechtigde VDAB-cursist die een ongeval overkomt tijdens de beroepsopleiding. Het slachtoffer kan aanspraak maken op de waarborg van de verplichte…","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"A trainee receiving benefits from a public vocational-training body had an accident on 2.4.1992. The court held that the Act of 10.4.1971 did not apply, but that the insurer of the body's compulsory accident insurance owed benefits equivalent to that Act (art. 95 §1 of the Flemish Executive order), which means calculating them net of social security contributions. It set permanent incapacity at 60% physical and 75% economic, recognised third-party assistance, ordered the insurer to pay €1 on a provisional basis, and rejected the €25,000 claim for aesthetic damage, which the workplace-accident scheme does not provide for.","k":"Vocational trainee's accident — cover equivalent to the Workplace Accidents Act","law":"Flemish Executive order of 21.12.1988, art. 95 §1; Act of 10.4.1971","w":-1,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-02-05","rol":"AR 3829/05","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ORGNT:2007:JUG.20070205.28","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The broker sought repayment of premiums it had advanced to the insurers on its client's behalf. The court inferred from the policyholder's earlier premium payments to the broker for the same policies that the broker acted as its agent; the policyholder did not prove that it had cancelled the policies or revoked the mandate. It was ordered to pay €5,059.77 plus interest; no insurer was a party.","k":"Insurance broker — recovery of advanced premiums from the policyholder","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1999 (agency)","w":84,"c":"Ondernemingsrechtbank Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-01-16","rol":"2005/RG/532","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2007:ARR.20070116.24","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A man refused admission to a psychiatric hospital smashed, in anger, the rear window of a staff member's car in the car park and hammered its bodywork; the injured party sued the perpetrator's family liability insurer. The court found the loss intentional, holding that a state of temporary insanity does not rule out an intentional act, and refused to hear witnesses on the perpetrator's state of mind since no one can testify to another person's \"intention\". In non-compulsory liability insurance, art. 87 §2 LCAT lets the insurer raise against the injured party a forfeiture rooted in a fact predating the loss; the intent to cause the loss necessarily precedes it. The judgment was reversed and the injured party's claim dismissed.","k":"Family liability insurance — intentional damage, alleged temporary insanity and defence raised against the victim","law":"LCAT arts. 8 and 87 §2; Judicial Code art. 915","w":70,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-01-15","rol":"2005-0303","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2007:ARR.20070115.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer challenged the labour court's appointment of a medical expert on the sudden event and the injury, arguing that this was an impermissible delegation of judicial power. The court recalled that a workplace accident may consist of a very ordinary movement and that proof of an external force is not required; an expert may be appointed as part of the counter-evidence the insurer must provide, and this is no delegation of judicial power. It added that, although the Act is a matter of public policy, purely factual elements can validly be admitted, but not the qualification of the event as a workplace accident. The insurer's appeal was dismissed, the interim judgment confirmed and the case sent back for the expert examination.","k":"Workplace accident — expert appointment and delegation of judicial power","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 9; C. jud., arts. 962 et seq.; Cass. 6.9.2004","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-01-15","rol":"41.694","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2007:ARR.20070115.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A care assistant in a nursing home felt groin pain on 17.8.1996 while lifting a patient to put him to bed and was operated on a few days later for a femoral hernia; the workplace-accident insurer investigated only the medical side and disputed the facts only during the proceedings, in its 2000 submissions. The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal recalled that the insurer must act in good faith when examining a claim: where the accident rests solely on the victim's statements, the insurer must raise its objection while evidence can still be gathered and, if need be, investigate; otherwise, consistent statements contradicted by nothing are sufficient proof. Lifting the patient was accepted as a sudden event; the victim's appeal was upheld, the judgment reversed and an expert appointed on causation and the consequences of the injuries.","k":"Workplace accident — insurer's duty of good faith and proof of the facts","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 9; Cass. 2.1.2006","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-01-15","rol":"2005AR2272","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2007:ARR.20070115.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Er is geen sprake van een risicoverzwaring omdat de handeling van overslag van goederen niet alleen niet uitdrukkelijk uit de verzekeringspolis is gesloten, doch zelfs wordt toegelaten door de bepalingen van de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insured claimed from its cargo insurer for goods damaged during sea carriage to Lebanon. The court found that transhipment was no aggravation of risk, since the policy expressly allowed several means of transport, and that failure to follow the average-surveyor clause does not in principle lead to forfeiture if the insured shows the damage was assessed contradictorily. Here, however, the damage was recorded only in a one-sided, summary report sent to the insurer months later, and the presence of port authorities did not make it contradictory; the refusal of cover was upheld and the claim dismissed.","k":"Cargo insurance — contradictory assessment of the damage","law":"Policy conditions (transhipment, average-surveyor clause)","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-01-12","rol":"C.05.0083.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2007:ARR.20070112.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Celui qui commet une faute est responsable du dommage qui en résulte même si le dommage est également causé par le fait d'un tiers (1). (1) Voir Cass., 20 décembre 1996, RG C.95.0006.N, n° 522. || Le lien de causalité…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The liability insurer of a contractor that damaged underground utility lines during excavation works had been released from cover under a clause requiring the insured to take all necessary steps to avoid damage to utility lines. The Court held that under the LCAT the policyholder's slight fault is always covered and that an insurer cannot make breach of a generally worded duty of care a ground for forfeiture; breach of the mandatory art. 11 LCAT may be raised for the first time before the Court. It also held that a later fault by another party does not break the causal link between an earlier fault and the damage; the Antwerp Court of Appeal judgment was quashed on the insured's appeal.","k":"Liability insurance — forfeiture for breach of a general duty of care","law":"LCAT art. 8(2), 11 and 77; former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383","w":62,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2007-01-09","rol":"18864","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2007:ARR.20070109.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'accident survient dans le cours de l'exécution du contrat de travail lorsqu'au moment de l'accident, le travailleur est soumis à l'autorité de l'employeur. En principe le travailleur se trouve sous l'autorité de…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A bodywork salesman was injured on a Saturday while driving a second-hand car belonging to his employer to the Anderlecht market. The court recalled that subordination need not coincide with working hours and does not exclude all initiative by the employee; the employer knew of the trip and selling used cars was part of his duties, so serious, precise and consistent presumptions showed he was under the employer's at least virtual authority. The accident occurred in the course of employment; the workplace-accident insurer's appeal was dismissed and the case sent back to the first judge to continue the expert investigation.","k":"Workplace accident — Saturday business trip and the employer's virtual authority","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 7; Judicial Code, art. 1068(2)","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-12-21","rol":"2005/RG/826","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2006:ARR.20061221.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"A rented marquee collapsed in winds above 110 km/h; the court treated this as force majeure, also meeting the storm definition (at least 100 km/h) in the fire-insurance regulations, so the lease ended automatically. The lessor's third-party claim against his business liability insurer failed: the policy covers neither contractual liability nor the insured's own damage. The insurer's payment of dismantling costs was a commercial gesture, not an admission of cover.","k":"Business liability insurance — contractual liability and own damage","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1722; RD 24.12.1992 (annex RD 26.1.1995), storm definition; business liability policy","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-12-21","rol":"2004/RG/586","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2006:ARR.20061221.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"After a fire on 28 February 1990 in the sub-tenant's workshop, the owner claimed the balance of its indemnity from its own insurer. The court held that the insurer had not proved limitation under article 35 §3 LCAT (neither the sending of a final settlement receipt nor a clear notification of its position was established) and ordered it to pay EUR 31,261.43. By contrast, the owner's direct action against the tenant's insurer under article 68 LCAT was time-barred: that right is merely a variant of the article 86 direct action, barred five years after the event causing the loss; the tenant association's identical action failed because it was not the owner. The tenant's insurer was ordered to pay its insured EUR 93,513.17.","k":"Fire insurance — limitation and the owner's direct action","law":"LCAT art. 34, 35 §3, 68 and 86","w":209,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-12-18","rol":"48.244","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2006:ARR.20061218.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Une lésion existante au moment de l'accord homologué mais qui ne résulte pas des examens médicaux ordonnés qui ont été effectués à l'époque n'est pas connue et ne pouvait pas être connue au moment de cet accord. C'est…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"After the compensation agreement following the workplace accident of 12.12.1994, a shoulder lesion and a foreign body, invisible on the X-rays of the time because of the angle used, were discovered; they caused arthrosis and 6% permanent incapacity. The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal held that a lesion existing at the time of the agreement but not revealed by the examinations then carried out, and which could not reasonably have been known, is a new fact justifying revision; it is irrelevant that the fact already existed or that the current incapacity was its foreseeable consequence. The workplace-accident insurer's appeal was dismissed and the judgment awarding benefits on the basis of 6% from 24.3.2000 was upheld. (The appeal in cassation against this ruling was rejected by Cass. 26.5.2008.)","k":"Workplace accident — revision of benefits, concept of new fact","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 72; Cass. 26.5.2008 (S.07.0111.F)","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-12-13","rol":"2004RG1333","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2006:ARR.20061213.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Three children set fire to a hangar; the owner's fire insurer, subrogated, sued the parents and their family liability insurers. The first court had found the third child's participation unproven. On the witness evidence, the court held that his presence in the hangar, the group effect and his failure to fetch an adult contributed to the fire: the three children's faults were of equal weight. The parents and insurers were ordered in solidum to pay the balance of EUR 14,217.75; contribution was fixed at one third per child.","k":"Family liability cover — joint fault of three minors, contribution","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382 and 1384; in solidum liability","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-12-07","rol":"C.05.0277.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2006:ARR.20061207.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"La notification par l'assureur de son intention de former une action récursoire, doit être faite à la personne contre laquelle il entend l'exercer ou contre le mandataire qu'elle a chargé de la recevoir.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer sought recourse against the insured, who had caused an accident while drunk, but had notified its intention only to the policyholder company, which the insured managed and whose address he shared. The Court held that under art. 88 LCAT the notice must be given to the person against whom recourse will be exercised, or to an agent that person appointed to receive it; it is not enough that the insured actually learnt of it. The Namur Court of First Instance (on appeal) judgment admitting the recourse claim was quashed on the insured's appeal.","k":"Insurer's recourse — who must receive the prior notice","law":"LCAT art. 88(2)","w":11,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-11-29","rol":"2003RG790","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2006:ARR.20061129.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"One of the co-owning spouses deliberately set fire to the building. The court held that the serious mental disturbance recognised by the investigating court did not rule out an intentional act within the meaning of the policy, that article 8(1) LCAT is a personal forfeiture, but that nothing prevents a property insurer from converting that statutory forfeiture into a contractual exclusion. The loss is therefore not covered for either the arsonist or the other spouse; case law on private liability cover (RD 12.1.1984, art. 6, 6°) does not apply to property insurance. The spouses' appeal was dismissed.","k":"Fire insurance — spouse's intentional arson, contractual exclusion","law":"LCAT art. 8(1); RD 12.1.1984, art. 6, 6° (distinguished)","w":17,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-11-28","rol":"2005AR3057","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2006:ARR.20061128.16","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Artikel 41 WLVO heeft betrekking op bepalingen eigen aan de verzekeringen tot vergoeding van schade. De vergoedingsplicht die krachtens artikel 1382 BW rust op degene door wiens schuld aan een ander schade wordt…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"After neighbours piled garden waste, including hedge clippings, against the boundary of a meadow, the insured's legal expenses insurer claimed from them the €272.25 it had paid to have the loss assessed. The court held that costs incurred to establish the loss and its extent are part of the recoverable damage, also in tort, and that the insurer is subrogated to the insured's rights for the amount paid (art. 41 LCAT). Because the insured, owing to his own fault, could recover only half of his loss, the insurer's claim was allowed for €136.13.","k":"Legal expenses insurance — subrogation for loss-assessment costs","law":"LCAT art. 41; former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":16,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-11-27","rol":"1997-0791","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2006:ARR.20061127.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The health-insurance fund, subrogated to its member's rights, claimed from the workplace-accident insurer reimbursement of the benefits it had paid and recognition of a workplace accident. The court held that this claim is the victim's own claim, that it is admissible and that the insurer could not rely on an implied waiver, since no compensation agreement ratified by the Fund existed. On the merits, however, no sudden event was proven: striking with heavy hammers was part of the worker's normal task and no specific fact, identifiable in time and place, capable of causing the injury was shown; repetitive movements over a long period do not amount to a sudden event. As there was no workplace accident, the fund's claims were dismissed; the refusal notice required by article 63 §2 had moreover been given in time. The fund's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Health-insurance fund's subrogated claim — proof of a sudden event","law":"Coordinated Health Insurance Act 14.7.1994, art. 136 §2; Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 6 §2, 7, 9, 63 §2 and 65; Cass. 12.6.1986; Cass. 6.1.2003","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-11-27","rol":"1997-0790","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2006:ARR.20061127.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The health-insurance fund claimed from the workplace-accident insurer, by subrogation, EUR 14,390.57 in benefits and EUR 50.84 in medical costs paid after a workplace accident of 23.1.1990. The court found the claim admissible, as it is the victim's own claim, and rejected the insurer's limitation defence: paying temporary-incapacity benefits amounts to acknowledging the right (former Civil Code, art. 2248) and interrupts limitation, the interruption lasting until the last payment; having the victim examined without reservation by the insurer's doctors has the same effect. The first judge's view that no expert could be appointed because the victim was not a party was not followed: the victim was joined and a medical expert was appointed to assess the consequences of the accident and their link with the benefits paid. The insurer's cross-appeal was dismissed.","k":"Health-insurance fund's subrogated claim — payment interrupting limitation","law":"Coordinated Health Insurance Act 14.7.1994, art. 136 §2; Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 69–70; former Civil Code, art. 2248","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-11-27","rol":"2005RG408","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2006:ARR.20061127.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The own-damage insurer had refused cover on grounds of alcohol, then paid the principal (EUR 30,813.15) after losing its recourse action against the driver's heirs. The court held that the claim notice may serve as a formal demand, that a demand made before the debt falls due takes effect from that date, and that default interest runs from 21 April 2000, the day after the refusal; the insurer was ordered to pay EUR 6,210.75 in interest, with compound interest. Defence costs were refused: absent fraud, the loss from late payment is fixed at the statutory interest under article 1153.","k":"Motor own-damage cover — default interest and claim notice","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1153–1154; Cass. 17.1.1992","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-11-27","rol":"2005/RG/121","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2006:ARR.20061127.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insured's widow claimed €66,807.37 from the life insurer on the strength of a payment receipt issued after the death. The court held that the receipt, which stated the cause of payment (performance of the policy), could not amount to a unilateral undertaking, and that the insurer's excusable error, corrected at once, created no right to payment. Since the death was a suicide less than one year after the contract took effect, the risk was excluded under art. 101 §1 LCAT and the policy; subrogation to the mortgage lender's rights gives the widow no more rights than the lender had. Refusing an indemnity that is not owed is not a fault; the appeal was dismissed.","k":"Life insurance — receipt issued in error and first-year suicide exclusion","law":"LCAT art. 101 §1; former Civil Code, art. 1251, 3°","w":210,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-11-24","rol":"2005/RG/259","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2006:ARR.20061124.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"To secure a mortgage loan, a couple had taken out with the lender, also the insurer, two policies on the husband's life assigning their benefit to it up to the sums owed. The husband died in 1991; his wife was convicted of intentional homicide with the excuse of provocation. The court held that the clause excluding death intentionally caused by the policyholder or a beneficiary, 'who' would be excluded from the benefit of the contract, is a forfeiture striking only the perpetrator, not an exclusion depriving all beneficiaries; departing from the indemnity principle, it is construed narrowly. It is not contrary to public policy (art. 8 LCAT adopts the same solution), and fraus omnia corrumpit does not assist the lender, which is not a victim of the offence. The capital went to the lender as assignee, extinguishing the loan; the insurer-lender's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Life insurance — homicide by a beneficiary, forfeiture limited to the perpetrator","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 41; LCAT art. 8 (by analogy); general conditions, art. 3; Cass. 6.11.2002 (fraus omnia corrumpit)","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-11-20","rol":"46.870","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2006:ARR.20061120.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'action de l'organisme d'assurance obligatoire contre la maladie et l'invalidité en récupération des indemnités d'incapacité de travail auprès de l'assureur-loi qui a omis de notifier dans le délai légal à cet…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a claim by the health-insurance fund to recover incapacity benefits from a workplace-accident insurer which failed to notify it in time of its doubt about whether the Act applied to the accident is subject to a ten-year limitation period. Here, timely notification had not been proven. The summary does not state the final outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — limitation of the health-insurance fund's claim","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"2006-11-17","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTBRL:2006:JUG.20061117.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Une société coopérative est une personne morale totalement différente d'une caisse commune. La citation contre une société coopérative qui n'est pas l'assureur accidents du travail de l'employeur de la victime, est dès…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The victim had sued a cooperative company that was not the employer's workplace-accident insurer. The court found that a cooperative company is a legal person entirely distinct from a mutual insurance fund (caisse commune) and declared the claim against it inadmissible. This is a procedural ruling that does not decide the merits.","k":"Workplace accident — claim brought against the wrong legal entity","law":"Judicial Code, art. 703","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"2006-11-06","rol":"2003-0313","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2006:ARR.20061106.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A worker employed exclusively in the Netherlands by a Belgian employer had a road accident in Belgium on 2.4.1997 and sued the employer's Belgian workplace-accident insurer and the Workplace Accidents Fund on 3.4.2000. The court held that the registered letter postmarked 31.3.2000 validly interrupted the limitation period against the insurer: posting the letter suffices and the date of receipt is irrelevant; since no letter was sent to the Fund, the claim against it was time-barred. On the merits, only Dutch law applies under Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 and the worker had been compensated there, so the claim under the Belgian Act was dismissed. The victim's appeal failed; costs were nonetheless charged to the insurer.","k":"Workplace accident — work in the Netherlands, applicable law and interruption of limitation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 69–70; Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-11-03","rol":"C.05.0519.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2006:ARR.20061103.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Lors de l'assurance d'une habitation, l'assureur ne peut invoquer la sous-assurance et appliquer la règle proportionnelle que lorsqu'il prouve qu'il a présenté au preneur d'assurance un système d'assurance qui entraîne…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that in home insurance the insurer may rely on underinsurance and apply the proportional rule only if it proves that it offered the policyholder a valuation system abolishing that rule and that the policyholder refused it; this may be proved by any lawful means, including presumptions. For the home policy, it upheld the inference of such proof from the special conditions stating 'you did not use our system'. For the separate policy covering the business buildings, however, the fact that the 'valuation of the dwelling' section of the proposal form was left blank could not show refusal of a valuation system, so the Ghent Court of Appeal judgment applying the proportional rule was quashed to that extent on the insureds' appeal.","k":"Property insurance — underinsurance and the proportional rule","law":"LCAT art. 44; RD 24.12.1992, art. 3 §2","w":50,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-10-19","rol":"2005RG838","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2006:ARR.20061019.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer refused cover to the owner of a building destroyed by an accidental fire on 18.3.2002, because she had not disclosed that it was let, nor that she had moved into part of it in 2001. Under art. 5, para. 1, LCAT the policyholder must disclose only circumstances she should reasonably regard as relevant to the risk; nothing in the policy limited cover to single-family buildings, and if that was the insurer's policy it had to ask. Her occupation of part of the building did not aggravate the risk (art. 26 §1 LCAT). The wholly abusive refusal of cover was a fault making the insured's adviser costs recoverable. The order against the insurer for €155,417.88 (building, contents, preservation costs) plus expert fees, with interest from 25.5.2003, was upheld; loss of rent and the indemnity claims were reserved.","k":"Fire insurance — disclosure of tenants and aggravation of risk","law":"LCAT art. 5, para. 1, and art. 26 §1; Cass. 2.9.2004","w":211,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-10-18","rol":"2004AR1073","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2006:ARR.20061018.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Door de rechtsgeldige overeenkomst van partijen tot een bindende derdenbeslissing zijn partijen akkoord gegaan hun beslissingsmacht over de aan de derdenbeslissing onderworpen feiten bij uitvoering van hun overeenkomst…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"After an armed robbery, the insured company claimed more than the binding opinion of the third expert appointed under the policy. The court held that a binding third-party decision forms part of the contract and allows only marginal judicial review, but the expert must apply the rules of evidence agreed between the parties; by confining proof to the accounting records, which the policy did not require, he had not fully performed his task, so the court reopened the hearing on how the expert procedure should continue. The claim against the intermediary that had issued the policy on the insurers' behalf was dismissed because it acted only as their agent.","k":"Theft insurance — review of a binding third-expert decision","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1134; general policy conditions (third-expert clause)","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-10-16","rol":"46.650","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2006:ARR.20061016.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Lorsque le travailleur est victime d'accidents de travail successifs et que le dernier accident a aggravé les conséquences d'un accident précédant, le juge doit apprécier l'incapacité permanente de travail de la victime…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The victim suffered workplace accidents in 1989 (22%), 1994 (3% aggravation) and on 15.1.1999; the expert assessed the aggravation from the last accident at 8%, and the first-instance court had set the rate at 58%. The workplace-accident insurer sought 8%, the victim 124% or at least 100%. The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal held that permanent incapacity assessed as a whole after the last aggravation is obtained by adding the aggravation rates to the initial rate (22 + 3 + 8 = 33%) and that adding multiples of the rates is wrong. The insurer's appeal succeeded in part and the victim's cross-appeal was dismissed; the annual allowance was set at €7,894.25 on the basis of 33% from consolidation on 28.6.1999.","k":"Workplace accident — successive accidents, adding the rates (33%)","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24(2); Constitutional Court no. 104/2002, 26.6.2002","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-10-13","rol":"C.05.0198.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2006:ARR.20061013.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'assureur qui couvre la responsabilité du propriétaire, du conducteur ou du détenteur d'un véhicule automoteur n'est pas tenu d'indemniser une victime complice du vol ou du recel de ce véhicule qui est impliqué dans un…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A health-insurance fund, subrogated to the rights of its member injured in an accident involving a stolen motorcycle, claimed art. 29bis compensation from the Guarantee Fund; the victim had been found to be an accomplice to the theft or receiving of the motorcycle. The Court held that, because art. 29bis refers to art. 80 of the Act of 9.7.1975, art. 17 §1 of the Royal Decree of 16.12.1981 also applies, so the Fund need not compensate an injured party who was an accomplice to the theft or receiving of the vehicle. The Bruges Court of First Instance (on appeal) judgment against the Fund was quashed on the Fund's appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund — victim who was an accomplice to the theft of the vehicle","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; Act of 9.7.1975, art. 80; RD 16.12.1981, art. 17 §1","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-10-12","rol":"C.05.0365.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2006:ARR.20061012.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La règle énoncée par l'article 4, littera a, de la Convention de la Haye du 4 mai 1971 sur la loi applicable en matière d'accidents de la circulation routière ne s'applique pas lorsque le passager poursuit le seul…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The victim, a passenger in her own Belgian-registered car injured in Italy in a collision with an Italian-registered vehicle, sued the car's motor liability insurer relying solely on art. 29bis. The Court held that under the Hague Convention of 4.5.1971 the law of the place of the accident applies, and that the exception in favour of the law of the State of registration does not apply where several vehicles not all registered in the same State are involved, even if the passenger sues only the insurer of the car she was in. The appeal was dismissed; the Namur Court of First Instance (on appeal) judgment rejecting the claim, since Italian law has no equivalent of art. 29bis, stands.","k":"Accident abroad — applicable law and art. 29bis","law":"Hague Convention of 4.5.1971, art. 1, 3 and 4; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-09-13","rol":"2005RG659","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2006:ARR.20060913.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The professional liability insurer of notaries had paid the Treasury, in place of its insured notaries who had breached art. 433 of the Income Tax Code 1992, the tax debt of a company and obtained a subrogation receipt; the debtor's liability for €36,008.39 was undisputed, but the first judge had denied the insurer the Treasury's rights and privileges. The court recalled that a third party who pays another's debt steps by subrogation into the creditor's position and acquires all its rights, actions and security, and held that the later payment-schedule agreement with the debtor involved no waiver of the transferred privilege. It ruled that the insurer is subrogated to the rights and privileges of the Belgian State, both under art. 322 of the Income Tax Code 1992 and under the legal mortgage registered by the tax collector.","k":"Subrogation — transfer of the Treasury's privilege to the paying insurer","law":"LCAT art. 41; former Civil Code, art. 1251, 3°; Income Tax Code 1992, arts. 322, 422 and 433","w":16,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-09-13","rol":"2000RG1481","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2006:ARR.20060913.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The leased car was stolen in June 1992 and found in 1995; the insured and the leasing company as beneficiary claimed from the insurer, whose policy covered only theft with break-in or violence. The court held that 'break-in' refers to a method of taking possession of a duly locked vehicle, which does not include removals and damage committed once the thieves already had the car (dashboard forced to extract the radio, speakers and trim removed); the insured failed to prove that the risk that occurred was the one covered. The leasing company's claim was admissible and not time-barred but unfounded: bound by the contract whose benefit it invoked, it produced no evidence of a break-in; the disappearance of the vehicle does not make payment of the lease instalments impossible. The judgment was upheld.","k":"Theft insurance — meaning of break-in, leasing company's claim","law":"Policy, art. 51 (theft with break-in or violence); Act of 11.6.1874, art. 31 (limitation)","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-09-13","rol":"2003RG349","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2006:ARR.20060913.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insured claimed compensation for the theft of his leased car, parked in front of his house to unload shopping, with the key left in the radio position because of the alarm system; the insurer relied on the policy clause excluding thefts in places accessible to the public where essential precautions (doors locked, no key left in the car) were not taken. The court classified the clause as a forfeiture rather than an exclusion: theft falls within the contractual scope, but a specific breach by the insured is sanctioned by loss of cover. The clause is sufficiently precise and therefore valid, and the causal link required by art. 11 LCAT was established, since the insured left the car out of his sight, unlocked and with the key inside, which led to the theft. The dismissal of the claim was upheld.","k":"Theft insurance — keys left in the car, forfeiture or exclusion","law":"LCAT art. 11; policy, art. 5","w":20,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-09-04","rol":"42761","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2006:ARR.20060904.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"xxxPour déterminer si les lésions que la victime présente depuis l'accident du travail du 29 septembre 2004 sont imputables à cet accident ou à l'accident de la vie privée du 22 décembre 1991, ou encore à aucun de ces…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A glazier was injured on 29.9.1994 when bending to place glazing on a roof; the same insurer also covered, under an employer's 'collective common-law' policy, his private-life accident of 22.12.1991. The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal dismissed the insurer's appeal: the 1994 movement is an identifiable sudden event, ordinary work gestures being covered too; the subsidiary new claim for the 1991 accident falls within the labour courts' jurisdiction, complies with article 807 of the Judicial Code and is not time-barred, because the insurer's repeated acknowledgments of debt (receipts, letter of 25.11.1996) interrupted the three-year period (arts. 34 and 35 LCAT, art. 2248 of the former Civil Code). The expert's mission was redefined to attribute the injuries to one event or the other; the costs of the appeal were charged to the insurer.","k":"Workplace and private-life accident — limitation and acknowledgment of debt","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 9; LCAT arts. 34–35; former Civil Code, art. 2248; Judicial Code art. 807; Cass. 2.1.2006","w":65,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-06-20","rol":"P.05.1442.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2006:ARR.20060620.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La décision du juge pénal suivant laquelle un assureur en assurance automobile obligatoire est tenu à garantie n'est pas une décision définitive telle que prévue à l'article 416, alinéa 1er, du Code d'instruction…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The motor liability insurer, joined as a forced intervener in the criminal proceedings, had appealed against decisions holding it bound to provide cover, appointing a medical expert on seat-belt use and awarding advances to the victims, and then withdrew its appeal. The Court recorded the withdrawal and declared the other appeals, including the health-insurance fund's, inadmissible because the contested decisions were not final within art. 416 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The merits were not examined.","k":"Civil claims in criminal proceedings — appeal against non-final decisions","law":"Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 416","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-06-09","rol":"C.04.0404.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2006:ARR.20060609.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Lorsque, dans un même contrat, plusieurs risques sont assurés et que l'omission ou l'inexactitude n'ont eu d'incidence que pour l'appréciation d'une partie d'entre eux, la nullité du contrat est limitée à l'assurance…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured claimed under the theft cover of a single comprehensive motor policy covering liability, fire, theft, glass breakage and material damage; the insurer argued that his intentional failure to disclose four claims from the previous year made the whole contract void. The Court held that under art. 6 LCAT nullity requires that the omission or misstatement misled the insurer in assessing the risk, and that where one contract covers several risks, nullity is confined to the cover for the risks about which the insurer was misled. The only misleading omission concerned a prior liability claim and did not affect the theft risk; the insurer's appeal was dismissed and the Brussels Court of Appeal judgment stands.","k":"Duty of disclosure — partial nullity where several risks are insured","law":"LCAT art. 5–6","w":212,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-06-07","rol":"93/2006","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2006:ARR.093","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"On preliminary questions from the Mons Court of Appeal, the Court held that article 29bis §1(2), inserted by the Act of 19 January 2001, breaches articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution if read as excluding from the compensation scheme accidents involving a train crossing the public road at a level crossing. Lowered barriers do not fully separate rail traffic from road traffic and do not create a lower risk, especially near a junction. Read as not excluding such accidents, the provision is constitutional: unlike paragraph 1, paragraph 2 does not limit the scheme to the places listed in article 2 §1.","k":"Article 29bis — train at a level crossing","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1(2); Act of 19.1.2001; Constitution, art. 10–11","w":35,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle — CC 93/2006","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-06-07","rol":"2005AR727","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2006:ARR.20060607.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Het akkoord van de verzekerde en verzekeraar tot een minnelijke medische expertise, conform de polis van partijen, strekt partijen met toepassing van art. 1134 BW tot wet. De gebrekkige uitvoering van de minnelijke…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The insured, who claimed over 25% incapacity for work due to chronic fatigue syndrome, and her life insurer had agreed, in accordance with the policy, to an amicable medical expertise. The Antwerp Court of Appeal held that this agreement is binding on the parties (former Civil Code, art. 1134) and that defective performance of the expertise by the experts is not a contractual breach attributable to either party that could justify rescinding the agreement. The court may compare the report with the mandate given; if it finds the mandate was not carried out, it declares the conclusions non-binding and orders a court expertise. As the experts had not complied with their mandate, their conclusions did not bind the parties; the rescission pronounced against both parties was reversed, the appointment of a court expert was confirmed before any ruling on the merits, and the case was referred back to the Hasselt court of first instance.","k":"Life/disability insurance — defective amicable medical expertise","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1134; Judicial Code, art. 1068 §2","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-05-29","rol":"C.05.0253.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2006:ARR.20060529.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Il suit du texte et du rapprochement des alinéas 1er et 3 à 7, de l'article 136, ,§ 2, de la loi relative à l'assurance obligatoire soins de santé et indemnités, coordonnée le 14 juillet 1994, que dans la mesure où, par…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The motor liability insurer had paid the victim €24,795.43 under a settlement of 20.7.1993, notified to the health-insurance fund on 27.8.1993; in 1996 the fund paid for a new leg prosthesis and claimed the cost from the insurer. The Court held that under art. 136 §2 of the coordinated Act of 14.7.1994 the beneficiary has no right to benefits to the extent already compensated under ordinary law, and a fund that pays anyway after being informed of this is not subrogated for that payment against the liable party or its insurer, even though the settlement itself is not binding on the fund. The Tongeren Court of First Instance (on appeal) judgment ordering the insurer to pay €5,396.25 was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Health-insurance fund subrogation — benefits paid after a settlement","law":"Coordinated Act of 14.7.1994 (health insurance), art. 136 §2","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-05-17","rol":"2005AR892","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2006:ARR.20060517.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"1. Wanneer een verklaring tot nadelige rechtsgevolgen voor de auteur kan leiden, komt aan die verklaring een bijzondere bewijswaarde toe. Deze verklaring is een buitengerechtelijk bekentenis in de zin van art. 1354 B.W.…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A haulage company argued that the tractor unit allegedly stolen on 2.4.1998 was covered against theft under its fleet policy. The Antwerp Court of Appeal held that the manager's statement of 21.4.1998, acknowledging that the tractor was not insured against theft at the time, was an extrajudicial admission within the meaning of article 1354 of the former Civil Code, with special evidential weight because it produced adverse consequences for its author. The error invoked to revoke the admission was inexcusable: a reasonable manager of a haulage company knows or ought to know, two weeks after an alleged theft, which tractors are insured against theft. The insurer's appeal was upheld and the insured's claim dismissed; the appeal to the Court of Cassation was dismissed on 20.9.2007.","k":"Theft of a tractor unit — extrajudicial admission that no cover existed","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1354 and 1110; Cass. 20.9.2007 (C.06.0580.N, appeal dismissed)","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-05-10","rol":"2004RG958","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2006:ARR.20060510.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insured claimed the theft indemnity for her car stolen on 13 June 1997; the insurer argued that the habitual driver was not the insured but a 21-year-old man and that the bonus-malus level should have been the entry level 14 rather than the level 3 granted. The first judge, after hearing witnesses, had treated the insured as habitual driver and found no misrepresentation. The court of appeal reversed: noting also that the insured did not even own the car, it declared the policy void under arts. 5 and 6 LCAT for intentional misrepresentation; no causal link with the loss is required, as the misrepresentation taints the contract from its formation. The insured was ordered to pay the insurer €248.36 in investigation costs, €250 in wasted administration costs, a provisional €1 for defence costs and the costs of both instances.","k":"Duty of disclosure — false statement on the habitual driver, nullity","law":"LCAT arts. 5 and 6","w":213,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-05-10","rol":"2003/RG/953","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2006:ARR.20060510.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Le document signé sous le titre « estimation de gré à gré », par l'assurée, son courtier et l'expert mandaté par la compagnie d'assurances ne peut s'analyser comme une transaction au sens juridique du terme dès lors…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"After jewellery and cash were stolen from her home, the insured sought a higher indemnity and an expert appraisal despite the \"agreed valuation\" document signed by her, her broker and the insurer's loss adjuster. The court held that the document is not a settlement in the legal sense (the insurer waived no right, so there were no mutual concessions), but it records both parties' agreement on the extent and value of the stolen property and thus on the indemnity; it binds both parties unless a defect of consent is shown. As no fraud or pressure was proven, the insured's appeal was dismissed and the first-instance judgment upheld.","k":"Theft insurance — binding effect of an agreed valuation","law":"Former Civil Code (settlement, defects of consent); theft insurance policy","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-05-10","rol":"2005/RG/415","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2006:ARR.20060510.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer denied cover for water damage of 19 August 1999, arguing that the policy covered only rainwater infiltrating \"through\" the outer roof covering and that the cause (damp masonry) predated the contract. The court held that the preposition \"par\" denotes a route or means, so rainwater passing via the roof into the walls falls within cover; no contractual or statutory provision excludes losses whose cause predates the contract, and the insurer did not prove that the policyholder knew of the damp or should have regarded it as relevant to the risk (art. 5 LCAT). The insurer's duty to pay was upheld; only the expert's brief was redefined by reference to the building's pre-loss condition, and the loss-of-use (chômage immobilier) claim was admitted in principle.","k":"Home insurance — construing water-damage cover, cause predating the contract","law":"LCAT art. 5; general conditions, arts. 2.2 and 22.2.4","w":179,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-05-03","rol":"2005AR2656","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2006:ARR.20060503.21","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Wanneer een verzekeraar haar algemene polisvoorwaarden aanpast in het voordeel van de verzekerde(n), volstaat het dat zij deze bekend maakt aan de verzekerde, en kan deze bekendmaking beschouwd worden als een eenzijdige…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The hospitalisation insurer sought repayment from its insured of the medical costs it had covered for a hospital stay from 8 to 12 November 2001. The Antwerp Court of Appeal held that where an insurer amends its general conditions in the insured's favour and notifies the insured, that notification amounts to a unilateral undertaking to continue the existing policy on the more favourable terms, without any express acceptance being required; the old clause is not void, the insurer having merely undertaken not to apply it any more. Since the costs fell within the cover, the insurer's repayment claim was dismissed; the insured's counterclaim for lawyer's fees was rejected, as merely bringing proceedings is not a fault on the insurer's part.","k":"Hospitalisation insurance — unilateral change of terms in the insured's favour","law":"Unilateral undertaking; general conditions of the hospitalisation policy","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-04-28","rol":"C.04.0569.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2006:ARR.20060428.5","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"29bis","q":"Dérogeant au principe de la responsabilité civile des personnes assurées contenu dans l'article 3 de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicule automoteur,…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"On 24 June 2002 a bus driver sprained his knee while stepping off, at the stop, the bus he was driving, and claimed compensation under article 29bis from the bus's liability insurer. The Verviers court of first instance, on appeal, had rejected the claim because he was both the victim and the person responsible for his own loss, two capacities it held to be mutually exclusive. The Court recalled that article 29bis excludes only the drivers of the vehicles involved and victims over fourteen who intended the accident and its consequences; departing from the liability principle of article 3 of the Act of 21 November 1989, it does not exclude a victim who, without intending the accident, is responsible for their own loss. The judgment was quashed on the driver's appeal and referred to the Liège court.","k":"Article 29bis — a victim responsible for their own loss is not excluded","law":"Act of 21.11.1989 arts. 3 and 29bis §§1–2","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-04-24","rol":"2004RG1329","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2006:ARR.20060424.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The policyholder had insured in her own name a car owned and driven by her daughter without declaring the daughter as main driver; after the car was stolen, the insurer refused the €9,074.19 indemnity on the ground of intentional non-disclosure. The court noted that the broker had twice asked the policyholder, in 1999 and 2000, who the main driver was without receiving an answer, that the omission belonged to the pre-contractual stage and that the LCAT allows the insurer to refuse cover, the policyholder's interest being a lower premium; the dismissal of the claim was upheld. The claim brought for the first time on appeal against the broker was also rejected: he had acted on the instructions given and had no reason to suspect his client's manoeuvre. The policyholder was ordered to pay the insurer's appeal costs.","k":"Duty of disclosure — undeclared main driver, broker's liability","law":"LCAT arts. 5 and 6","w":213,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-04-24","rol":"45.898w","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2006:ARR.20060424.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'incapacité permanente consécutive à un accident qui a aggravé les séquelles d'un accident précédent doit être appréciée dans son ensemble dès lors que l'incapacité constatée après le dernier accident a celui-ci pour…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"After a first workplace accident in 1987, the victim suffered a second one on 27.1.1989, which the expert found had aggravated the after-effects of the first. The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal held that, where the incapacity found after the latest accident is caused, even partly, by that accident, permanent incapacity must be assessed as a whole, without deducting the rate awarded for the first accident from that awarded for the second; the lump-sum nature of compensation requires this. The victim's appeal was upheld: the workplace-accident insurer was ordered to pay benefits based on 8% permanent incapacity from consolidation on 19.11.1990, plus statutory interest.","k":"Workplace accident — successive accidents, incapacity assessed as a whole","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24; Constitutional Court no. 104/2002, 26.6.2002; Cass. 5.4.2004","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-04-19","rol":"2003AR1007-1119","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2006:ARR.20060419.20","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"1. Een verzekeraar, partij in het geding, kan onderscheiden contractuele banden hebben met meerdere andere procespartijen. Daaraan staat niet in de weg dat die verzekeraar als rechtspersoon in eigen naam en in dezelfde…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The same insurer covered the civil liability of both companies involved in the loss and had appealed in one \"capacity\" against itself in another. The Antwerp Court of Appeal held that an insurer, even with separate contracts with several parties, is a single substantive party to the proceedings and cannot appeal against itself. Article 79 §1 LCAT applies towards all insureds in the same proceedings; where their interests conflict, the insurer cannot conduct the case on one insured's side against the other and exercises its own rights alongside the insureds. The insurer's appeals were dismissed; for delaying for years, with legally untenable arguments, the compensation of the injured parties, it was ordered to pay €1,500 for a vexatious and reckless appeal to each party that had counterclaimed. The appeal to the Court of Cassation was dismissed on 29.5.2009.","k":"Liability insurer of two opposing insureds — conduct of the proceedings, art. 79 LCAT","law":"LCAT art. 79 §1; Cass. 29.5.2009 (C.06.0500.N, appeal dismissed)","w":107,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-04-19","rol":"P.05.0525.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2006:ARR.20060419.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La créance de la victime ou de ses ayants droit contre le responsable de l'accident du travail est acquise à l'assureur subrogé en vertu de l'article 47 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail avec tous…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The workplace-accident insurer, having compensated the victim of a road accident, claimed by subrogation from the insurer of the party held solely liable the benefits paid and the capital set aside for the annuity; the only dispute was when compensatory interest began to run. The Court held that through the subrogation in art. 47 of the Act of 10.4.1971 the claim passes to the insurer with its accessories, but interest on the benefits and capital cannot run before the date of payment or of setting aside the capital, i.e. before subrogation takes effect. The workplace-accident insurer's appeal against the Mons Criminal Court (on appeal) judgment running interest from 13.7.2001 was dismissed.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's subrogation — start date of compensatory interest","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-04-06","rol":"C.05.0141.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2006:ARR.20060406.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"L'extension de l'obligation de garantie instaurée par l'article 82 de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre, ne s'applique pas aux accidents qui se sont produits avant l'entrée en vigueur de la…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The liability policy of 12.6.1987 provided cover of €247,893.52 per claim and included interest and costs within the sums insured; the loss for which the insured was held liable occurred in 1989. The Court held that the extension of cover in art. 82 LCAT, which makes the insurer bear interest and costs beyond the limit, does not apply to accidents that occurred before it came into force, even if the damage arose afterwards. The Ghent Court of Appeal judgments requiring the insurer to cover interest and costs from 1.1.1994 were quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Liability insurance — interest and costs above the limit: temporal application","law":"LCAT art. 82 and 148; former Civil Code, art. 2","w":196,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-04-06","rol":"C.05.0040.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2006:ARR.20060406.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Le délai de dix ans dont dispose une personne lésée pour intenter une action directe contre l'assureur de la responsabilité civile constitue un délai de prescription qui est susceptible d'interruption et de suspension…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A workplace-accident insurer, subrogated to the rights of the victims of an accident of 10.2.1975, brought a direct action against the liable party's liability insurer; the Brussels Court of Appeal had held that the ten-year period ran from the accident. The Court held that the injured party's ten-year period for the direct action is a limitation period that can be interrupted and suspended, and that where rights were not irrevocably settled on 1.1.1993 it starts no earlier than that date, when art. 86 LCAT came into force. The judgment was quashed on the workplace-accident insurer's appeal.","k":"Direct action — when limitation starts for pre-1993 accidents","law":"LCAT art. 34 §2, 35 §2 and 86; former Civil Code, art. 2 and 2257","w":131,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-04-05","rol":"2003AR1763","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2006:ARR.20060405.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"In de mate dat de vorderingen tot vergoeding van de eigenaar van de bungalow en van diens brandverzekeraar strekken tot het behoud van een onrechtmatige toestand, nl. tot het behoud/de herstelling van de…","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"After a fire in a bungalow built without a planning permit and subject to a demolition order, the owner and his fire insurer, by subrogation, sued the liable company (bankrupt) and its liability insurer. The Antwerp Court of Appeal held the claims relating to the building inadmissible for lack of a legitimate interest, since they aimed at preserving an unlawful situation; the claims relating to the contents were admissible, as their possession is not contrary to public policy. The owner's own claim was dismissed because he had already been indemnified by his insurer; the subrogated insurer's claim was upheld for the contents damage (€9,915.74) less the €1,239.47 deductible under the liability policy, i.e. €8,676.27 in principal.","k":"Fire in an unpermitted bungalow — subrogated insurer's recourse, legitimate interest","law":"Judicial Code — requirement of a legitimate interest; subrogation; special conditions of the liability policy (deductible)","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-04-03","rol":"46.201","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2006:ARR.20060403.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'incapacité de travail doit être appréciée dans son ensemble, sans qu'il faille tenir compte de l'état de prédisposition antérieur, dès lors et aussi longtemps que l'accident est au moins en partie la cause de…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A bread delivery driver felt lower-back pain on 18.1.2003 when bending to pick up bread crates; a herniated disc (L4-L5) was found. The first-instance court had held the accident unproven. The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal reversed: all documents referred from the outset to a workplace accident, the act of bending, fixed in time and place, is a sudden event, and the injury is presumed to result from it (art. 9); the workplace-accident insurer filed no medical opinion showing that such a movement cannot cause a hernia. As long as the accident is at least a partial cause of the incapacity, the pre-existing predisposition is not deducted. An expert was appointed to say whether, with a high degree of medical probability, any causal link can be excluded and whether the injuries are attributable solely to another cause.","k":"Workplace accident — bending movement and herniated disc, pre-existing condition","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7, 9 and 22; Cass. 19.12.1973; Cass. 14.6.1995","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-04-03","rol":"C.05.0114.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2006:ARR.20060403.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'article 136, ,§ 2, de la loi relative à l'assurance obligatoire soins de santé et indemnités coordonnée le 14 juillet 1994 intéresse l'ordre public; n'est en conséquence pas nouveau, le moyen qui fait grief au…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The health-insurance fund claimed from the liable party's insurer the incapacity benefits it had paid its member; the insurer had calculated the victim's compensation on the basis of a report by experts appointed amicably under an agreement between the victim and the insurer. The Court held that the fund's rights cannot be determined from an amicable expert report agreed between the victim and the liable party's insurer, and that the fund's recourse is limited both to the benefits it paid and to the maximum compensation owed under ordinary law for loss or reduction of earning capacity. The Brussels Court of First Instance (on appeal) judgment, which accepted the insurer's calculation without finding that it matched the ordinary-law entitlement, was quashed on the fund's appeal.","k":"Health-insurance fund recourse — effect of an amicable expert report","law":"Coordinated Act of 14.7.1994 (health insurance), art. 136 §2; Cass. 19.10.1994; Cass. 20.10.2003","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-03-29","rol":"P.05.0055.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2006:ARR.20060329.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'article 22, ,§ 1er, de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs, qui sanctionne le propriétaire ou le détenteur d'un véhicule automoteur…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The owner of an uninsured, unregistered vehicle without a roadworthiness certificate, who had lent it to an acquaintance whose car was being repaired, was convicted of the uninsured-vehicle offence. The Court held that art. 22 §1 of the Act of 21.11.1989 also covers an owner who, not having insured the vehicle himself, lets another person use it without checking that that person has taken out insurance or at least obtaining sufficient assurances about it before any use; for the registration and roadworthiness offences, the assessment is for the trial court. The owner's appeal was dismissed and the Charleroi Criminal Court (on appeal) conviction stands.","k":"Uninsured driving — owner lending an uninsured vehicle","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 1, 2 and 22 §1; RD 20.7.2001, art. 2 §1; RD 15.3.1968, art. 24 §1","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-03-20","rol":"C.04.0441.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2006:ARR.20060320.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'incertitude ou le doute qui subsistent une fois la preuve administrée ne peuvent bénéficier à la partie qui a la charge de la preuve; le juge qui constate que l'assureur-loi est légalement tenu de transmettre au Fonds…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The widow of a worker killed in a workplace accident on 16.9.1972 claimed that the workplace-accident insurer had failed to send the court-approved settlement to the Occupational Accidents Fund in time, so she did not receive the adjustment allowances. The Antwerp Court of Appeal had dismissed her claim because she had not proved that the notification was not made. The Court held that once the insurer's statutory duty is established, the insurer bears the burden of proving it performed that duty, and quashed the judgment on the widow's appeal.","k":"Workplace accident — burden of proof for the insurer's notification duty","law":"RD 21.12.1971, art. 6ter; former Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, art. 870","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-03-13","rol":"45119","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2006:ARR.20060313.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"Ruling after the Court of Cassation quashed the Mons Labour Court of Appeal's judgment (Cass. 25.11.2002), the Brussels Labour Court of Appeal held that the maternity benefits paid to the victim from 29.3.1995 to 11.7.1995 were not unduly paid, since the conditions of article 295 of the Royal Decree of 3.7.1996 were met, and that the health-insurance fund is subrogated, up to that amount, to the victim's right to temporary-incapacity benefits. As both benefits compensate the same loss of earning capacity, the workplace-accident insurer owes only the part of the total temporary-incapacity benefit exceeding the maternity benefits. The victim's appeal succeeded in part; the remainder of her claim was dismissed.","k":"Workplace accident — overlap of maternity and temporary-incapacity benefits","law":"Act of 10.4.1971; coordinated Act of 14.7.1994, art. 117; RD 3.7.1996, art. 295; Cass. 25.11.2002","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-03-13","rol":"46.568","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2006:ARR.20060313.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"En ce qui concerne l'indemnisation d'un accident de travail, l'état antérieur n'exclut l'obligation de réparer que lorsque, sans l'accident, les dommages se seraient produits tels qu'ils se sont réalisés. L'assureur…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"After a commuting accident on 8.6.1999 that left serious psychological disorders, the first-instance court had set permanent incapacity at 10%; the victim sought 25% and the workplace-accident insurer, by cross-appeal, 5%. The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal recalled that a pre-existing condition excludes the duty to compensate only if the damage would have occurred in the same way without the accident, and that incapacity must be assessed as a whole, without deducting the predisposition, as long as the accident is at least a partial cause. Because the expert's reasoning did not show that doubt had been resolved in the victim's favour, and the questions of deliberate exaggeration of test results and over-medication remained open, the court ordered a further expert report before ruling on the merits.","k":"Workplace accident — pre-existing condition and further expert report","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 9; Cass. 14.6.1995; Cass. 19.12.1973; Cass. 8.9.1971","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-03-10","rol":"C.05.0228.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2006:ARR.20060310.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"Le juge du fond apprécie en fait le caractère volontaire de la faute de la victime et la conscience que celle-ci devait avoir du danger auquel elle s'exposait (1). (1) Art. 29bis, Loi du 21 novembre 1989 tel que modifié…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The heirs of a pedestrian who crossed against a red light, although a horn had warned him, visibility was excellent and a car travelling at 60–70 km/h was eight metres from the crossing, claimed art. 29bis compensation from the motor liability insurer. The Court restated that an inexcusable fault is a deliberate fault of exceptional gravity that exposes its author without valid reason to a danger of which he should have been aware, and that whether the fault was deliberate and the danger appreciated is a factual matter for the trial court. Since the Liège Court of First Instance (on appeal) found an inexcusable fault without reversing the burden of proof, the heirs' appeal was dismissed.","k":"Art. 29bis — inexcusable fault of a pedestrian","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1(6) (as amended on 13.4.1995, before the Act of 19.1.2001); Cass. 2.9.2005","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-03-08","rol":"P.05.0854.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2006:ARR.20060308.8","ch":"2F","res":"r","t":"liability","q":"L'assureur subrogé dans les droits de la victime d'un accident de la circulation dispose d'une action directe contre l'assureur de la responsabilité civile du conducteur responsable dudit accident; toutefois, ce dernier…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"On 16 June 1989 an employee driving his employer's vehicle in the course of his employment was held solely liable for an accident that killed a colleague, for whom it was a commuting accident. The workplace-accident insurer, having compensated the victim's dependants, brought a subrogated claim against the driver's motor liability insurer; the Liège Court of Appeal, criminal division, held that civil claim inadmissible. The Court held that a subrogated insurer has a direct action against the liable driver's insurer, but that insurer owes only what its insured owes; the immunity in article 18 of the Act of 3 July 1978 is personal to the employee and does not exclude the employer's vicarious liability (art. 1384(3) Civil Code), but the employee's liability insurer may rely on it. The appeal was dismissed.","k":"Subrogated insurer's direct action — employee's personal immunity","law":"Act of 3.7.1978 art. 18; former Civil Code, arts. 1382 and 1384(3); Act of 10.4.1971 art. 47","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-02-27","rol":"45.531","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2006:ARR.20060227.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La consolidation se produit le jour où l'incapacité de travail, c'est-à-dire la perte de capacité sur le marché du travail, devient permanente (articles 23, alinéa 3 et 24, alinéa 2 de la loi du 10/04/1971. C'est la…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal stated that consolidation occurs on the day the incapacity for work, i.e. the loss of capacity on the labour market, becomes permanent and is no longer expected to change according to medical forecasts; the permanent-incapacity rate must reflect certain or normally foreseeable developments and facts arising during the proceedings. The judgment was upheld as to the temporary-incapacity periods, the consolidation date and the rate; the victim's cross-appeal was dismissed. The workplace-accident insurer's appeal succeeded in part: the base pay of a part-time worker receiving a survivor's pension must be calculated under article 37, a rule the court found non-discriminatory; the debates were reopened on the amount of the benefits.","k":"Workplace accident — consolidation date and part-time worker's base pay","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 23(3), 24(2) and 37","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-02-20","rol":"2004RG1057","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2006:ARR.20060220.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer sent a registered formal notice on 26.4.1995 to an employer who had not paid premiums since 1.1.1994; the policy was suspended from 12.5.1995 and a worker suffered a workplace accident on 18.5.1995. The insurer claimed from the employer the €35,978.04 paid to the victim under a labour court judgment. The court held that the sending of the registered letter was established, that the suspension was valid and that paying the claim without reservation did not deprive the insurer of its recourse, workplace-accident legislation being public policy protecting the worker. A court-ordered expert report from proceedings to which the employer was not a party cannot be relied on against him as such, but may serve as a factual presumption. The employer's appeal was dismissed; he was provisionally ordered to pay €3,058.23 in medical costs and the proceedings were reopened for disclosure of the full report.","k":"Workplace-accident insurance — suspension for non-payment and recourse against the employer","law":"Act of 10.4.1971; former Civil Code, arts. 1349 and 1353; Cass. 22.12.1983","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-02-20","rol":"18363","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2006:ARR.20060220.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'évaluation du degré de nécessité de l'assistance d'une tierce personne doit être faite en équité, en tenant compte, bien au-delà de l'incapacité de travailler, de l'assistance normalement nécessaire pour accomplir…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the condition in article 24(4) of the Act of 10.4.1971 (a condition that 'absolutely and normally' requires another person's help) does not mean the victim must be wholly unable to perform an everyday act; it is enough that the act can no longer be performed normally without help. The assessment is equitable and lump-sum, disregarding purely moral inconvenience and housework done by a spouse or relative, and is not tied to the costs actually incurred. The victim was granted a flat four hours per week, calculated on the guaranteed average minimum monthly income, for weekly cleaning and heavy shopping; the expert report was otherwise endorsed and the debates were reopened on the start date of the allowance.","k":"Workplace accident — third-party assistance allowance","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24(4)–(5)","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-02-13","rol":"2005RG486","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2006:ARR.20060213.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"During a pool game a 16-year-old, surfacing from the water, struck the jaw of a 15-year-old girl and broke several of her teeth; the victim sued the Belgian company of the same group to which the youth's French liability insurer had transferred the file, as well as the family liability insurer of the uncle who owned the pool. The court held the direct action against the Belgian company admissible under art. 86 LCAT, since it had handled the file referring to 'its insured', no limitation of its mandate was proven and EU legislation gives claims representatives sufficient powers. Only the youth was at fault; neither the uncle nor the victim was. The claim against the uncle's insurer was dismissed, while the appointment of a medical expert and the advance payable by the Belgian company were upheld and the case sent back to the first judge.","k":"Direct action — against the Belgian representative of a foreign insurer","law":"LCAT art. 86; former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1384; Directive 2000/26/EC (claims representatives)","w":125,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-02-08","rol":"2001/AR/2966","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2006:ARR.20060208.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"alt","s":"The insured company's warehouse had been built without a permit and its demolition ordered by a final criminal judgment in 1981; insured against fire in 1997, it burned down in 1998. The court recalled that in indemnity insurance the requirement of an insurable interest is a matter of public policy and the interest must be lawful. Preserving a building under a demolition order is an unlawful interest; the contract, aimed at maintaining a situation contrary to public policy, is absolutely void. The claim (sum insured €223,104.17) was dismissed on other grounds; no fault was found on the part of the insurer or of the broker, who was not shown to have been told of the situation.","k":"Fire insurance — insurable interest in an unlawful building under demolition order","law":"LCAT art. 37; former Civil Code, art. 6, 1108, 1131, 1133","w":214,"c":"Hof van beroep Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-01-30","rol":"2004/AR/2310","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2006:ARR.20060130.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Diamonds had been stolen without forced entry from a safe at a jewellery fair, covered by an \"all risks exhibition\" policy. The Antwerp Court of Appeal held, from the wording of the clause, its heading (\"conditions\") and its place in the certificate, that locking the safe was a condition of cover to be proven by the insured (former Civil Code, art. 1315 §1), and that the insured proved she had indeed locked it. The insurers, except one, were ordered to pay the principal of USD 2,045,899.11, each for its share; the insured's claims for conversion into euros and exchange-rate loss were rejected, and the start of interest and capitalisation were partly adjusted. The appeal to the Court of Cassation was dismissed on 20.9.2007.","k":"Jewellery fair insurance — locking of the safe, burden of proof","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1315 and 1154; Cass. 20.9.2007 (C.06.0249.N, appeal dismissed)","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-01-30","rol":"2004/AR/2310","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2006:ARR.20060130.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Diamonds had been stolen without forced entry from a safe at a jewellery fair, covered by an \"all risks exhibition\" policy. The Antwerp Court of Appeal held, from the wording of the clause, its heading (\"conditions\") and its place in the certificate, that locking the safe was a condition of cover to be proven by the insured (former Civil Code, art. 1315 §1), and that the insured proved she had indeed locked it. The insurers, except one, were ordered to pay the principal of USD 2,045,899.11, each for its share; the insured's claims for conversion into euros and exchange-rate loss were rejected, and the start of interest and capitalisation were partly adjusted. The appeal to the Court of Cassation was dismissed on 20.9.2007.","k":"Jewellery fair insurance — locking of the safe, burden of proof","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1315 and 1154; Cass. 20.9.2007 (C.06.0249.N, appeal dismissed)","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-01-30","rol":"2004AR2310","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2006:ARR.20060130.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Aan de hand van het verzekeringscontract dient nagegaan te worden of het afsluiten van de kluis in casu een dekkingsvoorwaarde of een vervalbepaling is. Het is de verzekerde die dient te bewijzen dat aan de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Diamonds had been stolen without forced entry from a safe at a jewellery fair, covered by an \"all risks exhibition\" policy. The Antwerp Court of Appeal held, from the wording of the clause, its heading (\"conditions\") and its place in the certificate, that locking the safe was a condition of cover to be proven by the insured (former Civil Code, art. 1315 §1), and that the insured proved she had indeed locked it. The insurers, except one, were ordered to pay the principal of USD 2,045,899.11, each for its share; the insured's claims for conversion into euros and exchange-rate loss were rejected, and the start of interest and capitalisation were partly adjusted. The appeal to the Court of Cassation was dismissed on 20.9.2007.","k":"Jewellery fair insurance — locking of the safe, burden of proof","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1315 and 1154; Cass. 20.9.2007 (C.06.0249.N, appeal dismissed)","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-01-26","rol":"33106-05","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2006:ARR.20060126.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'article 2 de l'arrêté royal du 16 décembre 1987 précise que lorsque l'incapacité temporaire de travailler est de plus de 30 jours, la notification de la déclaration de guérison sans séquelles à la victime se fait par…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer argued that the claim of a victim to whom it had notified a 'healed without sequelae' decision after a temporary incapacity of no more than 30 days could only be a revision action under article 72. The court held that article 2 of the Royal Decree of 16 December 1987 merely sets the starting point of the revision period and does not remove the possibility of challenging the 'healed without sequelae' decision to obtain initial compensation; depriving a worker of that possibility solely because the temporary incapacity did not exceed 30 days would be discriminatory. The statutory scheme includes both the challenge action (three years to contest the compensation offer) and the revision action in case of aggravation (three years); the first-instance court had not recharacterised the claim and, the Act being a matter of public policy, would have had power to do so. The insurer's appeal was dismissed and the case sent back to the first-instance court.","k":"Workplace accident — challenging a 'healed without sequelae' decision versus revision","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 24, 69 and 72; RD 16.12.1987, arts. 2 and 3; Judicial Code, art. 1068","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-01-25","rol":"32638-04","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2006:ARR.20060125.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Les titres-repas constituent un avantage évaluable en argent, octroyé au travailleur par son employeur en raison de leur relation de travail et résultant en l'espèce d'une convention collective de travail.Il ne s'agit…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer objected to the inclusion of meal vouchers, granted under a collective agreement, in the basic remuneration used to calculate benefits. The court held that meal vouchers are a benefit assessable in money, granted by the employer by reason of the employment relationship, and that they are not among the benefits excluded by article 35, second paragraph, of the Act of 10 April 1971; the insurer failed to show that they reimbursed expenses incurred by the worker because of working conditions. The appeal was dismissed; basic remuneration, including the employer's share of the vouchers, was fixed at EUR 11,058.48 for temporary incapacity and EUR 19,580.00 for permanent incapacity. The Workplace Accident Fund's protective intervention was upheld.","k":"Workplace accident — meal vouchers and basic remuneration","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 35","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-01-18","rol":"2004AR2921","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2006:ARR.20060118.18","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"1. Artikel 23 Ger.W. stelt dat het gezag van rechterlijk gewijsde zich niet verder uitstrekt dan wat het voorwerp van de beslissing heeft uitgemaakt. Vereist wordt dat de gevorderde zaak dezelfde is, dat de vordering op…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Insured under a group personal-accident policy taken out for an association of garage owners, the insured had brought a new action against the insurer after falling from a ladder. The Antwerp Court of Appeal held that res judicata (art. 23 Judicial Code) is assessed by reference to the thing claimed, that the real object of the claim was payment of policy benefits, and that whether these are calculated on the conclusions of the \"medical arbitration\" or of a new court-ordered expertise concerns only the extent of the claim; the action against the insurer was inadmissible. An amicable medical expertise is not an arbitration but a binding expert determination, so the pleas based on articles 1701 and 1704 of the Judicial Code were ineffective. The professional-liability claim against the second respondent was also dismissed.","k":"Personal accident cover — res judicata and binding medical expertise","law":"Judicial Code, arts. 23, 1701 and 1704; policy art. 24","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-01-16","rol":"46033","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2006:ARR.20060116.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"xxxL'injection d'une dose de vaccin anti-hépatite B à une nettoyeuse travaillant en milieu hospitalier, qui s'inscrit dans un programme de vaccination organisé par l'employeur et qui cause une parésie faciale, constitue…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A cleaner working in a hospital developed facial paresis after a hepatitis B vaccination given under a vaccination programme organised by her employer. The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal held that the injection was a sudden event and rejected the workplace-accident insurer's argument that, by accepting the inoculation, the worker had intentionally caused the accident (art. 48): the vaccination was imposed on her, and intent requires the will to cause the accident itself; treating every event the worker did not resist as intentional would drastically narrow the scope of the Act. The insurer's appeal was dismissed and the case sent back to the labour tribunal.","k":"Workplace accident — injury from employer-imposed vaccination","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 48","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-01-16","rol":"30903-02","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2006:ARR.20060116.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Il n'y a lieu d'interroger l'expert judiciaire désigné sur le renversement éventuel de la présomption légale de causalité entre l'accident et la lésion qu'à la condition que l'assureur-loi fournisse préalablement un…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer wanted the court-appointed expert to be asked also whether the presumption of causation between the accident and the injury could be rebutted. The court held that, because of the statutory presumption in article 9 of the Act of 10 April 1971, that question may be put to the expert only if the insurer first provides prima facie evidence to the contrary, or at least some indication casting doubt on the causal link, such as a certificate from its own doctor. As the insurer produced nothing despite being invited to do so by the victim and the court, the two items of the expert's brief concerning causation were deleted. The insurer's main appeal was dismissed in full, the victim's cross-appeal upheld, and the case sent back to the Huy Labour Tribunal.","k":"Workplace accident — presumption of causation, when the expert may be asked to rebut it","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 9; Judicial Code, art. 1068","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-01-16","rol":"C.04.0302.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2006:ARR.20060116.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"En matière de contrat d'assurance sur la vie, qui implique une stipulation pour autrui, le tiers bénéficiaire recueille, par le seul fait de sa désignation, un droit propre et direct sur les prestations d'assurance et…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The widow claimed, personally and as heir, payment to herself under a life policy taken out by her late husband; the Liège Court of Appeal had held she lacked standing. The Court restated that life insurance involves a stipulation for the benefit of a third party: the beneficiary acquires, merely by being designated, a direct right of its own to the benefits, and neither the policyholder nor, as a rule, his heirs have any right to them. Since the widow was not the beneficiary, her appeal was dismissed.","k":"Life insurance — standing of an heir who is not the beneficiary","law":"Judicial Code, art. 17–18; stipulation for a third party (former Civil Code, art. 1121)","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-01-09","rol":"45985","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2006:ARR.20060109.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal held that a compensation agreement between the workplace-accident insurer and the victim, approved by the Workplace Accidents Fund, may, like any contract, be annulled for fraud; the Fund's approval then becomes moot. The victim, compensated for a driving phobia, had concealed that he had started paid training as a train driver and had covered this up with other statements about his employment situation; the court treated this as a deceit that distorted the assessment of the insurer and its doctors. The agreement on the accident of 7.4.2000 was annulled; the victim, who did not prove any permanent incapacity, must repay the permanent-incapacity allowances received. The insurer's appeal was upheld.","k":"Workplace accident — annulment of approved settlement for fraud","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 24 and 58 §1, 13°; annulment for fraud (former Civil Code)","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-01-09","rol":"C.05.0007.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2006:ARR.20060109.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"L'existence d'une obligation contractuelle, légale ou réglementaire n'exclut pas l'existence d'un dommage au sens de l'article 1382 du Code civil, pour autant qu'il n'apparaisse pas du contenu ou de la portée du…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Belgian State, which had paid an occupational-accident annuity to a public servant with 6% permanent incapacity under the Act of 3.7.1967, claimed it from the liable third party's insurer. The Court restated that a contractual, statutory or regulatory obligation does not in itself rule out damage under art. 1382 of the former Civil Code, unless the expense must under that norm remain definitively with the payer; to the extent a norm requires an employer acting as insurer to pay more than it would have paid for work performed, those sums remain definitively its own burden and are not recoverable damage. The Brussels Court of First Instance (on appeal) judgment, which held that the annuity was not consideration for work and therefore did not have to remain with the State, and ordered the insurer to pay €22,226.82, was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Public employer's claim — is an occupational-accident annuity recoverable damage?","law":"Act of 3.7.1967, art. 1 and 14 §3; former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383; Cass. 4.3.2002","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-01-09","rol":"C.04.0519.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2006:ARR.20060109.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"Un véhicule automoteur est impliqué dans un accident de la circulation lorsqu'il existe un lien quelconque entre le véhicule et l'accident; il s'ensuit que l'existence d'un lien de causalité entre le véhicule et…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A pedestrian was injured beside his own parked car when another car struck him; that car's insurer was held liable, while the art. 29bis claim against the parked car's insurer was rejected on the ground that the parked car was not involved. The Court held that the mere presence of a vehicle at the time of the accident is not enough, but a vehicle is involved if its presence has any connection with how the accident came about, without any causal link being required. The Brussels Court of First Instance (on appeal) judgment, which required causation, was quashed to that extent on the appeal of the striking car's insurer.","k":"Art. 29bis — involvement of a parked vehicle","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; Cass. 9.1.2004","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-01-05","rol":"C.05.0051.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2006:ARR.20060105.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"La disposition légale de droit impératif réglant le délai dans lequel la résiliation de la police d'assurance produit ses effets empêche les parties de stipuler un délai de préavis plus court mais ne les empêche pas de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Co-insurers had terminated an insurance intermediary's professional liability policy by letter of 12.4.1994 with fifteen days' notice; when the intermediary was later held liable for losses suffered by its clients, it sought indemnity from the insurers. The Antwerp Court of Appeal held that, as the minimum one-month period in art. 29 §2 LCAT is mandatory, the termination had no effect and the insured could not accept a shorter period. The Court held that the mandatory rule prevents the parties from agreeing a shorter period in advance, but does not prevent the protected party, once notice has been given, from accepting a shorter period and so waiving the statutory protection; it also faulted the court for raising of its own motion an issue the parties had not disputed (the posting date). The judgment was quashed, as regards the indemnity claim against the insurers, on the insurers' appeal.","k":"Termination of an insurance contract — later acceptance of a shorter notice period","law":"LCAT art. 3 and 29 §2; Judicial Code, art. 1138, 2°","w":215,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2006-01-03","rol":"P.05.1137.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2006:ARR.20060103.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"L'assureur d'un véhicule automobile impliqué dans un accident de circulation qui, sur la base de l'article 29bis de la loi sur l'assurance automobile obligatoire, a payé aux occupants du véhicule impliqué des indemnités…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that a motor insurer which compensated the passengers under article 29bis may, being subrogated to their rights, join the criminal proceedings as a civil party against the liable defendant and against the defendant's liability insurer that intervened. The appellate judgment of the Hasselt criminal court, which denied the criminal court's jurisdiction, was quashed as regards that insurer's claim against the other insurer. The liability insurer's own appeal was dismissed.","k":"Article 29bis — subrogated insurer joining criminal proceedings as civil party","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §§1 and 4; Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 4; Cass. 13.9.2000; Cass. 26.3.2003","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-12-21","rol":"193/2005","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2005:ARR.193","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"On a preliminary question from the Nivelles Justice of the Peace, the Court examined the fact that the automatic compensation scheme of article 29bis covers only motor vehicles travelling on land, as regards passengers of vessels on water. Road traffic concerns a far larger share of the population, uses far more widespread means of transport and creates specific risks, so the two categories of passengers are not sufficiently comparable. Article 29bis §1(1), read with article 1 of the Act of 21 November 1989, therefore does not breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution.","k":"Article 29bis — waterborne passengers not covered","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 1 and 29bis §1(1); Constitution, art. 10–11","w":35,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle — CC 193/2005","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-12-21","rol":"2003RG1572","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2005:ARR.20051221.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insured claimed compensation for the theft of his car; the insurer replied that the proposal form stated 'none' under 'previous insurance' and 'claims in the last five years', although the insured had two at-fault claims and a bonus-malus level of 17 with another insurer. The court found that the insured could not prove the insurer had been told of his claims history; even if the intermediary had filled in the form and given misleading advice, this would not alter the application of arts. 5 and 6 LCAT, since the intermediary acted as agent of the insured, who signed the proposal. Hearing witnesses was held pointless, the dismissal of the claim was upheld and the contract was declared void for intentional misrepresentation at inception.","k":"Duty of disclosure — concealed claims history, nullity","law":"LCAT arts. 1, 5 and 6","w":213,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-12-21","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2005:ARR.200","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : En ce que les catégories visées dans la question préjudicielle ne sont pas comparables, l'article 14bis, § 3, de la loi du 3 juillet 1967 « sur la prévention ou la réparation des dommages…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"In a dispute between two insurers, the Mechelen Court of First Instance asked whether article 14bis §3 of the Act of 3.7.1967 was discriminatory because it grants subrogation in the article 29bis rights to a public authority that settles workplace accidents itself, but not to the workplace-accident insurer used by an authority. The Court held that the categories are not comparable: in the public sector the authority owes the benefits, the victim has no direct action against the workplace-accident insurer, and no direct legal relationship exists between them. The provision does not breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution.","k":"Public-sector workplace accident — self-insured authority and workplace-accident insurer","law":"Act of 3.7.1967, arts. 14bis §3 and 16; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-12-14","rol":"P.04.1578.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2005:ARR.20051214.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Un pourvoi immédiat est recevable contre la décision rendue à la fois sur le principe d'une responsabilité et sur le principe de l'obligation qui en découle pour l'assureur en responsabilité d'indemniser les victimes…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer argued that the vehicle involved was not the one named in the policy and was not covered. The judgment under appeal inferred cover from the green card issued \"provisionally\" for that vehicle by the broker and from the insurer's failure to object to the broker's fax; the green card was treated only as a rebuttable presumption that the insurer's evidence failed to overturn. The Court dismissed the insurer's appeal, leaving it liable to the Guarantee Fund and the injured parties.","k":"Motor liability — replacement vehicle and green-card presumption","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 7; RD of 13.2.1991, art. 5; Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 416","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-11-25","rol":"C.04.0246.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2005:ARR.20051125.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Ne confère pas une action directe au locataire d'un immeuble incendié contre l'assureur du sous-locataire de cet immeuble, l'article 38, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 11 juin 1874 sur les assurances en général en vertu…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Article 38(1) of the Act of 11 June 1874 gives the owner of a burnt building a direct action against the tenant's insurer; as an exception to article 1165 of the Civil Code, it is strictly construed. The Court held that a tenant who sublet the building is not an owner within that provision and has no direct action against the subtenant's insurer. The judgment ordering that insurer to indemnify the tenant and its insurers for 50% was quashed.","k":"Fire — tenant's direct action against the subtenant's insurer","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 38(1); former Civil Code, art. 1165","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-11-23","rol":"2004AR2229","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2005:ARR.20051123.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"- De verzekeringsmakelaar is aansprakelijk wanneer hij als tussenpersoon een fout heeft begaan door zijn opdracht niet te hebben vervuld als een normaal zorgvuldig en redelijke professionele tussenpersoon. - De…","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"When a second-hand car was insured against theft on an \"actual value\" basis, the broker entered on the amendment notice a sum insured below the catalogue value; after the theft the insurer applied the proportional rule and paid €7,866.33. The Antwerp Court of Appeal held that checking the declared values against the catalogue value falls within the diligence expected of the policyholder and his broker, that the insurer validly applied the proportional rule and owed no more; the judgment ordering the insurer to pay was reversed. The broker, who had not acted as a normally prudent intermediary, was ordered to pay the insured the €2,182.03 difference between the actual-value indemnity (€10,048.36) and the amount paid; the insurer owed only late-payment interest from 18.6.2001 to 2.10.2001.","k":"Motor own-damage cover — undervalued sum insured, broker's liability","law":"Insurance intermediary's duty of care; proportional rule (policy)","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-11-17","rol":"C.04.0477.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2005:ARR.20051117.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"L'assuré qui fait valoir à l'égard de son assureur le droit au paiement doit en principe non seulement apporter la preuve du dommage mais aussi de l'événement qui y a donné lieu et doit établir que le risque réalisé…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The court of appeal found that the insurer, through its conduct, had accepted that it was bound to provide cover and had implicitly but certainly waived its right to deny cover under the policy and the law. The Court noted that waiver is not presumed but is a matter for the trial judge; once established, the insured no longer has to prove that the loss falls within the cover and outside the exclusions. The insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Waiver of the right to deny cover and burden of proof","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, art. 870; general principle that waiver is strictly construed","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-11-16","rol":"2004AR2288","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2005:ARR.20051116.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Een casco-verzekering voor trailers van een Belgisch transportbedrijf werd gesloten op de Nederlandse Verzekeringsbeurs te Rotterdam en bepaalt dat het Nederlands recht van toepassing is. Art. 28 ter, ,§ 1, al. 1 van de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Four trailers leased by a Belgian haulage company were covered by a hull policy placed on the Rotterdam insurance exchange with a choice of Dutch law; the trailers disappeared and the lessor, as beneficiary, sued the insurers. The Antwerp Court of Appeal held that, since the risk was situated in Belgium and the policyholder was habitually resident there, article 28ter §1 of the Supervision Act of 9 July 1975 requires Belgian law to apply notwithstanding any contrary clause. It found, however, that the policyholder was involved in a large-scale fraud of renting trailers and making them disappear, caused the loss intentionally and failed to notify it with fraudulent intent (art. 21 §2 LCAT), so that the causal link required by article 11 LCAT need not be shown. The claim was dismissed on the merits.","k":"Trailer hull insurance — applicable law and intentional loss","law":"Supervision Act of 9.7.1975, arts. 28ter §1 and 2 §6, 8° e; LCAT arts. 21 §2 and 11","w":216,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-10-25","rol":"P.05.0127.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2005:ARR.20051025.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"La subrogation de l'assureur qui a payé l'indemnité, à concurrence du montant de celle-ci, dans les droits et actions de l'assuré ou du bénéficiaire contre les tiers responsables du dommage, ne trouve à s'appliquer que…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer sought to recover from the liable defendant, by subrogation, what it had paid the victim for incapacity for work. The criminal court on appeal held that the benefit, although calculated using the workplace-accident statute's criteria, was a fixed sum and that the policy was fixed-benefit insurance. The Court recalled that subrogation under article 41 LCAT applies only to indemnity insurance and dismissed the insurer's appeal, as that reading of the contract was compatible with its wording.","k":"No subrogation under fixed-benefit insurance","law":"LCAT art. 1(i) and (j), art. 41; former Civil Code, art. 1319–1322","w":16,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-10-24","rol":"40890","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2005:ARR.20051024.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'événement soudain peut-être constitué de l'execice habituel et normal de la tâche journalière, à la condition que dans cet exercice puisse être épinglé un élément qui a pu produire la lésion. Il n'est pas exigé que…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A hotel chambermaid felt shoulder pain while lifting a mattress to tuck in a bed; the workplace-accident insurer had refused the claim for lack of an 'abnormal accidental event' and the first-instance court had dismissed her claim. The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal reversed: a sudden event may consist of the ordinary, normal performance of daily tasks, provided an element capable of producing the injury can be pinpointed; no particular effort, awkward movement or special working condition is required. Lifting the mattress was accepted as the sudden event and the muscle contusion as the injury; since the legal presumption applied, an expert was appointed to say whether any causal link could be excluded.","k":"Workplace accident — sudden event in ordinary work","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 9; Cass. 5.4.2004; Cass. 18.5.1998","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-10-19","rol":"P.05.0858.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2005:ARR.20051019.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"L'obligation d'indemnisation instituée par l'article 29bis de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs existe en l'absence de preuve d'une…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The compensation duty under article 29bis exists without proof of any liability of the insured and is not based on an offence committed by the insured. A claim based on it therefore falls outside the criminal court's jurisdiction, which may rule against the defendant's insurer only under ordinary liability law. The Charleroi criminal court's appellate judgment ordering the insurer to compensate the civil party's bodily injury under article 29bis was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Article 29bis claim — criminal court lacks jurisdiction","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; Judicial Code, art. 601bis; Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 3–4; Cass. 12.12.2001; Cass. 29.5.2002","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-10-13","rol":"32376-04","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2005:ARR.20051013.29","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"1. Il n'y a pas lieu de limiter la portée de l'accord signé, sans réserve, par l'assureur-loi et entériné par le Fonds des accidents du travail.Le fait qu'une procédure judiciaire portant sur le calcul des incapacités…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer sought to confine the compensation agreement approved by the Workplace Accident Fund to the calculation of permanent incapacity and to apply a different basic remuneration to the periods of temporary incapacity. The court held that the scope of an agreement signed without reservation by a duly informed insurer, and forwarded by the insurer itself to the Fund, cannot be narrowed; the pending proceedings on the temporary-incapacity calculation changed nothing, and the request to stay the case pending a rescission action was rejected. It also recalled that the right to compensation is irrevocably fixed on the day of the accident and calculated under the provisions then in force: the amendment to article 38, first paragraph, on the basic remuneration of an adult apprentice, made by the Act of 12 August 2000, is not retroactive. The insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Workplace accident — scope of the Fund-approved settlement and the adult apprentice's wage","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 38 and 65; Act of 12.8.2000, art. 46","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-10-12","rol":"2003;AR;1368","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2005:ARR.20051012.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"- Artikel 82, lid 3 van de wet van 25 juni 1992 op de landverzekeringsovereekomst bepaalt dat de verzekeraar, zelfs boven de dekkingsgrenzen, de intrest op de in hoofdsom verschuldigde schadevergoeding betaalt.…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court noted that under article 82(3) LCAT a liability insurer pays interest on the principal compensation even above the cover limits, a provision in force since 21 September 1992. Under article 148, the Act applies to earlier contracts from their amendment, renewal, extension or conversion, and to others from the first day of the twenty-fifth month after publication, including situations whose effects continue. The interest at issue, accruing from 1 September 1994, was treated as a loss that occurred and must be covered under the provisions then in force.","k":"Liability insurance — interest above the cover limits","law":"LCAT arts 82(3), 148 and 149; RD of 24.8.1992, art. 1","w":217,"c":"Hof van beroep van Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"2005-10-10","rol":"2003RG340","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2005:ARR.20051010.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A passenger injured in a road accident claimed compensation from the driver's motor liability insurer under art. 29bis of the Act of 21 November 1989 and asked the same driver's legal expenses insurer for cover, which was refused on the ground that claims between insured persons were excluded. The court held that a claim under art. 29bis, an automatic compensation scheme directed at the liability insurer rather than the insured, is not comparable to a claim against the insured and creates no risk of conflicting interests, so the exclusion does not apply. The legal expenses insurer, which should have intervened and if need be used the objectivity clause, was ordered to pay a provisional €1 towards the costs of the claim against the liability insurer; the appeal was dismissed and the remaining claims reserved.","k":"Legal expenses cover — passenger's art. 29bis claim and family exclusion","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; general conditions of the legal expenses policy (art. 4.2, objectivity clause)","w":35,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-10-07","rol":"C.04.0471.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2005:ARR.20051007.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Le délai de prescription de l'action résultant du droit propre que la personne lésée possède contre l'assureur du responsable en vertu de l'article 86 de la loi sur le contrat d'assurance, qui ne peut excéder dix ans à…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"An architect's professional-liability insurers argued that the injured parties' direct action was time-barred. The Court held that the ten-year cap in article 34(2) LCAT does not turn the period into a strict time bar that cannot be interrupted or suspended. Limitation is interrupted as soon as the insurer learns that the injured party wishes to be compensated; there is no need to express an intention to bring the direct action as such. The insurers' appeal was dismissed.","k":"Direct action — interruption of limitation and ten-year cap","law":"LCAT art. 34(2), art. 35(4), art. 86","w":157,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-10-06","rol":"C.03.0377.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2005:ARR.20051006.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"Lorsque l'assureur d'un véhicule automoteur, subrogé dans les droits de la victime qu'il a indemnisée conformément à l'article 29bis de la loi du 21 novembre 1989, intente une action en recouvrement contre le tiers…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"When a motor insurer that compensated the victim under article 29bis brings a subrogated recourse claim against the third party liable under ordinary law, that party may prove the victim's own fault, even if the victim is under 14. The rule barring inexcusable fault against victims under 14 applies only to article 29bis compensation. The Hasselt court of first instance's appellate judgment, which ordered the liable parties to pay the insurer €110,275.93 without examining the fault of the nine-year-old victim, was quashed on that point; a request to reserve a future claim is not a head of claim.","k":"Article 29bis insurer's recourse — fault of a victim under 14","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis(1) and (4); Judicial Code, art. 1138, 2° and 3°","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-10-04","rol":"P.05.0937.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2005:ARR.20051004.20","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Formé avant l'expiration du délai ordinaire d'opposition du prévenu, le pourvoi en cassation de la partie civile dirigé contre la décision par laquelle le prévenu et la partie en intervention volontaire, assureur en…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The civil party appealed against a judgment that ordered the defendant (by default) and the defendant's liability insurer (after hearing both sides) to pay damages, before the defendant's time to oppose the default judgment had expired. Because the insurer's fate is inseparably tied to that of its insured, the decision against the insurer was not final either, so the appeal was premature and inadmissible against both. The appeal was dismissed without examining the merits.","k":"Civil party's premature appeal — defendant and insurer","law":"Code of Criminal Procedure (opposition and appeal periods); Cass. 27.4.1982; Cass. 16.11.1982","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-09-23","rol":"2002RG1778","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2005:ARR.20050923.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The Liège Court of Appeal held that the insurer failed to prove that a change reducing its commitment had become part of the contract, as the insured had no reasonable way of knowing about it: the exclusion of building damage caused by break-in only emerged from a meticulous side-by-side reading, his attention had not been drawn to it, and he had himself asked for a higher sum insured. Not performing the contract in good faith, the insurer had to cover the loss. The court also set out when a new claim is admissible on appeal.","k":"Home insurance — unnoticed reduction of cover","law":"Good-faith performance of contracts; Judicial Code, arts. 807 and 1042","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"2005-09-23","rol":"2004RG205","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2005:ARR.20050923.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"L'obligation d'une partie de payer l'indemnité prévue par le contrat d'assurance est une obligation qui, au sens de l'article 1153 du code civil, se borne au paiement d'une certaine somme. L'exécution en nature de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Liège Court of Appeal held that the obligation to pay the indemnity provided for in an insurance contract is limited to paying a sum of money within the meaning of article 1153 of the former Civil Code, and can always be performed in kind. Damages for delay therefore consist, as a rule, of interest running from the formal notice; that interest is default (moratory) interest, not compensatory interest. The summary does not state the outcome of the case.","k":"Insurance indemnity — nature of late-payment interest","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1153","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"2005-09-08","rol":"2004/RG/144","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2005:ARR.20050908.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"L'article du contrat d'assurance de la responsabilité civile des mandataires judiciaires qui exclut la faute lourde, ne peut pas trouver application en la cause puisque les parties admettent que le sinistre est régi par…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The professional liability insurer of a lawyer appointed as provisional administrator refused cover, relying on the policy exclusion for gross negligence and 'serious professional fault'. The court recalled that under article 8, para. 2 LCAT the insurer is liable for losses caused even by gross negligence and may exclude only cases of gross negligence expressly and exhaustively defined in the contract; a clause referring to general notions and merely paraphrasing the concept of gross negligence fails the statutory test and is void. Nor was intentional conduct by the insured shown. The insurer's appeal was dismissed and its duty to cover the loss upheld.","k":"Professional liability — invalid gross-negligence exclusion","law":"LCAT art. 8, paras. 1-2; Cass. 12.4.2002","w":17,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-09-02","rol":"C.03.0256.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2005:ARR.20050902.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"Le juge du fond ne peut déduire de la circonstance que la victime se trouve en état d'ivresse et qu'elle a une propension à l'alcoolisme telle qu'elle ne peut s'empêcher de boire, que la faute commise par elle serait…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The victim, heavily intoxicated, lay down at night on a poorly lit road and was killed by a vehicle; the Liège court of first instance on appeal ruled out inexcusable fault because alcoholism deprived the fault of its voluntary character, and held the Guarantee Fund liable under article 29bis. The Court held that intoxication and an addiction to alcohol so strong that the person cannot stop drinking do not mean the person lost awareness of his acts. On the Fund's appeal, the judgment was quashed as regards the relatives' claim against the Fund; the finding that the second vehicle was not involved was upheld.","k":"Article 29bis — inexcusable fault of an intoxicated victim","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis(1), paras. 5–6 (version applicable to the facts)","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-09-02","rol":"C.04.0143.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2005:ARR.20050902.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Les modalités d'exercice de l'action récursoire prévues par la loi du 25 juin 1992 ne s'appliquent à la date où l'action est née que pour autant que ces dispositions soient entrées en vigueur à cette date (1). (1) Voir…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer sought to recover from its insured, who caused an accident on 14.3.1992 while drunk, the sums paid to the victim, relying on the model policy. The Liège Court of Appeal rejected the claim because the insurer had not given notice of its intention to seek recourse as required by article 88(2) LCAT. The Court held that the right of recourse arises at the time of the accident, that conditions for exercising it such as prior notice are governed by the same law, and that article 88 entered into force only on 1.1.1993; the judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Recourse for gross fault — temporal scope of art. 88 LCAT","law":"LCAT art. 88(2), art. 148; RD of 24.8.1992, art. 3; model policy, arts. 24 and 25, 9°","w":11,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-09-01","rol":"378-99","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:2005:ARR.20050901.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The Ghent Labour Court of Appeal held that periods of temporary incapacity after the resignation (1.4.1992) of a nurse employed by a public welfare centre, injured in a workplace accident in 1989 and later given permanent status before voluntarily leaving to work as a self-employed nurse, are not compensable under the public-sector workplace-accident scheme: temporary-incapacity benefits presuppose an interruption of employment, and her position ended through her own act. Permanent incapacity, however, was set at 6% as the victim requested and in line with the binding finding of the administrative medical service, with consolidation on 1.8.1994 and a basic wage of EUR 7,436.81; the annuity is reduced by 25% under article 4 §3. The insurer's main appeal and the victim's cross-appeal were each partly upheld; costs fell on the insurer.","k":"Public-sector workplace accident — temporary incapacity after resignation","law":"Act of 3.7.1967, arts. 3bis, 4 §3 and 19; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 23; Cass. 7.2.2000; Cass. 2.11.1998","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-06-29","rol":"2003AR2554","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2005:ARR.20050629.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"1)Een proceshandeling moet worden beoordeeld op grond van het werkelijk procesgebeuren, eerder dan op de bewoordingen in het vonnis. Wanneer een procespartij niet is verschenen, noch iemand namens haar, en er te haren…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A couple who had lent out compensation received after a road accident were beneficiaries of the life insurance taken out on the borrower and held the original policy as security; the insurer granted the borrower an advance without requiring surrender of the policy. The Antwerp Court of Appeal held that a life insurance policy is a transferable instrument, that possession of the original creates a legitimate appearance of financial security, and that the general duty of care required the insurer to demand surrender of the policy before granting an advance; failing to do so was an extra-contractual fault. The insurer's appeal was dismissed; compensatory interest runs at the legal rate from 30.12.1996, capitalisation and the contractual 12% rate were refused, and the €28,034.95 paid on 2.6.1998 was deducted.","k":"Life insurance — advance granted without surrender of the policy, duty of care","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1383 and 1154; Judicial Code, arts. 803–804","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-06-20","rol":"2004RG1077","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2005:ARR.20050620.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A company running a go-kart track, sued by an injured customer, had been defended by its business liability insurer's lawyer; the judgment was served on the company, which told neither the insurer nor the lawyer, and the appeal deadline passed. The insurer therefore sought recourse against the insured and refused to pay the fees of the personal lawyer the insured then had to appoint (BEF 338,164). The court accepted that the insured's conduct was causally linked to the missed appeal but held that it was not a culpable breach of the contract: an operator with no legal training could not be expected to understand that a service of judgment had to be reported at once, especially as the insurer, a professional in litigation, had not warned it and was itself late in filing the appeal. The recourse claim was dismissed and the order that the insurer cover the lawyer's fees was upheld.","k":"Business liability insurance — recourse against an insured who did not report a service of judgment","law":"Insured's contractual duties and the standard of fault (business liability policy)","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-06-13","rol":"2002-0428;2002-0467","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2005:ARR.20050613.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The victim, a subsidised contractual worker employed by a public authority, falls under the Act of 3.7.1967 on public-sector workplace accidents, not the Act of 10.4.1971. Under that regime the direct debtor of the benefits is the employing authority, even where it must take out insurance; the first judge therefore wrongly dismissed the employing authority and the other public party from the case. Although there is no express legal basis for a direct action against the insurer, the victim has an interest in keeping it in the proceedings, since it paid the temporary-incapacity benefits and the policy commits it to pay the victim all statutory benefits; the insurer's appeal seeking to have the claim declared inadmissible or time-barred was dismissed. The expert examination ordered was confirmed.","k":"Public-sector workplace accident — subsidised contractual worker, claim against the insurer","law":"Act of 3.7.1967, arts. 1 and 16; RD 24.1.1969, art. 1; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 4; C. jud., arts. 17–18","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-06-06","rol":"2003RG1058","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2005:ARR.20050606.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A dilapidated building in Spa collapsed, crushing a car, causing commercial loss to a neighbour and forcing the municipality to incur clearing costs; the owners sought indemnity from their insurer. The court found that the insured knew their previous insurer had cancelled the policy, had given their tenants notice because of the building's dilapidation and unhealthy state and had been formally warned by the municipality, yet disclosed none of this to the insurer; the contract was declared void under arts. 5 and 6 LCAT. The insurer's post-loss undertaking to bear costs was annulled for fundamental mistake, as the insurer believed the contract valid and the collapse caused by heavy traffic. All claims against the insurer were dismissed; the damages and the municipality's costs (€89,092.71) were charged to the owners under art. 1386 of the Civil Code.","k":"Property insurance — concealed dilapidation, nullity of the contract","law":"LCAT arts. 5 and 6; former Civil Code, arts. 1386, 605–606 and 1110","w":213,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-06-06","rol":"31164-02","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2005:ARR.20050606.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'événement soudain, constitutif d'un accident du travail, peut consister dans l'impact soudain sur l'organisme du travailleur, d'une situation de tension vécue par ce dernier au cours de l'exécution de son contrat,…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A worker suffered a ruptured intracranial aneurysm at work after learning of an upsetting decision by his employer; the workplace-accident insurer denied that there had been a sudden event. The court held that the sudden impact on the worker's body of a stressful situation experienced during the performance of the employment contract can constitute a sudden event, provided the worker's perception of it is established by objective evidence (here, gesticulations and an extremely flushed face observed by a witness), and declared that such an event occurred on 27.6.2000 at 4.10 pm. The causal link between the accident and the injury is presumed under article 9 of the Act of 10 April 1971; since the brief report of the insurer's medical adviser was not enough to rebut the presumption outright, an expert was appointed on that point and on the consequences of the accident.","k":"Workplace accident — stress-induced aneurysm rupture as a sudden event","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 9","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-06-02","rol":"C.04.0490.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2005:ARR.20050602.16","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Viole l'article 11 de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre l'arrêt qui exige que la sanction de la déchéance soit mentionnée immédiatement après l'énoncé de l'obligation mise à charge de l'assuré…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The special conditions required, as a prevention measure, that ashtrays be emptied only into closed metal containers, while the forfeiture sanction was set out in the general conditions. The Liège Court of Appeal had held the clause unlawful under article 11 LCAT because the sanction was not stated right below the obligation. The Court held that article 11 does not require forfeiture to be stated immediately after the obligation; the judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Fire insurance — placement of the forfeiture clause","law":"LCAT art. 11(1); former Civil Code, art. 1134","w":20,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-06-01","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2005:ARR.102","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : Les articles 34, § 1er, 1° et 1°bis, et 39, § 1er, du Code des impôts sur les revenus 1992 ne violent pas les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution en tant qu'ils rendent imposables les…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"On a question from the Ghent Court of First Instance, the Court examined articles 34 §1, 1° and 1°bis, and 39 §1 of the Income Tax Code 1992 insofar as they tax benefits paid under a guaranteed-income policy even without loss of income. Because the insured had deducted the premiums as professional expenses, taxing the benefit is justified: a deducted premium serves to acquire or keep taxable income, whereas benefits from individual accident insurance whose premiums were not deducted are exempt. The provisions do not breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution.","k":"Guaranteed-income insurance — taxation of benefits","law":"Income Tax Code 1992, arts. 34 §1, 39 §1, 49, 52, 10°; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":84,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-05-30","rol":"2004RG144","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2005:ARR.20050530.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insured claimed from his liability and theft insurer compensation for the theft of the van he held under a lease. The court recalled that under art. 870 of the Judicial Code and art. 1315, para. 1, of the Civil Code the insured must prove that the loss meets the definition of the covered risk, namely that the vehicle was fraudulently taken by a third party. Given the intact anti-theft lock on the recovered steering column, the fact that the insured had barely driven since early 2001 and ceased trading after the theft, and his interest in having the indemnity cover his debt to the leasing company, the theft report was not found credible. The judgment was reversed, the claim dismissed and the insured ordered to pay the costs of both instances.","k":"Theft insurance — leased van, proof of the theft","law":"C. jud., art. 870; former Civil Code, art. 1315, para. 1","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-05-30","rol":"2003RG1729","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2005:ARR.20050530.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The theft insurer had been ordered at first instance to compensate the insured, who had reported the theft of his car. The court recalled that under art. 1315, para. 1, of the Civil Code the insured must prove the theft, that is, the fraudulent taking of the vehicle by a third party. Witness statements gathered by the insurer's investigator, duly licensed as a private detective, and police findings showed that the 1999 car was in poor condition before the theft and that the insured was trying to sell it; as the insured had lied on these points, his theft report was found wholly suspect. The judgment was reversed, the claim dismissed and the insured ordered to pay costs.","k":"Theft insurance — suspicious declaration and insurer's investigation","law":"C. jud., art. 870; former Civil Code, art. 1315, para. 1","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-05-30","rol":"S.04.0086.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2005:ARR.20050530.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Dès lors qu'elles sont les seules personnes à pouvoir se procurer un écrit du contrat, les parties à un contrat d'assurance restent soumises à la condition légale de la preuve littérale qui leur incombe lorsqu'elles…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The workplace-accident insurer refused to cover an accident of 23.7.1994, arguing that the policy had been suspended since 1.7.1989 because the risk had disappeared. The Antwerp Labour Court of Appeal held the suspension unproven, as there was no signed endorsement or beginning of written proof. The Court held that the 1874 Act's written-proof rule applies to the contracting parties even when they rely on the contract or its amendment against a third party; the insurer's appeal was dismissed and it remained liable for the accident.","k":"Workplace-accident insurance — written proof of suspension","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 25 (now LCAT art. 10); Act of 10.4.1971; Judicial Code, art. 1045","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-05-25","rol":"2004AR720","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2005:ARR.20050525.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"De dekkingsuitbreiding tot elk aan een derde toebehorend voertuig dat verzekerde toevallig bestuurt, zelfs indien het omschreven voertuig in gebruik is, strekt zich uit tot het onregelmatig of bij toeval besturen van…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The parents of a passenger killed in an accident in Greece on a motorcycle rented during a holiday brought a direct action against the driver's motor liability insurer, relying on the extension in article 4.1.b of the model policy covering the policyholder when \"occasionally\" driving a vehicle belonging to a third party. The Antwerp Court of Appeal held that this extension, not compulsory under the Act of 1 July 1956, must be construed narrowly and that \"occasional driving\" means irregular or fortuitous use; for the duration of a rental contract, the hirer is the regular and usual driver of the vehicle. The parents' appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — vehicle \"driven occasionally\", rented motorcycle","law":"Motor liability model policy (Act of 1 July 1956), art. 4.1.b","w":35,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-05-25","rol":"2002AR1405","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2005:ARR.20050525.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Door de wijziging van het voorwerp van een eis, die regelmatig was ingediend, moet de rechter, ongeacht de toelaatbaarheid van de oorspronkelijke eis, zich nog enkel uitspreken over de toelaatbaarheid van de gewijzigde…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"After a person helping to build a roof was injured in the eye by a batten, the family liability insurer sought recourse against its insured for late notification under article 6 of the policy. The Antwerp Court of Appeal held that article 88 LCAT, in force since 1 January 1993 and applicable to existing contracts under article 148, is mandatory: recourse is limited to cases where the insurer could lawfully have refused or reduced its performance, and it was not shown under articles 19 and 21 LCAT that the late notification was such a ground. The recourse was rejected. The injured party's cross-appeal was upheld: once a claim has been amended, only the admissibility of the amended claim is to be examined.","k":"Family liability insurance — recourse for late notification, art. 88 LCAT","law":"LCAT arts. 3, 19, 21, 88 and 148; Judicial Code, art. 802","w":218,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-05-25","rol":"2004AR720","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2005:ARR.20050525.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Verzekering - W.A.M. - uitbreiding van dekking - toevallige bestuurder - gehuurd voertuig","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The parents of a passenger killed in an accident in Greece on a motorcycle rented during a holiday brought a direct action against the driver's motor liability insurer, relying on the extension in article 4.1.b of the model policy covering the policyholder when \"occasionally\" driving a vehicle belonging to a third party. The Antwerp Court of Appeal held that this extension, not compulsory under the Act of 1 July 1956, must be construed narrowly and that \"occasional driving\" means irregular or fortuitous use; for the duration of a rental contract, the hirer is the regular and usual driver of the vehicle. The parents' appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — vehicle \"driven occasionally\", rented motorcycle","law":"Motor liability model policy (Act of 1 July 1956), art. 4.1.b","w":35,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-05-19","rol":"C.03.0103.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2005:ARR.20050519.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"L'objet du contrat d'assurance qui est la couverture d'un risque déterminé moyennant un prix, doit être licite (1). (1) Voir Cass., 8 avril 1999, RG C.98.0042.F, n° 199. || Justifie légalement sa décision que l'objet du…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"Fire insurance on a bungalow built without a planning permit does not have an unlawful object where the contract did not create or maintain an illegal situation. The Court held that the insurer claiming to be released bears the burden of proving that the insured intentionally caused the loss and thus lost the cover. The insurer's appeal against the Liège Court of Appeal judgment setting the indemnity at €71,730.04 was dismissed.","k":"Fire cover for an unlicensed building — lawful object and proof of intent","law":"LCAT art. 1 and art. 8; former Civil Code, art. 1315(2); Judicial Code, art. 870; Cass. 8.4.1999; Cass. 2.4.2004","w":17,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-05-12","rol":"2002/RG/165","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2005:ARR.20050512.27","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Des renseignements sur les sinistralités antérieures sont couramment réclamés dans les propositions d'assurance relatives aux véhicules automoteurs. La réponse aux questions posées par l'assureur est présumée, sauf…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insured had failed to declare, in the proposal forms for his car and motorcycle, four claims from the previous five years. The court held that answers to the insurer's questions are presumed, unless proven otherwise, to be material to the assessment of the risk and that the insurer had shown it would not have contracted on the same terms; the insured's theft claim against the insurer was dismissed. The broker, however, who filled in the proposals hastily and incompletely, led the client to underestimate the questions and the consequences of a misstatement and made him lose the chance of proper cover. Liability was apportioned 30% to the broker and 70% to the insured, who had intentionally concealed his record; the broker was ordered to pay €7,466.79, being 30% of €24,889.30.","k":"Motor insurance — concealed claims history, broker's share of liability","law":"LCAT art. 5 (disclosure of the risk); broker's duty to inform","w":219,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-05-11","rol":"88/2005","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2005:ARR.088","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"On preliminary questions from the Mons and Antwerp Courts of Appeal, the Court held that denying the user of a temporary worker the employer's immunity under article 46 §1 of the Act of 10 April 1971 is constitutional, but that denying it to the user's agents and employees breaches articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution. Article 47 is constitutional in allowing the workplace-accident insurer that compensated a temporary worker to claim reimbursement from the user where an ordinary employer could not be made to pay: the recourse is subrogatory and the user does not enjoy immunity.","k":"Workplace accident — temporary worker, user's immunity and insurer's recourse","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46 §1 and 47; Act of 24.7.1987, art. 7–8; Constitution, art. 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle — CC 88/2005","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-05-09","rol":"2004RG36","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2005:ARR.20050509.16","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insured house was completely destroyed by two fires that the prosecutor's expert classed as arson, and the criminal investigation was closed without charges; the insurer refused to pay, claiming the insured had started the fires himself. The court recalled that the insurer bears the burden of proving the insured's intentional act and found that the suspicions raised (house not permanently occupied, car not removed from the rubble, the insured's personality) were not supported by sufficiently convincing evidence, the insured's explanations having been found plausible by the police. The request to hear witnesses was rejected and the insurer was ordered to pay €151,713.94, an amount agreed by the parties, with interest from 29 October 2002.","k":"Fire insurance — burden of proving arson by the insured","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1315 (burden of proof)","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-05-09","rol":"2002RG1001","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2005:ARR.20050509.17","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Minor children from three families had set fire to an unoccupied building; the subrogated fire insurers had obtained a joint judgment against the three mothers. The liability insurer of one mother, having paid half of the total debt, intervened to sue the father of two of the children. The court held that an insurer that paid more than its insured's contributory share is subrogated, under art. 22 of the 1874 Act and art. 1251, 3° of the Civil Code, to the victims' rights against a co-author to the extent of that excess, and upheld the order against the father, who failed to rebut the presumption of defective upbringing in art. 1384, para. 2, to reimburse one third of the payments. Between the parents, liability was split two thirds to the mother, for lack of supervision, and one third to the father.","k":"Subrogation — insurer's recourse against a co-author of the damage","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 22; former Civil Code, arts. 1251, 3°, 1384, para. 2 and 374; Cass. 17.6.1982; Cass. 9.3.1992","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-04-12","rol":"25090II;26170II;-","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARGNT:2005:JUG.20050412.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"De Wet van 7 juli 1978 heeft voor de private sector het optierecht van het slachtoffer afge-schaft door een wijziging van artikel 46 ,§2, tweede lid van de Arbeidsongevallenwet van 10 april 1971. In de private sector…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A nurse employed by a public-utility hospital, injured in a road accident at work, sued her employer and the employer's insurer before the labour court after having already joined the proceedings before the police court as a civil party, obtained advances and an expert report there. The court held that the public sector is governed by the Act of 3.7.1967, that no provision gives the victim a right of her own against the insurer of the public body that owes compensation (Cass. 4.6.1984), and that payments made by that insurer create no legal relationship: the claim against the insurer was inadmissible. The claim against the employer was unfounded because the victim had exercised, before the police court, the right of election that still exists in the public sector; the difference from the private sector is not discriminatory (Court of Arbitration, judgment 101/98).","k":"Public-sector workplace accident — no direct action against the employer's insurer, right of election","law":"Act of 3.7.1967, art. 14; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46 §2; Cass. 4.6.1984; Court of Arbitration 21.10.1998, no. 101/98","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidsrechtbank Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-04-11","rol":"45459","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2005:ARR.20050411.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Le taux d'incapacité permanente de travail est établi à suffisance de droit (en l'espèce 50%) dès lors que le médecin traitant du patient a marqué son accord sur ce taux, que ni le patient, ni son médecin traitant…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The worker challenged, against the judgment endorsing the expert's report, the reduction of her incapacity rate (50%) after an offer to resume work half-time. The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal noted that her treating doctor had initially agreed to that rate, that neither she nor the doctor assisting her nor her lawyer present objected during the expert examination, that she also stayed silent when the insurer's medical adviser wrote that there was no dispute, and that the only contrary certificate rested on unverifiable grounds. Although the matter is one of public policy, this attitude is an important medical opinion to be taken into account; the rate was sufficiently established, the appeal was dismissed and costs were nonetheless borne by the workplace-accident insurer.","k":"Workplace accident — incapacity rate, no objection during the expert examination","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-04-07","rol":"1998;AR;3519","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2005:ARR.20050407.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Artikel 41, lid 1 van de wet van 25 juni 1992 op de landverzekeringsovereenkomsten bepaalt dat de verzekeraar die een schadevergoeding heeft betaald aan zijn verzekerde, ten belope van het bedrag van deze vergoeding in…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that under article 41(1) LCAT an insurer that has paid compensation to its insured is subrogated, up to that amount, to the insured's rights against the liable third party. The provision applies as soon as payment is made, whether or not the policy obliged the insurer to pay: payment of the loss is the only condition for subrogation. The dispute is between the subrogated insurer and the liable third party.","k":"Subrogation — payment as the sole condition","law":"LCAT art. 41(1)","w":16,"c":"Hof van beroep van Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"2005-03-22","rol":"18934;18946","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2005:ARR.20050322.29","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'interprétation extensive qui fut donnée progressivement à l'état de subordination, en vue d'une meilleure protection de la victime dans toutes les circonstances où elle se trouve, ne peut avoir l'effet pervers de…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"On a preliminary question referred by the Brussels Court of Appeal, the labour court held that the 1979 road accident of a worker driving three colleagues to a building site in his own car was a commuting accident: the workers organised the journey freely, the employer's authority applied only on site during working hours, and a fuel contribution does not make the journey working time. The first-instance ruling that it was an accident in the course of employment was reversed on the appeals of the injured party and the workplace-accident insurer. The extensive reading of subordination cannot deny the commuting-accident classification, and thereby trigger the liability regime that departs from ordinary law, where the worker's personal freedom was not restricted in any way; costs were left to the Court of Appeal.","k":"Workplace accident — commuting accident or accident in the course of employment (preliminary question)","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7, 8 §1 and 74; Judicial Code, art. 579","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-03-14","rol":"2003-0154","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2005:ARR.20050314.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A worker employed illegally on a horticultural farm was injured when, panicking during a police check, he ran through the glass of a greenhouse. The court held that the accident occurred during performance of the employment contract and under the employer's authority, that the sudden event was proven and that the presumption of article 9 applied; illegal employment has no bearing on the application of the Act. Fleeing was a fault of the victim but not an intentional act, and even a very serious fault does not bar compensation as long as it is connected with the performance of the contract. Since the employer's policy covered its workers, the workplace-accident insurer must pay the statutory benefits; intervention of the Workplace Accidents Fund was not required. The first-instance judgment was set aside, the workplace accident recognised and an expert appointed.","k":"Workplace accident — illegally employed worker injured fleeing a police check","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7, 9, 49 and 58 §1, 3°","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-02-25","rol":"C.02.0296.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2005:ARR.20050225.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Lorsque l'assureur a été trompé lors de l'évaluation du risque, l'annulation du contrat d'assurance a pour effet que l'assureur peut répéter toutes les prestations qu'il a effectuées à la suite de l'existence du contrat…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The motor liability policy was annulled because the policyholder had intentionally misled the insurer when the risk was assessed. The Court held that annulment retroactively undoes the contract and entitles the insurer to recover everything it paid because of the contract, including compensation paid to injured parties holding a direct action. The fact that defences cannot be raised against injured parties does not prevent the insurer from relying on the nullity against its policyholder; the policyholder's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — annulment for intentional misrepresentation and repayment","law":"LCAT art. 2(1) and art. 6; Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 12 and 16","w":220,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-02-23","rol":"2002AR265","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2005:ARR.20050223.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"1. Wanneer partijen in een overeenkomst tot minnelijke medische expertise bedingen dat zij gebonden zullen zijn door de besluiten van de deskundige, dan is er sprake van een bindende derdenbeslissing. Deze rechtsfiguur…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The Antwerp Court of Appeal held that where the parties to an amicable medical expertise protocol agree to be bound by the expert's conclusions, this is a binding third-party decision based on article 1134 of the former Civil Code, distinct from settlement and arbitration. The court retains the power to review the validity of the appointment and the decision (error, fraud, excess of authority, impartiality) and compliance with the rights of defence and equal treatment. The medical arbiter's report, which found no causal link between the trauma and the carcinoma, withstood that review; the insured's appeal claiming €40,670.80 was dismissed and the case was placed on the special roll for the loss to be calculated on the basis of the expert's conclusions.","k":"Personal insurance — binding amicable medical expertise","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1134; Judicial Code, art. 1068","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-02-16","rol":"2001/AR/2854","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2005:ARR.20050216.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"alt","s":"The insurer alleged that the insured had concealed an illness, claimed the mortgage protection policy was void and refused to pay. The court held that the insured's authorisation to his doctor covers only statements needed to conclude or perform the contract; a post-mortem certificate issued by a doctor who no longer treated him falls outside it. The right to release a doctor from medical secrecy is personal and non-patrimonial, so heirs or beneficiaries cannot exercise it. The insurer's appeal was dismissed and its obligation to pay confirmed. Because the wrongful refusal forced the widow to take out heavier loans, the insurer was also ordered to pay €10,000 in damages assessed ex aequo et bono.","k":"Mortgage protection insurance — post-mortem certificate and medical secrecy","law":"LCAT art. 95 (former version)","w":182,"c":"Hof van beroep Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-02-16","rol":"2002;AR;1722","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2005:ARR.20050216.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Een verzekeringsvoorstel is een formulier dat uitgaat van de verzekeraar en in te vullen is door de verzekeringnemer met het doel de verzekeraar in te lichten over de aard van de verrichting en over de feiten en de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court defined a proposal form as a form issued by the insurer and completed by the policyholder to inform the insurer about the risk, and a pre-signed policy as a policy signed in advance by the insurer that constitutes an offer to contract on its terms (art. 1 LCAT). Under article 4 §2 LCAT, with a pre-signed policy the contract is formed when the policyholder signs; the insurer may terminate within thirty days of receiving the policy, effective eight days after notice. The outcome is not stated.","k":"Formation of contract — proposal form and pre-signed policy","law":"LCAT arts 1 and 4 §2","w":221,"c":"Hof van beroep van Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"2005-02-10","rol":"C.02.0617.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2005:ARR.20050210.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En règle, il appartient au demandeur en indemnisation d'apporter la preuve du cas fortuit qu'il invoque pour obtenir du fonds commun de garantie automobile réparation du dommage. || La Cour n'est pas tenue de poser à la…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The injured company claimed compensation from the Guarantee Fund, relying on an unforeseeable event (cas fortuit) that exonerated the driver, so that no insurer was liable. The Brussels Court of Appeal had held the Fund liable because such an event, although not proven, could not be ruled out. The Court held that the claimant must prove the unforeseeable event it relies on and quashed the judgment on the Fund's appeal; it declined to refer the suggested preliminary questions to the Court of Arbitration (now the Constitutional Court).","k":"Guarantee Fund — burden of proving an unforeseeable event","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50(1), 2° (later art. 80); RD of 16.12.1981, art. 19(1); former Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, art. 870; Act of 6.1.1989, art. 26(2)","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-02-02","rol":"2003AR1003","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2005:ARR.20050202.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"Volgens art. 8, 1ste lid WLVO kan de verzekeraar niet verplicht worden dekking te verlenen aan hem die het schadegeval opzettelijk veroorzaak. Daardoor is niet uitgesloten dat de verzekeraar voor hetzelfde schadegeval…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The Antwerp Court of Appeal held that the exclusion of intentional loss in article 8, paragraph 1, LCAT is a personal forfeiture, not an exclusion of general scope: although the insurer need not cover the minor who intentionally caused the damage, it remains bound towards the parents, who are themselves insured and civilly liable under article 1384, paragraph 2, of the former Civil Code. The alleged fraudulent intent was not proven and late notification of the claim was not sanctioned, as the insurer showed no prejudice. The insurer's appeal was dismissed, as was the parents' cross-appeal concerning enforcement costs.","k":"Family liability insurance — child's intentional act, parents' cover","law":"LCAT art. 8 §1 and 19–21; former Civil Code, art. 1384 §2","w":222,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-02-02","rol":"2003AR1960","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2005:ARR.20050202.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Het voorwerp van de verzekeringsovereenkomst is de dekking van een bepaald risico tegen een bepaalde prijs. Het voorwerp van de verbintenis van de verzekeraar is de waarborg tot bescherming van het verzekerd belang. Dit…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"During demolition and clearing works on a fire-damaged building, a wall collapsed onto the neighbouring property; the neighbours sued the owner of the burnt building, his fire and liability insurer and the contractor's business-liability insurer. The Antwerp Court of Appeal held that the insurable interest within the meaning of article 37 LCAT disappears together with the risk once the insured object no longer exists as a result of the insured event, so the contract ends for the period thereafter. The appeal of the owner's insurer was upheld and all orders against it set aside; the claims against the contractor's insurer were dismissed, since no fault or causal link with the collapse was proven.","k":"Fire/liability insurance — end of insurable interest after the loss","law":"LCAT art. 37; former Civil Code, arts. 544, 1382–1383 and 1386","w":214,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-01-26","rol":"20/2005","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2005:ARR.020","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"« schendt de artikelen 10 en 11 van de Grondwet niet »","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"alt","s":"On a preliminary question from the Ghent Court of Appeal, the Court of Arbitration (now the Constitutional Court) examined whether article 67 §1 LCAT, which allows a fire insurer to make payment conditional on rebuilding for the same purpose, breaches articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution by preventing the insured from rebutting the presumption of deliberate loss. It found no breach: an insured who rebuilds is fully compensated; if he proves by any lawful means that not rebuilding was beyond his control, the clause does not affect the indemnity (except under new-value cover); and the clause does not apply to liability insurance. For risks other than simple risks, such a condition is not unreasonable.","k":"Fire insurance — reconstruction clause upheld","law":"LCAT art. 67 §1 and §5, 83; Constitution, art. 10–11","w":54,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle — CC 20/2005","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-01-21","rol":"2003-0296","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARANT:2005:JUG.20050121.25","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Eiser vordert de wettelijke vergoedingen overeenkomstig de wet van 10 april 1971 m.b.t. de gevolgen van een arbeidsongeval dd. 20 juni 2000. Bij tussenvonnis dd. 18 maart 2003 werd een geneesheer-deskundige aangesteld.…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The Tongeren Labour Tribunal dismissed on the merits the claim concerning the consequences of a workplace accident of 20.6.2000: as the 7% physical incapacity found by the expert had no economic repercussion, permanent incapacity was set at 0%, consolidation at 22.7.2002 and the annual basic wage at EUR 21,132.35. The tribunal noted that compensation for aesthetic harm requires an impact on the victim's economic potential, whereas the costs of cosmetic surgery (rhinoplasty) made necessary by the accident are borne by the workplace-accident insurer under article 28, the test being the necessity or usefulness of the treatment rather than any reduction in incapacity; since the victim made no claim to that effect, however, the court could not rule ultra petita, even on a matter of public policy. Expert fees and costs were charged to the insurer under article 68.","k":"Workplace accident — cosmetic surgery costs versus aesthetic harm, ultra petita","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 28 and 68","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-01-20","rol":"C.03.0189.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2005:ARR.20050120.20","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Les garanties du contrat d'assurance relatif au véhicule désigné dans ce contrat dont la propriété est transférée demeurent acquises à l'assuré conformément à l'article 33, 1°, alinéa 1er, du contrat type, lorsque la…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured had left the vehicle named in the policy at a garage, without plates, for resale, put the plates on a newly bought car and had an accident with it eight days later. The Liège court of first instance on appeal found that the old vehicle had been permanently taken off the road, held the insurer liable to the injured parties and released the Guarantee Fund. The Court held that the 16-day cover under article 33, 1° of the model contract applies only where both vehicles cannot be driven at the same time under one policy, which could not be inferred from those findings; the judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — 16-day cover on transfer of the vehicle","law":"RD of 14.12.1992, art. 1, and model contract, art. 33, 1°; former Civil Code, art. 1134; Cass. 7.10.1986","w":152,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-01-20","rol":"C.00.0316.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2005:ARR.20050120.21","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En vertu de l'article 50, devenu 80, ,§ 2, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 9 juillet 1975 relative au contrôle des entreprises d'assurances, le Fonds commun de garantie automobile n'est subrogé, dans la mesure où il a réparé…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Guarantee Fund sought to recover, by subrogation, from the municipality held liable for an accident on its territory the compensation it had paid the victims. The Verviers court of first instance on appeal held that the Fund has recourse even where a third party could have borne the loss. The Court held that the Fund is subrogated only where it compensated the loss because it was required to by law, which the court had to examine; the judgment was quashed on the municipality's appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund — subrogation limited to statutory payment cases","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50 (later art. 80)(1) and (2); Cass. 16.12.2004","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-01-17","rol":"45302","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2005:ARR.20050117.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Het wettelijk vermoeden van oorzakelijk verband tussen het ongeval en het letsel, zoals bepaald in art. 9 Arbeidsongevallenwet, vereist niet dat het letsel plotseling optreedt of dat het optreden van de plotse…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A worker who fell down the steps of a bus asked that, besides his foot injury, his knee problems and depression be attributed to the accident. The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal recalled that the presumption in article 9 of the Act of 10.4.1971 does not require the injury to coincide with the event, that the insurer must prove the absence of a causal link with the highest degree of probability, and that once the accident even partly aggravates a pre-existing condition, the incapacity, including that condition, is wholly borne by the workplace-accident insurer. The worker's appeal was partly upheld, the judgment set aside and a new expert, assisted by a psychiatrist, appointed to examine the knee and the depression; the merits remain to be decided.","k":"Workplace accident — pre-existing condition and depression, presumption of causation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 9; Cass. 19.12.1973; Cass. 27.1.1971","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Brussel","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-01-06","rol":"C.02.0583.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2005:ARR.20050106.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs couvre les dommages causés par un ensemble de véhicules automoteurs arrimés l'un à l'autre ne faisant pas office de machine-outil…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured, a tree-felling business, removed timber with a truck to which a tractor was coupled to stop it getting stuck, and the land was damaged. The Brussels Court of Appeal found that the combination was not acting as a machine-tool, was intended to carry goods, and caused the damage in a way typical of vehicles in traffic; it ordered the motor liability insurer to indemnify the insured. The Court dismissed the insurer's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — truck and tractor coupled together in traffic","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 2(1); Benelux Convention of 24.5.1966, Common Provisions, arts. 1–2; Benelux Court of Justice 30.10.1984; Cass. 5.12.2003","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2005-01-03","rol":"46025","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2005:ARR.20050103.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"De vergoeding wegens hulp van derden kan slechts worden toegekend vanaf de consolidatie. Dit wordt zowel door de rechtsleer (Van Den Aveyne, Guide permanent titre III chap III, 530) als door de rechtspraak (Arbeidshof…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"For a worker seriously injured in 1986, the first judge had, following the expert, granted a 10% third-party assistance allowance until 31.8.1999, with consolidation fixed at 16.5.2002. The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal held that the third-party assistance allowance can only be granted from the date of consolidation, when the victim's condition stabilises and the permanent need for assistance can be assessed. As the expert found no assistance necessary after consolidation, no allowance was due; the workplace-accident insurer's appeal was upheld.","k":"Workplace accident — third-party assistance payable only from consolidation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24; Mons Labour Court of Appeal 19.3.1990","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Brussel","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-12-16","rol":"C.03.0156.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2004:ARR.20041216.16","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsque l'Etat est exempté de l'obligation de l'assurance conformément à l'article 2, ,§ 1er, sous 3, de la Convention Benelux relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Belgian State, which itself covers liability for its vehicles under the Act of 1 July 1956, sought repayment from the driver who caused the accident through gross fault of the compensation paid to the victims. The Ghent Court of Appeal declared the claim inadmissible because the State had not shown that it reserved a right of recourse for gross fault. The Court held that, under article 16 of the Act of 11 June 1874, loss caused by the insured's gross fault is not borne by the insurer, so the State may claim recourse without such a reservation; the judgment was quashed on the State's appeal.","k":"Self-insuring State's recourse for gross fault","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 11(2) and art. 14(1); Benelux Convention, Common Provisions, art. 2(1), 3° and art. 11(2); Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-12-16","rol":"C.04.0155.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2004:ARR.20041216.22","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"N'est pas légalement justifié le jugement qui rejette l'action subrogatoire du Fonds commun de garantie automobile qui, ayant réparé le dommage qu'a subi la personne lésée, en réclame le remboursement à la personne…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Guarantee Fund sought to recover, by subrogation, from the person liable for the accident the compensation it had paid the injured party. The Dinant police court rejected the claim because the liable person, whose liability was clear, was validly insured. The Court held that the Fund is subrogated, to the extent of its payment, to the injured party's rights against the liable persons and their insurers, and that the liable person's being insured does not justify rejecting the claim; the judgment was quashed on the Fund's appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund's subrogated recourse against the liable driver","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 80(1), (2) and (5) (version before its repeal by the Act of 22.8.2002); RD of 16.12.1981, art. 19(1)","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-12-15","rol":"2003-0066;2003-0106","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2004:ARR.20041215.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"De onmogelijkheid te berusten in een vonnis dat uitspraak doet over de toepassing van de Arbeidsongevallenwet zorgt er ook voor dat de herzieningstermijn niet kan aanvangen vanaf de dag van de uitspraak van dat vonnis,…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, since a judgment on the application of the Workplace Accidents Act cannot be acquiesced in, the three-year revision period does not run from the day of the judgment but only from the moment it becomes final, i.e. after service and in the absence of an appeal. As the judgment of 20 May 1980 fixing consolidation and the calculation elements was served only on 17 January 1997, the period started on 18 February 1997 and the revision claim of 8 December 1997 was in time. The period is neither a limitation nor a procedural period but a fixed public-policy term that cannot be interrupted or suspended; forfeiture by conduct cannot be invoked either. The victim's appeal was upheld, the claim declared admissible and a medical expert appointed.","k":"Workplace accident — start of the revision period","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 72; Cass. 27.11.2000; Cass. 13.5.2002","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-12-08","rol":"52818","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTLIE:2004:JUG.20041208.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail ne donne pas de définition de la consolidation. Il y a consolidation lorsque l'existence et le degré de l'incapacité prennent un caractère de permanence. La date de…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"After a workplace accident in 1993, the worker's orthopaedic sequelae stabilised in 1995, then an unforeseeable deterioration (lung problems) appeared in 2001. The court noted that the consolidation date is in principle single, but public policy does not preclude two successive dates, and approved the expert report: permanent incapacity of 10%, then 30% from 18.4.2001. The workplace-accident insurer was ordered to pay benefits on that basis, plus interest, costs and the expert's fees.","k":"Workplace accident — two successive consolidation dates","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24 and 72","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-12-01","rol":"1998;AR;2468","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2004:ARR.20041201.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Artikel 6 van de wet van 25 juni 1992 op de landverzekeringsovereenkomst bepaalt dat, wanneer het opzettelijk verzwijgen of het opzettelijk onjuist meedelen van gegevens over het risico, de verzekeraar misleidt bij de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that under article 6 LCAT the contract is void where intentional concealment or misstatement of information on the risk misleads the insurer in assessing it. For this provision it is irrelevant whether the intentionally concealed information is causally linked to the occurrence of the risk. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Intentional non-disclosure — causation irrelevant","law":"LCAT art. 6","w":223,"c":"Hof van beroep van Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"2004-11-29","rol":"2001;RG;1274","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2004:ARR.20041129.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'article 41 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents de travail précise que les \" indemnités \" pour frais funéraires, médicaux, pharmaceutiques, chirurgicaux et d'hospitalisation sont payés à ceux qui en ont pris…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The hospital that treated the victim of a 1985 workplace accident only sought payment of two 1985 invoices (1,191,153 BEF and 390,782 BEF) in 1995, although the workplace-accident insurer had confirmed that invoices could be sent to it directly. The court accepted that article 73 of the Act of 10 April 1971 gives a care provider who bore the costs a direct action against the workplace-accident insurer, not limited to cases where the employer is uninsured — that restriction applies only to actions against the Workplace Accidents Fund. However, it held that the mandatory three-year limitation period of article 69 also applies to the care provider's action, not only to the victim's, and that issuing invoices makes no difference; the hospital's claim was dismissed as time-barred.","k":"Workplace accident — hospital's direct action against the workplace-accident insurer and three-year limitation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 41, 69 and 73; Cass. 6.9.1982","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-11-26","rol":"20022282","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARANT:2004:JUG.20041126.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Tongeren Labour Tribunal declared that it lacked jurisdiction over the action by which the workplace-accident insurer sought from the liable third party, under articles 1382–1383 of the former Civil Code, repayment of the benefits paid to the victim. Under article 579, 1° of the Judicial Code the labour tribunal hears only claims concerning benefits due under workplace-accident legislation; a liability action by the victim, the victim's successors, the employer or its insurer against a liable third party falls outside its subject-matter jurisdiction. As both parties were traders, the case was referred to the Tongeren Commercial Court; costs were reserved to the merits.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse against a liable third party — labour tribunal lacks jurisdiction","law":"Judicial Code, arts. 579, 1°, 639 and 855; former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1383; Cass. 13.3.1978","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-11-04","rol":"C.02.0533.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2004:ARR.20041104.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Il incombe au Fonds commun de garantie automobile qui prétend n'être pas tenu envers le détenteur du véhicule, de prouver que ce dernier savait que la responsabilité civile à laquelle le véhicule peut donner lieu…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A passenger in a van whose use was not covered by liability insurance was injured on 28.3.1997 and claimed compensation from the Guarantee Fund. The Fund relied on article 17(1), 3° of the RD of 16.12.1981, which denies any right to a keeper who knows the vehicle is uninsured. The Court held that the Fund, claiming to be released, must prove that the person knew the liability was not covered; the Fund's appeal against the appellate judgment of the Mons court of first instance was dismissed.","k":"Guarantee Fund — burden of proving knowledge of non-insurance","law":"RD of 16.12.1981, art. 17(1), 3°; Act of 9.7.1975, art. 80; former Civil Code, art. 1315(2); Judicial Code, art. 870","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-11-03","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2004:ARR.177","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"la Cour, chambre restreinte, statuant à l'unanimité des voix, constate que la question préjudicielle est irrecevable.","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"In a dispute between two insurers, the Mechelen Court of First Instance asked about article 14bis §3 of the Act of 3.7.1967 (public-sector workplace accidents; subrogation in the rights under article 29bis). Sitting as a restricted chamber, the Court found that parts of the question were missing so that its scope was unclear, and recalled that only the referring judge, not the parties, defines the question. The question was held manifestly inadmissible and sent back for reformulation.","k":"Public-sector workplace accident — inadmissible preliminary question","law":"Act of 3.7.1967, art. 14bis §3; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-10-28","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2004:ARR.167","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 87, ,§ 2, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre ne viole pas les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution.","court":"const","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"In a dispute between an insurer and cyclists, the Mechelen Court of First Instance asked whether article 87 §2 LCAT was discriminatory: in compulsory liability insurance (motor liability) the insurer cannot raise defences, nullities or forfeiture against the injured party, whereas it can under voluntary liability insurance. The Court found the distinction justified: compulsory insurance rests on public-interest grounds (quick and certain compensation of motor accidents), bicycles pose a lower risk, and the injured party can still sue the liable person. Article 87 §2 LCAT does not breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution.","k":"Voluntary liability insurance — defences raised against the injured party","law":"LCAT arts. 86–87; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":204,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-09-07","rol":"P.04.0522.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2004:ARR.20040907.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La Cour décrète le désistement sans acquiescement du pourvoi dirigé contre la décision par laquelle l'assureur est tenu à indemnisation dès lors que cette décision n'est pas une décision définitive et qu'il n'est pas…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The liability insurer, which had intervened voluntarily in the criminal proceedings, withdrew its appeal against the Oudenaarde criminal court's appellate judgment ordering it to pay compensation, since that decision was not final and did not rule on the principle of liability. The Court recorded the withdrawal and dismissed the appeals of the civil parties and the defendant, who raised no grounds. The merits were not examined.","k":"Premature appeal against the insurer's duty to compensate","law":"Rules on appeals against non-final decisions in criminal cases; Cass. 17.12.2002; Cass. 27.1.2004","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-08-17","rol":"31611-03","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2004:ARR.20040817.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Lorsque la victime d'un accident de roulage a conclu avec l'assureur du civilement responsable une transaction couvrant en termes exprès la totalité du dommage, y compris le dommage futur et inconnu, les prestations de…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The victim of a road accident had concluded with the liable party's motor liability insurer a settlement expressly covering all damage, including future and unknown damage. The court held that compulsory health-care and benefits insurance payments must therefore be refused even if the victim's condition later worsens unexpectedly, and that the health-insurance fund may rely on the res judicata effect of that settlement; the rule that a settlement is not binding on the fund operates only in its relationship with the party liable for compensation. The fund's claim against the liability insurer was dismissed and the insurer released from the proceedings; since no fraud was proven, the fund's recovery claim was upheld only for payments made after 1.12.1983, and the hearing was reopened to fix the amount.","k":"Road accident — settlement with the liability insurer and health-insurance benefits","law":"Coordinated Act of 14.7.1994, arts. 136 §2 and 174; Act of 9.8.1963, arts. 70 §2 and 106 §1","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-07-13","rol":"31344-03","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2004:ARR.20040713.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La rémunération de base de la victime de l'accident du travail ne comprend pas la prime payée à son profit par l'employeur pour une assurance de groupe garantissant au personnel bénéficiaire un complément à la pension…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The issue was whether the premium paid by the employer for a group insurance scheme supplementing the statutory pension forms part of the basic remuneration used to calculate workplace-accident benefits. The court held that article 35, as amended by Royal Decree no. 39 of 31 March 1982, clearly excludes benefits supplementing the social-security scheme, and that the Court of Cassation's 1978 case law was tied to a provision since amended. The workplace-accident insurer's appeal was upheld; annual basic remuneration was fixed at EUR 18,446.33 and permanent incapacity at 2%. According to the Juportal note, the Court of Cassation ruled the other way on 24.5.2004.","k":"Workplace accident — employer's group-insurance premium and basic remuneration","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 35; RD no. 39 of 31.3.1982; contra Cass. 24.5.2004","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-07-07","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2004:ARR.124","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : - Les articles 20bis et 46, ,§ 2, alinéa 2, de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail, dans l'interprétation donnée au B.5.4, ne violent pas les articles 10 et 11 de la…","court":"const","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"On a question referred by the Brussels Labour Court of Appeal, the Court examined articles 20bis and 46 §2(2) of the Act of 10.4.1971. Read as preventing the parents of a worker killed in a workplace accident, who receive a statutory annuity, from claiming common-law compensation for their moral damage from a liable third party who is neither the employer nor one of its employees, the provisions breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution: such a claim does not disturb industrial peace, and a distinction based on the victim's age is irrelevant to moral damage. In the interpretation set out in B.5.4 (lump-sum compensation reserved to those normally dependent on the victim's income), they are constitutional.","k":"Fatal workplace accident — parents' moral damages against liable third party","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 20bis and 46 §2; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-07-05","rol":"2003;AR;2018","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2004:ARR.20040705.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"De Wet van 27 maart 1995 bepaalt de voorwaarden om als vezekeringstussenpersoon te mogen optreden en krachtens artikel 5 mag niemand één van de omschreven werkzaamheden uitoefenen, zonder voorafgaandelijk ingeschreven…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that under the Act of 27 March 1995 no one may carry on insurance mediation without prior entry in the register of intermediaries. The appellant consumer association did not merely compare and recommend products: it negotiated benefits for its subscribers with an insurer (premium discount, conciliation procedure), recorded them in a contract and enclosed a premium-quote request with a free return envelope in its mailing. It therefore actually mediated the conclusion of contracts and is an insurance intermediary within article 2 §1. The case concerns trade practices; there is no insurer–insured dispute.","k":"Insurance mediation — consumer association as intermediary","law":"Act of 27.3.1995 (insurance intermediaries), arts 2 §1 and 5","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"2004-07-05","rol":"2003;AR;2018","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2004:ARR.20040705.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"De Wet van 27 maart 1995 bepaalt de voorwaarden om als vezekeringstussenpersoon te mogen optreden en krachtens artikel 5 mag niemand één van de omschreven werkzaamheden uitoefenen, zonder voorafgaandelijk ingeschreven…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that under the Act of 27 March 1995 no one may carry on insurance mediation without prior entry in the register of intermediaries. The appellant consumer association did not merely compare and recommend products: it negotiated benefits for its subscribers with an insurer (premium discount, conciliation procedure), recorded them in a contract and enclosed a premium-quote request with a free return envelope in its mailing. It therefore actually mediated the conclusion of contracts and is an insurance intermediary within article 2 §1. The case concerns trade practices; there is no insurer–insured dispute.","k":"Insurance mediation — consumer association as intermediary","law":"Act of 27.3.1995 (insurance intermediaries), arts 2 §1 and 5","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"2004-06-30","rol":"1998;AR;3494","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2004:ARR.20040630.16","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Artikel 86 van de wet van 25 juni 1992 op de Landverzekeringsovereenkomst biedt voor het slachtoffer van een schadegeval de mogelijkheid om een rechtstreekse vordering tegen de verzekeraar van de aansprakelijke in te…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that article 86 LCAT does not substantively change the insurer's obligations and applies immediately: the injured party has a direct action even for losses before 1 January 1993, save for rights already irrevocably fixed, and any heavier position under article 87 §2 does not alter this. However, the five-year limitation period of article 34 §2, tied to this new legal device, is not governed by the transitional rule on new limitation periods: the direct action is excluded for losses that occurred more than ten years before the Act came into force. The concrete outcome is not stated.","k":"Direct action — pre-1993 loss and limitation period","law":"LCAT arts 34 §2, 86 and 87 §2; Mortgage Act, art. 20(9)","w":224,"c":"Hof van beroep van Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"2004-06-29","rol":"1990;AR;1895","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2004:ARR.20040629.23","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the condition for the insurer's recourse against an insured other than the policyholder, namely that the insurer be directly liable to the injured party, is specific to compulsory liability cover (Act of 1 July 1956) and does not apply to optional 'vehicle damage' cover. The insurer's action against its insured is a contractual recourse, not subrogation; the insurer must prove serious fault causally linked to the loss. A garage keeper who failed to improve anti-theft measures despite earlier thefts committed serious fault, and the accumulated negligence in keeping the entrusted vehicle amounted to objectively gross fault.","k":"Motor insurance — garage keeper's serious fault and insurer's recourse","law":"Act of 1.7.1956 (motor liability); insurance contract","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"2004-06-25","rol":"C.03.0406.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2004:ARR.20040625.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Lorsque le dommage subi par la victime est dû aux fautes concurrentes de plusieurs personnes, chacune de celles-ci est tenue, en règle, envers la victime à la réparation intégrale de ce dommage (1). (1) Le ministère…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"In an accident on 7.3.1998, both drivers were held equally liable; the owner of one vehicle, who was not driving it and was not legally responsible for its driver, brought a direct action against the other driver's motor liability insurer. The Namur court of first instance on appeal held that the apportionment could not be raised against the owner and ordered the insurer to pay the full damage to the vehicle. The Court recalled that, where several persons' faults combine, each is in principle liable to the victim for the whole loss, and dismissed the insurer's appeal.","k":"Direct action — shared liability not opposable to a non-driving owner","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 12; former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1383 (liability in solidum)","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-06-23","rol":"2003;AR;2762","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2004:ARR.20040623.22","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"L'article 35 ,§ 4 de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur les assurances terrestres dispose que la prescription de l'action visée à l'article 34 ,§ 2 de la même loi est interrompue dès que l'assureur est informé de la volonté de…","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The homeowners, whose house developed cracks in 1995, sued the insolvent architect's professional liability insurer on 14.1.2002 under the direct right of action in article 86 LCAT. The court held that the injured party's direct action is subject to a five-year limitation period (ten years at most) under article 34 §2 LCAT and that, under article 35 §4, limitation is interrupted, without any formal requirement, as soon as the insurer learns of the injured party's wish to be compensated — here through the architect's counsel's letter of 3.12.1996 — until the insurer gives written notice of refusal (12.5.1997), a fresh five-year period running from that date; the limitation defence was rejected. However, the earlier proceedings and expert report, to which the insurer was not a party, cannot be relied on against it (art. 89 LCAT); the judgment ordering a new expert examination was confirmed and the appeal costs were charged to the insurer.","k":"Direct action against the architect's liability insurer — interruption of limitation and non-binding effect of the judgment","law":"LCAT arts. 34 §2, 35 §4, 86 and 89; C. jud. arts. 990 and 1068(2)","w":225,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-06-22","rol":"16087","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2004:ARR.20040622.17","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Dans l'hypothèse où les soins en relation causale avec l'accident et de nature à restituer au mieux à la victime son intégrité physique ne sont pas prévus dans la nomenclature des prestations de santé, il n'y a pas lieu…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that treatment causally linked to the accident and best suited to restoring the victim's physical integrity is not excluded from compensation merely because it is not listed in the official fee schedule; the usual price, reasonably understood, applies instead. The workplace-accident insurer's liability for dental prosthesis costs of EUR 2,131.88 was upheld. However, in light of the expert's assessment and the lack of supporting documents, the victim was ordered to repay the insurer EUR 1,487.36 wrongly received for a facelift, with interest.","k":"Workplace accident — medical costs outside the official fee schedule","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 28; RD 17.10.2000, art. 1","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-06-17","rol":"C.02.0488.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2004:ARR.20040617.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"La règle selon laquelle le conducteur d'un véhicule automoteur ne peut invoquer l'article 29bis de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs,…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The driver, whose husband died as a passenger in the accident, sought compensation from the motor liability insurer under Article 29bis as his dependant. The Court held that the exclusion of the driver in Article 29bis §2, as amended by the Act of 13 April 1995, contains no exception where the driver claims as a victim's dependant; only the Act of 19 January 2001, which postdates the accident, created that possibility. The appeal was dismissed and the appellate judgment of the Kortrijk Court of First Instance stands.","k":"Article 29bis — driver claiming as the victim's dependant","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §2 (as amended 13.4.1995, before the Act of 19.1.2001)","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-06-16","rol":"2000;AR;3120","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2004:ARR.20040616.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Het belang als ontvankelijkheidsvoorwaarde heeft betrekking op het procesrechtelijk belang, zijnde het belang dat de eiser heeft bij het voeren van een geding en het verkrijgen van een rechterlijke uitspraak van een…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that standing, as an admissibility condition, requires the claimant to assert a subjective right that has been infringed. An insurance contract is consensual: once the insurer accepted the respondent's request to take over the original policies in its own name, the respondent became a party to the contract and bound by its obligations, even though it did not sign the contracts again. The summary does not state the final outcome.","k":"Insurance contract — takeover of policies and standing","law":"No statutory provision cited in the summary (consensual contract; standing)","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"2004-06-09","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2004:ARR.102","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : - L'article 46 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail viole les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution s'il est interprété comme refusant une réparation intégrale de son…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A worker hit by a colleague's car in the employer's car park had suffered a workplace accident; the employer and its workplace-accident insurer sued the colleague and the colleague's insurer. The Constitutional Court held that article 46 of the Act of 10 April 1971 (pre-1998 version) breaches articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution if read as denying full common-law compensation to a worker injured in a road accident caused unintentionally by the employer, its agents or employees while under the employer's authority, and is constitutional if read as granting it. Article 18 of the Employment Contracts Act of 3 July 1978 does not breach those articles: being fault-based, it cannot be meaningfully compared with the flat-rate workplace-accident scheme.","k":"Workplace accident — worker hit by a colleague in the car park, full compensation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46; Act of 3.7.1978, art. 18; Constitution arts. 10–11; Const. Court nos. 3/97 and 115/2002","w":226,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-06-07","rol":"18705","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2004:ARR.20040607.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Le jugement fixant en droit commun la date de consolidation des lésions et les éléments du dommage ne peut être opposé aux parties ou aux tribunaux du travail appelés à en décider en matière d'accident du travail. De…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer had joined the liable third party's insurer so that it would take part in the expert examination ordered by the labour court and be bound by the report. The court held that the assessment under workplace-accident law and the assessment of damage under general law are strictly separate and neither binds the other, so the workplace-accident insurer had no interest in the joinder, which was inadmissible. The main appeal was dismissed and the other insurer's cross-appeal on costs allowed.","k":"Workplace accident — forced joinder of the liability insurer to the expertise","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47; Cass. 1.12.1995","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-05-24","rol":"2001;AR;1407","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2004:ARR.20040524.17","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Si, conformément à l'article 1315 du Code civil, il incombe à l'assuré d'établir l'existence du sinistre donnant lieu à couverture, il convient, en matière d'assurance vol, d'assouplir la charge de la preuve, le…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer refused to pay for a declared vehicle theft after a private investigator's inquiry cast doubt on its reality; the first court had dismissed the claim. The Court of Appeal recalled that under article 1315 of the former Civil Code the insured bears the burden of proving the loss, but that in theft cover this burden is relaxed: the insured's sincere statements suffice unless the insurer proves an element of suspicion or doubt. As the insured could not satisfactorily explain why one of his keys had been copied, his theft declaration lacked the required plausibility; fitting an anti-theft system and commissioning a second key examination did not change this. The arguments based on articles 8 and 11 LCAT, and the requests to compel the insurer to tender a decisive oath or lodge a criminal complaint, were dismissed.","k":"Vehicle theft insurance — plausibility of the theft and burden of proof","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1315, 1134 and 1357; LCAT arts. 8 and 11","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-05-24","rol":"S.02.0119.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2004:ARR.20040524.21","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Dans sa version postérieure à la loi du 1er août 1985, l'article 24, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail dispose que s'il déclare la victime guérie sans incapacité permanente de travail,…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The workplace-accident insurer argued that, since the temporary incapacity had not exceeded seven days, the decision declaring the victim recovered without permanent incapacity did not need to be notified and the time limit ran from the accident. The Court held that article 24 of the Act of 10 April 1971 only empowers the King to set the form of notification, not to dispense with it or to change the starting point of the period in article 72; article 1 of the Royal Decree of 16 December 1987 cannot have that effect. The insurer's appeal was dismissed and the Liège Labour Court of Appeal's ruling admitting the victim's action stands.","k":"Workplace accident — notice of recovery and review period","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts 24 and 72; RD 16.12.1987, art. 1","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-05-24","rol":"S.04.0004.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2004:ARR.20040524.24","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La prime d'assurance de l'assurance hospitalisation contractée en faveur d'un travailleur et destinée à lui procurer, en cas de survenance du risque, un avantage complémentaire au régime de la sécurité sociale, ne…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The dispute was between the Occupational Accidents Fund and a workplace-accident insurer over the base pay used to calculate benefits. The Court held that a hospitalisation insurance premium paid by the employer for the worker is not itself a benefit supplementary to social security; paid by reason of the employment relationship, it is remuneration under article 35(1). The Mons Labour Court of Appeal ruling that had excluded it was quashed on the Fund's appeal and the case was referred to the Brussels Labour Court of Appeal.","k":"Workplace accident — hospitalisation insurance premium and base pay","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 35(1)-(2), art. 68","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-05-19","rol":"160M03","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2004:ARR.20040519.24","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court treated the insurer's admission at the hearing, through counsel, that it received an e-mail from the insured reporting the change of vehicle as a judicial admission of valid notice: the contract continues on the terms and rate of the last annual renewal. Once informed, the insurer cannot plead invincible error, as nothing prevented it from requesting the documents to issue an endorsement. As for the insurer's recourse action against its insured brought before the criminal court, the appeal court sitting in criminal matters held it lacked jurisdiction; the police court, civil section, is competent.","k":"Motor liability — vehicle replacement notified by e-mail","law":"Model contract RD 14.12.1992, art. 25(2); judicial admission","w":180,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"2004-05-19","rol":"P.03.1743.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2004:ARR.20040519.29","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Lorsqu'une décision a, par défaut, condamné le prévenu et, n'a contradictoirement condamné son assureur à rembourser le dommage subi par la partie civile que dans la mesure où il a été causé par le prévenu, est…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The civil party appealed to the Court of Cassation against a judgment given by default against the defendant and after full hearing against his liability insurer, before the defendant's time to lodge an objection had expired. The Court noted that the insurer was ordered to pay only insofar as the defendant caused the damage, so an objection by the defendant could also release the insurer; the decision was therefore not final as regards the insurer either. The appeal was dismissed as premature and inadmissible against both respondents, without examining the merits.","k":"Criminal proceedings — premature appeal against the insurer","law":"Cass. 25.6.1997 (premature appeal)","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-04-26","rol":"C.03.0319.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2004:ARR.20040426.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsqu'il apparaît qu'une décision dans une affaire pendante devant une juridiction nationale dont les décisions ne sont pas susceptibles d'un recours juridictionnel de droit interne, implique la solution d'une…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A van whose make and company lettering were known caused the accident, but its plate was not recorded and its driver remained unknown; the Brussels Court of Appeal ordered the Guarantee Fund to pay. The Court held that it is the vehicle, not the driver, that must be unidentified; identifying a vehicle does not require its plate, the driver's identity or knowledge of whether the driver was an employee. The judgment was quashed on the Fund's appeal and the case was referred to the Mons Court of Appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund — meaning of unidentified vehicle","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 80 §1, 1°; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 19bis-11 §1, 7°; Benelux Convention 24.5.1966, art. 7","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-04-22","rol":"30682-02","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2004:ARR.20040422.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Les victimes d'un accident de travail visées aux articles 9 et 11 de l'arrêté royal du 10 décembre 1987, c'est-à-dire les bénéficiaires d'une allocation d'aggravation postérieure au délai de révision et les…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The victim of a 1970 workplace accident asked the Workplace Accident Fund, long after the revision period had expired, to cover a cervical collar and to grant an aggravation allowance. The court held that the victims referred to in articles 9 and 11 of the Royal Decree of 10 December 1987 are entitled to have their prosthesis supplied, maintained and renewed by the Fund, that an aggravation claim may be lodged at any time once the revision period has expired and may be renewed, and that allowances run from the first day of the month of the claim. Endorsing the expert reports, it ordered the Fund to pay for the collar from the claim of 7.2.1997, with interest, and ordered a site visit with the expert and the Fund's social worker to determine the assistance required.","k":"Workplace accident — prosthesis and aggravation after the revision period","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 58 et seq., 72; RD 10.12.1987, arts. 9 et seq.; RD 21.12.1971, art. 66ter; Judicial Code, arts. 985, 1007","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-04-15","rol":"20601","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:2004:ARR.20040415.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Leerling-beenhouwer die onmiddellijk na het beëindigen van zijn dagtaak en ge-bruikmakend van zijn personenwagen in opdracht van zijn leermeester-patroon buiten de onderneming een levering bij een klant uitvoert: - aan…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The Ghent Labour Court of Appeal classified as a workplace accident under article 7, not a commuting accident, the accident suffered by a butcher's apprentice who, immediately after his working day, made a delivery to a customer in his own car on his master's instructions and was driving home. During the delivery and until he reached home the apprentice remained under the master's authority; performance of the apprenticeship contract would end only on arrival home, and the return journey had not been interrupted for personal reasons. The court declared the accident a workplace accident and appointed a medical expert; costs were reserved.","k":"Workplace accident — apprentice on an errand, accident on the way back, article 7","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 7","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-04-15","rol":"C.01.0236.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2004:ARR.20040415.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Conformément à l'article 8.1° du contrat type joint à l'arrêté royal du 14 décembre 1992 relatif au contrat type d'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs, les dommages au…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The policyholder's son caused an accident while driving a car whose owner was a passenger; the Leuven Court of First Instance, on appeal, held that damage to that car was covered by the policy. The Court held that the 'insured vehicle' excluded by article 8, 1° of the model contract includes not only the vehicle described in the policy but also a third party's vehicle driven occasionally under article 4, 1°(b), so damage to it is excluded. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal insofar as it ordered the insurer to pay for damage to that car.","k":"Motor liability — damage to a third party's vehicle driven occasionally","law":"Model contract RD 14.12.1992, art. 4, 1°(b) and art. 8, 1°","w":152,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-04-15","rol":"C.01.0417.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2004:ARR.20040415.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'assureur-loi subrogé en vertu des articles 46, ,§ 2, alinéa 1er, et 47 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail a droit à la réparation intégrale de son préjudice, y compris les intérêts compensatoires…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The subrogated workplace-accident insurer sought reimbursement from the liable third party of its payments and the annuity capital. The Court held that the insurer is entitled to full compensation, including compensatory interest from the date the capital was constituted, provided the amount does not exceed what the victim could claim under ordinary law; that interest need not start only when the victim's own interest starts. The liable party's appeal was dismissed; a clerical error in the operative part was corrected to BEF 4,296,360.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — compensatory interest","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46 §2(1) and art. 47; Cass. 17.3.1987; Cass. 18.1.1994","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-04-02","rol":"C.02.0030.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2004:ARR.20040402.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"L'assureur, qui prétend être déchargé de la garantie, a la charge de prouver que l'assuré a commis le fait intentionnel qui le prive du bénéfice de l'assurance (1). (1) Voir les concl. du M.P. || Conclusions de M.…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The insureds claimed under fire policies after arson at the brasserie they rented and occupied; the Liège Court of Appeal required them to prove that the fire was started by a third party. The Court held that under article 8 LCAT and article 1315(2) of the Civil Code the insurer claiming to be released must prove that the insured committed the intentional act that excludes cover. The judgment was quashed on the insureds' appeal and the case was referred to the Brussels Court of Appeal.","k":"Fire insurance — burden of proving intentional act","law":"LCAT art. 8; Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, art. 870; Cass. 7.6.2001","w":17,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-03-23","rol":"2001;AR;2101","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2004:ARR.20040323.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"L'assuré qui fait valoir à l'égard de son assureur un droit à payement doit apporter la preuve, non seulement du dommage mais encore de l'événement qui y a donné lieu et établir que le risque réalisé était prévu par le…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insured, whose suitcase was not returned after a flight, was refused payment because the insurer's loss adjuster found his statements suspicious (weight and volume inconsistencies, unsubstantiated purchases); a fraud complaint was dropped. The court recalled that the insured must prove both the loss and the event, but that in theft cover this may be done by presumptions and that a sincere and plausible declaration suffices where nothing justifies suspicion. It found that the insured had given the explanations requested and that the weight difference on the baggage tag was not decisive, fixed the documented value of the items at 202,593 BEF and, the sum insured being 150,000 BEF, applied the proportional rule: the insurer was ordered to pay €2,753.10 (111,060 BEF) with interest.","k":"Baggage insurance — proof of loss and the proportional rule","law":"Policy arts. 3 and 10 (proportional rule); LCAT arts. 19 §2 and 21 §2 (relied on by the insurer)","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-03-23","rol":"14601","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2004:ARR.20040323.22","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Lorsqu'une modification intervient dans le pourcentage d'incapacité qui est attribué à la victime de l'accident du travail, l'entreprise d'assurances prévient l'organisme assureur dans les sept jours qui suivent le jour…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a workplace-accident insurer must notify the health-insurance fund within seven days of any change in the incapacity percentage, including its reduction to zero when total temporary incapacity ends. Having received the recovery and return-to-work certificate on 29.9.1987 without informing the fund in time, the insurer incurs the statutory sanction, even though its medical adviser's report arrived later. The insurer's appeal was dismissed and the judgment in the fund's favour upheld.","k":"Workplace accident — notifying the health-insurance fund of a change in incapacity","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63 §2, paras 3–4; Cass. 4.1.1982","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-03-22","rol":"44351","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2004:ARR.20040322.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"xxxEu égard au caractère d'ordre public des dispositions de la loi du 10 avril 1971, en l'absence d'accord entériné par le FAT, le juge ne peut trancher le litige en actant l'accord des parties mais doit statuer,…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The first judge had recorded the agreement between the worker and the workplace-accident insurer on the consequences of the accident (9% permanent incapacity); the worker appealed on the basis of a new medical finding (a bone spur) and the insurer argued that the appeal was inadmissible. The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal held that, since the Act of 10.4.1971 is a matter of public policy, in the absence of an agreement endorsed by the Workplace Accidents Fund the judge cannot merely record the parties' agreement but must verify the statutory conditions and determine the victim's rights, so that such a judgment is not a consent judgment within the meaning of article 1043 of the Judicial Code. The appeal was admitted, the sudden event and the injury were found established and an expert was appointed to assess the after-effects; the merits remain to be decided.","k":"Workplace accident — appeal against a consent judgment, public policy","law":"Judicial Code art. 1043; Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 9","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-03-19","rol":"C.03.0037.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2004:ARR.20040319.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La convention de La Haye du 4 mai 1971 sur la loi applicable en matière d'accidents de la circulation routière détermine tant la loi applicable à la responsabilité civile que celle qui est applicable aux modalités et à…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The accident occurred in Bosnia and involved a single vehicle registered in Belgium carrying a Belgian passenger; the Belgian State, ordered to compensate him under Article 29bis, disputed the application of the Hague Convention. The Court held that the Hague Convention of 4 May 1971 governs the law applicable to liability and compensation on any non-contractual basis, which includes an Article 29bis claim; its article 2.5, excluding recourse and subrogation involving insurers, does not cover the injured party's direct action. Belgian law applies under article 4 and the State's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Article 29bis — law applicable to an accident abroad","law":"Hague Convention 4.5.1971, arts 1, 2.5, 4(a) and 9; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-03-16","rol":"P.03.0868.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2004:ARR.20040316.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"L'article 84 de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre qui dispose qu'une quittance pour solde de compte partiel ou pour solde tout compte ne signifie pas que la personne lésée renonce à ses droits…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The parents of a minor had signed the liability insurer's settlement offer for non-pecuniary loss as 'read and approved' and then claimed more before the criminal court. The Court held that article 84 LCAT, under which a receipt does not mean the injured party waives its rights, does not allow the injured party, absent error, to claim a higher amount for the heads of loss listed in the receipt. The parents' appeal was dismissed and the Ghent criminal court's appellate judgment limiting the award to the settlement stands.","k":"Liability insurance — effect of a signed settlement receipt","law":"LCAT art. 84","w":159,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-03-08","rol":"S.03.0103.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2004:ARR.20040308.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Les articles 63, ,§ 2, de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail et 136, ,§ 2, alinéa 3, de la loi relative à l'assurance obligatoire soins de santé et indemnités, coordonnée le 14 juillet 1994, qui…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Liège Labour Court of Appeal ordered an expert examination and required the workplace-accident insurer to resume, pending a final ruling, the payments it had stopped on 13 January 2003. The Court noted that the judgment found a workplace accident, so the first limb lacked a factual basis, and that the second limb, attacking the provisional measure, was inadmissible because it did not invoke articles 63 §2 and 66 of the Act of 10 April 1971 governing the provisional regime. The insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Workplace accident — expert examination and provisional resumption of payments","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts 7, 8, 22, 23, 63 §2 and 66; Judicial Code, arts 19 and 962","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-03-01","rol":"C.03.0081.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2004:ARR.20040301.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsqu'un accident du roulage est causé par un véhicule automoteur qui n'est pas identifié, la personne lésée peut obtenir du Fonds commun de garantie la réparation des dommages résultant de lésions corporelles causés…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The accident was found to have been caused by a lorry normally based abroad whose driver was identified, but neither the registered keeper nor its insurance position could be established; the judgment under appeal ordered the Belgian Motor Insurers' Bureau to compensate the injured parties. The Court held that a vehicle is identified only if the registered keeper or its insurance position can be known; where only the driver is identified, neither the national bureau nor any other insurer must pay. The judgment was quashed on the Bureau's appeal and the case was referred to the Brussels Court of Appeal.","k":"Foreign vehicle — Belgian Motor Insurers' Bureau and unidentified vehicle","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 2 §2; Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50 §1, 1° (later art. 80 §1, 1°) and art. 79 §1; Cass. 13.9.1991","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-02-27","rol":"2030023","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2004:ARR.20040227.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A trainee who injured his finger during an individual vocational training placement claimed compensation from the insurer that had provided common-law cover equivalent to workplace-accident insurance. The court held that a claim based on such an insurance contract does not fall under article 579 of the Judicial Code and lies outside the jurisdiction of the labour courts: a trainee is not a worker employed for pay under an employer's authority. It declined to refer a preliminary question: the difference in competent court is objectively and reasonably justified, since social-security contributions are paid for a worker but not for a trainee. The trainee's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Vocational trainee — equivalent common-law insurance, labour-court jurisdiction","law":"C. jud., art. 579; Act of 10.4.1971 (scope)","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-02-23","rol":"2001;AR;1113","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2004:ARR.20040223.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Ce n'est que dans l'hypothèse d'omissions ou d'inexactitudes intentionnelles relatives à l'obligation de déclaration imposée aux assurés par l'article 5 de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur les assurances terrestres, que le…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer of a car stolen while parked in the driveway of the home argued that the contract was void: the policyholder and his partner living under the same roof had each signed a \"locked private garage\" clause although the garage could hold only one car; the first court had accepted this. The Court of Appeal recalled that nullity under article 6 LCAT applies only to intentional omissions or misstatements, and that the insurer must prove that the undisclosed element was a risk-assessment factor, that the policyholder could reasonably regard it as such, and that the breach was intentional. The clause did not make actual garaging a condition of cover, allowed shared use of the garage by household members and did not require two cars to fit at once. Theft cover applied in principle; the debates were reopened on the amount of the indemnity.","k":"Theft cover — \"private garage\" declaration and proof of intentional misrepresentation","law":"LCAT arts. 5–6","w":227,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-02-23","rol":"C.03.0188.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2004:ARR.20040223.17","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"L'existence d'une obligation contractuelle, légale ou réglementaire n'exclut pas qu'il y ait dommage au sens de l'article 1382 du Code civil, sauf lorsqu'il ressort du contenu ou de la portée du contrat, de la loi ou du…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A public employer sought from the liable third party's insurer the salary paid to its employee during temporary incapacity after a commuting accident; the Liège Court of Appeal limited its rights to the amicable expert report agreed between the employee and that insurer. The Court held that article 14 §3 of the Act of 3 July 1967 prevents the rights of the subrogated employer, acquired as soon as salary is paid, from being fixed solely on the basis of an amicable expert report agreed between the victim and the insurer. It also recalled that a contractual or statutory duty to pay does not in itself rule out loss under article 1382; the judgment was quashed on the employer's appeal and the case was referred to the Mons Court of Appeal.","k":"Public-sector commuting accident — employer's subrogation and amicable expert report","law":"Act of 3.7.1967, art. 14 §3; former Civil Code, art. 1382; Cass. 19.2.2001; Cass. 19.10.1994","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-02-12","rol":"C.01.0333.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2004:ARR.20040212.23","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"La circonstance que la victime d'un accident de roulage et son conjoint ont stipulé dans leurs conventions préalables au divorce par consentement mutuel que le décès de la victime met fin à l'obligation alimentaire n'a…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The former wife, entitled to maintenance from the man killed in a road accident, sought compensation from the motor liability insurer under Article 29bis; the Antwerp Court of First Instance, on appeal, rejected her claim because the pre-divorce agreement ended maintenance on his death. The Court held that this clause does not deprive the dependant of her right to compensation from the insurer of the vehicle involved. The judgment was quashed on her appeal and the case was referred to the Turnhout Court of First Instance sitting on appeal.","k":"Article 29bis — former spouse as dependant and maintenance","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1 (before the Act of 13.4.1995)","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-02-06","rol":"C.02.0258.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2004:ARR.20040206.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"En vertu de l'article 10, ,§ 1er, alinéas 1er et 2, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre, la preuve par présomptions de l'existence et du contenu du contrat d'assurance n'est pas admissible…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The comprehensive motor insurer sought repayment of benefits it had paid, relying on an exclusion for driving under the influence, but could not produce the policy; the Verviers Court of First Instance, on appeal, inferred from presumptions that the policy followed the standard general conditions and put the burden of proving otherwise on the insured. The Court held that under article 10 §1 LCAT the existence and content of an insurance contract cannot be proved by presumptions without a beginning of written proof. The judgment was quashed on the insured's appeal and the case was referred to the Liège Court of First Instance sitting on appeal.","k":"Comprehensive motor cover — written proof of policy terms","law":"LCAT art. 10 §1(1)-(2)","w":119,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-01-30","rol":"2000;AR;2085","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2004:ARR.20040130.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Lorsque l'assureur invoque, pour justifier son refus d'intervenir, la déchéance de l'assuré, il se fonde sur l'attitude de ce dernier, ce qui n'est pas sans incidence sur la charge de la preuve. En effet, en application…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court noted that an insurer relying on the insured's forfeiture to refuse cover bases itself on the insured's conduct, which affects the burden of proof. Under article 1315 of the former Civil Code, the insured proves the existence of the contract giving rise to the insurer's obligation, and the insurer must prove the facts justifying forfeiture. The summary does not state the outcome.","k":"Forfeiture — burden of proof on the insurer","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1315","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"2004-01-29","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2004:ARR.016","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : La question préjudicielle n'appelle pas de réponse.","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Antwerp Court of First Instance asked whether articles 12, 46 §2 para. 2 and 47 para. 2 of the Act of 10 April 1971 discriminate against the spouse of a victim of a fatal road accident that was also a commuting accident, because social security contributions are deducted from the compensation and two thirds of the annuity cannot be taken as a lump sum. The Constitutional Court held that the question called for no answer: the deduction and the method of paying the annuity stem not from the provisions referred but from articles 43 and 45 of the Act, which were not put to it, and the Court cannot extend its review to them.","k":"Workplace accident — spouse's compensation after a fatal commuting accident","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 12, 43, 45, 46 §2 and 47; Constitution arts. 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-01-27","rol":"P.03.0839.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2004:ARR.20040127.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Est prématuré et, dès lors, irrecevable le pourvoi en cassation qui est dirigé contre la décision rendue sur la question de savoir si l'assureur cité en intervention forcée est tenu de couvrir un certain risque, en…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The non-compulsory professional liability insurer of the insured, who filled gas cylinders, had been joined to the criminal proceedings and relied against the injured parties on the policy's gross-negligence exclusion; the Antwerp Court of Appeal held it could not rule on this because of article 89 §5 LCAT. The Court held that this provision only bars the criminal court from ruling on the insurer's rights against the insured or policyholder; a defence, nullity or forfeiture raised against the injured party under article 87 §2 is inseparable from the direct action. On the insurer's appeal, the rulings on the civil claims against it were quashed (except the insured's liability); the appeal was premature as to non-final rulings and otherwise dismissed.","k":"Liability insurance — defences against the injured party before the criminal court","law":"LCAT arts 86, 87 §2 and 89 §5; Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 416(2)","w":228,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-01-22","rol":"30940-02","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2004:ARR.20040122.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Dans le cadre de la réparation faisant suite à un accident du travail, après l'expiration du délai de révision, le F.A.T. ne doit prendre en charge les frais d'hébergement que dans les limites fixées par l'article 3 de…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"After the revision period had expired, the workplace-accident insurer sought reimbursement from the Workplace Accident Fund of the victim's accommodation costs in a care and rest home. The court held that the Fund is liable for such costs only within the limits set by article 3 of the Royal Decree of 30 December 1971; the broader agreement the insurer had signed with the victim and the home cannot be relied on against the Fund. For medical and pharmaceutical expenses, the insurer must prove with supporting documents that the costs were made necessary by the accident; merely asserting that payments were made is not enough. The insurer's appeal was dismissed and costs were awarded against it.","k":"Workplace accident — nursing-home costs and the limits of the Fund's liability","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 28bis; RD 30.12.1971, art. 3","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-01-21","rol":"2000RG1724","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2004:ARR.20040121.19","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Liège Court of Appeal held that the Act of 9 August 1963 requires the health-insurance fund to pay incapacity benefits provisionally until compensation is recognised under other legislation or general law, without having to monitor the insured's ordinary-law proceedings on its own initiative. The fact that a settlement cannot be invoked against the fund does not prevent the court from examining the limits of its subrogation claim, which runs up to the benefits paid (art. 76quater §2(4)). The outcome is not stated.","k":"Health-insurance fund's subrogation — settlement and limits","law":"Act of 9 August 1963, art. 76quater §2(4)","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"2004-01-19","rol":"30131-01","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2004:ARR.20040119.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La révision peut être admise en cas d'aggravation d'une lésion partiellement causée par l'accident du travail et non mentionnée dans le libellé des séquelles repris par l'accord-indemnité soumis à l'entérinement du…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The victim sought a review on the basis of the worsening of a temporomandibular-joint injury not listed among the sequelae in the compensation agreement submitted for approval to the Workplace Accidents Fund; the workplace-accident insurer asked for the claim to be dismissed outright. The court accepted that a review may concern the aggravation of an injury partly caused by the accident which, when permanent incapacity was fixed, had stabilised without affecting that incapacity, and upheld the referral back to the expert to continue his work taking that injury into account. The appeal nonetheless succeeded insofar as the expert must now answer questions allowing all conditions of review to be checked (aggravation, attributability to the accident, occurrence within the review period, new element).","k":"Workplace accident — review, worsening of an injury not listed in the settlement","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 72","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-01-16","rol":"C.02.0253.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2004:ARR.20040116.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Méconnaît la force obligatoire du contrat d'assurance qui couvre le risque de décès par accident, défini comme étant tout événement provenant de l'action soudaine et fortuite d'une cause extérieure étrangère à la…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The policy covered accidental death, defined as any event arising from the sudden and fortuitous action of an external cause beyond the insured's control; the Liège Court of Appeal treated the fall that caused death as itself the external cause. The Court held that this disregards the binding force of the insurance contract and breaches article 1134 of the Civil Code. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal and the case was referred to the Mons Court of Appeal.","k":"Accidental death insurance — a fall as an external cause","law":"Civil Code, art. 1134","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-01-12","rol":"2001/AR/1303","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:2004:ARR.20040112.25","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Verzekeringen -- rechtstreeks vorderingsrecht van de benadeelde voor een ongeval in België op Nederlandse verzekeraar - art. 3 Wet 25.06.1992 op de landsverzekeringen en art. 28 quater Wet 09.07.1975 betreffende de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A party injured by a loss occurring in Belgium has a direct action under article 86 LCAT against the liable party's Dutch insurer, even though the policy is governed by Dutch law: that right is mandatory. The insurer cannot rely on its insured's late notification against the injured party, since article 87 §2 only allows defences based on facts preceding the loss; it may only seek recourse against its insured. The cost of taking back and replacing the delivered parts remained excluded and the deductible applied; otherwise the insurer's appeal failed.","k":"Product liability insurance — direct action against a foreign insurer","law":"LCAT art. 3, 86, 87 §2; Act of 9.7.1975, art. 28quater","w":4,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-01-12","rol":"C.03.0327.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2004:ARR.20040112.22","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'obligation d'entretien des enfants par leurs père et mère n'exonère pas le père de sa responsabilité de droit commun à l'égard de son enfant ayant subi un dommage par sa faute (1). (1) Voir les concl. du M.P. ||…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The health-insurance fund that paid the medical costs of a child injured in a road accident caused by the father's fault sought reimbursement from the father's motor liability insurer; the insurer relied on the father's duty of maintenance (Civil Code, art. 203) and his status as the fund's main member. The Court held that the child has a right to full compensation from the negligent father under articles 1382-1383, that the fund is subrogated by law to the child under article 76quater §2 of the Act of 9 August 1963, and that this recourse may be brought against the father's liability insurer. The insurer's appeal was dismissed and the Nivelles Court of First Instance's appellate judgment stands.","k":"Health-insurance fund's recourse — motor insurer of the liable father","law":"Act of 9.8.1963, art. 76quater §2, arts 2(e) and 21, 10°; Civil Code, arts 203, 1382-1383","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-01-09","rol":"C.03.0248.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2004:ARR.20040109.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le Fonds commun de garantie automobile n'est pas tenu à réparation des dommages matériels, dès lors que ce n'est pas en raison du fait que l'obligation d'assurance n'a pas été respectée qu'aucune entreprise d'assurances…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The vehicle that struck the injured party's car bore a stolen number plate; the Brussels Police Court ordered the Guarantee Fund to pay for the property damage on the basis that the vehicle had to be treated as uninsured. The Court held that the Fund pays for property damage only where no insurer is liable because of an unforeseeable event or a failure to comply with compulsory insurance; here no insurer was liable because the vehicle was unidentified. The judgment was quashed on the Fund's appeal and the case was referred to the Nivelles Police Court.","k":"Guarantee Fund — stolen plate and property damage","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 80 §1(1), 2°; RD 16.12.1981, art. 19 §1; Cass. 29.3.2001","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-01-09","rol":"C.02.0194.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2004:ARR.20040109.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le jugement qui constate que la victime, assise à l'arrière d'un véhicule automoteur circulant sur une voie publique, fût frappée à la colonne vertébrale par une balle perdue qui traversa la carrosserie du véhicule au…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A child in the back seat of a car travelling on the Brussels ring road was hit in the spine, and left paraplegic, by a stray bullet during a shoot-out between robbers and police. The Court held that the Brussels Court of First Instance, on appeal, having found that the vehicle was confronted in traffic with an unusual object that damaged it and injured an occupant, could lawfully conclude that the harm resulted from a road traffic accident within Article 29bis §1. Noting also that the applicable Article 29bis §2 excludes the driver only for her own bodily injury, it dismissed the motor liability insurer's appeal.","k":"Article 29bis — stray bullet hitting a passenger","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1 and §2","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2004-01-06","rol":"2000;AR;2870","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2004:ARR.20040106.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"L'intervenant volontaire ne prétend pas à un droit propre, il ne soumet au juge aucune prétention personnelle, son initiative ayant un caractère défensif; il y a lieu d'avoir égard à ces caractéristiques pour apprécier…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer that had compensated a construction worker who fell from an unsecured beam brought a recourse action under article 1386 of the former Civil Code against the association owning the building, the main contractor and their liability insurers. The court confirmed that the original claim against an entity without legal personality was inadmissible and set out the conditions for voluntary and compulsory intervention (a legitimate, direct and personal interest; intervention by submissions between existing parties). On the merits it held that the fact that the last beam was merely laid, unlike the others, was not a defect of the building and that the conditions of article 1386 were not met; all the insurer's claims were dismissed and the indemnity claims became moot.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — building owner's liability (art. 1386)","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1386; C. jud. arts. 809 and 813(2); Act of 10.4.1971","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-12-15","rol":"2000AR2072","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2003:ARR.20031215.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"1. De verzekeraar is krachtens de betaling die hij aan zijn verzekerde verrichtte in de plaats getreden in diens rechten en rechtsvorderingen. De voorbehoudloze uitputting van de rechten van de verzekerde ten aanzien…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"After indemnifying its insured, the insurer exercised the subrogated claim against the liable third party and obtained a judgment, then sought repayment of €22,868.97 from the insured as an undue payment. The Antwerp Court of Appeal held that the unreserved exhaustion of the insured's rights through subrogation implies a tacit but unequivocal waiver of any right to restitution, and that withdrawing the basis of the subrogation afterwards is contrary to good faith, the insured having been unable to pursue the liable party for more than five years. The insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Subrogation — insurer's claim for repayment from the insured","law":"Subrogation; performance of contracts in good faith (former Civil Code, art. 1134); undue payment","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-12-12","rol":"C.99.0487.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2003:ARR.20031212.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Viole les dispositions légales relatives à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs, la décision, qui pour condamner le Fonds commun de garantie automobile en réparation…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The accident occurred while an insured van was towing another vehicle; the Mons Court of First Instance, on appeal, held that since the driver was not insured for the 'towing' risk, the Guarantee Fund rather than the liability insurer had to pay for the property damage. The Court held that the Fund pays only where no insurer is liable because of an unforeseeable event or a failure to comply with compulsory insurance, and that lack of cover for towing does not show such a failure. The judgment was quashed on the Fund's appeal insofar as it ordered the Fund to pay the injured party, and the case was referred to the Charleroi Court of First Instance sitting on appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund — towing risk and the duty to insure","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 2 §1; Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50 §1(1), 2°; RD 16.12.1981, art. 19 §1","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-12-10","rol":"2002RG82","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2003:ARR.20031210.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"While clearing a dance hall after an event organised by a non-profit association, two young people horsing around with a third tripped him and injured him; the victim brought a direct action against the two youths' private liability insurers and the association's insurer. The court stated that a loss is intentional under art. 8 LCAT where the insured acted knowingly and deliberately and his risky conduct caused reasonably foreseeable harm to a third party, even if he did not want that harm; on the facts, however, no intent was found and the exclusion was rejected. The association was also liable for its helpers' fault, and the contradiction between policy clauses was construed in the insured's favour. The three insurers were held jointly liable for two thirds of the damage, one third remaining with the victim because of his own fault; the case was sent back to the first judge to assess the damage.","k":"Private liability insurance — intentional loss and joint liability","law":"LCAT art. 8; former Civil Code, arts. 1382 and 1384, para. 3; C. jud., art. 1068, para. 2","w":17,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-12-10","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2003:ARR.158","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : - L'article 29bis de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs viole les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution en tant…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"On questions from the Ypres and Turnhout Police Courts, the Constitutional Court held that article 29bis of the Act of 21 November 1989 breaches articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution in so far as it excludes trains using or crossing the public road from its compensation scheme and designates no person liable to pay in those cases. By contrast, article 80 §1 of the Act of 9 July 1975 is constitutional: the Guarantee Fund stands in for compulsory insurance and is funded by insurers' contributions, so it is reasonable that it intervenes only where the loss falls under a liability covered by compulsory insurance or under article 29bis. The Fund is therefore not bound to compensate victims of accidents involving a train.","k":"Article 29bis — exclusion of trains and Guarantee Fund intervention","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; Act of 9.7.1975, art. 80 §1; Constitution arts. 10–11; Const. Court no. 92/98","w":229,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-12-10","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2003:ARR.163","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 601bis du Code judiciaire, inséré par l'article 36 de la loi du 11 juillet 1994 relative aux tribunaux de police et portant certaines dispositions relatives à l'accélération et à la…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Hearing the motor liability insurer's recourse claim against its insured for gross negligence, the Dinant Police Court asked the same question as in judgment no. 132/2003 on the impartiality of a court that has also ruled in the criminal case. In an immediate-answer judgment, the Constitutional Court held that article 601bis of the Judicial Code, which gives the police court all road traffic litigation, including recourse under articles 24 and 25 of the model contract, does not breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution, alone or with article 6.1 ECHR. The legislature aimed to reduce the backlog and to specialise; a judge is not suspect of bias merely for having dealt with the question before.","k":"Motor liability — police court's exclusive jurisdiction over recourse","law":"Judicial Code, art. 601bis; Model contract RD 14.12.1992, arts. 24–25; Constitution arts. 10–11; ECHR art. 6.1; Const. Court no. 132/2003","w":84,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-12-05","rol":"1997;AR;1683","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2003:ARR.20031205.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Vragen -Hoe gebeurt de uitlegging van een woord, waarvan de betekenis niet wordt bepaald bij wet of bij overeenkomst? -Wie dient het bewijs te leveren in een geschil tussen een verzekeraar en een verzekerde, betreffende…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a word not defined by statute or contract must be given its ordinary meaning, unless the context requires otherwise. Under article 1315 of the former Civil Code, the insured proves the existence of the insurer's payment obligation; an insurer claiming to be released must prove the fact that extinguished that obligation (cf. Cass. 7 June 2001). The summary does not state the outcome.","k":"Insurance contract — interpreting terms and burden of proof","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1315; Cass. 7.6.2001","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"2003-12-05","rol":"C.02.0261.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2003:ARR.20031205.27","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs ne couvre pas les dommages causés par un véhicule automoteur qui, lors de la survenance de l'accident, n'effectue que des…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A road-surfacing worker was electrocuted by an electric arc when the raised tipper body of a lorry, coupled to a paving machine, came close to a high-voltage line; his dependants and an insurer sued the lorry's motor liability insurer under articles 2 and 29bis. The Court held that compulsory motor insurance does not cover harm caused by a vehicle performing only manoeuvres linked to its use as machinery, where the harm was not caused in a way characteristic of road traffic. The Neufchâteau Court of First Instance's appellate ruling that the lorry was not taking part in traffic was lawful and the appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — lorry used as machinery and the notion of traffic","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 2 §1 and 29bis §1; Benelux Court of Justice 23.10.1984; Cass. 12.6.1989","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-12-04","rol":"23101","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:2003:ARR.20031204.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The Ghent Labour Court of Appeal upheld the judgment dismissing the worker's claim for recognition of a workplace accident and rejected the main appeal. The accident declaration was inaccurate and the worker had given several divergent and contradictory accounts of the facts; no witness hearing was ordered because the opposite of the alleged facts was already established by presumptions. As a claim based on false statements is reckless and vexatious, costs were charged to the worker by way of exception to article 68; the health-insurance fund's cross-appeal was inadmissible because the main appeal sought nothing from it.","k":"Workplace accident — conflicting accounts, proof of the sudden event and vexatious claim","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 9 and 68; Judicial Code, arts. 915 and 1054","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-12-01","rol":"290452000","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2003:ARR.20031201.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La rémunération de base de la victime de l'accident du travail ne comprend pas la quote-part de la prime payée à son profit par son employeur pour une assurance collective garantissant aux membres du personnel, en cas…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The issue was whether the premium paid by the employer for a group hospital-insurance policy for its staff forms part of the base remuneration used to calculate workplace-accident benefits. The court held that, although the premium is a monetary benefit granted by reason of the employment relationship, it is a benefit supplementing the social-security scheme within the meaning of article 35, paragraph 2, and must therefore be excluded; the contrary 1978 case law of the Court of Cassation rested on the former wording, replaced by Royal Decree no. 39 of 31 March 1982. The workplace-accident insurer's appeal succeeded and the annual base remuneration was set at €17,876.74.","k":"Workplace accident — base remuneration and hospital-insurance premium","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 35; Royal Decree no. 39 of 31.3.1982; Cass. 16.1.1978 (not followed)","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-11-24","rol":"42423","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2003:ARR.20031124.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The widow and children of a worker killed in a workplace accident claimed compensation from the workplace-accident insurer, which pleaded the three-year limitation period. The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal recalled that under article 69 of the Act of 10.4.1971 the period starts, for a fatal accident, at the time of the accident, and that an acknowledgment of the right by the debtor interrupts limitation only if it is certain. The interim-relief writ issued by the insurer to gather evidence urgently, 'under all reservations and without prejudicial acknowledgment', was a protective measure that did not imply recognition of the sudden event, its occupational nature or the injury. The claim was time-barred; the heirs' appeal was dismissed, with costs nonetheless borne by the insurer.","k":"Fatal workplace accident — limitation, interim proceedings are not an admission","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 69 and 70; Judicial Code art. 584","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-11-20","rol":"12601","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:2003:ARR.20031120.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The Ghent Labour Court of Appeal held that the insurer's failure to attach the medical certificate required by article 3 of the Royal Decree of 16.12.1987 to its notice of recovery without permanent incapacity carries no sanction: the formality is not substantial and did not harm the victim, so the three-year period of article 72, para. 2 ran from the notice of 8.11.1993. By recasting of its own motion a claim based solely on article 25 (temporary aggravation) as a challenge to the recovery decision, the first judge had breached the principle of party autonomy; the worker's incidental claim, first raised on appeal, was declared time-barred. The expert examination of the causal link between the operation of 16.11.1998 and the 1990 accident was nevertheless maintained and the case sent back to the first judge.","k":"Workplace accident — notice of recovery, missing medical certificate and three-year time limit","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 24, 25 and 72; RD 16.12.1987, art. 3; Judicial Code, arts. 807, 1042 and 1138, 2°; Cass. 13.5.2002; Cass. 29.11.2002","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-10-27","rol":"72172002","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2003:ARR.20031027.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Un barotraumatisme survenu à un pilote de ligne à l'occasion d'un décollage consécutivement à une variation brutale de pression extérieure est un événement soudain indemnisable même si la cause n'est pas exclusivement…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"An airline pilot suffered barotrauma during take-off following a sudden change in external pressure. The workplace-accident insurer argued that the injury stemmed from the victim's own physical condition (pinching his nostrils, an abnormal Eustachian tube). The court held that articles 7 and 9 of the Act of 10 April 1971 do not require the cause of the sudden event to be external to the victim's body, that barotrauma linked to a pressure change is a sudden event, and that the pilot's regular medical checks had revealed no predisposition. The insurer's appeal was dismissed and the judgment recognising the workplace accident was upheld.","k":"Workplace accident — sudden event, pilot's barotrauma","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 9; Cass. 7.1.1991","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-10-23","rol":"309102002","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2003:ARR.20031023.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"En vertu de l'article 42 de la loi du 10 avril 1971, les intérêts légaux ne courent que sur les indemnités d'incapacité de travail et non sur les frais médicaux, pharmaceutiques, chirurgicaux et d'hospitalisation. Il y…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"After the review period had expired, the victim claimed from the Workplace Accidents Fund reimbursement of medical and pharmaceutical costs with interest from the date he had paid them. The court held that under article 42 of the Act of 10 April 1971 statutory interest runs automatically only on incapacity benefits; medical, pharmaceutical and hospital costs, which are not periodic, are governed by ordinary law (former Civil Code, art. 1153). For costs incurred before the writ, interest runs from the formal notice or, failing that, from the writ; for costs incurred afterwards, from the date they were actually paid. The appeal was upheld in part.","k":"Workplace accident — when interest runs on medical costs","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 41 and 42; former Civil Code, art. 1153","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-10-08","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2003:ARR.132","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 601bis du Code judiciaire, inséré par l'article 36 de la loi du 11 juillet 1994 relative aux tribunaux de police et portant certaines dispositions relatives à l'accélération et à la…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Hearing the motor liability insurer's recourse claim against its insured for gross negligence, the Dinant Police Court asked whether a court that also tries the criminal case on the same facts could appear impartial. The Constitutional Court held that article 601bis of the Judicial Code, which makes the police court the sole court for all rights and obligations arising from road traffic law, including recourse under articles 24 and 25 of the model contract, does not breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution, alone or with article 6.1 ECHR. The measure is relevant to the aims of reducing the backlog and creating a specialised traffic court; a judge is not suspect of bias merely for having dealt with the question before, and must step aside where the circumstances warrant it.","k":"Motor liability — insurer's recourse and impartiality of the police court","law":"Judicial Code, art. 601bis; Act of 11.7.1994, art. 36; Model contract RD 14.12.1992, arts. 24–25; Constitution arts. 10–11; ECHR art. 6.1","w":84,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-10-08","rol":"2000;AR;2916","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2003:ARR.20031008.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Si l'utilisation du questionnaire de l'assureur par le preneur d'assurance ne dispense pas celui-ci de l'obligation qui lui est imposée par l'article 5, ,§ 1 de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur les assurances terrestres, elle…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that using the insurer's questionnaire does not release the policyholder from the disclosure duty under article 5 §1 LCAT, but neither does it create a presumption in the insurer's favour that the questions asked influenced its assessment and acceptance of the risk. Holding otherwise would remove the court's power to assess whether the insured's undertaking was reasonable. The summary does not state the outcome.","k":"Disclosure — effect of the insurer's questionnaire","law":"LCAT art. 5 §1","w":230,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"2003-10-07","rol":"2001/AR/2201","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2003:ARR.20031007.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Le preneur d'assurance a l'obligation de déclarer à l'assureur toute aggravation sensible et durable du risque qui survient en cours de contrat. On entend par aggravation du risque, toute aggravation sensible et durable…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insured, whose employer sought to change his employment terms after a merger, called on his legal expenses insurer, which refused cover relying on the exclusion of facts predating the policy, the non-disclosure of the merger project and of other policies, and an aggravation of risk linked to protected-worker status. The court held that the insured could not have known at inception that a dispute would arise, that the merger project reported in the press was known to the professional insurer, that holding several policies is not prohibited, and that the insured had not been elected as a staff representative. The duty to declare an aggravation of risk is assessed reasonably, by the standard of a normally prudent and diligent policyholder. The insurer was ordered to pay the contractual ceiling of €6,197.33 with interest.","k":"Legal expenses insurance — prior-facts exclusion and disclosure duty","law":"LCAT arts. 5 and 26 §1; policy general conditions art. 19.2 and special conditions art. 12","w":231,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-09-15","rol":"264241997","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2003:ARR.20030915.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Les réparations légales du dommage résultant d'un accident du travail ne comprennent pas l'indemnisation de l'aggravation de l'état de la victime survenue postérieurement à cet accident pour une cause totalement…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"After a workplace accident consisting of blows received, the victim developed a depressive condition and sought compensation for the worsening that followed a notice of dismissal served fifteen days later. The court recalled that statutory compensation covers every consequence of which the accident is a cause, even partial or indirect, but not an aggravation of the victim's condition due to a cause wholly unrelated to the accident. It recognised a 5% permanent incapacity from 24 July 1992 for the moderate depressive state triggered by the accident; the workplace-accident insurer was ordered to pay this compensation, in addition to the 15% incapacity for the eye injury already recognised in an earlier interim judgment, and the expert's fees.","k":"Workplace accident — aggravation from an unrelated cause","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-09-08","rol":"S.02.0125.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2003:ARR.20030908.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'obligation de l'assureur-loi de prévenir l'organisme d'assurance maladie et invalidité à laquelle est affiliée la victime ou à laquelle elle est inscrite conformément à la législation sur l'assurance obligatoire…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"After a 1985 workplace accident the victim suffered further periods of incapacity once the review period had expired; the health-insurance fund, which had paid daily benefits, sought reimbursement from the Occupational Accidents Fund under article 63, arguing that it had been told too late of the refusal to pay. The Court held that the duty to notify in article 63 rests on the workplace-accident insurer and not on the Fund, including where the Fund pays under articles 25bis and 58bis §1, 3° for accidents before 1 January 1988. The Ghent Labour Court of Appeal ruling that treated the Fund as an insurer was quashed on the Fund's appeal and the case was referred to the Brussels Labour Court of Appeal.","k":"Workplace accident — Occupational Accidents Fund's duty to notify the health-insurance fund","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts 63, 25bis and 58bis §1, 3°","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-09-04","rol":"8602","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:2003:ARR.20030904.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Ongeval op een zaterdag overkomen aan een arbeidsgeneesheer (diensthoofd van de medische dienst van de n.v. Nationale Bank van België) tijdens diens deelname aan één van de proeven (hindernissenpiste) geprogrammeerd op…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Ghent Labour Court of Appeal upheld the judgment recognising as a workplace accident the injury suffered on a Saturday by a company's occupational physician on the obstacle course of an employer-sponsored team-spirit event reserved for staff; the workplace-accident insurer's appeal was dismissed. The worker was under the employer's authority, and taking part in an event meant to foster team spirit is an external occupational factor specific to the performance of the contract, so the article 7 presumption was not rebutted. The insurer's reliance on a sports-accident policy failed because the policy was not produced and the apportionment rule of article 45 §2 LCAT is not mandatory; the insurer must reimburse the health-insurance fund.","k":"Workplace accident — accident at an employer-organised team event","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 7; LCAT art. 45 §2","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-06-26","rol":"1996;AR;3847","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2003:ARR.20030626.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"La notion d'accident en matière d'assurance, n'est pas définie par la loi et, pour la définir, il convient de se référer au contrat d'assurance conclu. En l'espèce, le contrat stipule que l'accident est \" une lésion…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court noted that the concept of accident is not defined by statute and the contract must be consulted. The definition 'bodily injury caused by the sudden and fortuitous action of an external cause' is less restrictive than the case law on anaphylactic shock after vaccination: it does not require a cause external to the victim's body or an external force, so it does not exclude hypersensitivity or predisposition. It requires the action to be fortuitous, not that the insured be free of any fault. The final outcome is not stated.","k":"Personal accident insurance — anaphylactic shock after vaccination","law":"No statutory provision cited in the summary (contractual definition of accident)","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"2003-06-23","rol":"INCONNU","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTBRL:2003:JUG.20030623.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"xxxL'existence d'une lésion ne peut se confondre ou se superposer avec celle de l'événement soudain, c'est-à-dire de l'événement précis et déterminé dans le temps, distinct de la cause extérieure comme de la lésion, ne…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that the injury must not be confused with the sudden event, which is a specific event fixed in time, distinct from the cause and the injury, not necessarily abnormal but identifiable in the normal course of work. The claimant's own statement alone does not prove it, and written statements produced only during the proceedings, long after the insurer's refusal for lack of proof, must be treated with caution. The summary does not state the final outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — proof of the sudden event","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 9","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"2003-06-23","rol":"S.02.0128.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2003:ARR.20030623.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"En vertu des articles 45quater, alinéa 1er, et 51, alinéa 1er, première phrase, de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail, s'agissant d'un accident auquel ces dispositions s'appliquent, la dette de…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The workplace-accident insurer argued that the victim's death from a cause unrelated to the accident should affect its obligation to pay the annuity capital to the Occupational Accidents Fund. The Court held that, for accidents under articles 45quater(1) and 51(1), the insurer's debt to the Fund arises once the degree of permanent incapacity is fixed, and that a death unrelated to the accident, even within the review period, cannot lead to review or affect that debt. Finding a preliminary question about a Royal Decree inadmissible, it dismissed the insurer's appeal and upheld the Brussels Labour Court of Appeal.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's debt to the Fund — death of the victim","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts 45quater(1), 51(1), 51ter and 72; Special Act of 6.1.1989, art. 26 §1; Cass. 9.9.2002","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-06-18","rol":"29494/00","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2003:ARR.20030618.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La disposition légale applicable pour déterminer la rémunération de base applicable à un apprenti en cours de période d'incapacité de travail temporaire est celle en vigueur à la date de l'accident et non la disposition…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The dispute concerned the base remuneration for calculating temporary-incapacity benefits of an apprentice who was already an adult when the accident occurred. The court held that the applicable rule is article 38 as in force on the date of the accident, since the amendment by the Act of 12 August 2000 has no retroactive effect; but, following judgment no. 6/2000 of the Court of Arbitration of 19 January 2000, an adult apprentice must receive the remuneration that a minor apprentice who came of age during incapacity could have claimed. The worker's appeal succeeded: the workplace-accident insurer was ordered to pay benefits on a base remuneration of 582,787 francs instead of 178,302 francs.","k":"Workplace accident — base remuneration of an adult apprentice","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 38; Court of Arbitration 19.1.2000, no. 6/2000; Special Act 6.1.1989, arts. 26 and 28","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-06-11","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2003:ARR.086","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 4, § 1er, de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs, avant sa modification par la loi du 22 août 2002,…","court":"const","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"In a garage owner's car park, a worker driving a customer's car damaged the garage owner's vehicle; the motor liability insurer relied on the model-contract exclusion because the garage owner was at that time the keeper of the customer's car. On a question from the Ghent Police Court, the Constitutional Court held that article 4 §1 of the Act of 21 November 1989, before its amendment by the Act of 22 August 2002, breaches articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution in so far as it allows the keeper of the insured vehicle always to be excluded from the benefit of compulsory insurance. Preventing fraud and collusion is legitimate, but a general and absolute exclusion applied even where the keeper is himself the injured party and shows there was no fraud is disproportionate. Outcome in favour of the injured garage owner.","k":"Motor liability — exclusion of the keeper of the insured vehicle","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 3 and 4 §1 (before the Act of 22.8.2002); model contract RD 14.12.1992, art. 7; Constitution arts. 10–11","w":232,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-06-11","rol":"P.02.1648.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2003:ARR.20030611.20","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'assureur qui a conclu un contrat d'assurance en vue de couvrir la responsabilité civile à laquelle peut donner lieu dans la circulation tout véhicule automoteur porteur de la plaque d'immatriculation, dite plaque…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A vehicle running on a trade plate exceeded the maximum engine size stated in the policy; the court of appeal held that this was a separate uninsured risk, released the liability insurer and ordered the Guarantee Fund to pay the injured parties. The Court held that under article 11 §1 of the common provisions of the Benelux Convention no defence or forfeiture arising from the contract may be raised against the injured party, so an insurer covering any vehicle bearing the specified plate cannot rely on the engine-size excess. On the Fund's appeal, the rulings against the Fund and the release of the insurer were quashed and the case was referred to the Mons Court of Appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund or liability insurer — trade plate and engine-size limit","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, arts 49-50 (pre-1994 numbering); Act of 1.7.1956, art. 6; Benelux Convention 24.5.1966, common provisions, art. 11 §1","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-06-10","rol":"1999;AR;3140","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2003:ARR.20030610.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"En règle, une loi nouvelle s'applique non seulement aux situations qui naissent à partir de son entrée en vigueur, mais aussi aux effets futurs des situations nées sous le seul régime de la loi antérieure qui se…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that article 86 LCAT does not substantively change the insurer's obligations; it simplifies claims handling and protects the victim against the insured's insolvency, and applies immediately: the injured party has a direct action even for events before 1 January 1993, save for rights already irrevocably fixed. By contrast, article 87 §2 on the defences, nullities and forfeitures the insurer may raise does not automatically apply in the same way, as that would give the law retroactive effect. The concrete outcome is not stated.","k":"Direct action — application to events before 1993","law":"LCAT arts 86 and 87 §2; Mortgage Act, art. 20(9)","w":99,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"2003-05-30","rol":"C.00.0574.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2003:ARR.20030530.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"L'article 10 de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre relatif à la preuve et au contenu du contrat d'assurance et de ses modifications est uniquement applicable aux modifications apportées aux…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Under a sickness-and-accident disability policy taken out in 1980, the insurer amended the general conditions in 1985 to exclude psychological disorders without an organic basis, and refused cover to an insured who was fully unfit for work due to depression. The Court held that article 10 LCAT does not apply to an amendment made before it entered into force and that, under article 25 of the Act of 11 June 1874, the insured's consent may be inferred from the insurer's letter and the payment of the increased premium. The insureds' appeal was dismissed; the Ghent Court of Appeal's rejection of the claim stands.","k":"Disability insurance — proof of amended policy conditions","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 25; LCAT art. 10 and 148; Cass. 29.6.2001; Cass. 12.4.2002","w":233,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-05-21","rol":"P.03.0222.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2003:ARR.20030521.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La cassation, sur le pourvoi du prévenu, de la décision qui le condamne du chef de défaut d'assurance de véhicule automoteur, entraîne l'annulation de la décision, fondée sur la même illégalité, qui condamne,…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The defendant had been convicted of driving uninsured without any answer to his submissions that he had paid the premium and received a green card; the Court quashed that conviction for lack of reasoning. The quashing extended to the joint order against the Guarantee Fund, based on the same error, and to the decision releasing the defendant's insurer: either the defendant was uninsured and the Fund pays, or he was insured and the insurer is liable. His liability for the accident and his duty to compensate the injured party stand; the case was referred to the Tournai criminal court.","k":"Uninsured driving offence — extension of quashing to the Fund and the insurer","law":"Act of 21.11.1989; Constitution, art. 149; Cass. 19.1.1984; Cass. 22.12.1999","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-05-15","rol":"C.02.0297.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2003:ARR.20030515.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"N'est pas exclu du champ d'application de la loi commandant l'intervention du Fonds commun de garantie automobile le dommage causé par un véhicule automobile volé immergé dans une voie navigable, à une péniche naviguant…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A car stolen from the public road was pushed by the thieves into a river, where a barge struck it; the regional authority in charge of the waterway compensated the boatman and sought reimbursement from the Guarantee Fund, as the car's policy excluded use of a stolen vehicle. The Court held that the loss is not outside the Act of 21 November 1989 where, at the moment it fell into the water, the vehicle was in traffic in a place covered by the Act, and that the damage stemmed from that participation in traffic. The Fund's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Guarantee Fund — stolen car dumped in a waterway","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 2 §1 and 3","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-04-11","rol":"16303","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2003:ARR.20030411.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'action en paiement des allocations d'aggravation est soumise à la prescription triennale prévue par l'article 69 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 et le délai de prescription prend cours au moment où le droit à l'indemnité…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The victim claimed an aggravation allowance from the Workplace Accidents Fund (FAT) based on 100% rather than 55% for a 1968 accident; the first-instance court had held the claim time-barred. The court held that the three-year limitation period runs from the aggravation, but that this means the moment it becomes permanent, not the appearance of minor early symptoms; the Fund's decision notified on 25.5.1989 interrupted the period, whereas an ordinary letter does not. Before ruling on the merits, it appointed a new expert to fix the start date and rate of the permanent aggravation.","k":"Workplace accident — aggravation allowance, start of the limitation period","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 69–70; RD 10.12.1987, art. 9; Cass. 8.2.1993","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-04-10","rol":"C.02.0213.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2003:ARR.20030410.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Il appartient à l'assuré d'établir, par tous moyens de preuve admissibles, la réalité du vol dont il se prétend victime (1). (1) Voir: Cass., 10 janvier 1991, n° 236.","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Liège Court of Appeal had held that the insured, whose car was allegedly stolen from a public car park, could not prove the theft, so that the insurer had to show that the insured's account lacked sincerity or plausibility; it upheld in principle the claim of the bankrupt insured company. The Court held that the insured bears the burden of proving the theft by any lawful means and that the judge may not reverse that burden. On the insurer's appeal, the judgment and the follow-up judgment were quashed and the case referred to the Mons Court of Appeal.","k":"Theft insurance — burden of proving the vehicle theft","law":"Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, art. 870","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-04-10","rol":"C.01.0165.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2003:ARR.20030410.16","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"Ni le conducteur d'un cyclomoteur classe A, victime d'un accident de roulage, ni ses ayants-droits ne peuvent se fonder sur l'article 29bis de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Dendermonde court of first instance, on appeal, had ordered the motor liability insurer of the other vehicle involved to compensate, under article 29bis, the heirs of a class A moped rider killed in the accident. The Court held that a class A moped is a motor vehicle within article 1 of the Act of 21 November 1989, so its rider and heirs cannot rely on article 29bis. On the insurer's appeal, the judgment was quashed as regards the article 29bis claim; the ruling on the claim under former Civil Code article 1382 was not affected.","k":"Article 29bis — class A moped rider excluded","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 1 and 29bis (before the Act of 19.1.2001); RD 1.12.1975, art. 2.17","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-04-09","rol":"P.03.0049.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2003:ARR.20030409.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Toute personne lésée peut obtenir du Fonds commun de garantie automobile la réparation des dommages résultant de lésions corporelles causées par un véhicule automoteur, ainsi que des dommages matériels causés par pareil…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Belgian State, which had kept paying the salary of a gendarme injured by an uninsured vehicle during his temporary incapacity, claimed reimbursement from the Guarantee Fund; the Liège Court of Appeal dismissed the claim for lack of proof of a specific loss. The Court held that the duty of full compensation extends to the Fund, and that a public authority paying salary without work in return under a legal duty is entitled to compensation, provided those payments are not meant to remain definitively at its charge, without proving a separate loss. On the State's appeal, the judgment was quashed and referred to the Mons Court of Appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund — salary paid by a public employer","law":"RD 16.12.1981, art. 14 and 19; former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383; Cass. 21.12.2001; Cass. 30.1.2002","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-03-27","rol":"1999/RG/73","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2003:ARR.20030327.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer brought a recourse action for BEF 390,700 against its insured, who had been convicted for an accident caused while driving drunk. The court recalled that art. 88, para. 2, LCAT requires the insurer, on pain of losing its right of recourse, to notify the insured of its intention to seek recourse as soon as it knows the facts justifying it. The provision, in force since 1 January 1993, applied to the one-year contract renewed on 2 August 1993; the insurer could not prove that its letter of 29 April 1992, which the insured denied receiving, had been sent. The recourse action was declared inadmissible, the judgment reversed and the insurer ordered to pay the costs of both instances.","k":"Liability insurance — failure to notify intention to seek recourse","law":"LCAT art. 88, para. 2, 148 and 149; RD 24.8.1992, art. 3; Cass. 23.6.2000","w":11,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-03-26","rol":"P.02.1609.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2003:ARR.20030326.24","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Lorsqu'une décision attaquée fonde son dispositif sur un motif critiqué par le pourvoi, la Cour peut suppléer un motif de droit qui justifie le dispositif de cette décision (1). (1) Cass., 29 octobre 1992, RG 9386, n°…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer of the lessee of a leased lorry had paid the lessor the termination indemnity due after the lorry was destroyed through the defendant's fault, and then, as civil party, claimed that amount from the defendant and his insurer. The Court held it unlawful to treat the insurer as an injured party with its own loss, but substituted article 41 LCAT: the cover being indemnity insurance, the insurer is subrogated up to the amount paid to the insured's rights against the liable third party, and the criminal court has jurisdiction. The appeals of the defendant and his insurer were dismissed.","k":"Leased vehicle — insurer's subrogated recourse against the wrongdoer","law":"LCAT art. 41; Act of 17.4.1878, art. 3–4; Civil Code, art. 1251, 3°","w":16,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-03-25","rol":"P.02.0607.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2003:ARR.20030325.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"Si l'article 8, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre dispose que nonobstant toute convention contraire, l'assureur ne peut être tenu de fournir sa garantie à l'égard de quiconque a…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Antwerp Court of Appeal, youth chamber, had ordered the insurer to cover the person vicariously liable for damage intentionally caused by a minor. The Court held that article 8(1) LCAT, which excludes cover for the person who intentionally caused the loss, does not allow the intentional fault of another to be raised against the person who is civilly liable for that individual and insured for that liability. The insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Liability insurance — intentional act of another and the vicariously liable insured","law":"LCAT art. 8(1)","w":17,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-03-25","rol":"P.02.1097.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2003:ARR.20030325.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"L'article 6, 6° de l'arrêté royal du 12 janvier 1984 déterminant les conditions minimales de garantie des contrats d'assurance couvrant la responsabilité civile extra-contractuelle relative à la vie privée ne permet pas…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"Parents held vicariously liable for a burglary committed by their minor son sought cover from their family liability insurer, which relied on the intentional-act exclusion in the general conditions. The Court held that article 6, 6° of the Royal Decree of 12 January 1984 only permits excluding the personal liability of the insured who caused the damage, not the intentional fault of a person for whom the insured is vicariously liable. The Antwerp Court of Appeal's reading of the policy was upheld; the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Family liability insurance — minor's intentional act and the parents' cover","law":"RD 12.1.1984, art. 6, 6°; Civil Code, art. 1384","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-03-20","rol":"60900","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:2003:ARR.20030320.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Graad van blijvende arbeidsongeschiktheid bij een laaggeschoolde, 46-jarige ar-beider, na arbeidsongeval heelkundig behandeld met een arthrodese van het rech-ter polsgewricht (quasi totale immobilisatie van de pols) en…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The Ghent Labour Court of Appeal upheld the judgments setting the permanent incapacity of a low-skilled 46-year-old worker at 50%, his right wrist being almost completely immobilised by an arthrodesis and his fingers retaining only very limited function; the workplace-accident insurer's appeal was dismissed. The court also recognised two further periods of temporary total incapacity (13.11.2000–6.5.2001 and 11.9.2001–15.10.2001) and the costs of the operation of 11.9.2001, which the insurer was ordered to pay with interest.","k":"Workplace accident — wrist arthrodesis, 50% permanent incapacity","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24, para. 2","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-03-20","rol":"18902","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:2003:ARR.20030320.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Graad van blijvende arbeidsongeschiktheid voor het totaal verlies van het rechter-oog bij een arbeider: 30 %.","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The Ghent Labour Court of Appeal partly reversed the judgment setting at 18% the permanent incapacity of a worker who lost his right eye entirely in a workplace accident and fixed the degree at 30%; the worker had sought 38%, the workplace-accident insurer 18%. Without being bound by the expert's opinion, the court took into account the worker's age (34 at consolidation), vocational training, work history, adaptability and competitiveness on the general labour market. Costs were charged to the insurer under article 68.","k":"Workplace accident — loss of one eye, degree of permanent incapacity","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24 para. 2 and art. 68; Judicial Code, art. 986","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-03-14","rol":"15844","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2003:ARR.20030314.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Le lieu du travail n'est pas uniquement le lieu de l'exercice de la tâche convenue, mais, plus généralement, tout lieu où le travailleur se tient à la disposition de son employeur ; il peut être considéré que le…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The health-insurance fund sued the workplace-accident insurer to have the worker's motorcycle accident, on his way home from a traditional party organised by the company, recognised as a commuting accident. The court accepted that the workplace includes any place where the worker is at the employer's disposal, including a company party attended out of moral obligation, but conflicting statements left the venue, the departure time and the accident location unclear. Before ruling on the merits, it ordered witness hearings of its own motion; as the matter is one of public policy, the victim's failure to challenge the insurer's refusal was irrelevant.","k":"Workplace accident — returning from a company party, witness hearings ordered","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 8; Judicial Code, art. 916","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-03-06","rol":"1998/AR/996","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2003:ARR.20030306.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"En ce qui concerne les postes du préjudice, indéterminés quant à leur quantum, l'obligation pour le juge d'évaluer le préjudice au moment où il statue a nécessairement pour conséquence que la détermination de ce…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A worker who suffered a head injury in a workplace accident later fell from a hospital window while confused; the hospital's liability had already been established and only the damages remained in dispute. The court recalled that under article 7 of the Act of 10 April 1971 a second accident caused, even partly, by injuries from the first is deemed a consequence of the workplace accident; the expert appointed by the labour court had included the spinal injury in the 45% disability, so the compensation paid by the workplace-accident insurer already covered the material loss, including increased effort, from the second accident. Those heads of claim were dismissed. To avoid double compensation, compensatory interest on the moral damages was reduced from the legal rate to 5%; the victim's appeal was dismissed and the hospital's cross-appeal upheld.","k":"Workplace accident — consequences of a second accident and common-law damages","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 7; former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-03-06","rol":"C.02.0132.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2003:ARR.20030306.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"En règle, une loi nouvelle s'applique non seulement aux situations qui naissent à partir de son entrée en vigueur, mais aussi aux effets futurs des situations nées sous l'empire de la loi antérieure qui se produisent ou…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A liability policy taken out in 1991 for a van contained a clause restricting driving to the policyholder; at the time of the accident of 10 July 1992, someone else was driving. After compensating the injured parties, the insurer sought recourse, which the Liège Court of Appeal held inadmissible for late notice under article 88(2) LCAT. The Court held that the insurer's contractual recourse remains governed by the law in force when the contract was made until the new Act becomes applicable to that contract, and that prior notice, as a procedural condition of that recourse, follows the same law. On the insurer's appeal, the judgment was quashed and referred to the Mons Court of Appeal.","k":"Insurer's recourse against the insured — temporal scope of art. 88 LCAT","law":"LCAT art. 88(2) and 148; Civil Code, art. 2 and 1134; Cass. 23.6.2000","w":11,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-03-06","rol":"C.02.0255.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2003:ARR.20030306.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le cas fortuit en raison duquel le fonds commun de garantie automobile est tenu à réparation suppose une circonstance ou un événement qui, constituant pour le conducteur du véhicule qui a causé l'accident un cas de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A driver forced onto the opposite lane by an earlier accident on her own lane collided with the respondent's car; the Eupen court of first instance, on appeal, found that neither driver was at fault and ordered the Guarantee Fund to pay for the property damage (23,200 francs to the injured party, 143,905 francs to his insurer). The Court held that the Fund covers property damage where no insurer is liable because of a fortuitous event exonerating the driver who caused the accident, and that such an event need not be independent of human will. The Fund's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Guarantee Fund — fortuitous event and property damage","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 80 §1, 2°; RD 16.12.1981, art. 19 §1","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-02-27","rol":"C.02.0403.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2003:ARR.20030227.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"En vertu de l'article 9 de la loi du 11 juin 1874, l'assurance n'est nulle que lorsque la réticence ou la fausse déclaration de l'assuré diminuent l'opinion du risque de telle sorte que l'assureur, s'il en avait eu…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer had issued the policy on a sketchily completed proposal form, with unanswered questions and a part neither signed nor dated, and later sought annulment under article 9 of the Act of 11 June 1874. The Court held that annulment requires that the non-disclosure reduced the insurer's view of the risk to the point that it would not have contracted on the same terms, and that the insurer's own conduct regarding the missing answers may be taken into account; the rejection of annulment was upheld. However, the Brussels Court of Appeal's judgment was quashed as to the award of €34,042.52 and €104.12 and the compensatory interest, because it misread the insurer's submissions on the amount and failed to answer them on interest.","k":"Duty of disclosure — incomplete proposal form and the insurer's conduct","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9; LCAT art. 5(2); Constitution, art. 149; Civil Code, art. 1319–1322","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-02-17","rol":"40817","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2003:ARR.20030217.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"xxxLa présomption légale de l'article 9 joue lorsque la lésion invoquée est postérieure à l'accident, l'événement soudain et la lésion ne devant pas être concomitants. Une lésion physique consiste dans l'altération d'un…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A worker who sprained his ankle in a fall in 1994 later developed arthrosis; the expert could not say whether it was due to the trauma and the workplace-accident insurer regarded it as unrelated. The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal held that the presumption of article 9 of the Act of 10.4.1971 also applies to an injury appearing after the accident, since the sudden event and the injury need not be simultaneous; an injury is the alteration of an organ or tissue and, as the expert admitted the possibility of a link without excluding it, the insurer failed to rebut the presumption. The arthrosis was deemed caused by the fall and a new expert examination was warranted; the appeal was dismissed and the judgment upheld.","k":"Workplace accident — arthrosis appearing after the accident, presumption not rebutted","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 9","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-02-13","rol":"30361/01","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2003:ARR.20030213.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Lorsqu'un travailleur est agressé à sa descente de voiture alors qu'il se trouve déjà dans l'enceinte de l'entreprise sur une route appartenant à celle-ci, il a déjà franchi le seuil de l'entreprise et n'est donc plus…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The worker was assaulted by thieves as he got out of his car on a road belonging to the company, more than an hour before his shift. The court held that, having crossed the threshold of the undertaking, he was no longer on his way to work, and that an assault unrelated to his occupational or union activity did not arise from the performance of the work. As he could not show a reason other than personal convenience for arriving so early, the claim was dismissed: the workplace-accident insurer's appeal succeeded and the first-instance judgment was overturned.","k":"Workplace accident — assault on company premises before working hours","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7, 8 and 9","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-02-10","rol":"2001;AR;872","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2003:ARR.20030210.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Le principe indemnitaire prévu par les articles 1er I et 39 de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur les assurances terrestres, selon lesquels l'assureur s'engage à fournir la prestation nécessaire pour réparer tout ou partie d'un…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the indemnity principle in articles 1(I) and 39 LCAT, under which the insurer's performance is limited to the loss suffered by the insured, is not incompatible with a contractual limit on cover agreed between the parties. The principle sets a ceiling tied to the loss; it does not prevent the parties from capping the cover. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Property insurance — indemnity principle and cover limit","law":"LCAT arts 1(I) and 39","w":234,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"2003-02-06","rol":"45596","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:2003:ARR.20030206.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Rechtsvordering tot terugvordering van onverschuldigde vergoedingen De ver-jaringstermijn van drie jaar vangt aan op het ogenblik dat die onverschuldigde vergoedingen zijn uitbetaald.","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The Ghent Labour Court of Appeal held that the three-year limitation period for the workplace-accident insurer's action to recover benefits paid without cause runs from the date of payment; the insurer's counterclaim for repayment was dismissed as time-barred and its request for judicial set-off rejected. The victim was awarded a gross daily allowance of EUR 36.72 for the periods of temporary total incapacity and an annual allowance of EUR 442 for a 4% permanent incapacity (halved under article 24, para. 3), with interest running automatically under article 42, para. 3.","k":"Workplace accident — recovery of overpayments, three-year limitation period","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 24, 42 and 69","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-02-03","rol":"2001/RG/14","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2003:ARR.20030203.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"An 83-year-old had taken out, shortly before her death, an eight-year single-premium mixed life policy naming one of her children as beneficiary on death; the other heirs argued that it was a gift to be brought back into the estate. The court recalled that the essential elements of an insurance contract are a premium, a risk (aléa) and an insurable interest: where the insurer's undertaking, on survival as on death, is merely to return the premium with interest, there is no risk. The contract was reclassified as a savings product with a stipulation for a third party; art. 124 LCAT does not apply and the transaction is an indirect gift subject to hotchpot under art. 843 of the Civil Code.","k":"Life insurance — contract without risk, indirect gift and succession","law":"LCAT art. 124; former Civil Code, art. 843","w":91,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-01-22","rol":"17409","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2003:ARR.20030122.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Tout accident survenu au cours de l'exécution du contrat de travail n'est pas un \" accident du travail \" ; il ne l'est que s'il répond aux conditions légales d'existence de celui-ci, dont celle de \" l'événement soudain…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Ruling after a cassation referral, the court held that not every accident during performance of the employment contract is a workplace accident and that the sudden event must be proven with certainty. Colleagues' statements confirmed a fall from a van but not its date; the accident was reported to the workplace-accident insurer more than two years later, and the medical evidence linked the knee surgery to osteoarthritis rather than to the accident. The judgment was set aside and the court found there had been no workplace accident.","k":"Workplace accident — certain proof of a sudden event, late report","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 7; Cass. 27.9.1993; Cass. 6.5.1996","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-01-22","rol":"16981","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2003:ARR.20030122.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Tout accident survenu au cours de l'exécution du contrat de travail n'est pas un \" accident du travail \" ; il ne l'est que s'il répond aux conditions légales d'existence de celui-ci, dont celle de \" l'événement soudain…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The worker himself stated that he twisted his ankle while walking in the work area, with no defect in the floor, hole or pallet. The court held that the sudden event must be identifiable and distinct from normal performance of the work, and that an ordinary movement does not qualify, so the fall was not a workplace accident. The workplace-accident insurer's appeal was allowed and the victim's claim dismissed.","k":"Workplace accident — unwitnessed fall, no sudden event","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 7; Cass. 27.9.1993; Cass. 16.10.1995","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-01-17","rol":"17679","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2003:ARR.20030117.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La demande en révision des indemnités ne peut être introduite que sur la base de faits nouveaux qui n'étaient pas connus ou ne pouvaient être connus à la date de l'accord ou de la décision ou de la notification visée à…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The court upheld the workplace-accident insurer's appeal: revision may only rest on new facts unknown when the ratified agreement was made, so the permanent incapacity rate for the 1997 accident stays at 2% rather than 4%. The victim's cross-appeal succeeded in part: because physiotherapy was still ongoing, the consolidation date for the 1998 accident was moved from 1.3.1999 to 17.5.1999, with total temporary incapacity until 16.5.1999.","k":"Workplace accident — revision of a ratified agreement and consolidation date","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24, 72","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-01-15","rol":"00-AR-449","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2003:ARR.20030115.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Il résulte de la jurisprudence de la cour de justice Benelux et de la cour de cassation qu'il appartient à l'assureur RC du véhicule responsable d'un accident de couvrir les dégâts lorsque le conducteur de ce véhicule…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The first court had made the motor liability insurer pay for damage caused by a stolen car involved in a hit-and-run pile-up about two and a half hours after the theft, as it was not proven that the driver was the thief. The Court of Appeal found the theft established (hotel stay proven; absence of break-in marks irrelevant) and recalled that Benelux Court and Cassation case law does not always make the liability insurer pay: the insurer must show that the vehicle was driven by the thief or a receiver, which may be proved by presumptions. The short interval between theft and accident and the hit-and-run supported that presumption, so the Guarantee Fund was ordered to compensate the injured parties (€2,581.81 and €1,735.25, less the €247.89 deductible). The insurer's claim against its own insured for a false claim declaration became moot.","k":"Motor liability — accident caused by a stolen vehicle: insurer or Guarantee Fund?","law":"Act of 21.11.1989; RD 16.12.1981, art. 19 §2 (Guarantee Fund deductible); Benelux Court of Justice 26.6.1989; Cass. 2.3.1990","w":35,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-01-14","rol":"2000770","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2003:ARR.20030114.16","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"For a victim who needs six hours of third-party help a week, the supplementary allowance is calculated as a percentage of the guaranteed average minimum monthly income (CBA no. 43): 15% from consolidation and 15.38% from 1.1.1999 because of the move to a 39-hour week; the first judge's rounding to 15.5% was not accepted. Following the Court of Cassation's judgments of 21.5.2001 and 4.2.2002, the court held that this allowance is not indexed under article 27bis: it follows the CBA indexation of the minimum income, with no double indexation. The workplace-accident insurer's appeal was partly upheld; the Workplace Accidents Fund's cross-appeal was dismissed.","k":"Workplace accident — calculating and indexing the third-party assistance allowance","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 24 and 27bis; CBA no. 43; Cass. 21.5.2001; Cass. 4.2.2002","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-01-14","rol":"1998RG1082","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2003:ARR.20030114.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A temporary-work agency that could not find the compulsory workplace-accident cover was placed with an insurer through the insurers' association's (UPEA) pool for hard-to-place risks and later failed to pay the premium balance. The court held that the employer, which did not object to the rate notified by the UPEA, entered de facto into the contract on that basis and never protested the premium notices, had tacitly but clearly accepted the rate. In workplace-accident insurance the final premium depends on wages paid and headcount, which justifies quarterly advances with annual adjustment. The order against the employer for the premium balance was upheld, with only the starting date of interest amended (on €53,790.39 from 10.4.1995 and on €26,706.56 from 19.11.1997).","k":"Workplace-accident insurance — tacit acceptance of the rate and premium adjustment","law":"Act of 10.4.1971 (compulsory workplace-accident insurance); tacit acceptance of the contract","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-01-13","rol":"42606W","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2003:ARR.20030113.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"xxxLorsque l'organisme assureur qui a octroyé des prestations de l'assurance soins de santé et indemnités à la victime d'un accident du travail sollicite la condamnation de l'assureur-loi au remboursement de ces…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A health-insurance fund sought reimbursement from the workplace-accident insurer of medical costs paid from 1972 to 1979 for a commuting-accident victim. The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal held that the fund does not bring a separate action but, as statutory subrogee, exercises the victim's own action; the right to payment of medical costs arises as they are incurred and the limitation period runs from then, not from the start of the review period. Since the fund proved no interrupting act within the meaning of article 70 of the Act of 10.4.1971 in the three years before its writ of 15.10.1984, the action was time-barred and its appeal dismissed.","k":"Workplace accident — health-insurance fund's subrogation and limitation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 28, 69 and 70; Cass. 6.5.1991","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-01-13","rol":"1998;AR;157","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2003:ARR.20030113.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"L'assurance contre la maladie est un contrat par lequel l'assureur, en échange d'une prime, s'engage à verser certaines sommes à son assuré dans l'hypothèse où celui-ci serait, durant la période assurée, atteint dans sa…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court defined sickness insurance as a contract under which the insurer, for a premium, undertakes to pay certain sums to the insured who falls ill during the insured period. It is a fixed-sum personal insurance insofar as the insurer promises amounts set regardless of any loss, and an indemnity insurance subject to the indemnity principle insofar as it undertakes to reimburse medical costs. The summary does not state the outcome.","k":"Sickness insurance — fixed-sum and indemnity character","law":"No statutory provision cited in the summary (non-marine insurance)","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"2003-01-10","rol":"97/4121","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARANT:2003:JUG.20030110.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"De vordering van 8 december 1997 strekt tot herziening van de blijvende arbeidsongeschiktheid van een arbeidsongeval van 9 september 1977, die bij een niet betekend vonnis van de Arbeidsrechtbank te Tongeren van 20 mei…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The Tongeren Labour Tribunal declared inadmissible the revision claim brought on 8.12.1997 by the victim of a 1977 workplace accident consolidated by an unserved judgment of 20.5.1980. Under Cass. 4.2.1987 the revision period of article 72 runs from the day the decision becomes final; but today's practice of serving judgments cannot be applied to 1980, when settlement judgments were not customarily served, and legal effects definitively acquired cannot be undone by a later change in case law. The subsidiary claim succeeded: the Workplace Accidents Fund's aggravation allowance must be maintained, including the suspension period; the health-insurance fund's claim against the Fund (EUR 7,031.08 and EUR 505.70, provisionally) was upheld and the Fund's counterclaims dismissed. Costs were charged to the workplace-accident insurer (art. 68).","k":"Workplace accident — revision period after a 1980 judgment","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 68 and 72; Cass. 4.2.1987","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2003-01-06","rol":"C.00.0140.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2003:ARR.20030106.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'organisme assureur qui a alloué des prestations au bénéficiaire de l'assurance maladie-invalidité est subrogé de plein droit à celui-ci à concurrence du montant des prestations octroyées, pour la totalité des sommes…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A health-insurance fund sought, by subrogation, reimbursement from the liable party's insurer of incapacity benefits paid to its member; the Ghent Court of Appeal rejected the claim for the period after 1 January 1992, when incapacity under ordinary law was set at 25%. The Court held that the conditions and amount of the benefits are governed by health-insurance legislation, that the fund's decision recognising incapacity cannot be challenged in the subrogation action against the liable third party, and that the claim is only capped at the sums due under ordinary law for the same loss. The judgment, which rejected the claim without ruling on the existence and extent of the ordinary-law loss, was quashed on the fund's appeal and referred to the Brussels Court of Appeal.","k":"Health-insurance fund subrogation — binding effect of the incapacity decision","law":"Act of 9.8.1963, art. 76quater §2 (now coordinated Act of 14.7.1994, art. 136 §2); Cass. 11.10.1999","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-12-17","rol":"P.02.0119.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20021217.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La décision des juges d'appel selon laquelle il n'y a pas eu de vol d'usage de véhicule de sorte que la couverture de l'assureur de la responsabilité civile est redevable, ne concerne pas le principe de la…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Brussels criminal court, on appeal, had found that there was no joyriding theft of the insured vehicle, so the liability insurer's cover was due; the insurer, joined as a compulsorily intervening party, appealed. The Court held that this ruling does not concern the principle of liability and is not final as regards the insurer, and that the appeal had not been served on the Guarantee Fund or one of the defendants, so the appeal was inadmissible. The insurer's appeal was dismissed; the ruling on cover stands.","k":"Insurer's appeal in criminal proceedings — non-final decision","law":"Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 416; Cass. 15.12.1999","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-12-17","rol":"P.02.0131.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20021217.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Lorsqu'une action est intentée contre un assuré devant la juridiction pénale, l'action en intervention forcée de l'assureur intentée par l'assuré dans le cadre de l'instance pénale ne peut tendre qu'à la déclaration…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Antwerp Court of Appeal, criminal chamber, had upheld the defendant's claim against his insurer for indemnity and held that the insurer must cover his convictions for principal, interest and costs. The Court held that, under article 89 §5 LCAT, a criminal court cannot rule on the rights the insurer may assert against the insured or policyholder, so an insured who joins his insurer in criminal proceedings can only seek to have the civil ruling declared binding on it. On the insurer's appeal, the judgment was quashed as regards the indemnity claim and referred to the Brussels Court of Appeal.","k":"Insurer joined in criminal proceedings — no ruling on cover","law":"LCAT art. 89 §5","w":49,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-12-16","rol":"2001RG703","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2002:ARR.20021216.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Il est actuellement de jurisprudence constante qu'il est légitime, compte tenu de la difficulté de preuve, d'assouplir la charge de la preuve du vol qui incombe à l'assuré, lequel peut être considéré suffisamment établi…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled the settled case law that, given the difficulty of proof, the insured's burden of proving a theft is relaxed: the theft may be sufficiently established by the filing of a police complaint when the insured's statements appear sincere and plausible and nothing raises suspicion. It cannot, however, be laid down as a principle that a claim notice backed by a complaint creates a presumption of plausibility and shifts the burden of proof to the insurer; the plausibility of the alleged theft is assessed in concreto in light of all the circumstances. Note based on the Juportal summary only; the concrete outcome is not stated there.","k":"Theft insurance — proof of vehicle theft","law":"Burden of proof in theft insurance (former Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, art. 870)","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-12-16","rol":"42245","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2002:ARR.20021216.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"xxxL'exercice habituel et normal de la tâche journalière peut être un événement soudain, à la condition que dans cet exercice puisse être décelé un élément qui a pu produire la lésion. La manipulation d'un siège d'un…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer refused to recognise the accident of a worker injured while handling alone, in a cramped room, a bus driver's seat of about 40 kg to fit it into its base. The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal recalled that the ordinary, normal performance of daily work can be a sudden event provided a particular element capable of causing the injury can be identified in it, and that this element need not be distinct from the performance of the contract (Court of Cassation case law since 19.2.1990); handling a 40 kg seat alone in a cramped room is such an element. The presumptions of articles 7 and 9 of the Act of 10.4.1971 apply, and the insurer may rebut them during the expert examination. The insurer's appeal was dismissed and the judgment appointing an expert upheld.","k":"Workplace accident — sudden event in ordinary daily work (40 kg seat)","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 9; Cass. 19.2.1990","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-12-10","rol":"2000/AR/11","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2002:ARR.20021210.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Een brandverzekering m.b.t. een zonder bouwvergunning opgetrokken gebouw is niet zonder meer nietig. Dit is pas het geval wanneer zij beoogt een onwettige toestand te creëren of in stand te houden. Nu de verzekeraar de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The Antwerp Court of Appeal held that fire insurance on a building erected without a planning permit is not automatically void; it is void only if it aims to create or maintain an unlawful situation. Since the insurer undertook to cover the fire risk against a premium, the contract has a lawful object; the policy contains no exclusion for planning offences and the criminal conviction is not a circumstance affecting the assessment of the risk, so no breach of the duty of disclosure (art. 5 LCAT) was found. The insurer's appeal was dismissed and the order to pay €68,080.54 plus VAT upheld.","k":"Fire insurance — building erected without a permit, validity of the contract","law":"LCAT art. 5; former Civil Code, art. 6; Cass. 8.4.1999","w":235,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-11-28","rol":"C.01.0076.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20021128.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"L'obligation, prévue par un contrat d'assurance, de payer une indemnité devant être calculée selon les règles du droit commun est une obligation qui, au sens de l'article 1153 du Code civil, se borne au paiement d'une…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The heirs of an insured killed in a road accident relied on the \"driver protection\" cover in his motor liability policy, under which the insurer undertook to pay within three months the loss calculated under ordinary law; they claimed late-payment interest from the formal demand and the imputation of a 3,000,000-franc advance first to interest. The Liège Court of Appeal treated the debt as a debt of value carrying compensatory interest. The Court held that this contractual duty to indemnify is a monetary obligation within article 1153 of the Civil Code, so the interest is default interest running from the demand, and article 1254 applies; on the heirs' appeal, the judgment was quashed as to interest and the imputation of the advance, the second ground being dismissed.","k":"Driver protection cover — nature of late-payment interest","law":"Civil Code, art. 1153 and 1254","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-11-27","rol":"P.02.0875.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20021127.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Un véhicule volé ne peut constituer un véhicule de remplacement du véhicule assuré auquel s'étendrait la garantie du contrat-type d'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs (1). (1)…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The driver, whose own car was being repaired, had used a third party's car without permission; the judgment found that no insurer covered his liability and ordered the Guarantee Fund, jointly with him, to compensate the victims. The Fund argued that the car was a replacement vehicle covered by the driver's own policy under article 4 of the model contract. The Court held that, reading articles 4 and 3, 1°, last paragraph, of the model contract together, a stolen vehicle cannot be a replacement vehicle, and the finding of joyriding theft had not been challenged; the Fund's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — a stolen car is not a replacement vehicle","law":"Model contract RD 14.12.1992, art. 3, 1°, last para., and art. 4, 1°; Criminal Code, art. 461(2)","w":152,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-11-25","rol":"2001;RG;80","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2002:ARR.20021125.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer relied on exclusion clauses tied to the occupancy condition, arguing that the insured had not yet fully moved into the building at the time of the loss and had admitted this in his pleadings. The court held that those pleadings would at most amount to a complex admission, which the party relying on it cannot split to keep only the favourable part, and that the evidence showed the building was finished, habitable and regularly occupied by the insured; an incomplete move does not prove otherwise. The exclusion clauses were rightly set aside; the insurer's appeal was dismissed and the award of €1,369.26 upheld.","k":"Fire insurance — occupancy condition and exclusion clause","law":"Policy, art. 49 (occupancy condition); indivisibility of admissions (former Civil Code)","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-11-20","rol":"1997AR1587","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2002:ARR.20021120.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Le juge correctionnel, auquel le président de la chambre de la jeunesse de la cour d'appel statuant au protectionnel est assimilé, qui, après avoir statué définitivement sur l'action publique (en l'espèce en ordonnant…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"After a fatal road accident, the victim's heirs and the subrogated own-damage insurer sued the motor liability insurer of the minor driver. The first court had held the claims of two heirs inadmissible because the juvenile court had already awarded them a provisional 1 franc, and the third heir's claim time-barred under the three-year period. The Court of Appeal held that a criminal court which awards the only sum claimed exhausts its jurisdiction, so the civil court may hear the remainder, and that the Act of 21 November 1989, which extended the injured party's limitation period against the insurer from three to five years, is a procedural statute applying immediately to actions not yet time-barred. The motor insurer, the driver and his father were ordered in solidum to compensate the subrogated insurer and the heirs (moral damages of 150,000 francs and 2 × 75,000 francs).","k":"Motor liability — limitation of the direct action and exhaustion of the criminal court's jurisdiction","law":"Act of 21.11.1989 (five-year limitation period); Act of 1.7.1956, former art. 10; former Civil Code, art. 2","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-11-12","rol":"2010570","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2002:ARR.20021112.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the fatal night-time road accident on the way home from work was a commuting accident. The normal route need not be the shortest or fastest, nor the same every day; the fact that the exact time of the accident is unknown does not mean the journey was interrupted in time. Under the presumption in article 9, the survivors need only prove the injury and the sudden event; it is for the workplace-accident insurer to show that the injuries were unrelated to the accident, which it failed to do. The insurer's appeal was dismissed; the court took over the whole case and reopened the debate on the amounts and the beneficiaries.","k":"Workplace accident — fatal commuting accident, normal route and unknown time","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 8 and 9; C. jud., art. 1068","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-11-08","rol":"C.00.0159.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20021108.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'article 25, 3°, b, du contrat-type d'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs ne confère pas à la compagnie d'assurance un droit de recours à l'égard du conducteur qui a causé un…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured, holding a valid Turkish licence but no licence valid in Belgium, caused an accident in Bornem; the Mechelen court of first instance, on appeal, rejected the insurer's recourse under article 25, 3° b) of the model contract. The Court held that the bar on recourse against a driver who meets the local legal requirements applies only to accidents abroad; recourse is available where the driver causes an accident in Belgium without meeting the Belgian requirements. On the insurer's appeal, the judgment was quashed and referred to the Antwerp court of first instance sitting on appeal.","k":"Motor liability — recourse against a driver without a valid Belgian licence","law":"Model contract RD 14.12.1992, art. 25, 3° b); Act of 9.7.1975, art. 19","w":180,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-11-07","rol":"C.02.0204.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20021107.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"Est irrecevable, parce qu'il obligerait la Cour à procéder à une vérification des éléments de fait pour laquelle elle est sans pouvoir, le moyen qui oblige la Cour à vérifier la date d'un paiement qui ne ressort pas des…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Charleroi court of first instance, on appeal, had ordered one motor liability insurer to indemnify another insurer, which had compensated the victims, for half of the awards. The appellant insurer argued that it had been finally decided that its insured's vehicle was not involved. The Court noted that the judgment did not grant the respondent the automatic compensation of article 29bis, and that res judicata could only be raised if the subrogated payment preceded the final ruling, which required a factual inquiry beyond its powers; the appeal was dismissed.","k":"Article 29bis — recourse between insurers and res judicata","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §§1–2; Judicial Code, art. 19, 23–24 and 1068; Cass. 9.11.2000","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-11-06","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2002:ARR.158","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 29bis de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs, dans la rédaction qui lui a été donnée par l'article…","court":"const","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"On a question from the Charleroi Police Court, the Constitutional Court held that article 29bis of the Act of 21 November 1989, in the wording of the Act of 13 April 1995, read as excluding accidents on private land from the automatic compensation scheme, does not breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution. Under article 2 §1 insurance is compulsory only for traffic on the public road, and the legislature could take account of the risk of abuse and fraud that extending the scheme to private land would create. Extending it to rail vehicles, or the model contract's cover of private land, does not require extending this no-fault regime. The victim's successors lost against the motor liability insurer.","k":"Article 29bis — accident on private land","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 2 §1 and 29bis; Act of 13.4.1995, art. 1; Constitution arts. 10–11","w":236,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-11-04","rol":"30.740/02","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2002:ARR.20021104.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Si ni l'assureur-loi, ni l'expert judiciaire, ni la victime de l'accident du travail ne peuvent citer un seul métier que cette dernière serait encore en mesure d'exercer après la consolidation de ses lésions, il y a…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Completing its interim judgment of 30.5.2002, the Liège Labour Court of Appeal set the victim's permanent incapacity at 100 %, his capacity to adapt to another occupation being nil given his age, limited general education and work experience confined to house painting. Neither the court-appointed expert, nor the lower court, nor the workplace-accident insurer, although expressly invited to address the point, could name a single occupation still open to the victim on the general labour market; the insurer's argument that it did not bear the burden of proving the loss did not excuse this silence. The cross-appeals of the victim and the subrogated health-insurance fund were upheld; proceedings were reopened on the fund's final accounts.","k":"Workplace accident — total permanent incapacity where no remaining occupation is identified","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24(2)","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-10-30","rol":"2001/AR/0582","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:2002:ARR.20021030.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The policy's contractual three-year limitation period kept running because the insurer had twice refused cover without reservation. The court held that negotiations exist only where the exchanges give the insured the impression that the insurer does not rule out a settlement; the unanswered letters from the insured's lawyer and his announcement that he would await the criminal proceedings did not suspend the period. The 1988 claim for two 1983 accidents was time-barred and the appeal was dismissed.","k":"Personal accident insurance — limitation, negotiations and suspension","law":"General policy conditions, art. 6.4 (contractual limitation)","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-10-24","rol":"1999/RG/47","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2002:ARR.20021024.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The stolen car was located a few days later at the Belarusian border; the insurer refused to pay, arguing that the insured had knowingly refused to repatriate the vehicle within the contractual period. The court held that an insurer claiming to be released must prove that the loss falls outside cover, and found that it had shown neither that the insured knew exactly where the car was stored nor that she had deliberately neglected its repatriation. A recovered vehicle is one that has returned to the insured's possession; as the insured had not recovered the car by the end of the month following the theft report for reasons beyond her control, the insurer was ordered to pay the agreed value of €16,364.62 and to cover the storage and seizure costs claimed in Poland.","k":"Theft insurance — vehicle located abroad and repatriation","law":"General conditions, arts. 10 and 27; burden of proof for exclusions; Liège, 12.11.1996, JLMB 1997, 1654","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-10-08","rol":"P.01.0999.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20021008.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"Ni l'article 29bis de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs, ni aucune autre disposition légale ne limitent le droit de la victime à…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The victims had received part of their loss under article 29bis from the insurer of a driver involved in the accident, and then claimed the balance for the same head of loss from the liable driver's insurer; the Dendermonde criminal court, on appeal, awarded it. The insurer argued the same loss was being compensated twice. The Court held that neither article 29bis nor any other provision limits the victim's right to full compensation, so the part not yet paid under article 29bis may be claimed from the liable party's insurer under former Civil Code articles 1382–1383; the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Additional ordinary-law damages after an article 29bis payment","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-10-01","rol":"2010563","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2002:ARR.20021001.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Videobeelden en foto-opnamen van een privé-detective alsmede de vaststellingen van een gerechtsdeurwaarder, gebeurd van op de openbare weg, hebben een geoorloofd karakter, zijn gerechtvaardigd en vertonen geen…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that video footage and photographs taken by a private detective and a bailiff's findings, all made from the public road at the workplace-accident insurer's request, are lawful and do not amount to a disproportionate interference with privacy (Constitution art. 22; ECHR art. 8); they cannot be excluded from the proceedings. It nevertheless gave them no evidential weight for determining the consequences of the accident: drawn up unilaterally for one party, they cannot outweigh the conclusions of the panel of experts. The request for a new panel of experts was refused. The insurer's appeal succeeded only on admissibility; costs were awarded against it.","k":"Workplace accident — private-detective footage as evidence","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24; Constitution art. 22; ECHR art. 8; ICCPR art. 17","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-09-30","rol":"99-AR-2615","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2002:ARR.20020930.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"En vertu de L'article 5 de la loi du 25 juin 1992, l'assuré a l'obligation de déclarer exactement toutes les circonstances communes de lui et qu'il doit raisonnablement considérer comme constituant pour l'assureur des…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The policyholder, claiming for the theft of his van, had stated that his previous policy was cancelled for \"antecedents\" but concealed his driving bans and drink-driving convictions. The court held that the proposal being completed through a broker was irrelevant, that the insurer had no duty to investigate further, and that the false statements were not corrected when theft cover was added. The intentional misstatements and omissions rendered the whole contract void (art. 6 LCAT); the policyholder's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Disclosure duty — intentional concealment of the driver's record","law":"LCAT arts. 5–6","w":227,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-09-20","rol":"97-AR-1587","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2002:ARR.20020920.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Le juge correctionnel, auquel le président de la chambre de la jeunesse de la cour d'appel statuant au protectionnel est assimilé, qui, après avoir statué définitivement sur l'action publique (en l'espèce en ordonnant…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"After a fatal road accident, the victim's heirs and the subrogated own-damage insurer sued the motor liability insurer of the minor driver. The first court had held the claims of two heirs inadmissible because the juvenile court had already awarded them a provisional 1 franc, and the third heir's claim time-barred under the three-year period. The Court of Appeal held that a criminal court which awards the only sum claimed exhausts its jurisdiction, so the civil court may hear the remainder, and that the Act of 21 November 1989, which extended the injured party's limitation period against the insurer from three to five years, is a procedural statute applying immediately to actions not yet time-barred. The motor insurer, the driver and his father were ordered in solidum to compensate the subrogated insurer and the heirs (moral damages of 150,000 francs and 2 × 75,000 francs).","k":"Motor liability — limitation of the direct action and exhaustion of the criminal court's jurisdiction","law":"Act of 21.11.1989 (five-year limitation period); Act of 1.7.1956, former art. 10; former Civil Code, art. 2","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-09-18","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2002:ARR.130","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 29bis, § 2, de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs, inséré par l'article 45 de la loi du 30 mars…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A refuse collector who had got off the truck to collect bins was struck by a vehicle; the Nivelles Court of First Instance treated him as a passenger and questioned the passenger exclusion in the 1994 version of article 29bis. The Constitutional Court held that article 29bis §2 of the Act of 21 November 1989, inserted by the Act of 30 March 1994 and before its amendment by the Act of 13 April 1995, breaches articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution by denying automatic compensation to passengers and their successors: they were excluded even without fault, whereas other users lose protection only for inexcusable fault, and the reasons for excluding drivers do not apply to them. The Court noted that the Act of 13 April 1995 removed the exclusion. The underlying dispute was between two insurers.","k":"Article 29bis — exclusion of passengers (1994 version)","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §§1–2 (1994 version); Act of 30.3.1994, art. 45; Act of 13.4.1995; Constitution arts. 10–11","w":237,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-09-17","rol":"99-AR-1696","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2002:ARR.20020917.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"L'assurance \" Supersafe \" est une formule combinée qui inclut les garanties suivantes : - l'assistance à la personne assurée durant le voyage (rapatriement et couverture de divers frais en cas de maladie, accident,…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insureds claimed the cancellation costs of a trip they had to give up after one of them injured his hand in a scuffle; the insurer relied on late payment of the premium and on the intentional-act exclusion. The court held that the combined travel policy was a distinct product, that the requirement to pay the premium at booking applied only to stand-alone cancellation cover, and that the premium had in any event been paid on the booking date. Slapping a drunk tenant was a voluntary act but not an \"intentional act\" within the policy, since the insured could not foresee his own injury. The insurer was ordered to pay €1,863.61 with interest; capitalisation of interest was refused.","k":"Travel insurance — cancellation costs and intentional-act exclusion","law":"Policy general conditions, arts. 2 and 11; C. jud. art. 747; former Civil Code, art. 1254","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-09-12","rol":"30.079/01","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2002:ARR.20020912.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La rémunération de base d'un travailleur victime d'un accident de travail alors qu'il preste dans le cadre d'un travail à temps partiel mais alors qu'il présente en sus la particularité d'être occupé à temps plein pour…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The basic wage of a worker injured in a part-time job while also employed full-time by another employer must, for temporary incapacity, be assessed on the basis of full-time work. The Liège Labour Court of Appeal noted that article 37bis of the Act of 10.4.1971 does not expressly cover this situation, but that the legislature's intention is to secure for the victim, during temporary incapacity, the pay corresponding to the work actually performed; a worker unable to perform part-time work is generally also unable to perform his other activities. The basic wage was confirmed at 627,733 francs under articles 34 and 36, and the workplace-accident insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Workplace accident — basic wage where part-time work is combined with a full-time job","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 34, 36 and 37bis","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-09-12","rol":"C.01.0182.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20020912.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"En cas de sous-assurance, il s'impose, pour le calcul de l'indemnisation qui n'a lieu que dans la proportion de la valeur assurée par rapport à la valeur de l'intérêt assurable, de tenir compte de la valeur réelle du…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured's contents were covered at actual value; her loss was assessed at 700,000 francs, exceeding the sum insured of 591,000 francs, and the Liège Court of Appeal applied the proportional rule using the 1,150,000-franc replacement value of the destroyed items as the insurable value. The Court held that, in underinsurance under article 21 of the Act of 11 June 1874, compensation is limited to the ratio of the sum insured to the insurable value, and where the property is insured at actual value that ratio must use the actual value at the time of the loss. On the insured's appeal, the judgment was quashed as to the amount of the indemnity and referred to the Brussels Court of Appeal.","k":"Underinsurance — proportional rule based on actual value","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 1, 20 and 21","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-09-12","rol":"C.01.0192.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20020912.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"L'obligation de notifier l'intention d'exercer le recours incombant à l'assureur en vertu de l'article 88, alinéa 2, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre naît aussitôt que l'assureur a…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured, who had not paid his premiums, caused an accident on 19 January 1996; the insurer, having gained sufficient insight into the exact circumstances in August 1996, notified its intention to seek recourse by letter of 13 August 1996, but the Antwerp court of first instance, on appeal, held the notice late and dismissed the recourse. The Court held that the duty of notice under article 88(2) LCAT arises once the insurer knows the exact circumstances of the accident, even if the recourse is ultimately based on non-payment of premiums; holding the letter late breached that provision. On the insurer's appeal, the judgment was quashed and referred to the Turnhout court of first instance sitting on appeal.","k":"Recourse for unpaid premiums — timing of the notice of recourse","law":"LCAT art. 88(2); Constitution, art. 149","w":11,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-09-09","rol":"S.01.0146.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20020909.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"En vertu des articles 45quater, al. 1er, et 51ter, al. 1er, première phrase, de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail, s'agissant d'un accident auxquels ces dispositions s'appliquent, la dette de…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"After a workplace accident of 15 February 1991 causing 5% permanent incapacity, the workplace-accident insurer paid the Occupational Accidents Fund the capital value of the annual allowance and annuity; when the victim died on 5 April 1995 from a cause unrelated to the accident, the insurer sought repayment of the capital for the period after death. The Court held that, under articles 45quater and 51ter of the Act of 10 April 1971, the insurer's debt to the Fund arises once the incapacity rate is fixed, and that a death unrelated to the accident cannot trigger a review and does not affect the insurer's obligations. The insurer's appeal was dismissed; the Liège Labour Court of Appeal's ruling stands.","k":"Workplace accident — death from unrelated cause and capital transfer","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 45quater, 51ter and 72","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-07-23","rol":"30.043/01","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2002:ARR.20020723.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Il y a lieu de considérer comme étant une décision de guérison sans incapacité permanente de travail, qui peut être judiciairement contestée dans les trois ans de sa notification, la lettre de l'assureur-loi confirmant…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"By letter of 1.2.1999, more than four years after the accident, the workplace-accident insurer had told the victim that, according to its medical adviser's examination, his condition was comparable to that before the accident, adding that an action could be brought within three years; it later argued that no separate notification was required because the accident had caused no interruption of work, so that the revision period ran from the accident. The Liège Labour Court of Appeal treated the letter as a decision of recovery without permanent incapacity within article 72(2): the insurer cannot go back on what it itself declared. The action filed on 3.5.2000, within three years of notification, was admissible; the judgment was overturned and an expert appointed on permanent incapacity and on the cost of treatment (art. 28), which requires a causal link, even partial, with the accident.","k":"Workplace accident — time limit to contest a 'cured without sequelae' decision","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 28 and 72; Royal Decree of 16.12.1987, arts. 1–2","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-07-03","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2002:ARR.121","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"La Cour renvoie la cause au juge a quo.","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A person was injured falling while trying to board a stationary train (6 August 1998); the subrogated health-insurance fund sued the railway company. The Antwerp Police Court asked whether article 29bis, as amended by the Act of 19 January 2001, was discriminatory. The Constitutional Court found that this Act only entered into force on 3 March 2001, after the facts, and sent the case back to the referring court to consider whether the question was still necessary to decide the dispute and whether it should be reformulated. No ruling on the merits.","k":"Article 29bis — fall while boarding a train, applicable version of the Act","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 2 §1 and 29bis (as amended by the Act of 19.1.2001)","w":35,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-06-28","rol":"1998;AR;2990","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2002:ARR.20020628.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"L'article 5 de la loi du 25 juin 1992 dispose que le preneur à l'obligation de déclarer exactement, lors de la conclusion du contrat, toutes les circonstances connues de lui et qu'il doit raisonnablement considérer…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court restated that the policyholder must accurately disclose, at inception, all known circumstances relevant to assessing the risk, and the insurer need not verify the risk. Aggravation means a lasting increase in the probability or severity of the risk such that the insurer would not have contracted, or only on other terms, without any requirement of influence on the loss. An agreed value must be a reasonable estimate; a clearly inflated valuation may trigger the bad-faith over-insurance regime. The indemnity principle is a matter of public policy. The outcome is not stated.","k":"Disclosure, aggravation of risk and over-insurance","law":"LCAT arts 5, 26 §1 and 43","w":238,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"2002-06-26","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2002:ARR.104","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : Les articles 24, 34, 36 et 39 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail ne violent pas les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution, interprétés en ce sens que, dans le cadre de…","court":"const","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"On a question from the Mons Labour Court of Appeal, the Constitutional Court held that articles 24, 34, 36 and 39 of the Act of 10 April 1971, read so that the permanent incapacity resulting from a workplace accident that aggravates an injury caused by earlier workplace accidents is assessed as a whole without deducting the pre-existing incapacity, do not breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution. Within the lump-sum logic the earlier accident already affects the basic wage used for the later one, and the legislature could decline to let judges correct the scheme in equity. The workplace-accident insurer's argument that it is disadvantaged when compensating successive accidents was rejected.","k":"Workplace accident — successive accidents, global assessment of permanent incapacity","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 24, 34, 36 and 39; Constitution arts. 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-06-26","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2002:ARR.109","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : - Les articles 3 et 4 de la loi du 17 avril 1878 contenant le titre préliminaire du Code de procédure pénale, interprétés dans le sens qu'ils rendraient le juge répressif incompétent pour…","court":"const","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The successors of a pedestrian killed by a tram had brought their claim under article 29bis before the criminal court; the Court of Cassation had ruled that claim outside its jurisdiction. On questions from the Nivelles Court of First Instance, the Constitutional Court held that articles 3 and 4 of the Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure, read as depriving the criminal court of jurisdiction over a claim based on article 29bis, do not breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution. By contrast, article 10 §1, paragraphs 2–3, and §2 of the Act of 21 November 1989 breach the Constitution in that, combined with article 1, they cover only transport bodies' vehicles not running on rails: no specific risk justifies a regime before the criminal court that is less favourable to victims of rail vehicles.","k":"Article 29bis — criminal court's jurisdiction and direct liability of the tram operator","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 1, 10 and 29bis; Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure, arts. 3–4; Constitution arts. 10–11","w":236,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-06-26","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2002:ARR.115","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 46 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail ne viole pas les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution, en tant que cette disposition refuse une réparation intégrale au…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"On questions from the Bruges Criminal Court, the Constitutional Court held that article 46 of the Act of 10 April 1971 does not breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution by denying full common-law compensation to a worker injured at the workplace, under the employer's authority, in an accident unintentionally caused by the employer, its agents or employees. The same applies where the accident results from a co-worker's intent, gross negligence or habitual slight negligence: the lump-sum scheme is not fault-based and cannot meaningfully be compared with the worker's liability under article 18 of the Act of 3 July 1978. No insurer was a party to the underlying case.","k":"Workplace accident — immunity of employer and co-workers, gross negligence","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 46 and 48; Act of 3.7.1978, art. 18; former Civil Code, arts. 1382 and 1384; Constitution arts. 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-06-25","rol":"19.505/92","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2002:ARR.20020625.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The Liège Labour Court of Appeal rescinded for fraud the approved compensation agreement fixing permanent incapacity at 2 % after a 1984 commuting accident: the worker had knowingly concealed a significant pre-existing condition of the left ankle, which caused frequent falls and had already been examined, whereas according to the expert the accident caused only a minor sprain healed without sequelae on 7.3.1984. Her claim for aggravation was dismissed; the workplace-accident insurer's claim for recovery of overpayments was held admissible and partly founded, the limitation period being five years rather than three where benefits were obtained through false or knowingly incomplete statements (art. 69). The proceedings were held vexatious: costs were charged to the worker by way of exception to article 68 and she was ordered to pay the insurer EUR 750 in damages.","k":"Workplace accident — rescission of the compensation agreement for fraud","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 68, 69 and 72; former Civil Code, art. 1116","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-06-24","rol":"2001;AR;2008","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2002:ARR.20020624.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"En principe, l'assureur ne dispose d'aucun recours subrogatoire contre son propre assuré; il serait contraire à l'économie du contrat d'assurance qu'une fois le risque réalisé, l'assureur entende obtenir, à charge de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, in principle, an insurer has no subrogated claim against its own insured: it would run counter to the logic of the contract for the insurer, once the risk has materialised, to recover from its insured the sums it undertook to pay in the event of a loss. The fact that the insured committed an intentional act or serious fault does not strip them of insured status, which the contract conferred definitively.","k":"Subrogation — insurer's claim against its own insured","law":"No statutory provision cited in the summary (non-marine insurance, subrogation)","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"2002-06-20","rol":"10699","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:2002:ARR.20020620.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"artikel 48 - intentioneel ongeval (val van een steiger); - vrijwillige zelfdoding: bewijs van het suïcidair inzicht, het bewust, wel-doordacht en duidelijk voornemen het ongeval vrijwillig te veroorzaken.","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"On the workplace-accident insurer's appeal, the Ghent Labour Court of Appeal reversed the judgment that had recognised a worker's fatal fall from scaffolding as a workplace accident and dismissed the widow's claim. From serious, precise and consistent presumptions the court found the suicidal intent proven, that is a conscious and deliberate decision to cause the accident; once intent is proven, the nature of the accident's consequences is irrelevant. The insurer thereby rebutted the article 7 presumption and proved intentional fault within the meaning of article 48.","k":"Workplace accident — intentional accident, proof of suicide","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 48; Cass. 16.2.1987","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-06-20","rol":"30901","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:2002:ARR.20020620.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"- A. artikel 63,§2 - weigering een ongeval te erkennen als arbeidsongeval of be-slissing tot twijfel omtrent de toepassing van de Arbeidsonge-vallenwet; - bewijslast omtrent de tijdigheid van de verwittiging binnen de…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Ghent Labour Court of Appeal held that a workplace-accident insurer that refuses to recognise the accident, or expresses doubt about the Act's application, bears the burden of proving that it notified the health-insurance fund within thirty days; notice by ordinary letter is valid but does not prove its date. The insurer was ordered to repay the fund's wage-loss benefits (EUR 1,093.73) with judicial interest, but the statutory interest of article 42 does not apply to that repayment.","k":"Workplace accident — 30-day notice to the health-insurance fund, burden of proof","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 42 and 63 §2","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-06-14","rol":"C.01.0401.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20020614.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Il appartient au demandeur en indemnisation et à son assureur d'apporter la preuve de l'existence du cas fortuit qu'ils invoquent dès lors que leurs actions ne sont pas fondées sur une infraction à la loi pénale et que…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The injured party and his insurer claimed from the Guarantee Fund, alleging a fortuitous event: the liable driver had lost consciousness during a coughing fit. The Brussels Court of Appeal found this sufficiently plausible and put on the Fund the burden of proving otherwise. The Court held that, since the claims were based not on a criminal offence but on the provisions governing the Fund's intervention, and the Fund had not raised any justification, the claimants bear the burden of proving the fortuitous event. On the Fund's appeal, the judgment was quashed as regards those parties and referred to the Liège Court of Appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund — burden of proving a fortuitous event","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50 §1, 2° (now art. 80); RD 16.12.1981, art. 19 §1; Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, art. 870; Cass. 13.11.1997","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-06-13","rol":"C.99.0405.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20020613.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"La demande introduite par l'assureur à l'égard de la victime tendant à la restitution de provisions indûment payées pour l'assuré ne découle pas de la police d'assurance; cette demande est fondée sur les articles 1235,…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"The liable party's insurer had paid advances to the victim and claimed back the excess once the final award turned out lower. The Court held that the insurer's claim against the injured party for repayment of overpaid advances does not derive from the insurance contract, so the three-year limitation period of article 32 of the Act of 11 June 1874 does not apply. It quashed the judgment, however, insofar as it ran interest from the dates of payment: the res judicata effect of the criminal judgment fixing the damages does not cover the repayment claim, which has a different subject. The victim's appeal was partly allowed.","k":"Insurer's claim to recover overpaid advances — limitation and res judicata","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 32; Judicial Code, art. 23; Civil Code, arts. 1153, 1378","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-06-13","rol":"C.00.0060.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20020613.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le Fonds commun de garantie automobile est tenu de réparer les dommages matériels causés par un véhicule automoteur lorsque aucune entreprise d'assurance agréée n'est obligée à ladite réparation en raison d'un cas…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"In an accident caused by oil or diesel on the road, the court of appeal found that an unidentified vehicle had left it and held the Fund liable for personal injury, and also for a utility company's property damage on the ground that the oil was a fortuitous event exonerating the driver. The Court held that, where the vehicle is unidentified, the Fund covers only personal injury, and that a court which has found the vehicle unidentified cannot then treat the oil as a fortuitous event for property damage. The judgment was quashed on that point on the Fund's appeal; the remainder of the appeal was dismissed.","k":"Guarantee Fund — unidentified vehicle, property damage","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 80 §1, 1°; RD of 16.12.1981, art. 19 §1","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-06-07","rol":"16450","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2002:ARR.20020607.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Aux termes de l'article 65 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail, les parties sont tenues de soumettre, pour entérinement, au Fonds des accidents du travail, les accords concernant les indemnités dues…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a compensation agreement not ratified by the Workplace Accidents Fund does not bind the judge, even though the victim signed it without reservation. It nevertheless reversed the appointment of a psychiatrist tasked with assessing the depression straight away: the new expert must first establish whether it results from the 1996 workplace accident and, if not, whether the 1998 private-life accident was caused by injuries from the first one. The case was sent back to the first-instance court.","k":"Workplace accident — unratified compensation agreement, expert's remit","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24, 65; Cass. 19.9.1994; Cass. 8.1.1990","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-06-07","rol":"C.01.0177.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20020607.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"C'est à l'assureur qu'il incombe d'établir qu'il remplit toutes les conditions qui lui permettent d'exercer l'action récursoire; il n'appartient dès lors pas à l'assuré, qui invoque que l'assureur est déchu du droit de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The motor liability insurer, which had compensated the injured party on behalf of an insured driving while drunk, gave notice of its intention to exercise recourse more than two years after the accident; the Namur court of first instance held the recourse claim inadmissible. The Court held that the insurer bears the burden of proving that every condition for recourse is met, and accepted that the insurer knew the relevant facts once its loss adjuster had mentioned possible recourse to the insured eleven days after the accident. Notice being late, the insurer forfeited its recourse; its appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — late notice of intention to exercise recourse","law":"LCAT art. 88; Civil Code, art. 1315; model contract RD 14.12.1992, art. 24","w":11,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-06-07","rol":"C.00.0438.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20020607.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"L'assurance de dommages, et spécialement l'assurance de responsabilités, repose sur le principe indemnitaire en vertu du quel la prestation de l'assureur a pour objet de tenir le patrimoine de l'assuré indemne de toute…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The court of appeal had found that the hospital-employed doctor's error was neither gross nor habitual, so that he was exempt from personal liability under article 18 of the Act of 3 July 1978, yet ordered his professional liability insurer to compensate the patient and indemnify the hospital. The Court held that indemnity insurance, and liability insurance in particular, rests on the indemnity principle: the insurer's performance is to keep the insured's assets free from debts arising from his liability, whether or not the victim has a direct action. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Professional liability insurance — indemnity principle, exonerated insured","law":"Act of 11.6.1874; LCAT; Act of 3.7.1978, art. 18","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-06-05","rol":"2000/RG/57","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2002:ARR.20020605.16","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insured, who had reported the loss to his property insurer in time, disputed the valuation by the insurer's expert and did not answer the insurer's arbitration proposal for more than three years. The court held that any action arising from an insurance contract is time-barred after three years (art. 34 LCAT), a special limitation period that excludes the thirty-year general period even if the insurer's letters were treated as an acknowledgment of debt. The interruption under art. 35 §3 LCAT ends as soon as the insurer takes an unequivocal position; since the insurer had clearly refused payment while the insured disputed the valuation, time ran from that position. The first-instance judgment declaring the action time-barred was upheld.","k":"Limitation — insurer's written decision and end of the interruption","law":"LCAT arts. 34 and 35 §3","w":80,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-05-31","rol":"2001/RG/91","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2002:ARR.20020531.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The theft insurer argued that the reported theft of the insured's car was staged, although the insured had been acquitted, on the benefit of the doubt, of forgery and fraud charges. The court held that an acquittal on the benefit of the doubt binds the civil court and bars any further inquiry into facts declared not established. In theft insurance, an apparently sincere and plausible account of the loss is sufficient proof; as the insurer's suspicions did not show the declaration to be insincere, the insurer was ordered to pay €10,229.35 plus statutory interest from 14 February 1995. The question of lawyer's fees under the legal-expenses policy was set aside for separate examination.","k":"Theft insurance — proof of the loss and effect of a criminal acquittal","law":"C. jud., art. 1057, 7°; res judicata effect of the criminal judgment in civil proceedings","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-05-30","rol":"29.911/01","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2002:ARR.20020530.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La présomption légale de causalité entre l'accident et la lésion s'applique lorsque cette dernière découle d'une thérapie nécessitée par une autre lésion imputable à l'accident. Il est illégal de distinguer, parmi les…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The Liège Labour Court of Appeal held that the statutory presumption of causation extends to an injury resulting from treatment required by another injury attributable to the accident. It is unlawful to distinguish, among injuries arising from the accident, those that follow directly and immediately from those that are an indirect consequence or a later sequela so as to confine the presumption to the former. The workplace-accident insurer's main appeal was dismissed and the table of temporary incapacity confirmed with minor date corrections; proceedings were reopened on the cross-appeals of the victim and the subrogated health-insurance fund (degree of permanent incapacity and final accounts).","k":"Workplace accident — presumption of causation for an injury caused by treatment","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 9; Coordinated Act of 14.7.1994, art. 136 §2","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-05-30","rol":"24.902/96","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2002:ARR.20020530.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Légalement, l'employeur est tenu de faire la déclaration de tout accident du travail dont un travailleur se dit victime. Il n'est pas en droit d'apprécier et de décider lui-même s'il y a eu ou non un accident du…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The Liège Labour Court of Appeal recalled that the employer is legally bound to report to the insurer any workplace accident a worker claims to have suffered, may not itself decide whether an accident occurred, and may refrain from reporting only where the accident is manifestly non-existent, if necessary after an inquiry involving the worker; the victim always retains the right to report personally. Here the employer's failure to report was criticised, but after witness hearings the alleged fall on the site (the sudden event) was not proven, as there were no serious, precise and consistent presumptions corroborating the worker's account. The victim's appeal against the workplace-accident insurer was dismissed; the judgment was declared binding on the employer and the employer's counterclaim for vexatious proceedings rejected.","k":"Workplace accident — employer's duty to report and proof of the sudden event","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 9 and 62","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-05-29","rol":"P.02.0323.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20020529.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le juge pénal ne peut allouer des dommages à la partie civile que dans la mesure où l'action exercée par celle-ci a pour objet la réparation du dommage causé par une infraction (1). || L'obligation d'indemnisation…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Guarantee Fund, which had voluntarily intervened in criminal proceedings, was ordered on appeal by the criminal court to compensate the civil party under article 29bis. The Court held that the article 29bis compensation duty exists without proof of any liability of the insured and is not based on an offence; the criminal court therefore lacks jurisdiction over such a claim and may rule on the Fund only under ordinary liability law. The judgment was quashed, on the Fund's appeal, insofar as it ruled on the civil claim against it.","k":"Article 29bis — criminal court lacks jurisdiction over the Guarantee Fund","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act of 17.4.1878), arts. 3–4; Code of Criminal Investigation, art. 138; Judicial Code, art. 601bis","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-05-28","rol":"6.621/00","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2002:ARR.20020528.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Lorsqu'un assuré social conclut avec un assureur une convention de transaction par laquelle il renonce à toute réclamation ayant un lien avec l'accident, même pour un dommage futur, il ne peut renonce qu'à ses droits,…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The socially insured person had concluded with the liability insurer, for a 1980 accident, a settlement waiving all claims, including future loss; the health-insurance fund later sought repayment of benefits paid for a subsequent incapacity. The Liège Labour Court of Appeal recalled that the insured can only waive his own rights, that the no-cumulation rule applies only to loss actually compensated under common law, provided both losses share the same medical cause, and that the burden of proving effective compensation for the same loss lies with the fund. As the link between the new injury and the original accident and the effectiveness of the compensation remained disputed, the court ordered a supplementary expert examination; the judgment was declared binding on the insurer party to the settlement and the costs of the appeal were charged to the fund.","k":"Sickness benefits — no-cumulation rule with common-law compensation and settlement","law":"Coordinated Act of 14.7.1994, art. 136 §2","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-05-27","rol":"41565;41589","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2002:ARR.20020527.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The calculation of the additional allowance for third-party assistance owed to a worker severely injured in a 1989 road accident was in dispute. Following the Court of Cassation's judgment of 4.2.2002, the Brussels Labour Court of Appeal ruled that the allowance is calculated at 14/39ths of the guaranteed average minimum monthly income referred to in article 24(4) of the Act of 10.4.1971 (the amount in article 3(1) of collective agreement no. 43) and is indexed at each payment solely according to the National Labour Council's collective agreements; the annual allowance was set at €5,009.9 from 1 June 2002. The workplace-accident insurer's appeal was upheld only to that limited extent.","k":"Workplace accident — calculation and indexation of the third-party assistance allowance","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24(4); collective agreement no. 43, art. 3; Cass. 4.2.2002","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Brussel","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-05-16","rol":"C.00.0070.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20020516.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Le jugement rendu entre une personne lésée et un assuré sur une contestation née d'un préjudice causé par un véhicule automoteur n'est pas opposable à l'assureur qui n'a pas été présent au procès ou appelé à l'instance,…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"In proceedings between the injured party and the insured, the insured had been held solely liable for the accident by a judgment that became final; on appeal, the Antwerp court of first instance declared that judgment binding on the motor liability insurer and ordered it to pay. The Court held that under article 14 §1 of the Act of 21 November 1989 such a judgment can be relied on against an insurer that was neither a party nor joined only if it is established that the insurer in fact conducted the defence. As no such finding was made, the judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — judgment binding on an insurer not party to it","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 14 §1; Judicial Code, art. 23; ECHR, art. 6.1","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-05-13","rol":"S.01.0145.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20020513.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La victime d'un accident du travail, dont l'incapacité temporaire de travail est de plus de sept jours, peut intenter une action en justice contre la décision déclarant la guérison sans incapacité permanente de travail,…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The workplace-accident insurer had declared the employee recovered without permanent incapacity in 1992; after surgery in 1995 the employee challenged that decision, and the Brussels labour court of appeal held that a registered letter from the trade union in August 1995 had interrupted the time limit. The Court held that the three-year period of article 72(2) of the Act of 10 April 1971 to challenge a recovery decision is not a limitation period but a mandatory, public-policy time bar that cannot be interrupted or suspended; articles 69 and 70, which concern claims for payment of benefits, do not apply. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Workplace accident — time limit to challenge a recovery decision","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 24, 69, 70, 72(2)","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-05-08","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2002:ARR.082","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : - Dans l'interprétation selon laquelle il ne permet pas l'octroi d'intérêts moratoires avant la décision judiciaire devenue exécutoire sur la contestation relative à l'existence du droit et au…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"On a question from the Brussels Labour Court, the Constitutional Court held that article 20bis of the Act of 3 July 1967 (public sector), if read as not allowing default interest before the enforceable court decision on the existence and amount of the annuities, breaches articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution: in the private sector (art. 42 of the Act of 10 April 1971) interest runs earlier, and the different logic of the two schemes does not justify the gap. Read so that the debt falls due when the right arises, with interest running from that date, it is constitutional. The dispute was between the victim and the public employer; no insurer was a party.","k":"Public-sector workplace accident — start of default interest on annuities","law":"Act of 3.7.1967, art. 20bis; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 42; Constitution arts. 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-05-06","rol":"C.97.0258.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20020506.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Les enfants mineurs d'une victime d'un accident mortel peuvent subir personnellement un préjudice matériel du chef de la perte des revenus de leur parent décédé que celui-ci consacrait à l'entretien et à l'éducation des…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"After a fatal workplace accident, the subrogated workplace-accident insurer claimed from the liable third parties and their insurer the capital of the annuities it had paid; the court of appeal refused recovery of the orphans' annuity capital because the loss of income had already been compensated to the widow. The Court held that minor children suffer their own pecuniary loss by losing the income the deceased parent spent on their maintenance and education, and that the widow's own common-law award does not compensate the same loss as the children's workplace-accident annuities. The judgment was quashed as to recovery of the widow's and orphans' annuity capital and for failing to rule on costs.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — orphans' annuities and widow's award","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 46 §2(1) and 47; former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1383; Judicial Code, art. 1138, 3°","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-04-24","rol":"P.01.1623.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20020424.17","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'assureur couvrant un agent du secteur public contre les accidents du travail, qui supporte la charge de la rémunération de son assuré victime d'un tel accident pendant la durée de l'incapacité temporaire qui en…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The workplace-accident insurer of a public-sector employee, acting as civil party, claimed from the person who caused the accident the income it had paid during temporary incapacity; the Charleroi criminal court on appeal awarded BEF 284,805 based on gross salary. The Court held that the insurer, not being the employer, suffers no personal loss from the loss of the employee's work, and that a subrogated party may recover the gross amount only if the court finds that the common-law award would have borne equivalent charges. That award was quashed on the appeal of the person who caused the accident.","k":"Public-sector workplace-accident insurer's recourse — gross salary","law":"Act of 3.7.1967, art. 14 §3; former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1383","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-04-23","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2002:ARR.074","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : - La première partie de la question préjudicielle n'appelle pas de réponse. - En ce qui concerne la deuxième partie de la question préjudicielle : Les articles 3 et 4 de la loi du 21 novembre…","court":"const","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A passenger in an uninsured car injured a moped rider by opening the door; the victim had not applied to the Guarantee Fund in time. The passenger sought cover from his own motor liability insurer under article 4, 1°, b of the model contract (occasional driver of an uninsured third-party vehicle). On a question from the Kortrijk Court of First Instance, the Constitutional Court declined jurisdiction over the part of the question concerning the annex to the royal decree and held that articles 3 and 4 of the Act of 21 November 1989 do not breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution by providing compensation to injured parties only where the vehicle is insured; the legislature took sufficient measures against uninsured vehicles and set up the Guarantee Fund. Outcome in the insurer's favour.","k":"Motor liability — passenger opening the door of an uninsured car, cover by own insurer","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 3–4; model contract RD 14.12.1992, art. 4, 1°, b; Act of 9.7.1975, art. 80; Constitution arts. 10–11","w":239,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-04-19","rol":"C.01.0014.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20020419.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Le juge d'appel doit vérifier, même d'office, sa compétence d'attribution déterminée en vertu des dispositions du code judiciaire, l'appel fût-il limité au fondement des demandes dont le premier juge avait été saisi et…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"The motor liability insurer, which also covered the vehicle's own damage, sought recourse for gross fault (drunkenness) against the heirs of its insured who died in the accident, while the heirs claimed for the vehicle damage. The Court upheld the forfeiture of recourse: notice sent to the heirs' lawyer, with no proof of authority to receive it, did not satisfy article 88 LCAT; it also confirmed the police court's exclusive jurisdiction (art. 601bis Judicial Code) and explained how contracts running on 1 January 1993 became annual. However, a blood sample may be taken from a deceased driver who showed signs of drunkenness, so the order against the insurer to pay BEF 330,000 for vehicle damage was quashed.","k":"Motor liability recourse — notice to a lawyer, post-mortem blood sample","law":"LCAT arts. 30, 88, 148; Judicial Code, arts. 568, 601bis, 643; Road Traffic Act (coord. 16.3.1968), art. 63","w":240,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-04-15","rol":"S.01.0017.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20020415.19","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Une partie peut invoquer un défaut de réponse aux conclusions d'une autre partie lorsque la solution de la contestation soulevée par ces conclusions intéresse le litige existant entre elle-même et les autres parties; le…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"During the revision period of a first workplace accident, the employee's condition worsened through two separate processes: on 17 December 1993, and on 9 September 1994 following a new workplace accident. The Court held that a new accident during the revision period does not release the first workplace-accident insurer from taking into account a change in working capacity caused by the first accident within that period. The labour court of appeal could refuse to charge the 20% incapacity due to the new accident to the first insurer, but its rejection of the revision claim based on the 17 December 1993 aggravation was quashed on the employee's appeal.","k":"Workplace accident — new accident during the revision period","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 72; Constitution, art. 149","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-04-12","rol":"98/3223","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARANT:2002:JUG.20020412.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Tongeren Labour Tribunal held the health-insurance fund's action against the workplace-accident insurer for repayment of incapacity benefits inadmissible as time-barred insofar as it relied on article 136 §2 of the coordinated health-insurance Act, but admissible insofar as it relied on article 63 of the Act of 10.4.1971. The insurer, which had not notified the fund in time upon the relapse, was ordered to pay EUR 1,889.79 (BEF 76,234) with default interest from 30.7.1998; the remainder of the claim and provisional enforcement were refused. The costs of the claim against the worker were charged to the fund.","k":"Workplace accident — health-insurance fund's recourse against the insurer, article 63 versus article 136 §2 of the health-insurance Act","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63; coordinated health-insurance Act, art. 136 §2; Cass. 14.6.1999; Cass. 18.1.1993","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-04-12","rol":"C.01.0343.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20020412.6","ch":"1F","res":"r","t":"intent","q":"Au sens de l'article 8 alinéa 1er, de la loi du 25 juin 1992, un sinistre a été causé intentionnellement lorsque l'assuré a volontairement et sciemment eu un comportement qui a causé à autrui un dommage raisonnablement…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Mons Court of Appeal, having regard to the violence of the act that made the victim fall and the large difference in age and strength between those involved, found that the incident resulted from a deliberate, voluntary and conscious act of the insured and rejected his claim for cover. The Court held that, under article 8(1) LCAT, a loss is caused intentionally when the insured deliberately and knowingly behaved in a way that caused another person reasonably foreseeable harm, without needing to have intended the harm exactly as it occurred. The Advocate General had argued the opposite; the insured's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Family liability insurance — meaning of an intentionally caused loss","law":"LCAT art. 8(1)","w":17,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-04-12","rol":"C.01.0157.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20020412.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"La loi du 25 juin 1992 ne déroge pas au principe qu'en vertu de l'article 2 du Code civil, la loi ne dispose que pour l'avenir et n'a pas d'effet rétroactif. || Une loi qui crée une nouvelle cause d'interruption de la…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured reported to her own-damage insurer on 21 April 1992 a loss that occurred the day before, and sued on 14 July 1995; the Dinant court of first instance held that the report had interrupted the limitation period under article 35 §3 LCAT. The Court pointed out that this provision entered into force only on 21 September 1992 and that statutes apply only to the future: a statute creating a new ground of interruption cannot give that effect to an act performed under the former law. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Interruption of limitation — temporal application of the LCAT","law":"LCAT arts. 35 §3 and 148; Civil Code, arts. 2 and 1134; Act of 11.6.1874, art. 32","w":3,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-04-05","rol":"C.00.0448.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20020405.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Pour que, dans l'hypothèse d'un cas fortuit, le Fonds commun de garantie automobile soit tenu à réparation des dommages matériels, il faut qu'aucune entreprise d'assurance ne soit obligée à ladite réparation en raison…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The owner of a lorry whose tyre burst claimed compensation for the lorry's damage from the Guarantee Fund, and the Mons court of appeal ordered the Fund to pay. The Court held that the Fund's duty to compensate the owner of the damaged vehicle requires not only a fortuitous event exonerating the driver but also that it is because of that event that no insurer covers the loss. Here, the loss was uncovered because motor liability insurance does not cover damage to the vehicle that caused the accident, not because of the fortuitous event; the judgment was quashed on the Fund's appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund — fortuitous event, damage to the vehicle that caused the accident","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 80 §1, 2°; RD of 16.12.1981, art. 17 §1, 2° and §2, art. 19","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-03-28","rol":"29.614/00","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2002:ARR.20020328.23","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'action en révision de l'incapacité permanente issue d'un accident survenu à un stagiaire dans un centre de formation professionnelle du FOREM est recevable contre ce dernier car le décret de la Communauté française du…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Liège Labour Court of Appeal held admissible the claim for revision of permanent incapacity brought by a trainee, injured at a vocational training centre, directly against the public training body. The French Community decree of 12.5.1987 makes that body liable to grant trainees benefits equivalent to those of the Act of 10.4.1971; it does not by itself give them a right of their own, and thus a direct action, against the body's insurer. The court added that such a direct action can only flow from the policy taken out by the body, where it contains a stipulation for the benefit of a third party or can be read as liability insurance governed by article 86 LCAT. The judgment was overturned, the claim declared admissible and a medical expert appointed on the alleged aggravation.","k":"Trainee's accident — claim against the body and direct action against its insurer","law":"French Community decree of 12.5.1987, art. 17; Act of 10.4.1971; LCAT art. 86 (by reference)","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-03-28","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2002:ARR.065","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : En tant qu'il dispose que le Fonds commun de garantie est subrogé aux droits de la personne lésée, l'article 80, § 2, de la loi du 9 juillet 1975 relative au contrôle des entreprises…","court":"const","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"On a question from the Dinant Police Court, the Constitutional Court held that article 80 §2 of the Act of 9 July 1975, which subrogates the Guarantee Fund to the injured party's rights without the limits that article 24 of the model contract places on insurers' recourse, does not breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution. Those limits belong to a contractual relationship between insurer and insured, which does not exist between the Fund and an uninsured person whose breach of the insurance duty made the Fund's intervention necessary. Where the Fund steps in because of the insurer's default, its recourse is in any event limited by articles 24 and 25 (art. 80 §2, para. 4). The Fund's recourse against the uninsured driver was thus upheld.","k":"Guarantee Fund — unlimited subrogation against the uninsured person liable","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 80 §2; model contract RD 14.12.1992, arts. 24–25; Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 2 and 22; Constitution arts. 10–11","w":241,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-03-28","rol":"2001/AR/0193","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:2002:ARR.20020328.27","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Verzekeringen--vorderingsrecht van de makelaar tegen de verzekerde voor de premies die de verzekering op zijn rekening debiteerde--verjaring van art.34 Wet op de Landverzekering.","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Ghent Court of Appeal held that a broker's claim to recover unpaid premiums, which the insurer had definitively debited to the broker's account, is subject to the same three-year limitation period of article 34 LCAT as the insurer's own premium claim. Most premiums were time-barred; for the two that were not, the policyholder, having never protested against the reminders, was deemed to have accepted the debt and was ordered to pay €3,941.03.","k":"Insurance broker — recovery of advanced premiums and limitation","law":"LCAT art. 34","w":6,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-03-27","rol":"P.01.1726.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20020327.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La cassation prononcée sans réserve, avec renvoi, d'une décision statuant sur l'indemnisation du dommage matériel permanent subi par la victime d'un accident, défère nécessairement au juge de renvoi les actions…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"After the Court had in 1997 quashed without reservation the decision on pecuniary loss from permanent incapacity, the Mons court of appeal limited its review to future pecuniary loss only. The Court held that such cassation referred the whole of the permanent pecuniary loss, past and future, to the court on remand, not least because the sums the workplace-accident insurer recovers from the defendant must be deducted from the victim's award, so the decisions are linked. On the defendant's appeal, the decision on the victim's claim was quashed, which also annulled the decision on the subrogated insurer's claim.","k":"Scope of cassation — victim and subrogated workplace-accident insurer","law":"Judicial Code, arts. 1110 and 1138, 3°; former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1383","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-03-25","rol":"42.039","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2002:ARR.20020325.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A health-insurance fund claimed from the workplace-accident insurer, under article 63 §1 and §2 of the Act of 10.4.1971, reimbursement of the incapacity benefits paid to its member; the Liège Labour Court of Appeal's judgment had been quashed on 28.11.1994 and the case referred to Brussels. The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal held that the insurer's letter of 20.5.1987 was neither a late accident declaration nor a notification of a change in the incapacity rate, but a reversal by which the insurer, going back on its initial refusal, retroactively accepted compensation up to 26.10.1986, a reversal favourable to the victim and the fund; article 63 §1, §2(1) and §2(4) did not apply. The insurer's appeal was upheld and the fund's claim dismissed.","k":"Workplace accident — health-insurance fund's claim under art. 63, insurer's change of position","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 62 and 63; Cass. 22.11.1999","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-03-21","rol":"99/387","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2002:ARR.20020321.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The optional workplace-accident insurance arranged by the Overseas Social Security Office on behalf of the employer is a contractual insurance governed by the mandatory LCAT: article 57 of the Act of 17.7.1963 merely authorises the Office, and no special law derogates. The policy clause providing for automatic termination when premiums are paid late is contrary to articles 14–17 LCAT (in particular art. 16) and therefore void; since no formal notice was sent, cover was neither suspended nor cancelled, so the Office must cover the fatal accident. The court also ordered the widow's and orphans' pensions to be recalculated under the more favourable method of article 22, 2° a of the Act of 17.7.1963. The Office's main appeal was dismissed and the survivors' cross-appeal upheld.","k":"Overseas social security — optional workplace-accident cover and unpaid premiums","law":"LCAT arts. 3 and 14–17; Act of 17.7.1963, arts. 22, 24, 26 and 57","w":242,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-03-18","rol":"40680","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2002:ARR.20020318.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Het wettelijk vermoeden van oorzakelijk verband tussen het ongeval en het letsel,zoals bepaald in art.9 Arbeidongevallenwet, vereist niet dat het letsel plotseling optreedt of dat het optreden van de plotse gebeurtenis…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A hotel chambermaid felt sudden wrist pain when lifting a double bed with a broken leg using her right hand; De Quervain's tendinitis was diagnosed and the workplace-accident insurer disputed causation. The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal found the sudden event and the injury established and recalled that the presumption of causation in article 9 of the Act of 10.4.1971 does not require the injury to appear suddenly or to coincide with the event; the insurer must rebut the presumption with the highest degree of probability. As the dispute was medical, a medical expert was appointed before ruling on the merits.","k":"Workplace accident — presumption of causation, non-simultaneous injury","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 9; Cass. 19.10.1987","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Brussel","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-03-13","rol":"2000/395","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2002:ARR.20020313.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a cosmetic, non-functional hand prosthesis must be paid for by the workplace-accident insurer. The victim is entitled to all medical care, including purely cosmetic care, that is causally linked to the accident and needed to restore physical integrity and health as fully as possible; the appliance need not reduce the incapacity for work, it suffices that it is useful. The health-insurance nomenclature also provides for cosmetic prostheses. The insurer's appeal was dismissed and the first-instance judgment confirmed.","k":"Workplace accident — cosmetic hand prosthesis","law":"Act of 10.4.1971 (medical care and prostheses); INAMI nomenclature","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-03-13","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2002:ARR.047","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : - L'article 46, § 1er, de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail ne viole pas les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution en tant qu'il empêche la victime d'un accident du travail ou…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"On questions from the Ypres Labour Court and the Nivelles Criminal Court, the Constitutional Court held that article 46 §1 of the Act of 10 April 1971 does not breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution in barring a workplace-accident victim or successors from suing the employer, its agent or employee who unintentionally caused the accident under articles 1382 ff. of the former Civil Code. The lump-sum scheme is not fault-based and preserves industrial peace; limiting the exception to intentional accidents is reasonable. Nor does prosecution of the person responsible open the common-law action, since every fault under article 1382 is also a criminal fault. No insurer was a party to the underlying cases.","k":"Workplace accident — employer's civil immunity (art. 46)","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 46 §1 and 48; former Civil Code, art. 1382; Constitution arts. 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-03-06","rol":"P.01.1337.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20020306.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La simple éventualité d'une prise en charge par un assureur de la responsabilité du gardien d'une chose affectée d'un vice ne suffit pas à décharger le Fonds commun de garantie automobile de réparer le dommage, dès lors…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"In a fatal accident, a tyre coming off the rim was held to be a fortuitous event exonerating the driver, so his motor liability insurer was not liable and the Guarantee Fund had to compensate. The Fund argued that the driver or owner could be liable as keeper of a defective thing. The Court held that the mere possibility that the keeper's insurer might pay does not release the Fund once the fortuitous event is established, and noted that the appeal judges found no sufficient proof of a defect. The Fund's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Guarantee Fund — fortuitous event and keeper of a defective thing","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 80 §1, 2°; Code of Criminal Investigation, art. 416","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-02-15","rol":"C.00.0671.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20020215.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Ne justifie pas légalement sa décision de condamner le Fonds commun de garantie automobile à réparer le dommage causé à un véhicule stationné dans l'allée d'un garage privé par un autre véhicule en voie d'être volé…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A car parked on the owner's private driveway was pushed into the wall opposite by another vehicle stolen from the garage; the stolen vehicle's insurance did not cover the thieves' liability. The Mons court of first instance had ordered the Fund to pay, holding the location of the impact irrelevant because cover continued even outside places open to the public. The Court held that the compulsory insurance covers only risks incurred on the places listed in article 2 §1 of the Act of 21 November 1989; the judgment was quashed on the Fund's appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund — damage caused on a private driveway by a stolen vehicle","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 2 §1 and 3; Act of 9.7.1975, art. 80 §1; RD of 16.12.1981, art. 19","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-02-07","rol":"15101","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:2002:ARR.20020207.26","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"A. artikel 7 band tussen het ongeval en de arbeid (\"door het feit van de uitvoering van de arbeidsovereenkomst\") risico inherent aan het uitgeoefend beroep: dakwerker-asfalteerder die dakwerken uitvoert op grote hoogte.…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The Ghent Labour Court of Appeal upheld the judgment treating the fatal fall of a roofer-asphalter working at height as a workplace accident and dismissed the workplace-accident insurer's appeal. The accident was linked to the performance of the employment contract because it arose from a risk inherent in the trade; since intentional fault is the only statutory ground for excluding benefits, the worker's gross fault and blood-alcohol level of 2.39 per mille do not prevent the Act from applying. Proceedings were reopened to calculate the amounts due to the heirs.","k":"Workplace accident — worker's gross fault and intoxication, no exclusion","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 48","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-01-31","rol":"2000/AR/0640","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:2002:ARR.20020131.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Faillissementen en voorrechten--het voorrecht van art.20,9°--gezag van gewijsde--verzekeringen--burgerrechtelijke verzekering na uitvoering van de werken afgesloten tussen A.B.B. en de aannemer-- houdt in de regel zowel…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A spinning mill's roof collapsed on 1–2.1.1979; the contractor went bankrupt and the injured company claimed payment from its 'post-works liability' insurer under the privilege in art. 20(9) of the Mortgage Act over the indemnity owed by the insurer. The court held that the insurer's limitation and gross-negligence defences, already rejected by a final 1996 appeal judgment, could not be raised again, and that the policy, in line with the parties' intention, also covered the contractor's contractual liability. The insurer was ordered to pay €784,676.81 in principal plus interest, and €3,000 each to the company and to the trustees for vexatious defence; the unproven business-loss claim was dismissed.","k":"Post-works liability insurance — injured party's privilege and res judicata","law":"Mortgage Act, art. 20(9); res judicata","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-01-30","rol":"P.01.1393.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20020130.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Le fait que l'employeur de la victime d'un accident est statutairement obligé de payer la rémunération de son agent est étranger à la question de l'existence ou non d'un lien causal entre la faute commise par l'auteur…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The State claimed from the Guarantee Fund the salary paid to an employee injured in a road accident and the cost of reorganising the department; the Huy court of first instance dismissed the claim because the payments stemmed from a statutory or contractual duty. The Court held that the employer's statutory duty to pay the salary is irrelevant to whether there is a causal link between the fault and the employer's own loss. Without ruling out that the loss would not have occurred as it did without the fault, and without identifying a provision requiring the employer to bear those payments for good, the court could not deny the State the status of injured party; the judgment was quashed on the State's appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund — public employer's own loss","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 80 §1; former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1383; Constitution, art. 149","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-01-23","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2002:ARR.023","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 29bis, § 2, de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs ne viole pas les articles 10 et 11 de la…","court":"const","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"On questions from the Liège Police Court, the Constitutional Court held that article 29bis §2 of the Act of 21 November 1989 does not breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution by excluding the rider of a class A or B moped and his or her successors from the automatic compensation scheme for vulnerable road users. Given the legislature's aim, drivers of motor vehicles cannot be treated as vulnerable users; whether the vehicle is motorised is an objective and relevant criterion, and including drivers would have raised premiums excessively. In the underlying case the victims were opposed to the motor liability insurer.","k":"Article 29bis — exclusion of the moped rider","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §§1–2; Constitution arts. 10–11","w":236,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-01-18","rol":"C.00.0260.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20020118.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"L'assureur qui prétend être déchargé de sa garantie à l'égard de son assuré parce que ce dernier aurait commis un fait intentionnel qui le prive du bénéfice de l'assurance a la charge de le prouver (1). ||","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured company's building was destroyed by fire; the insurer relied both on non-disclosure of the company's financial position and on the fire having been set deliberately by people close to the insured. The Court held that under article 5 LCAT the policyholder must spontaneously disclose only circumstances it should reasonably regard as relevant to the risk; if the insurer considers another circumstance important, it must ask and cannot remain passive. As the proposal form asked nothing about finances, there was no non-disclosure. The insurer also bears the burden of proving intentional conduct (art. 8 LCAT). The insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Fire insurance — spontaneous disclosure and proof of intent","law":"LCAT arts. 5 and 8; Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, art. 870","w":243,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-01-17","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2002:ARR.018","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La Cour, chambre restreinte, statuant à l'unanimité des voix, constate que la Cour n'est pas compétente.","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Namur Court of First Instance asked whether articles 24 and 25 of the model contract, by making the insurer's recourse depend on a causal link between the loss and the fault, breached articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution. The Constitutional Court (restricted chamber, unanimously) found that it had no jurisdiction: it cannot review contractual provisions or the annex to a royal decree (RD 14.12.1992) on a preliminary question, and the Act of 1 July 1956 is not the source of the alleged difference in treatment. In the underlying case the insurer was opposed to the insured company and the driver.","k":"Motor liability — model-contract recourse, Constitutional Court lacks jurisdiction","law":"Model contract RD 14.12.1992, arts. 24–25; Special Act of 6.1.1989, art. 26 §1","w":244,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-01-16","rol":"P.01.1190.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20020116.33","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Sauf disposition dérogatoire au profit de certaines personnes, la durée du contrat de l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs est d'un an. || Celui qui invoque l'existence d'une…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Liège criminal court had dismissed the injured party's claim against the motor liability insurer on the ground that the green card issued by the broker for the motorcycle expired on 10 April 1994, before the accident of 9 July 1994. The Court held that under the model contract compulsory motor insurance runs in principle for one year; whoever relies on a derogation must prove it, a unilateral document drawn up by that party is not proof, and the green card merely creates a presumption against the insurer that a contract exists for the period it states. The judgment was quashed, on the injured party's appeal, as regards the claim against the insurer; the appeal concerning the Fund was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — policy term and evidential value of the green card","law":"RD of 14.12.1992, art. 1, and model contract, art. 26; LCAT art. 30; RD of 13.2.1991, art. 5; Judicial Code, art. 870","w":245,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-01-15","rol":"P.00.0663.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20020115.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Le pourvoi formé par le prévenu contre la décision rendue sur sa demande en intervention, en déclaration d'arrêt commun et en garantie introduite contre l'assureur, est irrecevable s'il n'a pas été signifié à la partie…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The defendant had joined his insurer in the criminal proceedings, seeking to have the judgment declared binding on it and to obtain an indemnity. The Court held his appeal against the decision on that claim inadmissible because the file did not show that the appeal had been served on the insurer against which it was directed (art. 418 Code of Criminal Investigation). The remaining grounds on the civil claims also failed (non-final decision, no grounds raised) and the appeal was dismissed, without any ruling on the merits of the indemnity claim.","k":"Defendant's appeal against the insurer — failure to serve","law":"Code of Criminal Investigation, art. 418","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-01-10","rol":"96-AR-807","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2002:ARR.20020110.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"La déclaration du sinistre et le dépôt d'une plainte ne valent pas présomption de la vraisemblance du vol et n'entrainent pas un renversement du fardeau de la preuve mettant désormais celui-ci à charge de l'assureur. Le…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The car the insured reported stolen in 1991 was found three weeks later in a canal; the comprehensive insurer refused payment, alleging a staged theft. The court held that the claim notification and the police complaint do not create a presumption that the theft is plausible and do not shift the burden of proof to the insurer; plausibility is assessed concretely in light of all the factual circumstances. The immediate complaint and the forced ignition with cut wires supported the theft, whereas finding the vehicle in the canal was not enough to presume insurance fraud. The insurer's alternative calculation (insured value less depreciation and salvage value, plus a BEF 10,000 towing allowance) was held to comply with the contract; the insurer was ordered to pay EUR 9,000.52 with interest from 10 May 1991 and the costs of both instances.","k":"Vehicle theft insurance — plausibility of the theft and burden of proof","law":"Proof of theft (general rules of evidence); general conditions, art. 18","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-01-09","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2002:ARR.010","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 13, § 5, de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail, modifié par la loi du 29 avril 1996, viole les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution en tant qu'il ne permet pas le…","court":"const","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"On a question from the Liège Labour Court, the Constitutional Court held that article 13 §5 of the Act of 10 April 1971, as amended by the Act of 29 April 1996, breaches articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution in so far as it denies the annuity to children whose parentage is established in proceedings brought after the death caused by the workplace accident. Protecting other beneficiaries against late claims is legitimate, but excluding every child born before the death whose parentage action was not started before it is disproportionate, especially as claims are time-barred after three years (art. 69). In the underlying case the child was opposed to the workplace-accident insurer.","k":"Workplace accident — annuity of a child whose parentage is established after death","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 13 §5 and 69; Constitution arts. 10–11; ECtHR, Camp and Bourimi v. the Netherlands, 3.10.2000","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-01-07","rol":"S.01.0087.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20020107.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"En ce qui concerne les accidents survenus avant le 1er janvier 1988, le juge ne peut condamner l'assureur-loi à payer au Fonds des accidents du travail l'indemnité supplémentaire représentant le coût probable du…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Antwerp labour court of appeal had ordered the workplace-accident insurer to pay to the Occupational Accidents Fund, within one month, the supplementary allowance covering the probable cost of renewing and repairing prostheses and orthopaedic devices. The Court held that, for accidents before 1 January 1988, the court cannot order the insurer to pay this allowance until its amount has been fixed by agreement or by a court decision. That order, made without fixing the amount, was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Workplace accident — supplementary allowance for renewing prostheses (pre-1988 accident)","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 24 and 28bis(2)–(4); RD of 21.12.1971, art. 35bis","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2002-01-03","rol":"C.99.0035.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2002:ARR.20020103.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Lorsque le preneur d'assurance est déclaré responsable du dommage causé par son préposé agissant dans le cadre des fonctions pour lesquelles il l'occupe, le motif suivant lequel l'article 1384, alinéa 3, du Code civil…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The policyholder's employee caused an accident while driving the policyholder's vehicle without a licence; the Ghent court of appeal upheld the insurer's recourse claim (BEF 362,836), holding that the policyholder, found civilly liable as employer by the criminal court, could no longer prove that the facts occurred without his knowledge or against his instructions. The Court held that an employer's liability under article 1384(3) of the Civil Code does not mean that the employee did not act without the employer's knowledge or against his instructions. Denying him that defence, provided by article 24 of the 1956 model policy, was not legally justified; the judgment was quashed on the policyholder's appeal.","k":"Motor liability recourse — unlicensed employee acting without the policyholder's knowledge","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 11; 1956 model policy, art. 24; Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16; Civil Code, arts. 1134 and 1384(3)","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-12-20","rol":"1995/AR/2086","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:2001:ARR.20011220.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Verzekeringen Brandschade--samenloop contractuele en quasi delictuele aansprakelijkheid--risico-verzwaring en dekking.","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"During cutting work, sparks from a demolition contractor's torch set fire to the roof insulation of an industrial building; the owner's fire co-insurers, subrogated, sued the contractor and his liability insurer. The court ordered the contractor to pay BEF 1,853,779 to each co-insurer and rejected the liability insurer's defences based on cover being limited to non-contractual liability, intentional or gross fault, and the exclusion for entrusted property. However, as the policy was written for a business without paid staff, the undisclosed employment of workers was a serious aggravation of risk; under the general conditions, cover for the insured acting in good faith was halved and capped at BEF 2,450,000.","k":"Contractor's liability insurance — undeclared staff and proportional reduction","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383; Criminal Code, art. 519; general policy conditions (aggravation of risk, proportional reduction)","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-12-19","rol":"13614","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2001:ARR.20011219.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La prescription est interrompue par la reconnaissance que le débiteur ou le possesseur fait du droit de celui contre lequel il prescrivait (art.2248 du Code civil) et dès lors par toute forme de reconnaissance du droit…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The worker, whose employer had no workplace-accident insurance, sued the Workplace Accidents Fund (FAT). The court held that any acknowledgment of the victim's right interrupts the limitation period, whatever its form, and that referring the victim for a medico-legal examination without reservation is such an acknowledgment. Because the Fund's unreserved letters of 17.10.1983 and 23.7.1985 interrupted the period, the claim brought on 4.12.1987 was not time-barred; the judgment was reversed and the merits were adjourned.","k":"Workplace accident — limitation interrupted by the Fund's acknowledgment","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 69–70; former Civil Code, art. 2248; Cass. 10.11.1966","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-12-17","rol":"S.00.0048.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2001:ARR.20011217.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La victime d'un accident du travail, dont l'incapacité temporaire de travail est de plus de sept jours, peut intenter une action en justice contre la décisiondéclarant la guérison sans incapacité permanente de travail,…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The workplace-accident insurer's letter declaring the employee recovered without permanent incapacity was dated 25 December 1992; the employee sued on 26 December 1995. The Brussels labour court of appeal held the claim admissible because the letter could only have been posted on 26 or 27 December 1992. The Court held that under article 2(2) of the Royal Decree of 16 December 1987 the date shown on the insurer's letter starts the three-year period of article 72(2) of the Act of 10 April 1971; the judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Workplace accident — start of the period to challenge a recovery decision","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 24(1) and 72(2); RD of 16.12.1987, art. 2(2)","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-12-12","rol":"P.01.1236.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2001:ARR.20011212.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le juge répressif ne peut allouer des dommages et intérêts à la partie civile que dans la mesure où l'action exercée par celle-ci a pour objet la réparation du dommage causé par une infraction (1). || L'obligation…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Sitting as the court on remand, the Charleroi criminal court had ordered the defendant's motor liability insurer, joined in the proceedings, to compensate the civil parties under article 29bis. The Court held that the article 29bis compensation duty exists without proof of the insured's liability and is not based on an offence; the criminal court therefore lacks jurisdiction over such a claim and may rule on the defendant's insurer only under ordinary liability law. As public-policy rules of jurisdiction were breached, the judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Article 29bis — criminal court lacks jurisdiction over the insurer","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act of 17.4.1878), arts. 3–4; Code of Criminal Investigation, art. 138; Judicial Code, art. 601bis","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-12-05","rol":"1997AR70;1998AR192","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2001:ARR.20011205.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"De algemene verzekeringsagent ('authorized agents') die op de polis wordt vermeld samen met de nominatim vermelde verzekeraars met aanduiding van resp. aandeel wordt niet geacht in eigen naam te zijn opgetreden. Hij is…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The Antwerp Court of Appeal held that the general agent (\"authorized agents\") named on the policy alongside the insurers and their shares did not act in its own name: it is an agent who assumes no personal obligation under the policy. Article 12 of the Supervision Act of 9 July 1975 does not give the general agent of a foreign insurer authority to represent its principals in court; a summons served on the agent neither interrupts nor suspends the limitation period against the insurers. The policyholder's claim against the agent was dismissed on the merits and the claim against the insurers was held inadmissible as time-barred (art. 32 of the Act of 11 June 1874).","k":"Summons served on the general agent — limitation against the insurers","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 32; Supervision Act of 9.7.1975, art. 12 §3","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-12-05","rol":"P.01.0588.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2001:ARR.20011205.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Celui qui a commis une faute en relation causale avec le dommage d'une victime, qui n'a pas elle-même commis de faute et qui subit un dommage propre direct, est tenu envers cette victime à la réparation intégrale dudit…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"After a night-time accident caused by an unlit tractor and trailer, the tractor driver's liability insurer argued that one of the injured parties was also at fault. The Court held that a wrongdoer (and its insurer) owes full compensation to a victim who committed no fault and suffered personal loss, so the ground disputing a third person's fault was inadmissible for lack of interest. The argument that the other driver bore three quarters of the blame also failed, since the judgment had explained why the obstacle was unforeseeable. The insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Liability insurer — full compensation of a faultless victim","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383; Cass. 12.4.1995; Cass. 2.11.1999","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-11-30","rol":"C.00.0104.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2001:ARR.20011130.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Pour que, dans l'hypothèse d'un cas fortuit, le Fonds commun de garantie automobile soit tenu à réparation des dommages matériels, il faut qu'aucune entreprise d'assurance ne soit obligée à ladite réparation en raison…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Dinant police court had ordered the Guarantee Fund to pay for the damage to the car of a driver who had hit a group of young wild boar. The Court held that, in a fortuitous event, the Fund pays only where it is because of that event that no insurer is liable; that is not the case where the loss is uncovered because motor liability insurance does not cover the driver's own damage. The judgment was quashed on the Fund's appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund — fortuitous event, driver's own property damage","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 80 §1, 2°; RD 16.12.1981, art. 17 §1, 2° and §2, art. 19; Cass. 17.9.1999","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-11-23","rol":"C.00.0193.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2001:ARR.20011123.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Lorsque deux contrats d'assurance successifs ont été souscrits, couvrant le même risque au profit de la même personne, le contrat subséquent ne sort ses effets que si le précédent contrat ne suffit pas à couvrir le…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"Two insurers covering the same risk for the same person had been ordered in solidum to pay the injured party, who brought a direct action; the Mons Court of Appeal ordered the earlier insurer to indemnify the later one in full. The Court held that under article 12 of the Act of 11 June 1874 a later contract takes effect only if the earlier one does not suffice to cover the risk, and that the in solidum order towards the victim does not prevent one insurer from relying on that special rule against the other. The earlier insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Successive similar insurances — release of the later insurer","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 12 and 14; Cass. 8.12.1989","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-11-23","rol":"C.01.0066.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2001:ARR.20011123.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"En cas de cumul prohibé d'assurances semblables successives, l'antériorité d'une assurance se détermine par la date à laquelle elle a été contractée (1).","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"After a fire during roofing work, the subcontractor sought cover under its own operating liability policy (capped at BEF 2,000,000) and under the contractors' all-risks policy taken out by the main contractor. The Brussels Court of Appeal neutralised the conflicting subsidiarity clauses and applied article 12 of the Act of 11 June 1874, but dismissed the insured's claim against the all-risks insurers for interest and costs above BEF 2,000,000. The Court held that where the first contract does not cover the full value, later insurers answer for the excess in order of the contract dates; the judgment was partly quashed on the insured's appeal.","k":"Concurrent insurances — order of dates and cover of the excess","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 12; former Civil Code, art. 1121, 1134","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-11-20","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2001:ARR.147","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 4, § 1er, 1°, de la loi du 1er juillet 1956 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs viole les articles 10 et 11 de la…","court":"const","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"On a question from the Antwerp Court of Appeal, the Constitutional Court held that article 4 §1, 1° of the Act of 1 July 1956 (before its repeal by the Act of 21 November 1989) breaches articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution in so far as it always excludes the non-liable policyholder from the benefit of compulsory insurance. The exclusion rested on a fear of collusion, but its general and irrebuttable character made it disproportionate: it also hit a policyholder who was not driving and was injured through the driver's fault. In the underlying case the insurers were opposed to health-insurance funds subrogated to the victim.","k":"Motor liability — exclusion of the non-liable policyholder","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 4 §1, 1°; Constitution arts. 10–11","w":246,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-11-16","rol":"C.00.0454.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2001:ARR.20011116.4","ch":"1F","res":"c","t":"duties","q":"Il n'est pas dérogé à l'obligation, pour le preneur d'assurance, de déclarer, jusqu'à la conclusion du contrat, toutes les circonstances connues de lui et qu'il doit raisonnablement considérer comme constituant pour…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The contract, concluded on 23 January 1995, took effect from 1 December 1994; the Mons Court of Appeal had ordered the insurer to cover the insured's disability because it was not proved that she already had the illness concerned on 1 December 1994. The Court held that article 5(1) LCAT requires the policyholder to disclose, up to the conclusion of the contract, all known circumstances relevant to the assessment of the risk. Neither a commencement date earlier than the conclusion nor a clause excluding disability due to a pre-existing condition at commencement displaces that duty; the judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal and referred to the Liège Court of Appeal.","k":"Disability cover — duty of disclosure under a backdated policy","law":"LCAT arts. 5(1) and 6","w":247,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-11-05","rol":"S.00.0035.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2001:ARR.20011105.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La demande en réparation des suites d'un accident du travail, fondée sur une police d'assurance de droit commun conclue par l'Office national de l'emploi en vue de garantir aux stagiaires en formation professionnelle…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that a compensation claim based on a private (ordinary-law) insurance policy taken out by the National Employment Office to give vocational trainees the benefits of the Workplace Accidents Act is neither a dispute about the training contract nor a claim for workplace-accident compensation. The labour court therefore lacks jurisdiction. The full text is not published; the merits and the appellant cannot be identified from the summary.","k":"Vocational trainee — private accident policy and jurisdiction","law":"Judicial Code arts. 578, 5° and 579, 1°; French Community decree of 12.5.1987, art. 17","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"summary"},{"d":"2001-11-02","rol":"C.00.0046.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2001:ARR.20011102.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"N'est, en principe, pas nouveau le moyen, même étranger à une disposition d'ordre public ou impérative, qui critique un motif que le juge donne pour justifier sa décision (1) || L'autorité de la chose jugée au pénal ne…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The liability insurer, having compensated the victims, sought recourse against its insured (through the heirs) for driving on bald tyres; the Liège Court of Appeal dismissed the claim, holding that it had been decided erga omnes that this fault had no causal link with the loss. The Court held that criminal res judicata does not prevent a person who was not a party, or could not freely defend its interests, from contesting in later civil proceedings what was decided in the criminal case; since the criminal court had imposed separate penalties, the insurer could prove a causal link between the tyres and the loss. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Insurer's recourse — res judicata effect of the criminal judgment","law":"Preliminary title of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act of 17.4.1878), art. 4; ECHR, art. 6 §1; Cass. 2.10.1997","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-10-31","rol":"1998AR3400","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:2001:ARR.20011031.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"1) Ook in geval van vrijspraak door de strafrechter van verzekerde voor valse aangifte en poging oplichting dient verzekerde het bewijs te leveren dat het risico heeft plaatsgehad en de verzekeraar gehouden is te…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The Antwerp Court of Appeal held that the acquittal of the insured company's manager on charges of false theft report and attempted fraud does not of itself prove that the vehicle was stolen. The insured must prove that the loss occurred by any means, including presumptions; theft is deemed proven where the statements appear sincere and no surrounding circumstances cast doubt on them. Because inconsistencies in the circumstances of the report left such doubt, dismissal of the BEF 786,343 claim was upheld.","k":"Vehicle theft — acquittal and the insured's burden of proof","law":"Res judicata effect of the criminal judgment; motor policy with theft cover","w":84,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-10-29","rol":"33014","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2001:ARR.20011029.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Dans l'évaluation des séquelles, il y a lieu de tenir compte des effets d'une procédure judiciaire longue et stressante, ainsi que d'un traitement médical prolongé auquel la victime a dû se soumettre sur prescription du…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"In assessing the after-effects suffered by a metro driver injured in 1993, the Brussels Labour Court of Appeal held that the effects of long and stressful litigation and of prolonged medical treatment prescribed by the treating doctor must be taken into account, the overuse of medication that worsened the disabling after-effects being an indirect consequence of the accident. Given the physical, vestibular and neurological after-effects found by the court expert, incapacity was set at 100%, consolidation at 1 January 2000, and the hearing was reopened to calculate the basic wage. The victim's appeal was upheld.","k":"Workplace accident — effect of lengthy proceedings and medication overuse on after-effects","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-10-29","rol":"91-AR-1012","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2001:ARR.20011029.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"En principe, en vertu des articles 1315 alinéa 1er du Code civil et 870 du code judiciaire, l'assuré ou son ayant-droit qui fait valoir à l'égard de son assureur un droit à un payement doit fournir la preuve non…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an insured or beneficiary claiming payment from the insurer must prove the loss, the event that caused it, and that the event is covered and not excluded. A clause defining the risk as death 'resulting from the sudden and fortuitous action of a cause external to the victim' is clear and needs no interpretation; proof may be given by any lawful means. Absolute certainty is not required, but a sufficient degree of likelihood is. The summary does not state the outcome.","k":"Accidental death insurance — burden and standard of proof","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1315(1); Judicial Code, art. 870","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"2001-10-24","rol":"P.01.1144.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2001:ARR.20011024.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Une transaction intervenue entre la victime d'un accident du travail et le tiers responsable de cet accident sans l'accord de l'assureur-loi de cette victime n'est pas opposable à celui-ci; la renonciation de la victime…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A workplace-accident victim had settled her non-pecuniary claim with the liable third party without the workplace-accident insurer's consent; the Brussels criminal court held that the insurer no longer had an interest in suing because the victim had been fully compensated. The Court held that a settlement made without the insurer's consent cannot be set up against it and does not deprive it, as subrogee since before the settlement, of the right or interest to claim reimbursement of its outlays from the liable third party, up to what is due under ordinary tort law. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer — victim's settlement and subrogation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46 §1, 4° and §2, art. 47; former Civil Code, art. 1249–1252","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-10-24","rol":"P.01.0704.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2001:ARR.20011024.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La question, posée devant la juridiction répressive, de savoir si un accident de roulage est un accident du travail stricto sensu ou un accident survenu sur le chemin du travail, est une question préjudicielle, au sens…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"The motor liability insurer of a driver carrying workers to a building site argued that the crash was a workplace accident in the strict sense, so that the driver enjoyed the employment-law liability exemption; the Mons Court of Appeal itself classified it as a commuting accident. The Court held that this classification is a preliminary question for the labour courts and, on the liability insurer's appeal, quashed the rulings on the claims of the victim and the workplace-accident insurer and the later judgments that followed from them. The workplace-accident insurer's appeal was also partly allowed: as subrogee it may recover its statutory payments up to the tort-law measure, and the court had failed to rule on some heads of claim.","k":"Workplace or commuting accident — preliminary question; limits of recourse","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46, 47 and 74 para. 2; Judicial Code, art. 1138, 3°; Employment Contracts Act of 3.7.1978, art. 18","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-10-19","rol":"C.01.0026.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2001:ARR.20011019.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Les exceptions ayant pour objet la portée du contrat et la couverture du risque, telle la stipulation d'une franchise, ne sont pas comprises parmi les exceptions inopposables à la personne lésée en vertu de l'article…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer of an architect's compulsory professional liability sought to set up the contractual deductible against the injured building owners; the Brussels Court of Appeal held this contrary to article 87 LCAT. The Court held that defences concerning the scope of the contract and the cover of the risk, such as a deductible, are not among the defences that cannot be raised against the injured party under article 87 §1. The orders against the insurer and the architect for principal and interest were quashed.","k":"Compulsory liability insurance — deductible enforceable against the injured party","law":"LCAT, art. 86 and 87 §1","w":4,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-10-10","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2001:ARR.120","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 32bis du Code des impôts sur les revenus 1964, actuellement l'article 34, § 1er, 1°, du Code des impôts sur les revenus 1992, avant sa modification par la loi du 19 juillet 2000, viole…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"On a question from the Liège Court of Appeal, the Constitutional Court held that article 32bis of the 1964 Income Tax Code (now art. 34 §1, 1° of the 1992 Code, before the Act of 19 July 2000) breaches articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution in so far as it taxes benefits paid by an insurer for physiological and/or economic disability where the victim suffered no loss of income and the premiums were not deducted as professional expenses. The Court drew a comparison with the tax exemption for individual personal-accident insurance benefits (art. 38, 8° of the 1992 Code). The dispute was between taxpayers and the State; the insurer was not a party.","k":"Taxation of insurance benefits — disability without loss of income","law":"1964 Income Tax Code, art. 32bis; 1992 Code, art. 34 §1, 1° and art. 38, 8°; Constitution arts. 10–11","w":248,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-10-08","rol":"S.00.0074.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2001:ARR.20011008.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La rente en matière d'accident du travail reste due aux ascendants de la victime décédée des suites d'un accident du travail jusqu'au moment où la victime aurait atteint l'âge de 25 ans, à moins qu'elle ne fût leur…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal, leaving family allowances out of the parents' income, had found that the deceased worker was their main source of income and ordered the workplace-accident insurer to pay them a life annuity beyond the date the victim would have turned 25, rejecting the Occupational Accidents Fund's claim for the annuities converted into capital. The Court held that article 20bis draws no distinction by nature or purpose of income and that family allowances count as the parents' income; the judgment was quashed on the Fund's appeal. Article 68 (costs borne by the workplace-accident insurer) does not apply to the Fund's appeal against that insurer.","k":"Fatal workplace accident — parents' annuity and family allowances","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 15, 20, 20bis, 59quinquies para. 1 and 68; Cass. 18.1.1993; Cass. 8.11.1999","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-09-25","rol":"6553/00","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2001:ARR.20010925.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Overlooking the protected status of a worker who sat on the prevention and protection committee when dismissing him was a fault on the part of the directors of a non-profit association, but the Liège Labour Court of Appeal held that it was not a serious or gross fault. The court recalled that an insurer may exclude gross fault only if the contract expressly and exhaustively lists the cases concerned (art. 8 LCAT), which this policy did not, and that slight fault is in any event covered. The insurer's appeal succeeded only to a very limited extent: it could not be ordered to pay the worker directly, the employer remaining the sole debtor, but it must indemnify the association for the full amount of the award, within the contractual ceiling of 25 million francs.","k":"Directors' liability insurance — gross fault and cover","law":"LCAT art. 8; Act of 19.3.1991, arts. 3 and 16; Act of 4.8.1996, arts. 56 and 61","w":17,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-09-19","rol":"P.01.0617.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2001:ARR.20010919.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"La transaction est un contrat synallagmatique par lequel les parties se font mutuellement des concessions en vue de terminer ou de prévenir une contestation (1). || Les dispositions légales relatives à la quittance pour…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The injured party had signed an agreement involving mutual concessions with the defendant's liability insurer and received BEF 100,000; the Namur criminal court treated it as a mere provisional receipt because it did not list the heads of loss in detail, and awarded further compensation. The Court held that a settlement is a bilateral contract in which the parties make mutual concessions to end a dispute, and that the rules of article 84 LCAT on receipts in full do not apply to it. The ruling on the civil claim was quashed on the defendant's appeal.","k":"Settlement with the liability insurer — receipt-in-full rule inapplicable","law":"LCAT, art. 84; former Civil Code, art. 2044–2058; Cass. 18.5.1995","w":159,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-09-18","rol":"1999/AR/10","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2001:ARR.20010918.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Aucune disposition légale ne donne aux compagnies d'assurances le droit de modifier les primes des contrats en cours pour parer aux inconvénients éventuels d'une politique commerciale antérieure, comme celle qui aurait…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"At the end of 1993 the insurer decided to apply, from the 1994 annual renewal, a premium increase of about 45 % to hospitalisation policyholders living in the 19 Brussels municipalities; two insureds challenged it. The court held that no legal provision gives an insurer the right to change the premiums of existing contracts to correct the drawbacks of an earlier commercial policy of uniform nationwide rates, nor to pass on to existing contracts new segmentation criteria drawn from risk analyses: risk factors not taken into account at underwriting cannot justify the increase. The increase was declared null and void as regards the two insureds, without any need to examine whether the residence criterion was discriminatory. The third claimant's action was held inadmissible and the extension of the ruling to all Brussels policyholders was set aside.","k":"Hospitalisation insurance — premium increase on existing contracts by place of residence","law":"Binding force of existing contracts; no specific statutory provision cited","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-09-18","rol":"99/AR/1035","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2001:DEC.20010918.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Aucune disposition légale ne donne aux compagnies d'assurances le droit de modifier les primes des contrats en cours pour parer aux inconvénients éventuels d'une politique commerciale antérieure, comme celle qui aurait…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that no statutory provision allows the insurer to change premiums on running contracts to offset the drawbacks of an earlier commercial policy (uniform nationwide rates), or to pass on new risk analyses justifying a segmentation of policyholders. A finding that geographic segmentation by domicile is justified in hospitalisation insurance cannot support raising the premium of Brussels policyholders for risk factors not taken into account when they took out their policies.","k":"Hospitalisation insurance — premium increase on running contracts","law":"No statutory provision cited in the summary (non-marine insurance)","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"2001-09-17","rol":"38.362","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2001:ARR.20010917.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A part-time worker who left at 12.30, bought and ate sandwiches and then drove home was injured near her house; the workplace-accident insurer disputed that this was a commuting accident. The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal held that the 45–55 minute stop, on a journey of 25–35 minutes, was justified by a legitimate reason, eating lunch being a vital need, and that a legitimately interrupted journey is as normal as an uninterrupted one; the accident occurred on the way from work and the insurer's appeal was dismissed. According to the Juportal note, the judgment was quashed by the Court of Cassation on 24.2.2003.","k":"Commuting accident — 45–55 minute lunch stop","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 8","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-09-14","rol":"16299","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:2001:ARR.20010914.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"- arbeidsweg : eindpunt. - het overschrijden van de dorpel op de weg naar de verblijfplaats; - garagepoort met ingebouwde voetgangersdeur; herhaalde over-schrijding van de dorpel; - arbeidsweg van het werk naar de…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The public employer (a water utility) sought a ruling against its insurer that its employee's accident of 4.2.1997 was a commuting accident: arriving home, the employee had entered through the pedestrian door built into the garage gate to unlock the gate by hand and had crossed the threshold several times. The Labour Court held that the journey home ends as it begins, namely when the worker first physically enters the private parts of the residence; later crossings of the threshold do not revive the journey. The accident was therefore not a commuting accident within article 2 of the Act of 3.7.1967; the insurer's appeal was upheld, the first-instance judgment reversed and the employer's claim dismissed.","k":"Commuting accident — end point of the journey home (threshold)","law":"Act of 3.7.1967, art. 2; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 8","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-09-13","rol":"C.99.0103.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2001:ARR.20010913.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'article 18, b, de l'arrêté royal du 16 décembre 1981 portant mise en vigueur et exécution des articles 79 et 80 de la loi du 9 juillet 1975 relative au contrôle des entreprises d'assurances ne tend pas à obliger la…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that article 18, b of the Royal Decree of 16 December 1981 does not require a party injured by an uninsured vehicle to exhaust all remedies against the presumed liable person before suing the Guarantee Fund. The provision does not affect the injured party's statutory right to bring a direct action against the Fund. The full text is not published; the summary shows that the prior-exhaustion condition was rejected.","k":"Guarantee Fund — no prior exhaustion of remedies","law":"Royal Decree of 16.12.1981, art. 18, b","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"summary"},{"d":"2001-09-12","rol":"29.093/00","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2001:ARR.20010912.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Lorsque le corps sans vie du travailleur est retrouvé sur un escalier métallique du chantier avec la tête en hyperflexion, il incombe aux ayants droit de prouver la lésion invoquée, en l'occurrence une fracture…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Where a worker is found dead on a metal staircase at a building site, the heirs must prove the sudden event (an accidental fall) and the injury (a cervical fracture); once these are established, the statutory presumption of causation between the injury and the accident applies. The Liège Labour Court of Appeal held that the workplace-accident insurer had not shown that death was exclusively due to heart failure preceding the fall, since the quantity of blood on the steps showed that the victim survived the fall by several minutes. The judgment finding that death resulted from the workplace accident was upheld, the insurer's appeal dismissed and the further medical expert examination it requested held unnecessary; proceedings were reopened on the amount of compensation.","k":"Workplace accident — fatal fall, proof of sudden event and causation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 9","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-09-06","rol":"28698","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:2001:ARR.20010906.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"A. artikel 7 1) is een ongeval overkomen \"tijdens de uitvoering van de ar-beidsovereenkomst\" : het ongeval dat zich voordoet tijdens de rustpauze; 2) ongeval overkomen, \"door het feit van de uitvoering na de…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A cook died during his break while test-riding a colleague's brand-new motocross bike on the lawn adjoining the restaurant complex; the workplace-accident insurer had refused compensation. The Labour Court held that an accident during a rest break occurs 'during the performance of the contract' and that the working environment made the accident possible: through it the victim had met the bike's owner and found the opportunity to ride on the company site. Very serious carelessness or wholly reckless conduct (riding without a helmet) cannot be equated with intentional fault, the only statutory ground for exclusion. The insurer's appeal was dismissed; the capitalised annuities the insurer must pay into the Workplace Accidents Fund were fixed at BEF 4,095,206 and BEF 4,771,800.","k":"Workplace accident — fatal motorbike ride during a break, no intent","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 48; RD of 12.4.1984","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-06-29","rol":"C.98.0378.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2001:ARR.20010629.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Les articles 5, 6 et 7 de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre concernant l'obligation de déclaration et les omissions ou inexactitudes intentionnelles ou non intentionnelles sont applicables aux…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"For a fire policy concluded in 1990 for three years and tacitly renewed in 1993, the insurer relied on the old Act of 11 June 1874 and the 1988 Royal Decree (non-disclosure of earlier claims, aggravation of risk); the Antwerp Court of Appeal applied the 1992 Act from the renewal. The Court held that although the old law in principle continues to govern contracts, article 148 §1 LCAT makes articles 5 to 7 on the duty of disclosure apply to earlier contracts from the date of their amendment, renewal, extension or conversion. The complaints about the reasoning on aggravation of risk were also rejected; the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Fire insurance — temporal application of disclosure rules","law":"LCAT, art. 5–7 and 148 §1; Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9; former Civil Code, art. 2","w":249,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-06-29","rol":"C.00.0399.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2001:ARR.20010629.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"L'article 30, §1er, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre concernant la durée maximum d'un an et la tacite reconduction du contrat d'assurance est entré en vigueur le 1er janvier 1993; tout…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Under a three-year motor liability policy taken out on 10.10.1991, the insurer sought recourse against its insured for drunkenness after an accident on 8.1.1993; the insured relied on articles 8 and 88 LCAT (prior notice of intent to exercise recourse). The Court held that the immediate application of article 30 §1 (maximum one-year term) from 1.1.1993 ends a running contract on its first anniversary after 31.12.1992; since renewal only took place on 10.10.1993, the old law governed the accident and the recourse was not subject to article 88. The finding that the criminal acquittal could not be set up against the insurer, which had not been a party to the criminal case, also stood; the insured's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor insurer's recourse — transition of the 1992 Act to running contracts","law":"LCAT, art. 8, 30 §1, 88, 148 §1 and §4; RD 24.8.1992; Preliminary title of the Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 4","w":250,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-06-28","rol":"27600","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:2001:ARR.20010628.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"- 1) artikel 8, ,§ 1, eerste lid. - a) weinig belangrijke geografische omweg (van 1,9 km. op een totaal af te leggen traject van 6 km.). b) gerechtvaardigd door wettige oorzaak : mantelzorg van een hoogbejaarde, zieke,…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"After work the employee made a 1.9 km detour on a 6 km journey and interrupted it for 30 to 35 minutes to care for her very elderly, ill father who lived alone; the workplace-accident insurer argued this was no longer the commute. The Labour Court found the detour minor and justified by a legitimate cause. Whether an interruption is significant is assessed not only by its arithmetic length but under a proportionality principle and in the light of the circumstances that directly affected its duration; a 30–35 minute interruption on a 15-minute journey remains reasonable where it stays within the strict limits required by its purpose. The insurer's appeal was dismissed and the judgment recognising the workplace accident and appointing an expert upheld.","k":"Commuting accident — detour and interruption to care for a parent","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 8 §1","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-06-27","rol":"P.01.0224.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2001:ARR.20010627.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"Il ressort de la combinaison des articles 2, 3 et 83 de la loi du 9 juillet 1975 relative au contrôle des entreprises d'assurances, ainsi que du rapport au Roi précédant l'arrêté royal du 12 août 1994 modifiant cette…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The director of a non-profit association that undertook to provide services and bear its members' costs in legal disputes had been convicted by the Mons Court of Appeal of carrying on insurance business without authorisation. The Court held that, read together, articles 2, 3 and 83 of the Act of 9 July 1975 on the supervision of insurance undertakings make the criminal penalties apply to the managers of any undertaking not authorised to carry on insurance business, and that article 9 does not take unauthorised Belgian undertakings outside the Act. The director's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Legal expenses — penalty for unauthorised insurance business","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 2, 3, 9, 83 and 91; RD 12.8.1994","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-06-21","rol":"35800","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:2001:ARR.20010621.16","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"- robbertje vechten tussen werknemers op de binnenkoer van het bedrijf gedurende de diensturen. - \"tijdens de uitvoering van de arbeidsovereenkomst\" : plaats waar en ogenblik waarop de werkgever zijn gezag kan…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Injured in a fight with a colleague in the company courtyard during working hours, the worker claimed workplace-accident benefits; the insurer denied any link with the performance of the contract. The Labour Court held that 'during the performance of the contract' covers the place and time at which the employer can exercise authority, and that a workplace accident is not limited to accidents occurring while the paid work itself is being performed. The harassment that preceded the fight (co-workers in the meat-processing shop throwing pieces of fat) established the external occupational factor specific to the performance of the contract. The insurer's appeal was dismissed; the interlocutory judgment recognising the workplace accident and appointing an expert was upheld.","k":"Workplace accident — fight between workers during working hours","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 7","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-06-21","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2001:ARR.086","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : - L'article 14, § 1er, de la loi du 3 juillet 1967 sur la prévention ou la réparation des dommages résultant des accidents du travail, des accidents survenus sur le chemin du travail et des…","court":"const","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"On a question from the Antwerp Court of Appeal, the Constitutional Court held that article 14 §1 of the Act of 3 July 1967 (public-sector workplace accidents), as in force on 5 October 1991, breaches articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution if read as denying full common-law compensation to a staff member injured in a road accident caused unintentionally by the public employer or its staff while under its authority. Read as granting full compensation, it is constitutional. The Court noted the parallel with article 46 of the Act of 10 April 1971 and accepted a broad reading of the commuting accident (missions on the public road). In the underlying case the insurer and the public employer were opposed to the victim.","k":"Public-sector workplace accident — road accident caused by the employer, full compensation","law":"Act of 3.7.1967, art. 14 §1; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46; Constitution arts. 10–11","w":251,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-06-21","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2001:ARR.089","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 12 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail ne viole pas les principes d'égalité et de non discrimination contenus aux articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution,…","court":"const","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"On questions from the Ghent Labour Court of Appeal, the Constitutional Court held that article 12 of the Act of 10 April 1971, which grants the life annuity only to the surviving spouse and excludes an unmarried cohabitant, does not breach articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution, read alone or with articles 8 and 14 ECHR. Marriage creates reciprocal legal duties that cohabitants have not undertaken; whether to treat them alike is for the legislature. The different treatment of a divorced spouse receiving maintenance was also justified. In the underlying cases the workplace-accident insurers were opposed to the cohabitants.","k":"Workplace accident — survivor's annuity, unmarried cohabitants","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 12; Constitution arts. 10–11; ECHR arts. 8, 14","w":252,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-06-21","rol":"C.00.0122.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2001:ARR.20010621.21","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"N'est pas indivisible au sens de l'article 1084 du Code judiciaire le litige où l'exécution conjointe de la décision rendue à l'égard d'un assureur qui n'a pas formé de pourvoi contre cette décision et qui n'était ni…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A spectator struck by a car that went out of control during a rally, and her health-insurance fund, sued the organiser's liability insurer; the Liège Court of Appeal found the organiser not at fault because the crash began on an easy straight and was unforeseeable. The Court held that the dispute was not indivisible merely because the victim appealed without joining the fund, since the insurer could later raise res judicata against the fund; but as the unforeseeability finding alone supported the decision, the appeals were dismissed.","k":"Rally accident — organiser's fault and indivisibility","law":"Judicial Code, art. 31 and 1084; former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-06-20","rol":"P.01.0114.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2001:ARR.20010620.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Une quittance pour solde de compte partiel ou pour solde de tout compte règle les droits et obligations respectifs de l'assuré et de son assureur; elle est étrangère au tiers responsable de l'accident et n'implique pas…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The injured party had signed his own insurer's settlement proposal; the Dinant criminal court treated this as acceptance of the expert's findings and limited the waiting and replacement period claimed from the liable third party to 98 days instead of 158. The Court held that under article 84 LCAT a receipt in full does not mean the injured party waives its rights; such a receipt governs the relationship between the insured and its own insurer, is foreign to the liable third party and implies no waiver in its favour. That head of claim (BEF 441,000) was quashed and the rest of the appeal dismissed.","k":"Receipt in full — settlement with one's own insurer and the liable third party","law":"LCAT, art. 84; former Civil Code, art. 1165, 1382–1383","w":159,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-06-13","rol":"P.01.0271.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2001:ARR.20010613.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Est irrecevable le pourvoi formé par le prévenu, pendant le délai ordinaire d'opposition, contre un jugement le condamnant par défaut (1). || L'indemnité destinée à réparer la privation des revenus professionnels…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A public employer that kept paying its employee's salary during incapacity after a commuting accident claimed, as subrogee, the gross amount of those payments from the liable driver's insurer; the Verviers criminal court allowed the gross amount. The Court held that a subrogee may recover gross amounts from the liable party or its insurer only if the court finds that the victim's tort-law compensation would have borne charges equivalent to those on the salary. The order against the insurer to pay BEF 151,885 was quashed on the insurer's appeal; the defendant's appeal, lodged during the period for setting aside a default judgment, was inadmissible.","k":"Subrogated employer's claim — recovery of gross amounts","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383; Code of Criminal Procedure (C.I.cr.), art. 413; Cass. 5.12.1990; Cass. 19.2.2001","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-06-12","rol":"P.99.1605.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2001:ARR.20010612.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La citation directe dirigée contre l'assureur tendant à vider l'action civile dans laquelle les ayant droits de l'assuré décédé ne sont pas impliqués ne peut être déclarée d'office irrecevable lorsque l'assureur, dont…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The injured parties had summoned the motor liability insurer of the liable driver, who had been convicted and later died, directly before the criminal court to settle the civil claims, and the insurer had pleaded on the merits; the Ghent Court of Appeal declined jurisdiction because the insured's heirs were not parties. The Court held that article 14 §2 of the Act of 21 November 1989 exists in the insurer's interest and that a direct summons of the insurer without the heirs cannot be declared inadmissible of the court's own motion where the insurer raises no objection and pleads on the merits. The judgment was quashed on the injured parties' appeal.","k":"Motor liability — direct action against the insurer before the criminal court","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 12 para. 1 and 14 §2; Preliminary title of the Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 4","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-06-07","rol":"12400","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:2001:ARR.20010607.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"- A. artikel 7 - ongeval overkomen \" door het feit van de uitvoering van de arbeidsovereenkomst\" zwaar dronken slachter die zichzelf fatale steekwonde toebrengt met het lemmet van zijn slagersmes bij val : het in de…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A heavily intoxicated butcher (2.48 per mille) fell and fatally wounded himself with the blade of his slaughtering knife; the workplace-accident insurer had refused compensation. The Labour Court held that holding the knife, the butcher's working tool, was the proven external occupational factor specific to the performance of the employment contract, so the accident occurred 'by reason of the performance of the contract'. The only express statutory ground for exclusion is intentional fault; fault, even gross fault, is excluded from the workplace-accident regime and intoxication does not in itself bar the Act's application. The first-instance judgment was reversed, the fatal workplace accident was recognised and the proceedings reopened on the basic wage and the benefits due to the heir.","k":"Workplace accident — intoxicated butcher, non-intentional fault","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 48","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-06-07","rol":"C.98.0478.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2001:ARR.20010607.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"L'assureur qui prétend être déchargé de sa garantie à l'égard de son assuré parce que ce dernier aurait commis un fait intentionnel qui le prive du bénéfice de l'assurance a la charge de le prouver (1).","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer covering the tenant's fire liability argued that the 1983 fire resulted from an intentional act of its insured or her circle; since the cause remained unknown, the Mons Court of Appeal placed on the insured's bankruptcy trustee the burden of proving there was no intentional act and dismissed the claims of the trustee, the owner and the owner's subrogated insurer. The Court held that under article 1315 para. 2 of the Civil Code an insurer claiming release from cover under article 16 of the Act of 11 June 1874 must prove the insured's intentional act. The judgment was quashed on the appeals of the insured's trustee and the owner's side.","k":"Fire insurance — burden of proving an intentional act","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16 and 38; former Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, art. 870","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-05-30","rol":"P.01.0344.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2001:ARR.20010530.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le juge pénal ne peut allouer des dommages et intérêts à une partie civile que dans la mesure o l'action exercée par celle-ci a pour objet la réparation du dommage causé par une infraction (1). || Le juge de police qui…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Although the defendant had been acquitted, the Charleroi criminal court ordered the motor liability insurer to compensate the victim under article 29bis. The Court held that a criminal court may award damages only for loss caused by an offence; the article 29bis compensation duty exists without proof of the insured's liability and is not based on an offence, so the criminal court has no jurisdiction over such a claim. On the insurer's appeal, the ruling on liability and, as a consequence, on the extent of the loss was quashed.","k":"Article 29bis — criminal court lacks jurisdiction","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; Preliminary title of the Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 3–4; Cass. 28.3.2000; Cass. 21.6.2000","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-05-10","rol":"97/RG/509","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:2001:ARR.20010510.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held the doctor liable for the failure of an abortion but awarded only BEF 8,927, the cost of the attempt and related consultations; the child's upbringing costs were not charged to him because they stem from the law and from the mother's decision, taken after the fault, to raise the child. The doctor's claim against his professional liability insurer and the mother's direct action against the same insurer were left undecided: as no party produced the policy, the court reopened the proceedings to examine article 2 of the general conditions on which the insurer relied to refuse cover.","k":"Medical liability — failed abortion, damages and direct action","law":"former Civil Code, arts. 1382, 203 and 336; Criminal Code, art. 350","w":84,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-05-03","rol":"C.99.0152.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2001:ARR.20010503.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"Justifient légalement leur décision que le piéton, qui en poursuit un autre qu'il accuse de vol, n'a pas commis la faute inexcusable visée à l'article 29bis, § 1er, alinéa 6, de la loi du 21 novembre 1989, les juges…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A pedestrian chasing a person he accused of theft crossed the road and, after a first car avoided him by braking, was struck by the following car. The Charleroi Court of First Instance ruled out inexcusable fault: the crossing was an impulsive reaction, and it was not established with certainty that he had deliberately exposed himself to danger. Recalling that inexcusable fault is a deliberate fault of exceptional gravity exposing its author without valid reason to a danger of which he should have been aware, the Court found this factual assessment legally justified; the motor liability insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Article 29bis — pedestrian's inexcusable fault","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis §1 para. 6","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-04-25","rol":"28.871/00","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2001:ARR.20010425.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Ruling as the court of remand after cassation, the Liège Labour Court of Appeal recalled that, under former article 24 of the Act of 10.4.1971 (before the programme law of 22.12.1989), third-party assistance is not a separate allowance but an increase, up to 150 %, of the annual allowance for permanent incapacity (here 100 %). The workplace-accident insurer's argument that the ceiling corresponds to maximum assistance, so that only 50 % of the basic wage should count, was rejected in line with Cass. 28.2.1994. The victim's cross-appeal, lodged for the first time after cassation, was held admissible and well-founded: the need for help was set at two days out of seven, i.e. 28 % of the time, and the insurer was ordered to pay, for 1.1.1987 to 8.1.1990, an annual pension of 128 % of the basic wage.","k":"Workplace accident — third-party assistance under former art. 24","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24 (former version); Judicial Code, arts. 1054 and 1056; Cass. 28.2.1994; Cass. 20.12.1999","w":253,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-04-25","rol":"28.871/00","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2001:ARR.20010425.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Ruling as the court of remand after cassation, the Liège Labour Court of Appeal recalled that, under former article 24 of the Act of 10.4.1971 (before the programme law of 22.12.1989), third-party assistance is not a separate allowance but an increase, up to 150 %, of the annual allowance for permanent incapacity (here 100 %). The workplace-accident insurer's argument that the ceiling corresponds to maximum assistance, so that only 50 % of the basic wage should count, was rejected in line with Cass. 28.2.1994. The victim's cross-appeal, lodged for the first time after cassation, was held admissible and well-founded: the need for help was set at two days out of seven, i.e. 28 % of the time, and the insurer was ordered to pay, for 1.1.1987 to 8.1.1990, an annual pension of 128 % of the basic wage.","k":"Workplace accident — third-party assistance under former art. 24","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24 (former version); Judicial Code, arts. 1054 and 1056; Cass. 28.2.1994; Cass. 20.12.1999","w":253,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-04-23","rol":"38563","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2001:ARR.20010423.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A baggage handler who, crouching in an aircraft hold, felt acute lower-back pain when lifting a suitcase of about 30 kg with a twisting movement was refused recognition by the workplace-accident insurer for lack of a sudden event and because of a pre-existing condition. The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal reversed: the facts were proved by witnesses, the movement made in an awkward position with a heavy load was capable of causing the injury, which suffices to qualify it as a sudden event, and the presumptions of articles 7 and 9 of the Act of 10.4.1971 apply despite the pre-existing pathology. The insurer was allowed to adduce evidence to the contrary and an expert was appointed.","k":"Workplace accident — back pain lifting a suitcase, sudden event","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7, 9 and 24","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-04-18","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2001:ARR.052","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : - Interprété comme excluant les ayants droit de la victime d'un accident mortel du travail autres que ceux visés par les articles 12 à 17 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 du droit d'intenter une…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"On a question from the Kortrijk Labour Court, hearing a claim against the employer and his company after a fatal workplace accident, the Court repeated the solution of its judgment no. 31/2001 of 1 March 2001. Read as excluding the relatives of the victim who are not covered by articles 12 to 17 of the Act of 10 April 1971 from suing under articles 1382 et seq. of the former Civil Code, article 46 §1 violates articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution: receiving no lump-sum benefit, those persons would obtain no compensation at all. Read as not excluding them from that action, it is constitutional.","k":"Workplace accident — civil action of other relatives of the deceased","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 46 §1 and 12–17; former Civil Code, art. 1382; Court of Arbitration no. 31/2001, 1.3.2001; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-04-02","rol":"37.756","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:2001:ARR.20010402.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"En soi, la survenance d'une lésion ne constitue pas la survenance d'un événement soudain ayant provoqué une lésion, constitutif d'un accident du travail.","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The worker claimed to have suffered workplace accidents in 1994 and 1995 when his knee 'gave way' while walking, linking them to an accident recognised in 1987. The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal held that the mere occurrence of an injury is not a sudden event and that the worker, who bore the burden of proof, established none; as a review claim concerning the 1987 accident, the action was time-barred because it was not brought within three years of the notification of recovery, and an aggravation after the review period should have been directed against the Workplace Accidents Fund. The workplace-accident insurer's appeal was upheld and the worker's claims dismissed.","k":"Workplace accident — no sudden event, expired review period","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 9, 25bis and 72 §2","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-03-29","rol":"C.99.0404.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2001:ARR.20010329.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le Fonds commun de garantie automobile n'est pas tenu à réparation des dommages matériels, dès lors que ce n'est pas en raison du non respect de l'obligation d'assurance qu'aucune entreprise d'assurances n'est obligée à…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Brussels police court had ordered the Guarantee Fund to pay for property damage caused by an unidentified car bearing false plates, reasoning that it was not validly insured because it was not registered. The Court held that if no insurer was liable, this was because the driver was not identified and not because the duty to insure had been breached, so the Fund was not liable for property damage; the mere assumption that the car was stolen did not show that liability was uninsured under the permitted theft exclusion. The judgment was quashed on the Fund's appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund — unidentified vehicle and property damage","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 80 §1, 3°; RD 16.12.1981, art. 19 §1; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 3 §1; Cass. 8.5.1998; Cass. 15.10.1997","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-03-23","rol":"16677","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2001:ARR.20010323.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'incapacité de travail de la victime d'un accident du travail doit être appréciée dans son ensemble, sans tenir compte de l'état pathologique antérieur de la victime, dès lors et aussi longtemps que l'accident du…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that permanent incapacity is assessed as a whole, disregarding any prior condition, as long as the accident is at least a partial cause of the harm, and that the Act compensates a flat-rate loss of earning capacity based on basic pay rather than actual loss of income. At the workplace-accident insurer's suggestion, it asked the Court of Arbitration (now the Constitutional Court) whether refusing to take account of incapacity left by earlier workplace accidents breaches articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution, compared with the victim of a single accident. It stayed the proceedings pending the answer.","k":"Workplace accident — successive accidents and permanent incapacity, preliminary question","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24, 34, 36, 39; Cass. 1.4.1985","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-03-23","rol":"C.98.0063.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2001:ARR.20010323.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Ne statue pas sur choses non demandées, ne soulève pas une contestation exclue par l'accord des parties et ne viole pas les droits de la défense, le juge qui condamne une société commerciale au paiement de certaines…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that article 86 LCAT, which gives the injured party a direct action against the liability insurer, also applies to losses that occurred before 1 January 1993, unless certain rights had already been irrevocably fixed. The ground of appeal requiring the Court to examine whether such rights were already fixed as regards the insurer was new, since it had not been raised before the trial court, and was inadmissible. The decision on the direct action therefore stands.","k":"Direct action — temporal scope of art. 86 LCAT","law":"LCAT art. 86; Cass. 6.10.2000","w":125,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"summary"},{"d":"2001-03-21","rol":"16711","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2001:ARR.20010321.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'appelante fait grief aux premiers Juges de l'avoir déboutée de sa demande alors que le prescrit de l'article 63, § 2 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 en vigueur à l'époque des faits est d'interprétation stricte. Si…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a workplace-accident insurer that refuses to accept the accident or doubts that the Act applies must inform the health-insurance fund within fifteen days of receiving the accident report, and that vague general reservations are not such notice. The insurer had asked the victim only once about his fund and received the information before the deadline expired, so no force majeure was shown; its refusal was notified out of time. The judgment was reversed and the insurer ordered to pay the fund, provisionally, 21,840 francs plus interest.","k":"Workplace accident — late notice of refusal to the health-insurance fund","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63 §2","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-03-14","rol":"28357/99","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2001:ARR.20010314.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer appealed three first-instance judgments, contesting in particular the compensation, from 1 September 1994 to 6 January 1995, of a partial temporary incapacity assessed by the expert at 25%. The court found that, whatever the rate, there was indeed a temporary incapacity that had become partial between the period of total incapacity and the start of permanent incapacity, since the victim had not regained full fitness for his usual work, if only because of physiotherapy sessions; as the victim had not resumed work before consolidation and the insurer had offered no rehabilitation treatment, art. 23, para. 3, 2° of the Act of 10.4.1971 requires compensation at 100%. The appeal was dismissed, the three judgments upheld and the insurer ordered to pay the appeal costs (BEF 10,080 procedural indemnity).","k":"Workplace accident — partial temporary incapacity paid at 100%","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 23 para. 3, 2°","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-03-14","rol":"28.064/99","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2001:ARR.20010314.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The Liège Labour Court of Appeal held that the workplace-accident insurer had not rebutted, with sufficient certainty, the statutory presumption of causation between the accident and the injury. The expert had concluded that the accident caused only left-sided lumbosciatica and that the right-sided complaints were the natural course of a pre-existing condition; but the medical records were contradictory and two doctors had confused left and right. Noting that the presumption applies even to a very partial causal contribution, the court overturned the judgment, recognised the causal link for both the right- and left-sided lumbar pathology and ordered a supplementary expert examination on the degrees of incapacity.","k":"Workplace accident — presumption of causation and pre-existing condition","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 9 and 24","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-03-14","rol":"28.064/99","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2001:ARR.20010314.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La présomption légale de causalité entre l'accident du travail et la lésion n'est pas renversée à suffisance de preuve lorsque les documents médicaux produits pèchent par une confusion persistante ente la droite et la…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The Liège Labour Court of Appeal held that the workplace-accident insurer had not rebutted, with sufficient certainty, the statutory presumption of causation between the accident and the injury. The expert had concluded that the accident caused only left-sided lumbosciatica and that the right-sided complaints were the natural course of a pre-existing condition; but the medical records were contradictory and two doctors had confused left and right. Noting that the presumption applies even to a very partial causal contribution, the court overturned the judgment, recognised the causal link for both the right- and left-sided lumbar pathology and ordered a supplementary expert examination on the degrees of incapacity.","k":"Workplace accident — presumption of causation and pre-existing condition","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 9 and 24","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-03-08","rol":"96-AR-1194","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2001:ARR.20010308.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Toute personne dépouillée d'une chose par un acte illicite a droit à la reconstitution de son patrimoine par la restitution de cette chose. Lorsque la restitution est impossible, la partie lésée a droit à la valeur de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A sports car bought in 1990 with 25 % VAT and an 8 % luxury tax was stolen in 1993; the theft insurer paid on the pre-loss value plus VAT at 19.5 %. The insured claimed a further BEF 321,170 for VAT and luxury tax at the purchase-date rates and for the car radio. The court recalled that the loss consists in being deprived of the thing and that compensation must allow a similar item to be acquired; the relevant VAT rate is the one in force at the date of the loss, not at purchase, and a car more than two years old cannot be treated as new. These principles apply equally to theft insurance. As the policy covered only accessories included in the value on which the premium was based, the claim for the radio, not stipulated in the contract, also failed. The insured's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Vehicle theft insurance — replacement value, VAT rate and accessories","law":"Former Civil Code art. 1382 principles (replacement value, Court of Cassation case law); policy art. 5","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-03-06","rol":"2000/33","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2001:ARR.20010306.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Elke overeenkomst strijdig met de bepalingen van de Arbeidsongevallenwet is van rechtswege nietig en de rechter is ambtshalve verplicht na te gaan of de Arbeidsongevallenwet werd nageleefd. Deze erkenning slaat op een…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that any agreement contrary to the Workplace Accidents Act is void by operation of law and that the judge must check compliance of its own motion. The workplace-accident insurer may therefore still dispute the existence of the accident even though, on the facts known to it, it paid temporary-incapacity benefits and medical costs without reservation: such payment is not an admission of a legal fact that the parties cannot dispose of. Before ruling on the merits, the court appointed a panel of medical experts to examine whether the injuries have a sudden traumatic origin and are causally linked to the event of 5 August 1995.","k":"Workplace accident — insurer disputing the accident after paying without reservation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 6; C. jud., arts. 962–991","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-03-01","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2001:ARR.031","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : - L'article 46, § 1er, de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail ne viole pas les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution dans la mesure où il empêche la victime d'un accident du…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"On questions from the Brussels, Ghent and Mons Courts of Appeal and the Nivelles Criminal Court, the Court held that article 46 §1 of the Act of 10 April 1971 does not violate articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution insofar as it prevents a workplace-accident victim from suing under articles 1382 et seq. of the former Civil Code the employer or employee whose fault caused the accident. However, read as also excluding from that action the relatives of a victim of a fatal accident who are not covered by articles 12 to 17 of the Act, it violates the Constitution: those persons, who receive no lump-sum benefit, would obtain no compensation at all although they do not affect the employment relationship. Read as covering only the persons listed in articles 12 to 17, article 46 §1 is constitutional.","k":"Workplace accident — employer immunity and other relatives of the deceased","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 46 §1 and 12–17; former Civil Code, art. 1382; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-02-20","rol":"99/852","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2001:ARR.20010220.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The court decided three points. The workplace-accident insurer, which had brought a revision claim based on an improvement in the victim's condition, could not extend it into a claim to annul the compensation agreement for fraud by the victim, because that rests on facts different from those in the summons (C. jud., art. 807). The victim's request to have the agreement enforced under threat of a penalty payment was rejected, since the subject matter is merely a sum of money (art. 1385bis). During revision proceedings the insurer need not keep performing the agreement; it must only pay advances based on the reduced rate it proposes (8% instead of 65%). The insurer's main appeal was partly upheld and the victim's cross-appeal dismissed.","k":"Workplace accident — revision proceedings: extended claim, penalty payment and advances","law":"C. jud., arts. 807 and 1385bis; Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 63 §4 and 68","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-02-14","rol":"15112","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2001:ARR.20010214.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"1. La question soumise à la Cour est de savoir si la preuve certaine de l'existence d'un accident du travail est établie. Ce qui implique que la victime de l'accident établisse de manière certaine que le fait qu'elle…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The worker stated that he had broken his foot around 2 p.m. falling down concrete stairs near the loading dock; he told no one, rode home on his moped and went to hospital at 3.40 p.m. The court noted that no witness saw a fall said to have occurred in a large company at a time when staff were moving about, that the worker asked no one for help and that he was able to ride his moped despite the fracture; the elements relied on did not amount to serious, precise and consistent presumptions supplementing his statement, since the accident could have happened at home or elsewhere. The workplace-accident insurer's appeal was upheld, the judgment reversed and the workplace accident held not proven.","k":"Workplace accident — unwitnessed fall not proven","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 9","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-01-19","rol":"98/11851/A","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:2001:JUG.20010119.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"En cas de désaccord entre l'assureur et l'assuré concernant la réalité d'un vol, la solution du litige peut être trouvée par l'application des règles suivantes ; 1°. si l'assureur n'apporte aucun élément de suspicion,…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insured, stating that his new car had been stolen outside his home, claimed BEF 879,020 under the theft cover. The court held that a theft report and police complaint suffice if the insurer raises no ground for suspicion, but once it does, the credibility of the report is assessed in light of all the circumstances. Here several indications (an allegedly false invoice, the insured's lie about not knowing the other party to an earlier accident) justified suspicion: the theft was not proven and the claim was dismissed.","k":"Vehicle theft insurance — proof of theft and grounds for suspicion","law":"Cass. 20.10.1994 (cited)","w":84,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-01-17","rol":"P.00.1386.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2001:ARR.20010117.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"La résiliation unilatérale d'un contrat d'assurance terrestre ne peut sortir ses effets en l'absence de notification selon les modes limitativement prescrits par la loi; si la loi ne subordonne pas la validité de cette…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The defendant had terminated his insurance contract by ordinary letter; the insurer, joined to provide cover, argued that an irregularly notified termination still takes effect if the recipient does not rely on the irregularity. The Court held that termination has no effect unless notified by one of the methods exhaustively prescribed by law, and that these rules protect and bind insurer and policyholder alike, so neither can deprive the other of them by its own waiver. The contract therefore remained in force and the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Termination of an insurance contract — irregular notice","law":"LCAT, art. 29 §2 and 30; Cass. 14.1.1991","w":254,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-01-10","rol":"28458/99","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:2001:ARR.20010110.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A bus driver claimed that on 21 December 1997, while crossing a speed bump, his seat dropped and locked, striking the central pedestal; the workplace-accident insurer disputed the accident and the first court refused witness evidence on the ground that this fact, absent from the accident declaration, was 'suspect'. The labour court held that this was not a change but a supplement to the declared facts, consistent with them and already reported to the insurer's doctor on 22 January 1998, before proceedings began, and that under art. 915 of the Judicial Code the judge only checks whether the offer of proof concerns a precise and relevant fact. Witness evidence was authorised; the merits of the compensation claim were reserved.","k":"Workplace accident — witness evidence of an additional fact","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 11; Judicial Code, arts. 915 and 922","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-01-10","rol":"15421","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2001:ARR.20010110.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"1. Aux termes de l'article 8 § 1er de la loi du 10 avril 1971 \" est également considéré comme accident de travail, l'accident survenu sur le chemin du travail . Le chemin du travail s'entend du trajet normal que le…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A worker due to start at 3 p.m. died in a road accident at about 1.30–1.40 p.m. after dropping her son at school; her husband sought recognition of a commuting accident. The court held that the commuting route requires the worker to be within a normal time frame for travelling to work; otherwise any accident on the theoretical route would qualify and the Act's purpose would be distorted. As the workplace was 400 m from the school, an early departure could only be explained if she had been at work by 1.50 p.m.; colleagues stated that she went home and returned around 3 p.m. The burden of proving that the victim was on her way to work lies on the claimant, not on the workplace-accident insurer. The insurer's appeal was upheld: the accident was not a commuting accident and the claim was dismissed.","k":"Commuting accident — the 'normal time' requirement","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 8 §1","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-01-09","rol":"2000/402","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2001:ARR.20010109.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Het ongeval dat zich voordoet tijdens de middagpauze die door de werknemer in volkomen vrijheid buiten de arbeidsplaats wordt doorgebracht, is geen arbeidsongeval vermits hij op dat ogenblik niet onder het gezag van de…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an accident during a lunch break which the employee spent entirely freely away from the workplace is not a workplace accident, because at that moment she was not under the employer's authority. The employer's permission to extend the break makes no difference: it concerned only the length of the break, not how it was spent. The workplace-accident insurer's appeal was upheld, the first-instance judgments were set aside and the employee's claim was dismissed; costs nonetheless stayed with the insurer under article 68 of the Act of 10.4.1971.","k":"Workplace accident — accident during lunch break away from the workplace","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 68","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2001-01-09","rol":"99/1029","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2001:ARR.20010109.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"De onderbreking van de arbeidsweg gedurende 20 tot 30 minuten om te trachten twee loslopende paarden van de openbare weg te verwijderen omdat deze dieren een gevaar vormden voor het voorbijrijdend verkeer, is niet…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"On his way home the worker interrupted his journey for 20 to 30 minutes to try to clear two loose horses off the public road because they endangered traffic, and was then injured in an accident. The court held that this interruption was not significant and was prompted by a legitimate reason, so the accident occurred on the normal route and qualifies as a commuting accident. The workplace-accident insurer's appeal was dismissed, the judgment was confirmed and the case was sent back to the first judge.","k":"Workplace accident — short, legitimate interruption of the commute","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 8 §1 and 68","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-12-21","rol":"33999","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:2000:ARR.20001221.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"- letsel : acuut infarct. - plotselinge gebeurtenis : letsel dat zich plots manisfesteert (bv. hartinfarct) is niet de plotselinge gebeurtenis, anders zouden oorzaak en gevolg door elkaar worden gehaald. aangehouden…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"After an executive suffered an acute heart attack at work, his widow and children claimed workplace-accident benefits. The Labour Court held that an injury that manifests itself suddenly (the heart attack) is not itself the sudden event, otherwise cause and effect would be confused, and that sustained stress does not amount to a sudden event, the essential element of a workplace accident. The employer's immediate declaration of the incident as a workplace accident does not prove a sudden event either. As no sudden event was proven, no expert examination was ordered; the appeal was dismissed and the judgment in favour of the workplace-accident insurer (common fund) upheld.","k":"Workplace accident — heart attack and the concept of a sudden event","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 9; Cass. 15.10.1979; Cass. 16.2.1981","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-12-21","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2000:ARR.137","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 12 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail ne viole pas les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution en ce qu'il réserve le bénéfice d'une rente viagère au conjoint ni…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer had refused to grant a life annuity to the partner of a worker killed in a workplace accident, the mother of their child; on a question from the Namur Labour Court, the Court held that article 12 of the Act of 10 April 1971 does not violate articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution by reserving that annuity to the spouse who is neither divorced nor legally separated and to a divorced or separated spouse who received maintenance from the victim. Spouses assume reciprocal legal duties (support, assistance, contribution to household expenses) which cohabitants have not undertaken, and each form of life together is chosen with knowledge of its advantages and drawbacks. It is for the legislature to decide whether cohabitants should be treated like spouses in workplace-accident matters; since maintenance continues the duty of support, the distinction regarding divorced spouses is also justified.","k":"Workplace accident — survivor's annuity reserved to the spouse","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 12; former Civil Code, arts. 213–222; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-12-21","rol":"C.98.0367.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2000:ARR.20001221.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"L'obligation d'apporter la preuve de la réparation du dommage incombant à l'assuré avant de réclamer des dommages-intérêts n'annule pas l'obligation d'indemniser l'assuré incombant à l'assureur.","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured argued that the insurer's demand for a repair invoice before any payment emptied the contract of meaning and was an abuse of position. The Court held that none of the provisions relied on prevents the insured's right to indemnity from being made conditional on proof that the damage has been repaired, since such a duty does not hollow out the insurer's commitment, which remains bound to indemnify. It also noted that the judgment had not held that the advance clause (up to 50% of the insurer's obligations if the shipyard asks for an advance) applies when the insurer disputes cover; the insured's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Marine hull insurance — indemnity conditional on proof of repair","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 1 and 20; Act of 21.8.1879 (Commercial Code, Book II), art. 201, 210 et seq.; former Civil Code, art. 1134","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-12-20","rol":"P.00.0606.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2000:ARR.20001220.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"N'est pas discriminatoire, la différence de traitement existant entre les conducteurs d'un véhicule de remplacement appartenant à une des personnes visées in fine de l'article 4, 1°, b, de l'arrêté royal du 14 décembre…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The driver was using a car belonging to her husband as a replacement for the insured vehicle; article 4, 1°, a) of the model contract extends cover without notice only to a replacement vehicle 'belonging to a third party'. The Verviers criminal court had disregarded this limit as contrary to the equality provisions of the Constitution, held the motor liability insurer liable and released the Guarantee Fund. The Court held that the King could consider that a link such as that between spouses increases the risk of fraud and therefore require the insurer to be notified; the difference in treatment is not discriminatory. On the insurer's appeal, the rulings against it and the release of the Fund were quashed.","k":"Motor liability — spouse's replacement vehicle and model contract","law":"Model contract RD 14.12.1992, art. 4, 1°, a) and b); Constitution, art. 10, 11, 159","w":255,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-12-18","rol":"S.99.0003.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2000:ARR.20001218.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Le litige concernant la fixation du pourcentage de l'invalidité permanente n'est pas indivisible entre l'intercommunale qui emploie la victime de l'accident du travail, son assureur, ladite victime et le service médical…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"A dispute over the permanent incapacity rate of a public-sector accident victim is not indivisible between the employer, its workplace-accident insurer, the victim and the medical service; the insurer's appeal against the victim, with whom no proceedings were joined at first instance, remained inadmissible. However, the insurer, which had challenged the expert report and the 32% rate at first instance, had an interest in appealing against the employer, so the Liège labour court of appeal's judgment was quashed on that point; the appeal was otherwise dismissed.","k":"Workplace accident — indivisibility and the insurer's interest to appeal","law":"Judicial Code, art. 17, 18, 31, 1053","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-12-15","rol":"14477;14607","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2000:ARR.20001215.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Lorsqu'un avenant a suspendu le contrat d'assurance en raison de l'absence de risque, c'est-à-dire le contrat entier et non pas seulement la garantie à l'égard de l'assuré, cette suspension, antérieure à l'accident, a…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident policy of an employer who no longer had staff had been suspended by endorsement for lack of risk; the employer later hired a worker, who had an accident. The court held that the suspension covered the whole contract and not merely the cover, so there was no insurance on the date of the accident, and that a contractual suspension is equivalent to no insurance: the duty under article 49 requires effective cover and the employer must ask for the policy to be reinstated before employing a new worker. The appeals of the employer and of the Workplace Accidents Fund against the insurer were dismissed and the insurer's release from the case confirmed. The insurer's claim that the Fund's appeal was vexatious was also rejected, since the Fund must intervene when the existence of insurance is disputed.","k":"Workplace-accident insurance — policy suspended for lack of risk","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 49 and 58","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-12-06","rol":"P.00.1244.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2000:ARR.20001206.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le délai de seize jours, pendant lequel, en cas de transfert de propriété du véhicule assuré, les stipulations mettant fin par ce fait même au contrat d'assurance sont sans effet si le dommage a été causé par le…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The 16-day period during which, after the insured vehicle is transferred, the insurer remains liable to the injured party runs from the day the vehicle left the policyholder's assets, not from the day a new vehicle was acquired. The vehicle had been sold on 3 May 1994 and the accident occurred on the night of 7–8 May 1994 with another vehicle; the court could not infer that no insurer was liable. The judgment was quashed on the Guarantee Fund's appeal, and the quashing extended to the decision concerning the insurer.","k":"Motor liability — start of the 16-day period after transfer of the vehicle","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 17; Cass. 2.10.1996","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-12-05","rol":"P.99.0223.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2000:ARR.20001205.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"Un sinistre a été causé intentionnellement au sens de l'article 8, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre, dès lors que l'assuré a posé un acte ou s'en est abstenu sciemment et…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"During a pre-arranged group action to force entry into a prohibited zone, the insured knowingly knocked down and injured a gendarme. A loss is intentionally caused under article 8 LCAT where the insured knowingly and willingly acts and this risky conduct causes reasonably foreseeable harm to a third party; it is not required that the insured wanted the harm, its nature or its extent. The Ghent Court of Appeal's judgment, which held the insurer liable because the insured had not aimed to cause harm, was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Family liability insurance — meaning of an intentionally caused loss","law":"LCAT art. 8(1), 86 and 87 §2","w":17,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-12-04","rol":"98-AR-3464","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2000:ARR.20001204.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"La faute grave de l'assuré mentionnée dans un contrat d'assurance comme excluant la garanti de l'assureur s'assimile à la faute lourde dont question à l'article 8 de la loi du 25 juin 1992. Elle est habituellement…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the 'serious fault' exclusion in the policy equates to gross negligence under article 8 LCAT, and that the insurer can only escape liability for cases of gross negligence listed expressly and exhaustively in the contract. A clause listing such cases with the word 'notably' and referring to very general, uncertain notions is not exhaustive. The exclusion clause was deemed void and the insurer could not rely on it.","k":"Gross negligence exclusion — nullity of a non-exhaustive clause","law":"LCAT art. 8","w":17,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"2000-11-23","rol":"C.99.0535.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2000:ARR.20001123.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Le juge n'est pas tenu de répondre à des conclusions imprécises (1). || La victime ou ses ayants droit qui poursuivent la réparation de leur dommage en droit commun ne doivent pas justifier que celle-ci est supérieure…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that a workplace-accident victim or the victim's successors claiming ordinary-law damages (former Civil Code arts. 1382–1383) need not prove that their loss exceeds the capitals set aside for them by the workplace-accident insurer plus compensatory interest from the date they were set aside. The court is also not required to answer imprecise submissions. The dispute was between the victim and the liable party; the full text is not published.","k":"Workplace accident — ordinary-law damages and the insurer's capitals","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 46 §2 para. 2 and 47; former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1383; Constitution art. 149","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"summary"},{"d":"2000-11-17","rol":"16094","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2000:ARR.20001117.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Aux termes de l'article 7 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail, est considéré comme accident du travail, tout accident qui survient à travailleur dans le cours et par le fait de l'exécution du contrat…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A worker receiving and checking trousers in a textile company was stung by a wasp during work. The court recalled that an accident occurring in the course of the employment contract is presumed to have occurred by reason of it, but it must be causally linked to a circumstance of the professional environment, whether technical, natural or human. The nature of the work and the working conditions did not increase the risk of insects being present; the accident was a natural phenomenon unrelated to the working conditions and the workplace-accident insurer had rebutted the presumption. The worker's appeal was dismissed and the finding that there was no workplace accident was upheld.","k":"Workplace accident — wasp sting at the workplace","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 7","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-11-16","rol":"8299","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:2000:ARR.20001116.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"- weinig belangrijke chronologische onderbreking van de arbeidsweg: weg die kan worden afgelegd in 55' en oponthoud van minstens 40' - de onderbreking moet door een wettige oorzaak gerechtvaardigd zijn; de werknemer…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"In this fatal accident the worker had interrupted a journey that could be made in 55 minutes for at least 40 minutes to look at freshly developed photographs with a colleague, by prior arrangement. The Labour Court held that an interruption must be justified by a legitimate cause: a worker is no longer on the way to or from work when the journey is interrupted for personal reasons, such as a leisure appointment made on his own initiative within the private sphere. The first-instance judgment was reversed; the claims of the heirs and of the Workplace Accidents Fund against the insurer were dismissed, with costs borne by the insurer under article 68.","k":"Commuting accident — interruption for personal reasons","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 8 §1 and 68; Cass. 30.9.1985; Cass. 18.12.1989","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-11-14","rol":"99/814","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:2000:ARR.20001114.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Flemish Executive's decree of 21.12.1988 requires the employment service to take out insurance guaranteeing a trainee the same benefits as the Workplace Accidents Act grants an adult employee in the trade being learned. The court held that the compensation rules of the Act of 10 April 1971 do not apply to the trainee and that this provision does not prevent the victim from concluding an agreement with the insurer irrevocably fixing the compensation due.","k":"Vocational trainee — agreement with the insurer on the consequences of the accident","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 49; Flemish Executive decree of 21.12.1988","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"2000-11-10","rol":"C.98.0152.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2000:ARR.20001110.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La demande principale introduite par un assuré tendant à entendre condamner la compagnie d'assurances à verser la somme qu'elle a indûment retenue à titre de précompte professionnel sur l'indemnité allouée en…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer had withheld 22% tax from a temporary-incapacity benefit paid to the insured and passed it to the tax authorities; the insured claimed the BEF 15,353 withheld, and the insurer joined the State as guarantor. The justice of the peace held the benefit non-taxable, ordered the insurer to pay the withheld amount and the State to indemnify the insurer. The Court dismissed the State's appeal: the main claim concerned payment of what the insurer owed under the policy and was not a tax dispute between the insured and the State.","k":"Insurance benefit — withholding tax deducted and the justice of the peace's jurisdiction","law":"Income Tax Code 1992; Judicial Code, art. 2 and 603","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-11-08","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2000:ARR.111","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"la Cour dit pour droit : La question préjudicielle n'appelle pas de réponse.","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Dinant Police Court, hearing a motor liability insurer's recourse under articles 24–25 of the model contract, asked again whether article 5, 3° of the Act of 11 July 1994 on its jurisdiction complies with articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution read with article 6 §1 ECHR. The Court found that it is article 601bis of the Judicial Code, inserted by article 36 of the same Act, and not article 5, 3°, that gives the police court jurisdiction over such a recourse. As it cannot review a provision unrelated to the dispute or substitute another, it held that the question required no answer.","k":"Motor insurer's recourse — police court jurisdiction (no answer required)","law":"Judicial Code, art. 601bis; Act of 11.7.1994, art. 5, 3°; model contract RD 14.12.1992, arts. 24–25","w":84,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-10-24","rol":"P.98.1173.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2000:ARR.20001024.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"L'état d'intoxication alcoolique qui est la cause ou l'une des causes d'un accident n'est pas un fait antérieur au sinistre et permettant à l'assureur d'opposer à la personne lésée, pour les assurances autres que les…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"In non-compulsory liability insurance, the insurer may raise defences, nullity and forfeiture arising from the law or the contract against the injured party only if they stem from a fact preceding the loss. Alcohol intoxication that caused or contributed to the accident is not such a prior fact. The intoxication exclusion in the family policy therefore could not be raised against the injured parties, and the appeal of the insurer, held jointly liable, was dismissed.","k":"Family liability insurance — alcohol exclusion against the injured party","law":"LCAT art. 87 §2","w":256,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-10-13","rol":"14811;14929","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2000:ARR.20001013.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'accord conclu entre l'assureur et la victime ou ses ayants droit qui, conformément à l'ancien article 65, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail, doit être soumis pour homologation au…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"After a fatal accident, a settlement concluded with the workplace-accident insurer and approved by the labour court granted an annual annuity to a person who had presented herself as the victim's mother without being a lawful beneficiary. The court held that the compensation provisions of the 1971 Act are a matter of public policy and that, under article 6 §2, any contrary agreement is void by operation of law; court approval does not prevent its annulment on that basis or for defective consent. The insurers' appeal was upheld: the settlement was annulled as regards the annuity and the recipient, found to have acted in bad faith, was ordered to repay 1,054,968 F and 236,837 F with compensatory interest from the dates of payment; the real mother was awarded 50,000 F in moral damages.","k":"Workplace accident — annulment of a court-approved settlement contrary to public policy","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 6 and former art. 65; former Civil Code, arts. 1153 and 1378; Cass. 11.4.1994","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-10-12","rol":"C.99.0219.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2000:ARR.20001012.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Ne constitue pas une notification claire et non équivoque de l'intention d'exercer un recours la notification par l'assureur à l'assuré de son droit d'exercer un recours par référence aux articles 24 et 25 des…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"In its letter to the insured, who was being prosecuted for drink-driving, the insurer merely recalled that it had a right of recourse under articles 24 and 25 of the general conditions and asked him to instruct a lawyer. To keep its right of recourse, the insurer must clearly and unequivocally notify its intention to exercise it (art. 88(2) LCAT). The Liège court of first instance's judgment, which saw the letter as mere notice of an existing right and held that the insurer had lost its recourse, stands: the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — clear notice of intention to exercise recourse","law":"LCAT art. 88(2)","w":11,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-10-11","rol":"P.00.0576.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2000:ARR.20001011.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Lorsqu'une partie a formé un pourvoi en cassation et s'est désistée de son pourvoi sans acquiescement, par le motif que la décision faisant l'objet du pourvoi ne constitue pas une décision définitive au sens de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The injured party's own right of action against the liable driver's insurer depends on insurance existing at the time of the accident. The accident occurred on 16 October 1992 at about 2 a.m., the provisional green card was issued by a broker the same day at about 6 p.m., and the broker was convicted of forgery. The Mons Court of Appeal's judgment holding the insurer liable regardless was quashed on the insurer's appeal; the quashing extended to the decision releasing the Guarantee Fund.","k":"Motor liability — forged green card, no insurance at the time of the accident","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 12(1) and 14 §2","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-10-10","rol":"P.00.1267.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2000:ARR.20001010.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Il résulte de sa mission légale que, hormis le cas visé à l'article 1113 du Code judiciaire, la Cour a le pouvoir et l'obligation de rétracter un arrêt ayant déclaré irrecevable un pourvoi ou décrété le désistement sans…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court first withdrew its own earlier judgment, which rested on a factual error, and ruled on the appeal again. The victim had been injured by an uninsured vehicle owned by the company he managed; the health-insurance fund claimed reimbursement of its benefits from the Guarantee Fund. The fund's own right of recovery against the Guarantee Fund exists only in the same cases and to the same extent as the injured party's right to compensation from it, so the exclusion in article 17 of the Royal Decree of 16.12.1981 applied to the fund too. The fund's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Guarantee Fund — the health-insurance fund's own right of recovery","law":"Health Insurance Act, art. 136 §2 (former art. 76quater); Act of 9.7.1975, art. 79–80; RD 16.12.1981, art. 17; Judicial Code, art. 1113","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-10-06","rol":"99/AR/1073","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2000:ARR.20001006.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Une clause d'expertise médicale amiable stipulant que son résultat s'impose aux parties, figurant dans un contrat d'assurance n'est pas assimilable à la clause d'arbitrage prohibée par l'article 36 de la loi du 25 juin…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an amicable medical expert-assessment clause whose result binds the parties is not equivalent to the arbitration clause prohibited by article 36 LCAT. An arbitrator decides a legal dispute on fact and law; an expert, even when the opinion is binding, merely establishes material facts. Moreover, a binding third-party decision can be challenged in court on its merits, whereas an arbitral award can only be set aside. The summary does not state the final outcome.","k":"Insurance contract — binding medical expert-assessment clause","law":"LCAT art. 36","w":257,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"2000-10-06","rol":"C.99.0452.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2000:ARR.20001006.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"L'article 86 de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre, entrée en vigueur le 1er janvier 1993, qui prévoit au profit de la victime d'un sinistre une action directe à l'égard de l'assureur de la…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"Clients harmed by an IT company's breach of contract sued its liability insurer directly after the company went bankrupt on 21 January 1993. The Brussels Court of Appeal had limited the direct action to loss caused by faults committed after 1 January 1993. The Court held that article 86 LCAT does not change the insurer's obligations or create a new liability rule and applies immediately: unless rights were already irrevocably fixed, the injured party has a direct action even for events before 1 January 1993. The judgment was quashed on the injured parties' appeal.","k":"Direct action — art. 86 LCAT and events before 1993","law":"LCAT art. 86 and 87 §2; former Civil Code, art. 2","w":125,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-10-04","rol":"97/RG/141","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:2000:ARR.20001004.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The victims of a car theft committed in 1991 by a minor sued the parents' family liability insurer, which pleaded forfeiture for late notice of the loss. The court noted that articles 86-87 LCAT are mandatory but not of public policy and that article 87 cannot apply retroactively to a loss predating its entry into force; the victims nevertheless benefit from the third-party stipulation in the policy. Although informed late, the insurer could still verify the facts and the loss and could have intervened before the juvenile court; by merely relying on forfeiture it failed to perform the contract in good faith, since a breach causing it no prejudice cannot release it from all obligations. The forfeiture clause was held unenforceable against the victims and the insurer was ordered to pay BEF 23,432 and BEF 135,669.","k":"Family liability insurance — late notice, forfeiture raised against the victim","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1121 (third-party stipulation); RD 12.1.1984, art. 7; LCAT arts. 86-87 (held inapplicable)","w":258,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-10-04","rol":"15283","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2000:ARR.20001004.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La preuve de l'existence d'un événement peut résulter de la déclaration de la victime lorsqu'il existe des présomptions concordantes qui la confirment, étant donné que la version de la victime peut coïncider avec la…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The worker stated that he had fallen from the step of a bus while carrying out a repair in the yard. The court recalled that the admissibility of proof by presumptions is a question of law, but their weight is for the trial judge; the victim's account, corroborated by a colleague (he was limping on his return and said he had fallen from the bus) and by his wife, was plausible: the sudden event was sufficiently proven. However, since the traumatic origin of the injury depended on the expert examination, the first-instance ruling that outright classified the event as a workplace accident was reversed on that point as premature. The workplace-accident insurer's appeal was partly upheld; the expert examination was confirmed and the case sent back to the first judge.","k":"Workplace accident — fall from a bus, proof of the sudden event","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 9","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-09-28","rol":"C.98.0506.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2000:ARR.20000928.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"L'article 1er de la loi du 24 mai 1937, repris à l'article 20, 9°, de la loi hypothécaire du 16 décembre 1851, confère à la victime de l'accident causé par la faute de l'assuré le droit de poursuivre, à charge de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Act of 24 May 1937, incorporated in article 20(9) of the Mortgage Act, gives the victim the right to recover its claim from the insurer out of the sum owed to the insured, within the limits of the insured's liability and the policy's cover conditions. The insurer may raise against the victim defences that would allow it to refuse cover to the insured, but not the policy's arbitration clause, which has nothing to do with the cover. The Mons Court of Appeal's judgment stands: the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Victim's statutory lien — arbitration clause not enforceable against the victim","law":"Act of 24.5.1937, art. 1; Mortgage Act 16.12.1851, art. 20(9); former Civil Code, art. 1134 and 1165","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-09-22","rol":"C.98.0090.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2000:ARR.20000922.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"L'assureur qui, en vertu de son obligation contractuelle, garantit la responsabilité de son assuré dans les circonstances visées à l'article 1386bis du Code civil, ne peut invoquer l'équité prévue à cet article; le…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The tenant's fire liability insurer was ordered to compensate the landlord and the landlord's subrogated insurer for a fire caused by the insured while mentally ill. Reading the policy as also covering liability under article 1386bis of the Civil Code was for the trial court. An insurer that contractually covers that liability cannot rely on the equitable reduction in that article, which benefits only the mentally ill person. The Dendermonde court's judgment stands and the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Tenant's fire liability — mentally ill insured, equitable reduction","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1386bis and 1134; Act of 11.6.1874, art. 38; RD 1.2.1988 and RD 24.12.1992 (fire)","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-09-20","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2000:ARR.096","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 80, § 1er, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 9 juillet 1975 relative au contrôle des entreprises d'assurances viole les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution en ce qu'il refuse l'intervention du…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Passengers injured in a head-on collision between two cars, left uncompensated after the prosecuted driver was acquitted on the benefit of the doubt, had sued the Guarantee Fund; on a question from the Brussels Court of Appeal, the Court held that article 80 §1(1) of the Act of 9 July 1975 violates articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution. It denies the Fund's intervention to persons injured in a vehicle whose driver was not at fault, in an accident caused by another insured vehicle, where neither statements, witnesses nor physical evidence make it possible to determine which of the drivers of the second and third vehicles was at fault. Such persons are in a situation entirely comparable to those covered by article 80; the fact that the liable party could not be determined, rather than identified, does not justify the difference in treatment.","k":"Guarantee Fund — liable driver cannot be determined","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 80 §1; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":35,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-09-20","rol":"P.00.0202.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2000:ARR.20000920.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"De l'existence d'une couverture provisoire d'assurance de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs, constituant un contrat d'assurance à court terme, le juge ne peut déduire que ledit contrat a été…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Provisional cover had been granted for a motorcycle from 18 February to 18 April 1994; the accident occurred on 9 July 1994. The Huy court had held that, by operation of law, the insurer covered the vehicle towards third parties for at least a year. From provisional cover, which is a short-term contract, a court cannot infer tacit renewal beyond its term. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal, and the quashing extended to the decision concerning the Guarantee Fund.","k":"Motor liability — provisional cover not tacitly renewed","law":"RD 3.2.1992, art. 12 §3; Act of 21.11.1989; Cass. 18.1.2000","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-09-14","rol":"C.98.0496.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2000:ARR.20000914.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Est l'objet d'un contrat d'assurance, la couverture d'un risque déterminé moyennant une prime; cet objet doit être licite (1). || Est légalement justifiée la décision qui, dès lors qu'elle ne constate pas que l'objet…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurers argued that a policy covering a 15,000-litre heating-oil tank installed in breach of workplace safety regulations was void for unlawful subject matter. The subject matter of an insurance contract is cover of a defined risk for a premium, and it must be lawful. But the judgment did not find that covering oil leakage aimed to create or maintain an unlawful situation, and the civil consequences of a negligent regulatory breach remain insurable. The Liège Court of Appeal's judgment stands; the insurers' appeal was dismissed.","k":"Heating-oil tank insurance — lawfulness of the subject matter","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 6, 1108, 1126, 1128, 1131 and 1133; Cass. 8.4.1999","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-09-13","rol":"P.99.1485.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2000:ARR.20000913.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"En cas de condamnation par défaut du prévenu par une décision rendue contradictoirement en dernier ressort à l'égard de l'assureur de la responsabilité civile de ce prévenu en matière de véhicules automoteurs,…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The motor liability insurer challenged compensatory interest running from the date of consolidation on lump sums of BEF 750,000 and 150,000 awarded for a 10% permanent incapacity. The court assesses damage when it rules, but may calculate the principal at the time the damage became certain and fully assessable and add compensatory interest for the delayed payment; compensation remains full. Damage from permanent incapacity can be compensated from consolidation: the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — compensatory interest from consolidation","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382 and 1383; Act of 21.11.1989","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-09-12","rol":"99/AR/1919","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2000:ARR.20000912.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"La valeur de rachat d'un contrat d'assurance n'est nullement une prestation assurée ; au sens strict, elle n'est que la manifestation du droit de créance du preneur et, en demandant le rachat, le preneur reprend en…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the surrender value of a life policy whose premiums were paid from community funds belongs to the marital community and forms part of the common assets to be divided. It is not an insured benefit but the policyholder taking back accumulated savings; the 'benefit' of the insurance, which stays separate property under articles 127 and 128 LCAT, does not include the surrender value. The contract itself was allotted to the policyholder who continues it. The dispute is between the spouses.","k":"Life insurance — surrender value and marital community","law":"LCAT arts 127–128","w":259,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"2000-09-07","rol":"C.99.0122.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2000:ARR.20000907.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Le preneur d'assurance doit donner à l'assureur une connaissance exacte du risque qu'il veut faire couvrir; l'abstention de déclarer une circonstance légitimement ignorée de l'assureur et susceptible d'aggraver le…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"When applying for vehicle theft cover, the policyholder failed to mention a vehicle theft about two years earlier. The Mons Court of Appeal held that the insurer had not proved the misrepresentation mattered, since the proposal form had no question on previous thefts. The policyholder must give the insurer an accurate picture of the risk; failing to disclose an aggravating circumstance is misrepresentation even if he believed in good faith he need not mention it. The mere absence of a question on the form does not justify holding the policy valid: the judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Vehicle theft insurance — non-disclosure of an earlier loss","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9; Cass. 12.6.1998","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-09-04","rol":"S.99.0191.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2000:ARR.20000904.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'action en récupération des prestations qu'il a payées en application de l'article 58, § 1er, 3° de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail exercée par le Fonds des accidents du travail contre l'employeur…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Occupational Accidents Fund sought reimbursement from an uninsured employer of the benefits it had paid to the employee. The Antwerp labour court of appeal had halved the recourse by upholding the employer's counterclaim, on the ground that the Fund had not promptly warned the employer it was uninsured and had let the proceedings drag on. Recourse under article 60 of the Act of 10 April 1971 requires nothing beyond payment of benefits under article 58 §1, 3°, and covers them in full: the judgment was quashed on the Fund's appeal.","k":"Occupational Accidents Fund — scope of recourse against an uninsured employer","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 49, 58 §1, 3°, and 60","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-07-05","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2000:ARR.085","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 14 de la loi du 3 juillet 1967 sur la réparation des dommages résultant des accidents du travail, des accidents survenus sur le chemin du travail et des maladies professionnelles dans…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"On a question from the Brussels Criminal Court, in a case to which workplace-accident insurers were parties, the Court held that article 14 of the Act of 3 July 1967 (public sector) violates articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution insofar as it denies full compensation under ordinary law to the victim of a road accident caused unintentionally by a public-law entity while the person at fault was under its authority. The Court transposed its judgment no. 3/97 on article 46 of the Act of 10 April 1971: since the legislature intended a regime comparable to the private sector, the same reasons apply.","k":"Public-sector workplace accident — road accident caused by the employer","law":"Act of 3.7.1967, art. 14; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46; Court of Arbitration no. 3/97, 16.1.1997; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-06-28","rol":"14138","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2000:ARR.20000628.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Lorsque l'accident survient alors que la victime est seule \"l'existence de l'événement soudain peut découler de la déclaration du blessé à condition que celle-ci soit corroborée par d'autres éléments du dossier et que…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A night watchman working alone stated that he had fallen into a gutter during a round. The court recalled that, where the victim is alone, the sudden event may be established by his statement if it is corroborated by other elements forming serious, precise and consistent presumptions: the medical report, the technical director's statement on working conditions and the accident declaration completed by the social service. The short interval between the fall, the report to the company and two medical consultations ruled out a private accident; the insurer had moreover recognised the accident and paid benefits from 6.3 to 30.4.1996. The workplace-accident insurer's appeal was dismissed, the event was held to be a workplace accident and the expert examination ordered at first instance was confirmed.","k":"Workplace accident — proof by presumptions where there is no witness","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 9; Labour Court Liège 29.6.1995","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-06-28","rol":"14138","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2000:ARR.20000628.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Il découle de l'article 20 bis et de la jurisprudence que les ascendants conservent le droit au paiement de la rente payée par l'assureur - loi après le moment où leur enfant aurait eu l'âge théorique de 25 ans s'ils…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"After the fatal workplace accident of her son aged under 25, the mother sought to keep the article 20bis annuity beyond the child's theoretical age of 25, which requires that the deceased was the parents' main source of income. The court recalled that income is construed broadly (earnings, replacement income, family allowances, cohabitants' income) and found that the deceased's income was the largest item when compared with each of the mother's incomes individually, but not when compared with her aggregate income. It reopened the proceedings of its own motion for the parties to address the comparison method and whether the deceased's professional expense allowances count as income; the merits were not decided.","k":"Fatal workplace accident — parents' annuity, 'main source of income'","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 20bis; Cass. 18.1.1993","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-06-23","rol":"15071","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2000:ARR.20000623.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Il convient de distinguer d'une part, chacune des deux actions de l'article 72, soumises à un délai préfix de trois ans et, d'autre part, l'action en paiement des indemnités de l'article 69, soumise à une prescription…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court distinguished the article 72 actions, subject to a fixed three-year period, from the article 69 claim for benefits; a victim contesting a decision of recovery without permanent incapacity is bound by the three-year forfeiture period, but it only starts once the insurer has taken a position on recovery as article 24(1) requires. The exemption from a separate letter for incapacity of up to seven days (RD 16.12.1987) does not relieve the insurer of that duty. Here the period ran from 16.9.1994, when the insurer first referred to consolidation and recovery; the writ of 17.12.1996 was in time. The workplace-accident insurer's appeal was dismissed and the case sent back to the first judge for the expert examination to continue.","k":"Workplace accident — three-year period to contest a recovery decision","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 24, 69 and 72; RD 16.12.1987; Cass. 30.9.1996","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-06-23","rol":"C.99.0436.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2000:ARR.20000623.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"L'obligation légale pour l'assureur de notifier au préalable au preneur ou, s'il y a lieu, a l'assuré autre que le preneur, son intention d'exercer son action en répétition, est une modalité d'exercice de cette action…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The policy was taken out on 12 June 1990 and, after the 1992 Act came into force, a suspension endorsement took effect on 18 January 1993; the loss occurred on 17 January 1993. The insurer's claim to recover sums paid to the victims rests on the insured's contractual undertaking and remains governed by the law under which the contract was made until the new Act applies to it; the prior notice required by article 88(2) follows the same law. The insurer's claim was admissible without that notice: the insured's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Insurer's recourse — transitional application of the 1992 Act","law":"LCAT art. 88(2) and 148 §1; RD 24.8.1992, art. 3; former Civil Code, art. 2","w":260,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-06-23","rol":"C.98.0539.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2000:ARR.20000623.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"Ne tire pas des conséquences d'un fait connu à un fait inconnu et ne fonde donc pas sa décision sur une présomption de l'homme, le juge qui, après avoir constaté un ensemble de faits, apprécie si dans ces conditions le…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"Trying to overtake on the left along a motorway's concrete hard shoulder, the insured driver hit the crash barrier at an estimated 157 km/h; the insurer relied on the policy's notorious-recklessness exclusion and on gross fault equivalent to intent. A court that, after finding the facts, assesses whether the conduct falls within a contractual exclusion and amounts to such gross fault is not relying on a factual presumption. The Brussels Court of Appeal's judgment rejecting the exclusion stands: the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Cover exclusion — notorious recklessness and gross fault","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16; former Civil Code, art. 1349 and 1353","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-06-21","rol":"P.00.0368.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2000:ARR.20000621.29","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le juge pénal ne peut allouer des dommages et intérêts à une partie civile que dans la mesure où l'action exercée par celle-ci a pour objet la réparation du dommage causé par une infraction (1). || L'obligation…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The criminal court had ordered a public transport company, under article 29bis, to compensate the civil parties in full regardless of any share of fault on the victim's part. The article 29bis compensation duty exists without any proven liability of the insured and is not based on an offence, so a claim on that basis falls outside the criminal court's jurisdiction, which could rule only under ordinary liability law. Since public-policy rules of jurisdiction were breached, the decision on the civil claims was quashed on the company's appeal.","k":"Article 29bis — criminal court lacks jurisdiction","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; Act of 17.4.1878, art. 3–4; Judicial Code, art. 601bis; Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 138; Cass. 28.3.2000","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-06-16","rol":"16087","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2000:ARR.20000616.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Lorsque l'employeur du travailleur ou l'assureur n'a pas institué un service médical répondant aux conditions édictées par l'article 29 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail, la victime d'un accident…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"Because neither the employer nor the insurer had set up a medical service meeting article 29 of the Act of 10.4.1971, the victim was free to choose her doctor; the court held that, given the flat-rate nature of compensation, medical costs are then reimbursed at the tariff set by the King (health-care nomenclature). The workplace-accident insurer's appeal succeeded on this principle and on the share of facelift costs attributable to the accident, fixed at one third; it failed on the dental prosthesis, which was held attributable to the accident. A supplementary expert report was ordered to quantify the amounts.","k":"Workplace accident — medical costs capped at the INAMI tariff","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 29 and 31; RD 30.12.1971; Cass. 30.6.1976","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-06-15","rol":"31196","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:2000:ARR.20000615.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"- ophalen van kinderen op school. - criterium van de \"nodige en redelijkerwijze te verantwoorden\" omweg. - omweg van 3,2 km. opzichtens, het territoriaal kortste parcours van 500 m. tussen arbeids- en verblijfplaats. -…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The worker was injured while making a 3.2 km detour, compared with the shortest 500 m route between workplace and home, to collect her children from school. The Labour Court held that a reasonable detour to drop off or collect children at school does not deprive the route of its normal character; the test is whether the detour is 'necessary and reasonably justifiable', and the route remained normal in time and geography. The workplace-accident insurer's appeal was dismissed; the judgment requiring it to compensate the accident and ordering a medical expert report was upheld.","k":"Commuting accident — detour to collect children from school","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 8","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-05-19","rol":"C.98.0410.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2000:ARR.20000519.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Viole l'article 12, § 3, de la loi du 9 juillet 1975 relative au contrôle des entreprises d'assurances, l'arrêt qui, après avoir constaté qu'une compagnie belge d'assurances a été citée personnellement en sa qualité…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The injured parties had sued a Belgian company they believed to be the liability insurer; the actual insurer was a foreign company whose Belgian general agent that company was, joined only later and relying on the policy's one-year limitation period. Since the Belgian company had been sued in its own name as insurer, not as agent, the proceedings were not validly brought against the foreign insurer under article 12 §3 of the Act of 9 July 1975. The Liège Court of Appeal's judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Foreign insurer — general agent and one-year contractual limitation","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 12 §3; Act of 11.6.1874, art. 12; Judicial Code, art. 17, 43, 700 and 702","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-05-17","rol":"P.00.0087.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2000:ARR.20000517.29","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"L'article 29bis de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs, édicté pour la protection de certaines victimes d'accidents de la circulation…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"During a pre-rally reconnaissance, a person who had got out of a car after a first accident was injured in a second one. The appeal court held that the waiver of recourse he had signed barred him from claiming compensation for bodily injury from the motor liability insurer under article 29bis. That provision, enacted in the public interest to protect victims and relieve the health-insurance system, is a matter of public policy: the judgment was quashed on that point on the victim's appeal. The insurer's appeal also succeeded, because the court had not answered its submissions on another civil party's standing.","k":"Article 29bis — public policy, rally waiver of recourse not enforceable","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis; Constitution, art. 149","w":261,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-05-11","rol":"C.97.0187.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2000:ARR.20000511.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'assureur qui exerce son droit conventionnel de recours est tenu de prouver qu'en sa qualité d'assureur, il a indemnisé les victimes conformément à ses obligations légales et contractuelles; il importe peu qu'il se…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The motor liability insurer claimed from its insured, under articles 24 and 25.9 of the policy conditions, the BEF 389,330 paid to victims of an accident on 14 April 1991. The insured argued that some payments had been made by the victims' own insurers under the RDR agreement. An insurer exercising contractual recourse must prove it compensated the victims in line with its obligations, but it does not matter whether it paid directly or another insurer paid on its behalf under inter-insurer arrangements. The Ghent Court of Appeal's judgment stands: the insured's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for payments settled through the RDR agreement","law":"Act of 21.11.1989; general policy conditions, art. 24 and 25.9; former Civil Code, art. 1134 and 1165","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-05-05","rol":"12919","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2000:ARR.20000505.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Aux termes de l'article 7 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail, est considéré comme accident du travail, tout accident qui survient à un travailleur dans le cours et par le fait de l'exécution du…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A company director had an accident on 1.12.1987, the feast of Saint-Éloi, when the staff were on leave; the appellant argued that he had not shown the accident occurred in the course of performing his employment contract. The court recalled that suspension of the contract also suspends statutory protection, but that a legal provision suspending performance does not prohibit working, and that a director's position generally entails wide autonomy in organising working time. It reopened the debates of its own motion on the sector's custom, the work rules, the latitude given to the director and the employment contract; the merits were not decided.","k":"Workplace accident — accident on a day the contract was suspended (Saint-Éloi)","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 7; Cass. 22.2.1993; Cass. 24.3.1980","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-04-10","rol":"99/AR/287","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2000:ARR.20000410.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"When assessing the limits of the workplace-accident insurer's subrogation against the liable third party, compensation for professional material loss from temporary and permanent incapacity repairs one and the same loss and must be compared as a whole. The third party cannot rely on differences between the experts of the two regimes unless it shows the common-law findings are wrong. Compensatory interest claimed by the insurer cannot exceed the common-law rate and award. Post-consolidation treatment costs causally linked to the accident, including for their relief effect, remain recoverable.","k":"Workplace accident — workplace-accident insurer's recourse against the liable third party","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts 46 §2 and 47","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"2000-03-29","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2000:ARR.035","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : - L'article 24, alinéa 4, de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail, interprété en ce sens que le montant de la rémunération moyenne mensuelle minimale garantie à prendre en…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"On a question from the Tournai Labour Court, in a dispute between the workplace-accident insurer, the victim and the Workplace Accidents Fund, the Court distinguished two readings of article 24(4) of the Act of 10 April 1971. Read as meaning that the guaranteed minimum monthly wage used for the third-party assistance allowance is the amount in force at the date of the accident, re-indexed up to the final settlement, it violates articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution: the allowance would depend on how slowly the claim is settled and would be indexed twice, whereas article 39(5) uses the amounts in force at the accident date. Read as referring to the amount in force at the date of the accident, it is constitutional.","k":"Workplace accident — third-party assistance allowance and indexation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 24(4), 27bis and 39(5); Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-03-28","rol":"P.99.0274.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2000:ARR.20000328.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le juge de police qui est compétent pour connaître en tant que juge pénal des action civiles fondées sur une action publique, est sans compétence pour connaître de l'action des victimes et ayants droit fondée sur…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The parents of an injured minor, a vulnerable road user, sought full compensation from the motor liability insurer under article 29bis in criminal proceedings; the Hasselt court had ordered the insurer to pay interim amounts on a 50% basis only. The article 29bis duty is unconnected with any fault of the insured and is incompatible with the criminal court's prior assessment of the defendant's fault, so the criminal court has no jurisdiction over such a claim. The injured parties' appeals were dismissed; the insurer partly withdrew its own appeal.","k":"Article 29bis — claim not admissible before the criminal court","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 14 §2 and 29bis; LCAT art. 89 §5; Judicial Code, art. 601bis; Act of 17.4.1878, art. 4","w":49,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-03-23","rol":"98/74.173","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTBRL:2000:JUG.20000323.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A cook, after work, went up to a colleague with whom he had argued earlier ('we still have something to finish') and was injured in the ensuing fight; he sought compensation from the workplace-accident insurer. The court held that putting down his bag, insulting the colleague and continuing the fight were not a legitimate reason for interrupting the journey, which thus lost its normal character: there was neither a workplace nor a commuting accident. As the broader protection of public-sector staff against violence rests on objective grounds, a preliminary reference was deemed pointless and the claim was dismissed.","k":"Workplace accident — fight after work, not a commuting accident","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 7–8; Act of 3.7.1967, art. 2 §3","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-03-21","rol":"24201","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:2000:ARR.20000321.16","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"- weerlegging van het vermoeden dat het letsel door een ongeval is veroorzaakt, via het leveren van het tegenbewijs - twee weken na een (niet betwist) arbeidsongeval symptomatisch geworden, voorafbestaande, niet gekende…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Two weeks after an undisputed workplace accident, a previously unknown pre-existing condition (bilateral aseptic necrosis of the femoral head) became symptomatic; the victim asked that all later incapacity be attributed to the accident and that a new expert be appointed. Relying on the court expert's report, the Labour Court found that the condition merely followed its medically inevitable course and that, once the accident's influence ceased, the sequelae were no longer causally linked to it: the presumption was rebutted. The victim's appeal was dismissed; the judgment in the insurer's favour was upheld, with costs borne by the insurer under article 68.","k":"Workplace accident — pre-existing condition, rebuttal of the presumption of causation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 9 and 68; Cass. 19.12.1973","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-02-29","rol":"95/4201","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARANT:2000:JUG.20000229.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"De combinatie van een deeltijdse en een voltijdse tewerkstelling is niet geregeld in artikel 37 BIS van de Arbeidsongevallenwet. Dit is een uitzonderingsbepaling die beperkend dient te worden geïnterpreteerd en niet van…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The Hasselt Labour Tribunal held that article 37bis does not govern the basic wage of a worker injured in a part-time second job held alongside a full-time main job: as an exception it must be construed narrowly and does not cover the combination of part-time and full-time employment, so articles 34 et seq. apply. The workplace-accident insurer's position that only the part-time wage (BEF 58,411) counts was rejected, but so was the worker's request to add up the wages of both jobs. Only the wage in the undertaking where the accident occurred is taken into account; since the reference period was incomplete, it is supplemented under article 36 by a hypothetical wage for the unpaid hours, giving a basic wage of BEF 567,103. Permanent incapacity was set at 0%; proceedings were reopened on the remaining items.","k":"Workplace accident — accident in a part-time second job, basic wage","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 34, 36 and 37bis","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-02-25","rol":"C.98.0511.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2000:ARR.20000225.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"L'assuré qui fait valoir à l'égard de son assureur le droit à un payement doit non seulement apporter la preuve du dommage et de l'événement qui y a donné lieu mais aussi établir que le risque réalisé était celui prévu…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Three fires in 1980 and 1981 in buildings occupied by the insured were found to be arson, with indications of the insured's guilt; the insurer refused cover under the deliberate-fire exclusion. The Liège Court of Appeal, holding that the insurer had to prove the exclusion, ordered it to pay BEF 340,063. An insured claiming payment must prove not only the loss and the event but also that the risk that materialised was covered by the contract and not excluded: the judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Fire insurance — burden of proof for deliberate fire","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1134 and 1315; Judicial Code, art. 870","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-02-17","rol":"34792","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:2000:ARR.20000217.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"artikel 5, 2° - werkgever(s): cumul van een deeltijdse tewerkstelling met een voltijdse tewerkstelling in loondienst van twee zustervennootschappen, verzekerd bij verschillende arbeidsongevallenverzekeraars;…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The worker held a full-time and a part-time contract with two sister companies insured with different workplace-accident insurers; the accident occurred while both contracts were being performed simultaneously. The Labour Court held that the two jobs are distinct contractual relationships and separate risks: each insurer is liable for the statutory benefits relating to the employment it covers, and the basic wage, ceilings and benefits must be calculated separately for each contract. For the part-time job article 37bis does not apply; the wage is supplemented by a hypothetical wage under article 36 §1. Both insurers were ordered to compensate the victim; their mutual claims and their claims against the employers were dismissed.","k":"Workplace accident — two employers, two insurers, basic wage","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 5, 2°, 36 §1, 37bis, 39, 42","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-02-14","rol":"96/AR/2785","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:2000:ARR.20000214.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Comme toute clause contractuelle, la suspension de la garantie d'assurance doit être mise en ouvre de bonne foi. Si des facilités de paiement amiables sont octroyées alors que la mécanique de la suspension de garantie…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The motor liability insurer sought from the policyholder repayment of BEF 272,178 paid to the victim of a 1990 accident, relying on suspension of cover for non-payment of premium. The court held that suspension, like any contractual clause, must be applied in good faith: where payment facilities are granted after the suspension mechanism has been set in motion, the insurer must leave no doubt that the suspension continues. The circumstances in which the green card was issued and the insurer's conduct after the accident (an endorsement suspending the contract from the day after the accident, a demand for the deductible only, and a recourse claim raised more than a year later) gave the policyholder a legitimate belief that he was insured. The breach of good faith was sanctioned by loss of the right to rely on the suspension; the recourse was dismissed and the insurer's appeal rejected.","k":"Motor liability — suspension for unpaid premium, good faith and recourse","law":"Motor liability general conditions, arts. 12 and 25.4; good-faith performance of contracts","w":262,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-02-09","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2000:ARR.018","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"la Cour dit pour droit : L'article 1er, 9°, et l'article 3, § 2, de la loi du 2 février 1982 attribuant certains pouvoirs spéciaux au Roi, en tant qu'ils autorisent l'adoption de l'article 2 de l'arrêté royal n° 128 du…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"On questions from the Brussels Court of Appeal, hearing an action against the liable party and his insurer, the Court held that articles 1, 9° and 3 §2 of the Act of 2 February 1982, insofar as they authorised Royal Decree no. 128 inserting paragraphs 2 to 4 into article 42bis of the Act of 10 April 1971, and article 4 of the Act of 20 July 1990, violate articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution. Under the subrogation scheme so established, the pension received by a workplace-accident victim or dependants was taken into account in determining the compensation owed by the person liable for the accident or by that person's insurer. While controlling social-security spending is legitimate, workplace-accident benefits are essentially compensatory, and this limitation is disproportionate compared with victims of ordinary accidents, who face no comparable restriction.","k":"Workplace accident — subrogation and set-off of the pension","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 42bis and 47; Act of 2.2.1982, arts. 1, 9° and 3 §2; Act of 20.7.1990, art. 4; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-02-02","rol":"P.98.0882.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2000:ARR.20000202.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Aucune disposition légale ne soumet la recevabilité d'un pourvoi à l'obligation de déposer un mémoire. || En matière répressive, lorsque le juge statue tant sur l'action civile que sur l'action publique, il n'est pas…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The heirs of a person killed in a road accident claimed compensation in criminal proceedings from the defendant's motor liability insurer under article 29bis. The Liège Court of Appeal held it had no jurisdiction over the civil claims against the defendant and his insurer because the charge of involuntary manslaughter was not proven. A criminal court may award damages only for harm caused by an offence it finds proven, and a claim before it against the defendant's insurer seeks redress for harm caused by that offence. The appeals were dismissed, without a preliminary reference to the Court of Arbitration.","k":"Article 29bis — criminal court lacks jurisdiction where the offence is not proven","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 12, 14 and 29bis; Act of 17.4.1878, art. 3–4; Judicial Code, art. 774(2); Special Act of 6.1.1989, art. 26","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-01-20","rol":"C.96.0161.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2000:ARR.20000120.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'assureur qui indemnise le dommage aux noms du père et de la mère est subrogé à tous les droits relatifs à ce dommage que ceux-ci ont à l'égard de leur enfant qui a causé le dommage.","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A family liability insurer had compensated, on behalf of the parents, a third party stabbed by their minor child and then sought recourse against the child. The Antwerp Court of Appeal held that this claim belonged to the parents and that the insurer could not exercise it against the child under article 22 of the 1874 Act. The Court of Cassation held that the presumption of parental liability operates only towards third parties and that parents have recourse against their child; an insurer that paid for the parents is subrogated to that recourse. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Family liability insurance — recourse of the parents' insurer against the minor child","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 22; former Civil Code, art. 1384(2)","w":84,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-01-19","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:2000:ARR.006","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 38, alinéa 1er, 2e phrase, de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail viole les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution en ce qu'il n'est pas applicable à l'incapacité…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"An apprentice aged 20 at the time of the accident challenged the workplace-accident insurer's calculation of his temporary-incapacity benefits on the statutory minimum; on a question from the Liège Labour Court, the Court held that article 38(1), second sentence, of the Act of 10 April 1971 violates articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution. The provision gives an apprentice who comes of age during temporary incapacity a more favourable base pay from that date, but does not apply to an apprentice who was already an adult at the time of the accident. Since the legislature intended to remedy an injustice, the criterion of majority is not relevant: the injustice is the same for the adult apprentice whose base pay remains limited to an apprentice's wage.","k":"Workplace accident — base pay of the adult apprentice","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 38; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-01-18","rol":"P.97.1241.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:2000:ARR.20000118.19","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La durée de validité mentionnée dans le certificat international d'assurance (la 'carte verte') ne porte pas atteinte à la durée du contrat d'assurance, légalement fixée à un an, sauf convention contraire entre les…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The motor liability insurer argued that it owed no cover to the parties injured in the accident of 7.7.1995 because the validity period of the green card it had issued (24.11.1994–24.1.1995) had expired. The Court held that the period stated on the green card does not override the statutory one-year contract term unless the parties agreed otherwise, which the insurer must prove; a unilateral document drawn up by the insurer itself is not such proof. The insurer's appeal was dismissed and cover remains owed to the injured parties.","k":"Motor liability — green card validity and contract term","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 7; RD 13.2.1991, art. 5; model contract RD 14.12.1992, arts. 1 and 26; Judicial Code, art. 870","w":263,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"2000-01-07","rol":"15724","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:2000:ARR.20000107.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Aux termes de l'article 22 de la loi du 10/4/1971 sur les accidents du travail, lorsque l'accident a été la cause d'une incapacité temporaire et totale de travail, la victime a droit, à partir du jour qui suit celui du…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a worker totally and temporarily incapacitated by a workplace accident is entitled, during her statutory maternity leave, to the full daily benefit under article 22 of the Act of 10.4.1971 (90% of average daily pay), even though she received benefits from her health-insurance fund. The workplace-accident legislation contains no anti-cumulation rule; the insurer cannot rely on article 136 §2 of the coordinated Act of 14.7.1994, which would let it profit from benefits unduly paid by the health-insurance fund. The worker's appeal was upheld; the insurer was ordered to pay the benefits for 29.3.1995–11.7.1995 and the costs. According to the Juportal note, an appeal to the Court of Cassation was lodged.","k":"Workplace accident — total temporary incapacity benefit and maternity leave","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 22; coordinated Act of 14.7.1994, arts. 100 and 136 §2; RD 3.7.1996, art. 295 §1, 3°","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-12-24","rol":"11993","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1999:ARR.19991224.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Le délai de prescription applicable en l'espèce est de trois ans conformément à l'article 69, al. 1, de la loi du 10/4/1971. Reste en litige la détermination de la date de prise de cours de ce délai de trois ans. En…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer sought repayment of partial temporary incapacity benefits (BEF 329,257) paid to a worker who was later awarded, by a judgment that became final, his full pre-accident wage for the period of resumed work. The court recalled that the benefit under article 23 of the Act of 10.4.1971 covers the difference between two wages and is undue where there is no loss of wages; the three-year limitation period (art. 69) for the recovery action began only when that judgment was served, on 6.11.1982. The worker's main appeal was dismissed and the insurer's cross-appeal upheld; debates were reopened to fix the amount to be repaid.","k":"Workplace accident — recovery of overpaid benefits, start of limitation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 22, 23 and 69; Cass. 13.2.1978","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-12-22","rol":"P.98.1580.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1999:ARR.19991222.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Pour que, dans l'hypothèse d'un cas fortuit, le Fonds commun de garantie automobile soit tenu à réparation des dommages matériels, il faut que ce soit \"en raison\" de ce cas fortuit qu'aucune entreprise d'assurances…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The criminal court had cleared the driver on the ground of a fortuitous event and ordered the Guarantee Fund to pay the injured party's property damage. The Court held that the Fund is liable only if it is \"because of\" the fortuitous event that no insurer must pay; the court should have examined whether the vehicle's insurer was liable as insurer of the keeper of a defective thing. On the Fund's appeal the decision was quashed, and the quashing extended to the ruling releasing the insurer from the case.","k":"Guarantee Fund — fortuitous event and property damage","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 80 §1, 2°; former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1384","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-12-17","rol":"13220","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1999:ARR.19991217.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Les dispositions de la loi sur les accidents du travail sont d'ordre public, de sorte que la prise en charge par l'assureur loi d'indemnités d'incapacité ne préjuge nécessairement ni de la réalité d'un accident, ni de…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that workplace-accident legislation is a matter of public policy: the insurer's payment of incapacity benefits does not prejudge the existence or nature of the accident, and an earlier acceptance does not bind the insurer, since an admission cannot concern matters the law places beyond the parties' disposal. Proof of the sudden event cannot rest on the victim's statement alone but may rest on presumptions: the back pain felt while pulling his work table was corroborated by the written accounts of two colleagues and by a medical finding the same day. The insurer's appeal succeeded only as to the reasoning; the judgment ordering an expert examination was confirmed, the case was sent back to the first-instance court and the insurer was ordered to pay costs.","k":"Workplace accident — insurer's earlier acceptance not binding, proof by presumptions","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 9; former Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, arts. 870 and 1068, para. 2","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-12-15","rol":"P.99.1291.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1999:ARR.19991215.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsqu'une partie a formé un pourvoi en cassation et s'est désistée de son pourvoi sans acquiescement, pour le motif que la décision faisant l'objet du pourvoi ne constitue pas une décision définitive au sens de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A person given the car keys only to put a bag in the boot drove the car without permission and caused an accident; the court, finding no intent to appropriate the car, ruled out theft for use and ordered the motor liability insurer to pay the injured party a provisional BEF 150,000. The Court held that the specific intent under article 461(2) of the Criminal Code is the will to deprive the possessor of the use of the thing temporarily, not an intent to appropriate it. On the insurer's appeal the decision was quashed, the quashing extending to the ruling concerning the Guarantee Fund.","k":"Motor liability — joyriding (theft for use) exclusion","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 3 §1; Criminal Code, art. 461(2); Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 416","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-12-14","rol":"94/AR/1587","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1999:ARR.19991214.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Le contrat d'assurances est un contrat synallagmatique. Si, dans le chef de l'assureur, il a un caractère aléatoire lié à la survenance du sinistre, le preneur d'assurances s'engage, lui, immédiatement et sans réserve à…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an insurance contract is synallagmatic: though aleatory for the insurer, it binds the policyholder immediately and unconditionally to pay the premium in advance at the start of each period, and article 1184 of the Civil Code applies to non-payment. Since the premium was unpaid before the loss, the insurer may raise the defence of non-performance and refuse to pay the indemnity. As the insurer's debt was not due, statutory set-off could not apply.","k":"Unpaid premium — insurer's defence of non-performance","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1184; set-off","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1999-12-13","rol":"19.063;19.066","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARGNT:1999:JUG.19991213.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Algemeen wordt aangenomen dat het normale traject niet enkel een geografisch maar ook een chronologisch aspect vertoont en telkens dient de concrete verplaatsing aan beide elementen te worden getest (C.Perseyn, R.…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A worker whose shift ended at 10 p.m. died the same night in a road accident on the motorway; the workplace-accident insurer refused cover because the distance between the workplace and the accident site did not account for a 2.5-hour journey. The court recalled that the normal route has both a geographical and a chronological dimension and that the burden of proof lies on the claimants; an interruption of about an hour and a half is significant and, as the alleged overtime or meal break was not proven, it was justified neither by force majeure nor by a legitimate reason. The claims of the heirs and of another insurer that had paid out were dismissed; the heirs' costs were nevertheless charged to the workplace-accident insurer under article 68 of the Act of 10.4.1971.","k":"Workplace accident — commuting accident, time gap","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 8 and 68; Cass. 17.9.1984","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidsrechtbank Gent","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-11-23","rol":"96/AR/3019","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1999:ARR.19991123.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Le seul fait qu'au contrat d'assurance \"accident\" souscrit soit de type-loi ne permet pas de considérer que l'intention des parties aurait été de référer à la notion d'accident retenue en matière d'accident du travail.…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the mere fact that an accident policy is of the 'statutory type' does not mean the parties intended to adopt the workplace-accident concept of accident. Where the policy contains its own definition, only that definition counts; the absence of the requirement of a cause external to the victim's body shows that the parties did not intend to adopt it. However, where the policy treats causation globally, all causes must be external to the victim when there are several. The concrete outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Personal accident insurance — contractual definition of accident","law":"Contract interpretation; policy definition of accident","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1999-11-18","rol":"97/AR/2058","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1999:ARR.19991118.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A co-ownership switched insurers on its broker's advice; the new policy, whose extended cover the broker had praised, contained a new exclusion for water damage caused by corrosion, and the insurer refused the claim. The court held that a broker's role is not limited to putting the client in touch with an insurer but includes explaining the scope of cover and safeguarding the client's interests; by failing to flag that an essential risk was no longer covered, the broker did not act as a conscientious adviser and committed a fault engaging professional liability. The remedy is compensation equal to what the insured would have obtained from the insurer had the contract been in order. Procedurally, the claim against the insurer and the claim against the broker are not indivisible. The broker's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Insurance broker — duty to warn of a new exclusion when switching insurers","law":"Judicial Code, arts. 31 and 1053; broker's duty to advise (Monette, De Villé and André)","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-11-10","rol":"15363","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1999:ARR.19991110.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'article 8 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail définit le chemin du travail comme \" le trajet normal que le travailleur doit parcourir pour se rendre de sa résidence au lieu de l'exécution du…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Before starting work, the worker left home, drove past his workplace to his mother's house, then set off back towards the workplace, where the accident occurred on 5.9.1996. The court recalled that the commuting route under article 8 of the Act of 10.4.1971 is the journey between residence and workplace: beyond the workplace, and then between the mother's home and the company, the worker was no longer on the commuting route, so there was no need to examine whether the detour was justified by a legitimate reason or force majeure. The workplace-accident insurer's appeal was upheld and the worker's claim dismissed; the appeal costs stayed with the insurer.","k":"Commuting accident — journey beyond the workplace","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 8","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-11-08","rol":"S.98.0054.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1999:ARR.19991108.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"S'applique uniquement dans les cas où la victime d'un accident du travail décède après avoir atteint l'âge de vingt-cinq ans, la règle qui est prévue à l'article 6, alinéa 2, de l'arrêté royal du 12 avril 1984 portant…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that the rule in article 6, para. 2 of the Royal Decree of 12 April 1984, under which interest on the annuity capital runs automatically from the third month after death, applies only where the victim died after the age of 25. The rule placing costs on the workplace-accident insurer, unless the claim is frivolous and vexatious, does not apply to a dispute between that insurer and the Workplace Accidents Fund over such interest.","k":"Workplace accident — interest on annuity capital and costs","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 59quinquies and 68; Royal Decree of 12.4.1984, art. 6; Judicial Code art. 1017","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"summary"},{"d":"1999-11-04","rol":"C.97.0069.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1999:ARR.19991104.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'obligation du Fonds commun de garantie automobile de réparer les dommages matériels du propriétaire ou du conducteur du véhicule qui a causé l'accident ne dépend pas de la seule circonstance qu'un cas fortuit…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Ghent Court of Appeal had ordered the Guarantee Fund to pay the damage (BEF 102,500) to the own car of a driver who skidded on an undetectable oil patch. The Court held that a fortuitous event alone is not enough: it must also be established that, because of that event, no authorised insurer is bound to pay the loss. As this was not established, the judgment was quashed on the Fund's appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund — own property damage of the driver in a fortuitous event","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50 §1; RD 16.12.1981, arts. 17 and 19 §1","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-10-29","rol":"94/57.357","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARBRL:1999:JUG.19991029.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The health-insurance fund sought the annulment of a decision by the INAMI administrative control service ordering it to recover 119,625 francs of incapacity benefits from the workplace-accident insurer. The court held that, since the insurer had notified its refusal to the fund late (beyond two weeks after receiving the accident declaration), the fund had to claim these sums from the insurer under article 63 §2 of the Act of 10.4.1971; that claim is subject not to a 3- or 5-year limitation but to the 30-year general limitation period, and was not time-barred. Only the instruction to book the amount as administrative costs was found premature and annulled.","k":"Workplace accident — health-insurance fund's claim against the workplace-accident insurer, limitation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63 §2; RD 4.11.1963, arts. 261–262; Cass. 12.12.1988; Cass. 3.10.1994","w":-1,"c":"Nederlandstalige arbeidsrechtbank Brussel","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-10-22","rol":"C.98.0150.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1999:ARR.19991022.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"L'action directe reconnue à la personne lésée contre l'assureur par l'article 6 de la loi du 1er juillet 1956 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs, n'a lieu,…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Both drivers were found equally at fault; the Brussels Court of Appeal had ordered the insurer to compensate in full the owner of the other vehicle and that owner's insurer, because owners not involved in the faults are entitled to full compensation. The Court held that the direct action under article 6 of the Act of 1 July 1956 lies, as a rule, only where the insurer owes cover under the contract or the law; the insurer of a driver whose fault contributed only half of the loss cannot be ordered to pay more. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — limits of the direct action (shared fault)","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 6; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 12; former Civil Code, arts. 1134, 1382–1383","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-10-11","rol":"C.98.0421.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1999:ARR.19991011.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"La transaction intervenue entre le bénéficiaire et l'assureur de la responsabilité n'est pas opposable à l'organisme assureur qui est subrogé de plein droit au bénéficiaire des prestations de l'assurance…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The injured party had signed a full and final settlement receipt with the liability insurer for BEF 12,000; the Antwerp Court of Appeal held that this settlement was binding on the health-insurance fund suing as subrogee. The Court held that under article 76quater §2(5) of the health insurance Act an agreement between the beneficiary and the party liable to pay compensation cannot be raised against the fund without its consent, departing from the ordinary rules on subrogation. The judgment dismissing the fund's claim was quashed on the fund's appeal.","k":"Health-insurance fund subrogation — settlement with the liability insurer not binding","law":"Act of 9.8.1963, art. 76quater §2(4)-(5) (now coordinated Act of 14.7.1994, art. 136 §2)","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-10-11","rol":"C.97.0201.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1999:ARR.19991011.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'organisme assureur qui a accordé au bénéficiaire de l'assurance contre la maladie et l'invalidité certaines prestations est subrogé de plein droit au bénéficiaire à concurrence du montant des prestations octroyées,…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Antwerp Court of Appeal had limited the subrogation claim of the health-insurance fund against the liable party's insurer to the periods in which incapacity assessed under ordinary law exceeded 66%. The Court held that the conditions and amount of the benefits are governed by health insurance legislation and that the decision establishing incapacity cannot be challenged before the court hearing the subrogation claim against the liable third party; the claim is capped at the sums owed under ordinary law for the same loss. The judgment was quashed on that point on the fund's appeal.","k":"Health-insurance fund subrogation — binding incapacity decision","law":"Act of 9.8.1963, arts. 56 and 76quater §2(4) (now coordinated Act of 14.7.1994, art. 136 §2)","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-10-08","rol":"C.98.0040.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1999:ARR.19991008.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Lorsque l'assureur d'une banque a indemnisé celle-ci du dommage causé à l'un de ses clients par la perte d'un colis postal et que la banque a indemnisé ce client, cet assureur est légalement subrogé dans les droits de…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The banks' insurers had paid for diamonds stolen from registered mail; the senders sued the Post Office as nominees on behalf of the insurers. The Liège Court of Appeal accepted a cascading legal subrogation (insurers into the banks' rights, banks into the senders' rights) and the validity of the nominee agreement. The Court held that articles 1249 and 1251, 3° of the former Civil Code had not been infringed and dismissed the Post Office's appeal.","k":"Cascading subrogation — action by nominees on behalf of insurers","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1249 and 1251, 3°; Postal Services Act of 26.12.1956, art. 18","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-09-29","rol":"P.99.0624.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1999:ARR.19990929.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Lorsque l'assureur interjette seul appel, la décision qui l'a condamné avec l'assuré à l'égard de la partie civile, n'a pas autorité de chose jugée à son égard, de manière telle qu'elle ne lui est pas opposable, ce…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The police court had ordered the defendant driver and his motor liability insurer jointly to compensate the civil party; only the insurer (and the prosecution) appealed. The appeal court refused to examine any fault of the victim, holding it was no longer seised of the civil claim based on the driver's fault. The Court held that where the insurer alone appeals, the judgment against it and the insured has no res judicata effect against the insurer, either towards the injured party or towards the insured. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Procedure — appeal by the insurer alone and res judicata","law":"Code of Criminal Procedure, arts. 172 and 202; devolutive effect of appeal; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 29bis","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-09-27","rol":"95/AR/2843","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1999:ARR.19990927.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Lorsqu'un contrat d'assurance prévoir définit l'accident par référence à la notion d'accident de travail contenue dans la loi du 10 avril 1971, l'accident visé est celui qui survient à un travailleur dans le cour et par…","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"A surgeon working in Zaire injured his finger during operations in 1982 and 1983 and later died of AIDS; his heirs sued the overseas social-security body (workplace-accident insurer) and the insurer of the employer's group accident policy. As the workplace-accident contract defined the accident by reference to the Act of 10 April 1971, that Act's rules of proof form part of the definition: once the sudden event and the injury are proven, causation is presumed; since the experts could not rule out infection during the accident, the judgment against the workplace-accident insurer was upheld. Under the group policy, governed by ordinary law, the heirs failed to prove by certain presumptions that the infection resulted from the accidents (prior seronegativity uncertain, high-risk area); that claim was dismissed. Both appeals were rejected.","k":"Group accident insurance and overseas workplace accident — HIV infection after needle injuries, proof of causation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 9; proof by presumptions under ordinary law","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-09-20","rol":"35.957","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1999:ARR.19990920.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Pour déterminer si la victime d'un accident du travail mortel était la source principale de revenus de ses père et mère, les allocations familiales ne peuvent pas eðtre intégrées dans les revenus à prendre en…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"After a fatal workplace accident, the victim's parents claimed the life annuity under article 20bis of the Act of 10.4.1971, arguing that their son was the household's main source of income; the Workplace Accidents Fund considered the annuity limited to the victim's 25th birthday and claimed payment of the capital. The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal held that child benefits cannot be counted as income, that the father lived on unemployment benefits only and that the victim's contribution exceeded that income: the parents were entitled to the life annuity, the workplace-accident insurer was ordered to pay it and the Fund's claim was dismissed. According to the Juportal note, the judgment was partly quashed by the Court of Cassation on 8.10.2001.","k":"Fatal workplace accident — parents' life annuity, child benefits","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 20, 20bis and 59quinquies","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-09-17","rol":"C.99.0037.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1999:ARR.19990917.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Pour que, dans l'hypothèse d'un cas fortuit, le Fonds comun de garantie automobile soit tenu à réparation des dommages matériels, il faut que ce soit en raison de ce cas fortuit qu'aucune entreprise d'assurance n'est…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Dinant police court had ordered the Guarantee Fund to pay the own property damage of a driver who hit an unforeseeable and unavoidable wild boar, on the ground that no insurer would pay. The Court held that the Fund is liable only if it is because of the fortuitous event that no insurer covers the loss; here, even had the driver been held liable, motor liability insurance would not have covered his own damage. The judgment was quashed on the Fund's appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund — driver's own damage after hitting a wild boar","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 80 §1, 2°; RD 16.12.1981, arts. 17 and 19","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-09-15","rol":"P.99.0300.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1999:ARR.19990915.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Est inférieure au minimum légal et, partant, illégale, la condamnation à une peine d'amende inférieure à cent francs du chef de défaut d'assurance automobile obligatoire, lorsque le juge n'a pas admis de circonstances…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"Two defendants had been fined fifty francs for driving without insurance and registration. The Court noted that article 22 §1 of the Act of 21 November 1989 sets the fine at a minimum of one hundred francs and that the court cannot go below it without finding mitigating circumstances. The appeal judgment of the Eupen criminal court was quashed and the case sent back to that court, differently composed.","k":"Uninsured vehicle — statutory minimum fine","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 22 §1 and 28; Criminal Code art. 85","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"summary"},{"d":"1999-09-08","rol":"P.99.0334.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1999:ARR.19990908.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'assureur-loi qui a versé des indemnités à la victime d'un accident du travail et a constitué un capital pour réparer l'incapacité permanente partielle consécutive à cet accident peut exercer, dans la limite des…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that the workplace-accident insurer may recover from the liable third party the full capital set aside for permanent partial incapacity and all sums paid to the victim, within the limit of the damages owed under ordinary law for the same material loss; the judgment capping that recourse at BEF 120,000 for permanent damage was quashed. The Guarantee Fund's appeal against an order to reimburse the social security contributions withheld and paid over by the insurer (BEF 115,949) was dismissed: they may be claimed provided the liable party pays no more than it owes under ordinary law.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse against the liable third party and the Guarantee Fund","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-09-02","rol":"97/AR/3291","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1999:ARR.19990902.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Le droit de chacun à un procès équitable, garanti par l'article 6.1 de la Convention européenne des droits de l'Homme, prime la règle de l'autorité de la chose jugée au pénal sur le civil, en sorte que le juge saisi…","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The insured hit a lamp post at night in 1991; the criminal court imposed separate penalties for alcohol intoxication and speed. The court held that the right to a fair trial under article 6.1 ECHR prevails over the res judicata effect of the criminal judgment in civil proceedings: the insurer, a stranger to the criminal case, may rebut the findings on the circumstances of the accident. Under the own-damage cover, the clause excluding losses occurring while the driver lacks the physical qualities required to drive (special conditions art. 10.4) was clear; a blood-alcohol level of 2.27 g/l shows that lack, with no requirement of a permanent condition, so the insurer rightly refused the own-damage claim. However, articles 25.10 and 26 of the model policy only grant the insurer a recourse, not a right to refuse liability cover; the order that the insurer reimburse the insured BEF 7,028 for the third party's damage was upheld.","k":"Own-damage and motor liability — alcohol, effect of the criminal judgment and fair trial","law":"ECHR art. 6.1; own-damage special conditions, art. 10.4; model policy, arts. 25.10 and 26","w":265,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-07-15","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:1999:ARR.093","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 80, § 1er, alinéa 1er, 2°, et alinéa 3, de la loi du 9 juillet 1975 relative au contrôle des entreprises d'assurances ne viole pas les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution.","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"On questions from the police courts of Charleroi, Verviers, Huy and Dinant in actions against the Guarantee Fund, the Court held that article 80 §1(1), 2° and §1(3) of the Act of 9 July 1975 does not violate articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution. The Fund has a substitution function: it steps in only for losses in principle covered by compulsory liability insurance. In a fortuitous event (such as wandering game), the loss suffered by the owner of the vehicle that caused the accident, or caused directly by that event, involves no insured liability; it is therefore justified that the Fund does not cover it either, as with the exclusion of property damage where the vehicle is unidentified. Such losses may be covered by other forms of insurance.","k":"Guarantee Fund — fortuitous event and the owner's property damage","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 80 §1; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 4; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":35,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-07-08","rol":"97/AR/837","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1999:ARR.19990708.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"Lorsqu'une assurance couvrant l'assuré en responsabilité civile lui procure également une couverture \" protection juridique \" en lui laissant le choix de son avocat, en ce compris en cas de conflit d'intérêts surgissant…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insured, holder of a provisional licence, caused an accident in 1991 while driving on a Friday evening during the prohibited period; the motor liability insurer sought recourse of BEF 264,180 under article 25.6 of the general conditions. The court held that the breach related to an objective characteristic of the driver, that proximity to home and the short time elapsed since the ban began were irrelevant, and that an unspecified claim of urgency did not amount to force majeure. The insurer's payment of the insured's criminal and civil defence costs under the legal-protection cover did not waive its recourse, and exercising that recourse was neither an abuse of right nor bad-faith performance. The insured's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — provisional licence, driving in a prohibited period, recourse and legal protection","law":"Motor liability general conditions, arts. 24 and 25.6 (model contract); abuse of right","w":266,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-07-08","rol":"14266","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1999:ARR.19990708.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the worker's claim against the workplace-accident insurer was already time-barred when the writ was served on 2.2.1995. Acknowledgment of the right by the debtor (art. 2248 former Civil Code) interrupts the three-year limitation period but must be certain and unequivocal: the insurer's opening of a file, its failure to meet the thirty-day information duty (art. 63) or a letter worded 'subject to acceptance of the case' are not acknowledgments, and an acknowledgment made after limitation has run does not interrupt it. Complying with a provisionally enforceable judgment is not acquiescence, which would in any event be void since the 1971 Act is a matter of public policy. The worker's appeal was dismissed; costs remained with the insurer.","k":"Workplace accident — limitation, opening a file is no acknowledgment","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 63, 69 and 70; former Civil Code, art. 2248; Judicial Code, art. 1044; Cass. 13.11.1995; Cass. 30.10.1978; Cass. 4.6.1970","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-06-25","rol":"98/AR/791","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1999:ARR.19990625.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"La prescription de l'action récursoire de l'assureur est actuellement réglée par l'article 34 § 3 de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur les assurances terrestres. Aux termes de cet article, l'action de l'assureur contre…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The motor liability insurer sought recourse against the insured lorry driver who had caused an accident in 1979 while intoxicated. The court held that the limitation of the recourse is now governed by article 34 §3 LCAT (three years from payment) and that this mandatory provision applies even to an action brought before the new Act, the 25-month transition period having ended on 1 July 1995; payments made before 2 November 1987, BEF 557,597, were time-barred. For the remainder, the criminal court, by imposing separate penalties for the injuries and for intoxication, had implicitly but necessarily held that intoxication was unrelated to the accident; the insurer, which had intervened in the criminal case, was bound by that res judicata, so the recourse based on gross fault failed. The first-instance judgment was reversed and the recourse declared inadmissible in full.","k":"Motor liability — limitation of the insurer's recourse and res judicata of the criminal judgment","law":"LCAT arts. 3 and 34 §3; Preliminary Title Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 4; Cass. 23.11.1990","w":6,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-06-25","rol":"14522","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1999:ARR.19990625.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Les stagiaires en formation professionnelle ne peuvent bénéficier de la loi du 10 avril 1971. Le droit à réparation des suites d'un accident du travail résulte de l'article 17 de l'arrêté de l'Exécutif de la Communauté…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court found that vocational trainees do not benefit from the Act of 10.4.1971: their right to compensation derives from article 17 of the French Community Executive's decree of 12.5.1987, which requires the training office to take out an ordinary insurance policy. That the policy must guarantee benefits equivalent to the 1971 Act does not make it a statutory workplace-accident insurance; the labour court therefore has no jurisdiction under article 579, 1°, 578, 5° or 580 of the Judicial Code. The trainee's appeal against the insurer was dismissed, the ruling declining jurisdiction and referring the case to the court of first instance was confirmed, and the trainee was ordered to pay the appeal costs.","k":"Vocational trainee — accident, jurisdiction of the labour court","law":"French Community Executive decree of 12.5.1987, art. 17; Judicial Code, arts. 578, 5°, 579, 1° and 580; Cass. 19.12.1988; Cass. 5.5.1986","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-06-24","rol":"87/AR/745;87/AR/829","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1999:ARR.19990624.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"L'assureur dégâts matériels qui indemnise son assuré dans l'ignorance des circonstances particulières de l'accident et des poursuites judiciaires dont celui-ci a fait l'objet et sans aucune négligence de sa part,…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The own-damage insurer had paid the insured and the finance company without knowing of the driver's alcohol intoxication or the criminal proceedings. The court held that the payment was made in error within the meaning of articles 1376 and 1377 of the former Civil Code and must be repaid: the receipt did not amount to a settlement, and even an inexcusable error does not extinguish the duty to repay. Since the policy excluded cover for an accident while the driver was intoxicated, the insured could not import from the liability contract the limitation of recourse to drunkenness or the right to rebut the presumption of causation; an insurer may treat the two types of cover differently. The appeals of the insured and the finance company were dismissed.","k":"Own-damage cover — alcohol exclusion and recovery of a payment made in error","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1376–1377 (undue payment); alcohol-intoxication exclusion clause","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-06-18","rol":"14941","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1999:ARR.19990618.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Aux termes de l'article 35 alinéa 1er de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail, est considérée comme rémunération toute somme ou tout avantage, évaluable en argent, octroyé directement ou indirectement…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the premium paid by the employer to a group insurance taken out for its staff forms part of the basic remuneration within the meaning of article 35 of the Act of 10.4.1971. The exception for 'benefits supplementing the social security scheme' (para. 2) is not to be construed broadly: the future pension supplement is such a benefit, but the employer's contribution financing it is not (Cass. 16.1.1978). The workplace-accident insurer's appeal was dismissed and the judgment confirmed; debates were reopened to calculate the basic remuneration and the annual allowance.","k":"Workplace accident — basic remuneration, employer's group-insurance premium","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 35; Cass. 16.1.1978; Mons Labour Court of Appeal, 1.3.1996 and 6.5.1998","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-06-02","rol":"P.98.1615.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1999:ARR.19990602.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Le contrat d'assurance de choses en valeur agréée permet aux parties, assuré et assureur, de fixer de commun accord la valeur devant servir de base à l'indemnisation, en cas de perte de l'objet de la convention. Il ne…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer had paid BEF 461,861 to a road-accident victim under an agreed-value property policy. The Court held that, under article 55 LCAT, such an agreement binds only the parties: the subrogated insurer may claim from the liable party only what is owed under ordinary law; where it paid the agreed value without deducting the excess, it may claim only the ordinary-law value less the excess, which the liable party owes to the victim. Whether car hire costs result from the fault is for the trial court. The appeal was dismissed.","k":"Agreed-value property insurance — limits of the subrogated insurer's recourse","law":"LCAT art. 55; former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":267,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-06-01","rol":"P.97.0885.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1999:ARR.19990601.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Pour la conservation de la couverture, conformément à la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire en matière de véhicules automoteurs, de la responsabilité civile à laquelle un véhicule automoteur peut…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"In criminal proceedings the appeal court had acquitted the owner and the driver, holding that where failure to declare an increase in risk is attributable to the policyholder the insurer may only reduce cover, so there is no lack of insurance. The Court held that to keep cover compliant with the Act the policyholder must declare any increase in risk during the contract; a fraudulent or culpable failure entails, depending on whether the person is owner, keeper or driver, a punishable or non-punishable lack of insurance, even though the insurer remains bound towards the injured party. The acquittals were quashed.","k":"Uninsured driving offence — failure to declare an increase in risk","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 2 and 22 §1; LCAT art. 26 §1 and §3","w":268,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-05-28","rol":"C.97.0389.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1999:ARR.19990528.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En règle, le propriétaire d'un véhicule automoteur ayant causé le dommage ne peut faire valoir aucun droit à l'égard du Fonds commun de garantie; l'obligation de néanmoins procéder à l'indemnisation du propriétaire…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"An owner exempt from compulsory insurance claimed BEF 145,093 from the Guarantee Fund for damage to its service vehicle, which had skidded on an oil patch; the Brussels Court of Appeal held the claim inadmissible. The Court held that, as a rule, the owner of the vehicle that caused the damage has no claim against the Fund; the exception requires not only a fortuitous event but also that the driver could rely on it to escape liability towards an injured third party. The owner's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Guarantee Fund — own vehicle damage of an owner exempt from insurance","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, arts. 49–50; RD 16.12.1981, arts. 17 §1, 1° and §2, and 19","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-05-27","rol":"93/AR/291","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1999:ARR.19990527.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"En vertu de l'article 70 § 2, al.4 de la loi du 9 août 1963, l'organisme assureur, qui a octroyé au bénéficiaire de l'assurance maladie invalidité, dans les conditions déterminées par le Roi, les prestations prévues par…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The health-insurance fund sought from the liable driver's liability insurer reimbursement of benefits paid to its member, injured in a road accident. The court held that under article 70 §2 of the Act of 9 August 1963 the fund is subrogated by law up to the amount of the benefits paid, provided it claims no more than is owed under ordinary law; the fact that the incapacity rate found by the ordinary-law expert did not reach 66 % is no bar. It is irrelevant that the benefits were paid voluntarily in line with the fund's medical adviser, and the settlement between the victim and the insurer cannot be invoked against the fund. The insurer was ordered to pay BEF 775,114 with compensatory interest from the dates of payment.","k":"Health-insurance fund's subrogation — 66 % incapacity threshold","law":"Act of 9.8.1963, arts. 56 and 70 §2 para. 4 (statutory subrogation)","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-05-26","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:1999:ARR.054","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : Les articles 127, 128 et 148, § 3, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre violent les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution en ce qu'ils ont pour effet que lorsque deux…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"On questions from the Namur justice of the peace, the Court held that articles 127, 128 and 148 §3 LCAT violate articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution insofar as, where spouses under a community-property regime took out a life policy to secure repayment of joint loans and, once repaid, to pay a capital sum only to the policyholder on reaching an agreed age, with premiums paid from community assets, that capital is separate property and gives rise to compensation only if the premiums were manifestly excessive. The same savings invested in securities would have been community property, and the other spouse's donative intent cannot be presumed. As the provisions are discriminatory in themselves, the Court did not examine their immediate application.","k":"Life insurance — community property and compensation","law":"LCAT arts. 127, 128 and 148 §3; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":269,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-05-21","rol":"C.96.0128.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1999:ARR.19990521.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'obligation de réparer incombant au Fonds commun de garantie automobile en vertu de l'article 50, § 1er, 2°, de la loi du 9 juillet 1975 relative au contrôle des entreprises d'assurances, requiert, dans l'hypothèse…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The justice of the peace had ordered the Guarantee Fund to pay BEF 11,150 to the owner of a car that ended up in a ditch because of mud left on the road after a beet harvest, while finding that the driver knew of the state of the road, had not adapted her driving and was half responsible for her own loss. The Court held that the Fund's liability requires that the fortuitous event exonerate the driver; a fault excludes force majeure, so no compensation is due. The judgment was quashed on the Fund's appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund — driver's fault rules out a fortuitous event","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50 §1, 2°; RD 16.12.1981, arts. 17 §2 and 19 §1","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-05-14","rol":"C.95.0249.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1999:ARR.19990514.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Si l'assureur réclame le remboursement des sommes payées successivement à la partie lésée par la faute de l'assuré, le délai de trois ans est présumé prendre cours à partir de la date de chaque paiement effectué par…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer paid an advance of BEF 300,000 on 2.11.1984 to the party injured by its insured; the insured's liability was established by a judgment of 25.3.1985, and the recourse action was brought on 26.2.1991. The Court held that the three-year period of article 32 of the 1874 Act runs from each payment where payments are spread over time and, for a payment made before the insurer's obligation was established, from the date it was established. The recourse claim was time-barred for BEF 282,140; the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Insurer's recourse against its insured — start of the limitation period","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 32","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-05-03","rol":"36.601","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1999:ARR.19990503.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A worker injured in a commuting accident developed, after a cerebral haemorrhage, left-side paralysis and cognitive impairment; the expert proposed 85% and the first judge had found total permanent incapacity. The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal upheld that finding, holding that the after-effects and the psychological consequences of the accident destroyed the essential means of carrying on his occupation. The appeals of the workplace-accident insurer and of the Belgian Motor Insurers' Bureau, acting for the liable third party's insurer, were dismissed.","k":"Workplace accident — total permanent incapacity","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-04-08","rol":"C.98.0042.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1999:ARR.19990408.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"N'est pas légalement justifié l'arrêt qui, sans énoncer que l'objet d'un contrat d'assurance contre le risque de l'incendie est de créer ou de maintenir une situation illégale, considère, pour rejeter la demande…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Mons Court of Appeal had dismissed the insureds' claim after their chalet burned down, holding the fire insurance contract void for unlawful subject-matter because the building had been erected without a planning permit. The Court held that the subject-matter of an insurance contract is cover of a specified risk for a price; the judgment did not find that this subject-matter created or maintained an unlawful situation and could not annul the contract on that ground alone. The judgment was quashed on the insureds' appeal.","k":"Fire insurance — building erected without a permit","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 6, 1108, 1126, 1128, 1131 and 1133","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-03-15","rol":"96/AR/1979","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1999:ARR.19990315.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"S'il est vrai que toute interruption de la prescription à l'égard de l'assureur automobile entraîne le même effet à l'égard de l'assuré, encore faut-il que ce soit le véritable assureur qui soit touché par l'acte…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Knocked down in 1987 by a vehicle whose driver fled, the pedestrian sued in 1990 the company he believed insured the vehicle, together with the Guarantee Fund; the true motor liability insurer was only joined later. The court held that interrupting the limitation period against the insurer also takes effect against the insured, but the interrupting act must reach the true insurer. The Act of 21 November 1989, which extended the period from three to five years, does not apply where the three-year period had already expired when the new Act came into force. The injured party's claim against the true insurer was declared inadmissible; the claim against the vehicle owner was partly upheld with a three-quarters liability split, BEF 195,900 in principal.","k":"Motor liability — limitation, interruption against the wrong insurer and the 1989 Act's transitional rule","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 30; motor liability limitation (three to five years)","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-03-11","rol":"C.98.0414.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1999:ARR.19990311.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Ne viole pas la foi due à une clause de non-application de la garantie d'une police d'assurance contre le risque de vol de véhicule si certaines précautions indispensables pour prévenir le vol ont été négligées, et ne…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The policy excluded theft cover if essential precautions had been neglected (doors unlocked, key left in the car, etc.). The Liège Court of Appeal held that these precautions concerned an unoccupied vehicle parked outside a garage, not a driver stepping out for a moment without losing sight of it, and ordered the insurer to cover the theft. The Court held that this reading is not irreconcilable with the clause's wording and adds no condition to it; the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Vehicle theft insurance — interpretation of the essential-precautions clause","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1134, 1135, 1319, 1320 and 1322","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-03-03","rol":"P.98.1245.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1999:ARR.19990303.16","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le juge pénal ne peut allouer des dommages et intérêts à une partie civile que s'il constate que le préjudice est né d'un fait qualifié infraction qu'il déclare établi. || L'action civile de la victime d'un accident de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A road-accident victim had joined the criminal proceedings as civil party against the defendant driver and his motor liability insurer; after the acquittal, the appeal court declined jurisdiction, holding that a claim under article 29bis had to be brought before the civil court. The Court held that a criminal court may award damages only for loss caused by an offence it finds proven, and that the civil claim against the defendant's insurer seeks compensation for the loss caused by the defendant's offence. The victim's appeal was dismissed; against the defendant it was inadmissible for lack of service.","k":"Criminal court — civil claim against the insurer after acquittal","law":"Act of 17.4.1878, arts. 3–4; Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 182; Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 12 and 29bis","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-02-26","rol":"9373","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1999:ARR.19990226.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Le délai de prescription de l'action en paiement d'une indemnité à la suite d'un accident du travail prend cours au moment où le droit à l'indemnité est né (Cass., 3ème Ch., 8 février 1993, Pas. 1993, I, p. 154; J.T.T.…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The claim brought against the Workplace Accidents Fund by a victim whose bankrupt employer was uninsured was held time-barred. The court recalled that article 70 of the Act of 10.4.1971, a public-policy rule derogating from ordinary law, must be construed strictly: an ordinary letter does not interrupt the three-year limitation period even if the insurer admits receiving it; letters addressed to the King and Queen, even if forwarded to the Fund, are not registered letters sent to the debtor, the Fund being an autonomous public body rather than a branch of the royal authority. Acknowledgment of the right by the debtor (art. 2248 former Civil Code) interrupts limitation but must be clear and unequivocal; an admission is void in public-policy matters. The Fund's main appeal was upheld; debates were reopened on costs.","k":"Workplace accident — interrupting limitation, ordinary letter and petition to the King","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 57, 69 and 70; former Civil Code, art. 2248; Cass. 8.2.1993; Cass. 18.11.1996; Cass. 7.3.1983","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-02-24","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:1999:ARR.024","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La Cour, chambre restreinte, statuant à l'unanimité des voix, constate que la Cour n'est pas compétente.","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"In a motor liability insurer's recourse against its insured for gross negligence (arts. 24–25 of the model contract), the Dinant Police Court asked whether article 5, 3° of the Act of 11 July 1994, which gives it jurisdiction over such actions, breaches the appearance-of-impartiality requirement of article 6 §1 ECHR. The Court, sitting as a restricted chamber and unanimously, held that it lacked jurisdiction: it cannot rule directly, on a preliminary question, on whether a statute conforms to an international treaty, and may not reformulate the question. The merits of the recourse were not addressed.","k":"Motor insurer's recourse — police court jurisdiction (Court not competent)","law":"Act of 11.7.1994, art. 5, 3°; Special Act of 6.1.1989, art. 26 §1; model contract RD 14.12.1992, arts. 24–25","w":264,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-02-22","rol":"S.98.0035.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1999:ARR.19990222.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La durée de l'incapacité de travail de la victime d'un accident du travail est un élément de fait, bien que l'indemnité légalement due en cas d'accident du travail soit calculée sur la base de celle-ci; dès lors, ni les…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"After the labour court fixed the consolidation date at 8.11.1990, the workplace-accident insurer sought repayment of BEF 989,752 in temporary total incapacity benefits paid from 9.11.1990 to 31.8.1992. The Court held that the duration of incapacity is a matter of fact which the insurer may acknowledge in a binding way, as it had done by letter of 16.9.1992; a payment based on that acknowledgement or on the advance-payment duty of article 63 §4 of the Act of 10.4.1971 is not undue. The insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Workplace accident — insurer's acknowledgement of incapacity and recovery of overpayment","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 6, 23–24 and 63 §4; former Civil Code, art. 1235","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-02-19","rol":"C.94.0246.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1999:ARR.19990219.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'assureur qui, en vertu de la loi du 1er juillet 1956 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs, a indemnisé la victime d'un accident pour lequel son assuré et…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The motor liability insurer had paid half the loss of a victim who was himself held half responsible, and the full loss of the other civil parties, and then sought recourse against that person and his insurer. The Antwerp Court of Appeal held the claim time-barred under the five-year period for claims based on an offence. The Court held that the recourse of an insurer that paid more than its insured's share against other parties jointly liable rests not on the offence but on the apportionment of contribution among the liable parties. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Motor liability insurer's recourse against a co-liable party — limitation","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, arts. 6 and 10; Act of 17.4.1878, art. 26; former Civil Code, arts. 1213–1214 and 1251, 3°","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-02-12","rol":"12882","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1999:ARR.19990212.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Si la seule déclaration de bonne foi de la victime d'un accident ne peut suffire, comme l'a relevé avec pertinence le premier juge, cette seule exigence étant en effet contraire notamment au prescrit de l'article 870 du…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that the victim's good-faith statement alone is not enough, but that, where witnesses are unavailable, consistent elements may serve as a presumption. The medical records showed that an accident had occurred, but nothing established that it happened during and in the course of work; nine years later the worker still could not quantify the medical costs claimed. The workplace-accident insurer's appeal was upheld, the expert examination ordered at first instance was overturned and the claim dismissed; costs nevertheless remained with the insurer under article 68 of the Act of 10.4.1971.","k":"Workplace accident — proof the accident occurred at work","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7, 9, 28 and 68; Judicial Code, art. 870","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-02-08","rol":"95/AR/2429","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1999:ARR.19990208.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"La clause d'une police d'assurance couvrant les \" dégâts des eaux \" et la \" responsabilité civile \", d'un assuré et précisant que celui-ci doit \" sous peine de déchéance, prendre en tout temps toutes les précautions…","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"Dry rot that had developed in the insured's building spread to the neighbouring building, and the insured was ordered to compensate the neighbour. The court confirmed that damage to the insured's own building was excluded for lack of maintenance, but stressed that a clause requiring all usual precautions on pain of forfeiture cannot deprive the insured of the very object of the policy. Under the building-liability section, the exclusion for damage caused by water did not apply: the fact that humidity favours dry rot does not mean the neighbouring building was damaged by water within the meaning of the policy. The insurer must indemnify the insured for the judgment against her; both the insurer's appeal and the insured's cross-appeal were dismissed.","k":"Home insurance — dry rot, lack of maintenance and building-liability cover","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1384 and 1386; policy, building-liability section, art. 66 E","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-02-04","rol":"94/AR/3213","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1999:ARR.19990204.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Les règles relatives à l'existence ou à la capacité des personnes morales d'ester et la régularité de leur représentation touchent à l'ordre public et peuvent, à tous les stades de la procédure, être remises en cause,…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"After an accident in Zaire with a hired car, an insurer and the injured passenger sued the driver and his employer; the driver brought a guarantee claim against the vehicle's local liability insurer. The court held that a legal person's capacity to sue is a matter of public policy that may be raised at any stage, cannot be cured under articles 860 et seq. of the Judicial Code, and is not remedied by resuming an irregularly introduced action; the insurer's original claim and the passenger's intervention were declared inadmissible. The jurisdiction clause in the liability insurer's general conditions designating the courts of Zaire was held valid; as that insurer had contested jurisdiction before any defence, the Brussels court was declared territorially incompetent for the guarantee claim.","k":"Accident abroad — capacity to sue, jurisdiction clause and guarantee claim against the liability insurer","law":"Judicial Code, arts. 631–633, 635 9°, 854 and 860 et seq.","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-02-01","rol":"93/AR/1996","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1999:ARR.19990201.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Lorsqu'un contrat d'assurance accidents donne comme définition du risque couvert la définition exacte que la Cour de cassation a donné de l'accident de travail et précise que le concept sera interprété conformément à la…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The group accident policy taken out by the employer defined an accident by the Court of Cassation's definition of a workplace accident and stated that the concept would be construed according to the case law on the Act of 10 April 1971. The court held that the parties had thereby incorporated that Act's rules of proof: once a sudden event and an injury are shown, causation is presumed, so the beneficiary need not prove the cause of the fall; the insurers must prove that death resulted solely from an internal cause. The insurers failed to rebut the presumption regarding the fatal fall from a balcony. The judgment was reversed and the two insurers were ordered to pay BEF 15,000,000 (60 %/40 %) with default interest from the formal notice of 27 October 1989 and capitalised interest.","k":"Group accident insurance — reference to the workplace-accident definition and proof","law":"Act of 10.4.1971 (workplace-accident concept, presumption); contractual definition of accident","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-01-26","rol":"P.96.1001.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1999:ARR.19990126.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"De la seule circonstance que l'assureur en matière d'assurance automobile obligatoire est tenu d'indemniser le tiers lésé, il ne saurait se déduire, en ce qui concerne le rapport juridique assureur-assuré, qu'il est…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The court had found that the \"moped\", capable of well over 40 km/h, was in fact a motorcycle and that the owner, who should have known this, had not declared the increase in risk to the insurer. The Court held that the mere fact that the insurer must compensate the injured third party does not mean that, between insurer and insured, there is cover compliant with the Act; a culpable failure to declare an increase in risk can amount to a punishable lack of insurance. The convicted owner's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Uninsured driving offence — moped that was in fact a motorcycle","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 2 and 22 §1; LCAT art. 26 §1 and §3","w":268,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-01-21","rol":"C.95.0379.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1999:ARR.19990121.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"En l'absence de bonne foi dans le chef d'une partie lors de la conclusion ou de l'exécution d'une convention, le juge ne peut réviser la convention ni déclarer cette partie déchue du droit qu'elle puise dans la…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured sought the appointment of an independent expert under article 11B of the policy. The Brussels Court of Appeal held that, under article 11A (a binding third-party determination clause), an employee of the leading insurer cannot be regarded as a third party, and that the court president may be asked to appoint an independent expert when the insurer refuses to do so. The Court held that the appeal judge had determined the effects of the contract by interpreting it, not by revising it; the co-insurers' appeal was dismissed, and held out of time for two of them.","k":"Property insurance — expert-appointment clause in the policy","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1134 and 1184; Judicial Code, arts. 31 and 1073","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-01-20","rol":"12107;12267","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1999:ARR.19990120.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'événement soudain doit se distinguer du désordre physiologique, qui même s'il survient ou se manifeste subitement, peut ne naître que d'un processus évolutif. Par ailleurs on ne peut contester que la cause extérieure…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The worker lost consciousness while driving and hit a pole. Relying on the expert report, the court found that no cause of the accident was external to the victim's body, the injuries being the consequence of an epileptic seizure, so that the workplace-accident insurer rebutted the presumption of article 9 of the Act of 10.4.1971; a sudden event differs from a physiological disorder arising from a progressive process. The appeals of the worker and of the subrogated health-insurance fund were dismissed; the fund's reimbursement claim against the insurer was not based on the 1971 Act, so its costs could not be charged to the insurer (art. 68). According to the Juportal note, the Court of Cassation set this judgment aside on 29.4.2002 and referred the case to the Brussels Labour Court of Appeal.","k":"Workplace accident — no external cause, epileptic seizure while driving","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 9 and 68; Cass. 17.2.1986; Cass. 29.4.2002 (S.00.0017)","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-01-20","rol":"P.98.0924.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1999:ARR.19990120.16","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Un véhicule automoteur ne peut plus être mis en circulation lorsque la garantie de l'assurance a été effectivement suspendue par suite de non-paiement de la prime, même si le contrat d'assurance existe toujours et quand…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The defendant argued that the insurer had not terminated the contract but merely suspended cover and could raise no defence against the injured party, so the uninsured driving offence was not made out. The Court held that under article 2 §1 of the Act of 21.11.1989 a vehicle may be used only if covered by a contract whose effects are not suspended; the offence is committed once cover is actually suspended for non-payment of the premium, even if the contract still exists and the insurer, under article 16, cannot raise any defence against the injured party. The defendant's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Uninsured driving offence — cover suspended for non-payment of premium","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 2 §1 and 16; LCAT arts. 14–17","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-01-18","rol":"1998;AR;1821","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1999:ARR.19990118.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La possibilité de cantonner est un droit attribué par les articles 1398 et 1404 du Code judiciaire. Toutefois, en application de l'article 1406 du Code judiciaire, le juge qui se prononce sur l'action peut décider qu'il…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The injured party, hurt when a lift fell, had brought a direct action against the operator's liability insurer; the first court awarded a provisional sum. The court of appeal held that, reading articles 1401 and 1406 of the Judicial Code together, the appeal judge may also exclude the insurer's right to deposit the sum in escrow (cantonnement), and excluded it: the injured party, a widow of limited means, would suffer serious harm if she could not fund the medical expert examination and exercise her procedural rights. The insurer's alternative request for a bank guarantee was rejected, since the injured party owned her flat and the insolvency risk was limited.","k":"Direct action — excluding the insurer's right to deposit (cantonnement)","law":"Judicial Code, arts. 1398, 1400 §1, 1401, 1404 and 1406","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1999-01-13","rol":"14143","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1999:ARR.19990113.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'article 63 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 impose à l'assureur-loi qui refuse de prendre un cas en charge de prévenir l'organisme assureur auquel la victime est affiliée. Le même article prévoit que \"les indemnités…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that a workplace-accident insurer that fails to notify the victim's health-insurance fund in time must repay the incapacity benefits the fund paid. Producing a letter to the victim stating that a copy was sent to the fund does not prove notice: that mere mention does not show with certainty that the fund was actually informed.","k":"Workplace accident — proof of notice to the fund","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1999-01-11","rol":"1995/AR/1287","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1999:ARR.19990111.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The Antwerp Court of Appeal held that the insured failed to show, even by presumption, that the salmonella found in frozen food shipped by sea to the United States resulted from temperature fluctuations due to an event covered by the policy; no signs of thawing were found and the loss was not recoverable under the institute frozen food clauses either. The survey findings, which the buyer had refused to attend, retained their evidential value. The main appeal was dismissed and the claim against the first respondent was declared inadmissible.","k":"Marine cargo insurance — salmonella in frozen food","law":"Marine cargo policy; Institute Frozen Food Clauses","w":264,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"full"},{"d":"1998-12-22","rol":"94/AR/994","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1998:ARR.19981222.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"L'article de la loi du 11 juin 1874 dispose que \"dans tous les cas où le contrat d'assurance est annulé, en tout ou en partie, l'assureur doit, s'il (l'assuré) a agi de bonne foi, restituer la prime, soit pour le tout,…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Under the Act of 11 June 1874, when a contract is annulled the insurer refunds premiums only if the insured acted in good faith and only for the part relating to a risk it did not bear; the appellant must prove both. The court held that an insured who expressly declared he had never been convicted of drink-driving, although less than three years earlier he had been disqualified from driving for five months for that reason, was not in good faith; the refund claim failed. Commentary on the Act of 25 June 1992, which postdates the facts, cannot be relied on.","k":"Motor liability — refund of premiums after annulment, good faith","law":"Act of 11.6.1874 (refund of premium); LCAT not applicable ratione temporis","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1998-12-09","rol":"93/AR/3669;94/AR/619","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1998:ARR.19981209.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Il ressort des articles 33 et 34 du contrat programme de 1956 que l'accord d'assurance, par défaut de connaissance d'une mise hors d'usage du véhicule ou de son remplacement est ipso facto suspendu soit à la date de sa…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The insured had replaced his vehicle without notifying the insurer; the accident killed one passenger and injured another. The court held that under articles 33 and 34 of the 1956 model contract, where the insurer is unaware of the replacement, cover is automatically suspended eight days after the old vehicle is taken out of use when it has been replaced immediately, the period running from the transfer of the vehicle rather than the purchase deed. As the accident occurred after that period, the new vehicle was uninsured and the Guarantee Fund must compensate; the judgment holding the insurer liable was reversed. The contributory-fault arguments against the young passengers (drunk driver, seat belt) were rejected and the Fund was ordered to pay the amounts set.","k":"Motor liability — suspension of cover on vehicle replacement and the Guarantee Fund","law":"1956 model contract, arts. 3, 33 and 34","w":270,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1998-11-26","rol":"C.95.0266.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1998:ARR.19981126.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'article 3, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 1er juillet 1956 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs, signifie manifestement que l'assurance couvrant la…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A car left overnight with its door open and keys in the ignition was stolen and the thief caused an accident; the Guarantee Fund compensated the injured party and claimed against the owner's motor liability insurer. The Court held that the exclusion in article 3 of the 1956 Act covers only the thief's liability and does not mean the owner is uninsured. To the extent it paid, the Fund is subrogated against the co-liable owner and his insurer. The insurer's appeal was dismissed; the Antwerp Court of Appeal's award of a BEF 100,000 advance stands.","k":"Motor liability — stolen vehicle, Fund's recourse against the insurer","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 3; Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50 §1, 3° and §2; Act of 21.11.1989","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1998-11-16","rol":"93/AR/3214","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1998:ARR.19981116.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"Lorsqu'une police d'assurance en responsabilité civile des parents tipule que leur responsabilité est couverte du chef de sinistres provenant notamment d'un acte commis intentionnellement mais inconsidérément par un…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A 16-year-old took his father's car without permission, caused an accident and then, while fleeing, deliberately injured the other driver. The family liability policy covered losses arising from an act committed intentionally but thoughtlessly by an insured minor. The court held that the notion of a thoughtless act must be interpreted by reference to the minor's ability, given his age and discernment, to consider the consequences of his act, not by the absence of prior reflection or premeditation. The youth had the necessary discernment and acted deliberately: cover was refused, the parents' appeal dismissed except as to costs, and the Guarantee Fund's appeal against the insurer became moot.","k":"Family liability insurance — minor's intentional but thoughtless act","law":"Family liability policy clause (minor's intentional but thoughtless act)","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1998-11-12","rol":"C.97.0150.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1998:ARR.19981112.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'assureur de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs n'est tenu, en vertu de la gestion d'affaires, de réparer le dommage encouru par une personne portant secours à une autre personne victime d'un…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A person injured while trying to help at an accident claimed compensation from the moped's motor liability insurer on the basis of agency without authority (gestion d'affaires). The Court upheld the appeal ruling that, as the rider was not at fault, the insurer had no duty to compensate the passenger, so the intervention could not benefit the insurer. The fact that an insurer may be bound by statute to compensate a third party does not create a claim based on agency without authority where the conditions for the driver's liability are not met. The appeal was dismissed; the Brussels Court of Appeal's ruling stands.","k":"Motor liability — rescue attempt and agency without authority","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 3; former Civil Code, art. 1372–1375","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1998-10-30","rol":"94/AR/2271","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1998:ARR.19981030.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Aux termes du prescrit de l'article 10 de la loi hypothécaire, c'est à l'assureur de veiller à ce que les indemnités dues soient appliquées par lui a la réparation de l'objet assuré. Bien que le fonds de commerce ait…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A bank holding a registered pledge over the insured's business claimed damages from the fire insurer that had paid the indemnity directly to the insured. The court held that under article 10 of the Mortgage Act the insurer must ensure the indemnity is applied to restoring the insured property; since a business pledge is subject to public registration, the insurer must check the register before paying, without the creditor having to lodge an objection. The bank's claim, based on the insurer's tort rather than the policy, is subject to the thirty-year limitation period rather than the three-year one. The insurer was ordered to pay 2,165,970 F.","k":"Fire insurance — pledgee creditor and payment of the indemnity","law":"Mortgage Act of 16.12.1851, art. 10; Act of 25.10.1919, art. 4; Act of 11.6.1874, art. 32","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1998-10-21","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:1998:ARR.101","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 46, § 2, alinéa 2, de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail, en ce qu'il a pour conséquence la différence de traitement mentionnée en B.4, ne viole pas les articles 10…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Westerlo Police Court noted that a private-sector employee may sue under ordinary law only after the workplace-accident compensation has been determined (art. 46 §2(2) of the Act of 10 April 1971), whereas a public-sector employee may choose the order of the actions. The Court confined its review to this difference in the order of the actions and found it not disproportionate to the aim of securing compensation for victims. Both statutes prohibit cumulation for the same loss and do not exclude a civil action against liable persons not covered by the statute; the provision does not violate articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution.","k":"Workplace accident — order of statutory and civil claims","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46 §2(2); Act of 3.7.1967, art. 14 §2(2); Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"1998-09-29","rol":"91/14884/A","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1998:JUG.19980929.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Le juge civil peut interpréter une décision pénale antérieure pour autant que cette interprétation soit conciliable avec les termes du jugement répressif. L'autorité de la chose jugée au répressif sur l'action civile…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The police court had held that driving while intoxicated was not a fault causally linked to the accident. The court rejected the res judicata objection: the criminal judge ruled only on that charge, not on other driving faults (loss of control, inappropriate speed), and the driver's liability was held established. The liability insurer was ordered to pay BEF 331,339 to the injured party's subrogated insurer and BEF 13,796 plus BEF 12,000 to the injured party; the insurer's recourse claim against its own insured was stayed.","k":"Motor liability — res judicata of a criminal judgment and claim against the insurer","law":"Judicial Code, art. 23–28 (res judicata); former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":264,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1998-09-02","rol":"95/AR/1562","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1998:ARR.19980902.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Aux termes de l'article 12, al. 1 de la loi du 14 juin 1874 sur les assurances (en vigueur à l'époque des faits), des biens couverts pour leur valeur totale par un premier assureur ne peuvent faire l'objet d'une seconde…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that under article 12(1) of the 1874 Act then in force, property insured for its full value cannot be insured a second time against the same risk for the same person; the second contract is deemed void. As the rule rests on unjust enrichment, the three-year limitation period of the insurance statute does not apply, and the loss suffered by a party who made unrecoverable payments may be taken into account in the restitution. Good faith cannot be relied on to recover premiums in a double-insurance case. The concrete outcome is not expressly stated.","k":"Double insurance — nullity of the second contract and restitution","law":"1874 Insurance Act, art. 12(1) (\"14 June 1874\" in the summary); unjust enrichment","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1998-07-15","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:1998:ARR.092","ch":"","res":"","t":"29bis","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 29bis de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs viole les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution en ce…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The victim of an accident involving a tram and his health-insurance fund had sued the public transport company; on a question from the Brussels Police Court, the Court held that article 29bis of the Act of 21 November 1989 violates articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution by excluding rail-bound vehicles from the automatic compensation scheme. The special treatment of trams in traffic rules is explained by history, but it has not been shown that they pose a lower risk, while non-rail public transport is subject to article 29bis. A fundamentally different compensation regime is therefore not justified.","k":"Article 29bis — exclusion of rail-bound vehicles","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 29bis and 10; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":261,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"1998-07-07","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:1998:ARR.080","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : L'article 4, alinéa 1er , de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs viole les articles 10 et 11 de la…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"In a dispute between an injured party and a motor liability insurer, the Verviers Police Court asked whether article 4 §1 of the Act of 21 November 1989, which excludes the spouse of the driver and of the policyholder from compulsory motor liability cover, is constitutional. The Court repeated the reasoning of its judgment no. 26/95 of 21.3.1995 (1956 Act): the aim of preventing collusion is acceptable, but the provision is disproportionate because it never allows the excluded persons to rebut the presumption of collusion. To that extent article 4 §1 violates articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution.","k":"Motor liability — exclusion of the spouse (art. 4, 1989 Act)","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 4 §1; Constitution, arts. 10–11; Court of Arbitration no. 26/95, 21.3.1995","w":35,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"1998-06-29","rol":"93/15814/A","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1998:JUG.19980629.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"L'article 20.9 de la loi hypothécaire ne confère pas une action directe à la victime contre l'assureur de l'entrepreneur responsable d'une faute. Par ailleurs, le maître de l'ouvrage ne dispose pas d'une action directe…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A building's roof was destroyed by a fire (11.09.1992) started with a blowtorch by the main contractor's subcontractor; the fire insurer, having paid BEF 907,750 to the owner, sued by subrogation the contractor's insurer, the subcontractor and the subcontractor's insurer. The court held that article 20.9 of the Mortgage Act, in force at the time of the loss, gave the injured party no direct action against the liable party's insurer, and that the building owner has no direct action against a subcontractor. As the insured contractor was not a party, the claim was declared inadmissible against all three defendants.","k":"Liability insurance — art. 20.9 Mortgage Act and direct action","law":"Mortgage Act of 16.12.1851, art. 20.9","w":264,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1998-06-16","rol":"92/AR/3747","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1998:ARR.19980616.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Au sens de l'article 32 de la loi du 11 juin 1874 sur les assurances, le point de départ de la prescription de trois ans est le moment où naît le droit à l'indemnité prévue par le contrat d'assurance. Cette prescription…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"After the insured died in a fire at a dance hall, his widow claimed the life-insurance capital; the first-instance court had held the action time-barred. The court of appeal ruled that the three-year period of article 32 of the Act of 11 June 1874 runs from the moment the right to the benefit arises but may be suspended under articles 2242 et seq. of the Civil Code, the parties being free to agree, even tacitly, to await the outcome of the criminal investigation: the action was not time-barred. On the merits, in view of the criminal file (the insured's presence at night on the premises, his financial difficulties, a petrol can in his car), the insurer was right to rely on article 41 of the 1874 Act to refuse payment; the claim was dismissed.","k":"Life insurance — suspension of limitation and the insured's own criminal act","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, arts. 32 and 41; former Civil Code, art. 2242 et seq.","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1998-06-12","rol":"C.97.0264.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1998:ARR.19980612.16","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Le preneur d'assurance doit donner à l'assureur une connaissance exacte du risque qu'il veut faire couvrir; l'abstention de déclarer une circonstance légitimement ignorée de l'assureur et susceptible d'aggraver…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"In the proposal form the policyholder listed his previous insurers but did not disclose that the previous insurer had cancelled his policy a few days earlier for non-disclosure and misrepresentation. The Court held that the policyholder must give an accurate picture of the risk: failing to disclose a circumstance the insurer legitimately did not know and which could worsen its view of the risk is concealment, even if the policyholder honestly but wrongly believed he need not mention it. The insured's appeal against the Mons Court of Appeal ruling annulling the contract under article 9 of the 1874 Act was dismissed.","k":"Duty of disclosure — concealed prior cancellation","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1998-05-20","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:1998:ARR.056","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : En ce qu'il refuse à la partie civile et à l'assureur partie intervenante l'accès aux rapports d'expertise médicopsychologiques et d'examen mental de l'intéressé, rapports que l'avocat du mineur…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The civil party had compelled the parents' family liability insurer to intervene, by direct action, in youth-court proceedings against a minor; the insurer wished to consult the minor's medical-psychological reports. On a question from the Mons Court of Appeal, the Court held that article 55(3) of the Youth Protection Act of 8 April 1965 does not violate article 10 of the Constitution by denying the civil party and the intervening insurer access to those reports, which the minor's lawyer and the civilly liable parents may consult. The insurer may wish to know the minor's mental state in order to invoke a policy exclusion, but the legislature could reasonably give priority to the minor's privacy, and those parties may still argue from the minor's personality or environment using ordinary means of proof.","k":"Youth-protection file — intervening insurer's access to expert reports","law":"Act of 8.4.1965, art. 55(3); former Civil Code, art. 1384 §2; Constitution, art. 10","w":264,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"1998-05-13","rol":"30.699","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1998:ARR.19980513.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Dès lors que l'article 24 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 mentionne expressément \"une décision coulée en force dse chose jugée\", l'article 28bis, alinéa 2, de la même loi qui s'y réfère expressément, exige pour que la prise…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer and the Workplace Accidents Fund disagreed on the date from which the Fund had to pay for renewing the victim's prostheses; the insurer argued that the victim's acceptance of the 1987 judgment had started the review period. The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal held that under articles 24 and 28bis of the Act of 10.4.1971 the insurer's obligation only ends once the judgment fixing the start of permanent incapacity has been served and thus become final; acceptance has no legal effect because the matter is one of public policy. The insurer's appeal was dismissed and the costs remained with it.","k":"Workplace accident — prosthesis costs, start of the review period","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 24 and 28bis; Cass. 4.6.1984","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1998-05-08","rol":"C.97.0318.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1998:ARR.19980508.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Pour que, dans l'hypothèse d'un cas fortuit, le Fonds commun de garantie automobile soit tenu à réparation des dommages matériels, il faut que ce soit \"en raison\" de ce cas fortuit qu'aucune entreprise d'assurances…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A driver swerved to avoid an unidentified lorry and was struck by another vehicle; the court of first instance, sitting on appeal, ordered the Guarantee Fund to pay that driver's property damage and the amounts paid by his subrogated insurer. The Court held that the Fund is liable for property damage only where no insurer is bound to pay \"by reason of\" a fortuitous event. Here no insurer was bound because the person who caused the accident was not identified. The judgment was quashed on that point on the Fund's appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund — unidentified vehicle, property damage","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 80 §1, 2°; RD 16.12.1981, art. 19","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1998-04-23","rol":"93AR3731","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1998:ARR.19980423.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Une clause conventionnelle abréviative de la prescription ne porte pas atteinte à l'équivalence entre les engagements de l'assureur et de l'assuré; rédigée en termes clairs, elle constitue la loi que les parties ont…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"After a fire, the insured sued his insurer after the shortened limitation period in the policy had expired. The court held that a clearly worded clause shortening the limitation period does not upset the balance between the parties' obligations and is valid. As the contract was silent on suspension and interruption, the statutory rules apply: negotiations suspend the period, which starts running again once the insurer takes an unequivocal position. A letter promising payment sent before expiry is not a waiver (article 2220); novation and abuse of rights were also rejected. The insurer's appeal succeeded and the insured's claim was dismissed.","k":"Fire insurance — shortened limitation period and suspension by negotiations","law":"Contractual limitation clause; former Civil Code, art. 2220","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1998-04-03","rol":"C.97.0077.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1998:ARR.19980403.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Justifie légalement sa décision refusant de déclarer nulle une police d'assurance en raison d'une réticence de la part de l'assuré, le juge qui considère que, dans le cas d'espèce, cette réticence n'a pas altéré la…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer argued that the comprehensive and motor liability policy was void in its entirety because of a misstatement by the policyholder about his bonus-malus level. The Liège Court of Appeal rejected the nullity defence, finding the fault minor, the sanction disproportionate and the non-disclosure not to have harmed the relationship of trust between insurer and insured. The Court held that this finding, being general in scope, legally justified the decision. The insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Non-disclosure — no harm to the relationship of trust","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1998-03-13","rol":"C.97.0241.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1998:ARR.19980313.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"L'assuré qui fait valoir à l'égard de son assureur le droit à un payement doit apporter la preuve, non seulement du dommage mais encore de l'événement qui y a donné lieu, et établir que le risque réalisé était celui…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"After an insured died in hospital following a road accident, payment was claimed under a personal accident policy and vehicle-user accident policies; the insurer relied on exclusions (diabetes, alcohol). The Liège Court of Appeal had placed on the insurer the burden of proving an exclusion. The Court held that an insured claiming payment must prove the loss, the event and that the risk which materialised was covered and not excluded by the contract. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal, except for the finding that there was a bodily accident within the meaning of the policies.","k":"Personal accident insurance — burden of proving an exclusion","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 1, 27, 3°; former Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, art. 870","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1998-02-27","rol":"C.97.0038.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1998:ARR.19980227.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'assureur, qui soutient qu'en vertu d'une stipulation du contrat-type découlant de la loi sur l'assurance automobile obligatoire, le conjoint du conducteur du véhicule désigné par la police ne pouvait bénéficier de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"Against its insured's claim for indemnity, the insurer relied on article 7 of the model contract under the 1956 Act, which excludes the driver's spouse. The Mons Court of Appeal held that the insurer, relying on a clause limiting its commitment, had to prove that the policy expressly included it, and failed to do so in the absence of a written document. The Court recalled that failing to dispute a fact is not an admission and that silence counts as one only if accompanied by circumstances giving it that character. The insurer's appeal was dismissed; its duty to indemnify the insured stands.","k":"Motor liability — proving the spouse exclusion is in the policy","law":"Model contract, Act of 1.7.1956, art. 7; former Civil Code, art. 1315, 1354, 1356","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1998-02-25","rol":"P.97.1396.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1998:ARR.19980225.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Le centre public d'aide sociale qui exerce contre l'assureur du tiers responsable l'action directe que lui attribue l'article 98, alinéa 2, de la loi du 8 juillet 1976 organique des centres publics d'aide sociale pour…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"A public social welfare centre (CPAS) that had assisted the victim claimed its costs directly from the motor liability insurer. The Court held that the centre, acting under its own right in article 98(2) of the Act of 8 July 1976, is neither an injured party within article 12 of the Act of 21 November 1989 nor subrogated to the victim, so it has no direct action against the insurer; the appeal was dismissed on that point. However, since it is not subrogated, the victim's own fault does not reduce its right to recover all its costs from the liable party: the judgment limiting recovery to two thirds was quashed as regards the second respondent.","k":"Motor liability — social welfare centre's direct action against the insurer","law":"Act of 8.7.1976 on CPAS, art. 98(2); Act of 21.11.1989, art. 1, 12","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1998-02-23","rol":"92AR3844","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1998:ARR.19980223.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Lorsque, aux termes des conventions entre parties, le droit à l'indemnité se prescrit six mois après le jour du sinistre, qu'il est expressément précisé que les pourparlers ne suspendent pas la prescription, il se…","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"After a jewellery theft, the insured sued her insurer after the six-month contractual limitation period; the first-instance court had held the claim time-barred. The court of appeal found that the insurer, by merely requesting information to document the extent of the loss after the period had expired, had acknowledged the principle of the right to compensation and waived the limitation defence. On the merits, the proportional rule was applied because of underinsurance (sum insured 392,000 F against a real value of 2,000,000 F) and the indemnity was set at 49,000 F; the claim against the broker was dismissed.","k":"Theft insurance — waiver of contractual limitation and underinsurance","law":"Policy art. 43 (contractual limitation); proportional rule for underinsurance","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1998-02-13","rol":"95/AR/1293","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1998:ARR.19980213.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"En application de la règle de la subrogation légale prévue par la loi sur l'assurance maladie - invalidité, l'organisme assureur qui a fourni des prestations à la victime d'un accident, devient, à concurrence de ces…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, under the statutory subrogation in the health and disability insurance legislation, the health-insurance fund that paid benefits to the victim becomes, up to those benefits, the sole creditor of the sums owed by the liable party. Payments made to the victim by the liable party's insurer, even in good faith and to enforce a final judgment, cannot be raised against the fund. It is irrelevant that the insurer invited the fund to attach the sums, since the victim is no longer the insurer's creditor.","k":"Health-insurance fund's subrogation — payment by the liable party's insurer","law":"Health and disability insurance legislation, statutory subrogation","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1998-02-05","rol":"C.94.0267.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1998:ARR.19980205.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En ce que qu'elle prévoit que l'assureur doit couvrir la responsabilité civile du propriétaire, de tout détenteur et de tout conducteur du véhicule automoteur assuré, à l'exclusion de la responsabilité civile de ceux…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The car had been stolen because of its owner's negligence and the thief caused an accident; the Antwerp Court of Appeal held that the motor liability insurer was not bound because of the theft exclusion and ordered the Guarantee Fund to pay for personal injury. The Court held that motor liability insurance covers any liability claim against the insured for damage caused by use of the vehicle, even in case of theft and whatever the basis of liability, only the thief's liability being excluded. The negligent owner's liability is therefore covered. The judgment was quashed on the Fund's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — stolen vehicle, cover for a negligent owner","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 3; Act of 1.7.1956, art. 3; Benelux Convention of 24.5.1966, common provisions, art. 3","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1998-01-14","rol":"P.97.1253.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1998:ARR.19980114.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'assureur qui a payé l'indemnité due à son assuré, en sa qualité d'assureur \"dégâts matériels\" de celui-ci, étant subrogé à concurrence de cette indemnité dans les droits et actions de l'assuré contre le tiers…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court recalled that a property-damage insurer that has paid its insured is subrogated, up to that amount, to the insured's rights against the liable third party. A criminal court hearing the insurer's civil claim against that party therefore cannot decline jurisdiction on the ground that the claim does not arise directly from the offences found proven. The dispute was between the subrogated insurer and the liable party; the full text is not published.","k":"Subrogated insurer — civil claim before the criminal court","law":"LCAT art. 41 para. 1; Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure (17.4.1878), art. 4","w":16,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"summary"},{"d":"1998-01-08","rol":"C.96.0224.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1998:ARR.19980108.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Le moyen uniquement relatif à une prétendue \"faute grave intentionnelle\" ne saurait entraîner la cassation et, dès lors, est irrecevable, pour autant que le demandeur ne critique pas la décision relative à l'absence du…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The policyholder's minor son, driving without a licence and under the influence of alcohol, caused a fatal accident; the insurer, having compensated the victims, exercised its contractual recourse against the minor and against the policyholder as parent. The Ghent Court of Appeal rejected the claim against the parent. The Court held that the presumption of parental liability in article 1384(2) of the former Civil Code does not apply to a minor's contractual breaches, so the contractual recourse cannot rest on it. The insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — insurer's recourse against a parent for a minor's gross fault","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1384(2); Act of 1.7.1956","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1997-12-15","rol":"95298A","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1997:JUG.19971215.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"La loi sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre du 25 juin 1992 stipule en son article 54 que le montant assuré est fixé par le preneur d'assurances. Cette disposition est impérative même si l'assureur a fait inspecter les…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insured claimed the full repair cost of her car damaged in a theft, arguing that the insurer, which sold directly without a broker, had breached its duty to inform her about the value to be insured. The court held that under article 54 LCAT, a mandatory provision, the sum insured is fixed by the policyholder, who alone bears that responsibility even if the insurer inspected the property, and that a policyholder who chooses not to use a broker must be all the more careful. The claim against the insurer, which had paid only in part because of underinsurance, was dismissed.","k":"Comprehensive motor cover — sum insured fixed by the policyholder, underinsurance","law":"LCAT art. 3, 54","w":271,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1997-12-05","rol":"C.96.0332.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1997:ARR.19971205.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La présomption de responsabilité mise à la charge du gardien d'une chose vicieuse par l'article 1384, alinéa 1er, du Code civil, n'existe qu'en faveur des victimes du dommage et ne peut être invoquée que par elles; ne…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The accident was caused by a defect in a member's vehicle; the health-insurance fund, acting in the victim's rights, claimed medical costs from the Guarantee Fund on the ground of a fortuitous event. The Mons Court of Appeal had rejected the claim, holding the owner liable for the defective thing under article 1384(1) and force majeure unproven. The Court held that this presumption exists only for direct victims and cannot be relied on by the Fund, which may only prove that the defect is attributable to the owner. The judgment was quashed on the health-insurance fund's appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund — vehicle defect, health-insurance fund's claim and art. 1384","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50(1), 2°; former Civil Code, art. 1384(1)","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1997-12-03","rol":"P.97.0582.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1997:ARR.19971203.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"La faute du passager consistant dans le défaut du port de la ceinture de sécurité est en principe sans lien de causalité avec la survenance de l'accident dont il a été la victime; ladite faute peut toutefois affecter…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The motor liability insurer sought apportionment because the rear passengers were not wearing seatbelts. The Court held that not wearing a seatbelt has no causal link with the occurrence of the accident but may affect the right to compensation through assumed risk; as it is not a justification, the defendant, the party civilly liable or the intervening insurer must prove the fault and its causal link with the damage. Given the violence of the impact, that link was not shown. The insurer's appeal was dismissed; full compensation (BEF 200,000 and BEF 403,362) stands.","k":"Motor liability — passenger without seatbelt, burden of proof","law":"Constitution, art. 149; general principle on the burden of proof in criminal matters","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1997-12-01","rol":"95773A","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1997:JUG.19971201.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"L'article 80 de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre n'a pas d'effet rétroactif aux sinistres antérieurs à la promulgation de cette loi.","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The victims of an explosion on 21.3.1989, who lost part of their building and were injured, sued the liable company and its liability insurer. The court held that article 86 LCAT, which gives the injured party an own right against the insurer outside motor insurance, does not apply to that earlier loss and declared the claim against the insurer inadmissible. The liable company was ordered to pay BEF 789,353 and BEF 1,467,400 to the victims.","k":"Direct action — loss before LCAT article 86, no retroactivity","law":"LCAT art. 86","w":199,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1997-12-01","rol":"S.96.0333.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1997:ARR.19971201.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Les cotisations de sécurité sociale dues par la victime d'un accident du travail qui sont retenues par l'assureur-loi et versées à l'institution chargée de leur perception, font partie de la somme payée par l'assureur à…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The liable party challenged the deduction of social security contributions, withheld by the workplace-accident insurer, when comparing common-law damages due to the victim with the statutory benefits paid. The Court held that contributions withheld and paid over by the insurer form part of the statutory benefits; the two forms of compensation follow their own rules, and to determine whether common-law damages exceed the statutory benefits the latter must be taken including contributions. On the liable party's appeal, the judgment was quashed as to the victim's material loss and the insurer's BEF 16,462,407 reimbursement.","k":"Workplace accident — social contributions and the no-double-recovery rule","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 43, 46 §2(2); former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1997-11-26","rol":"P.97.0271.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1997:ARR.19971126.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Toute personne lésée peut obtenir du Fonds commun de garantie automobile la réparation des dommages résultant de lésions corporelles causées par un véhicule automoteur lorsque, en cas de vol, de violence ou de recel, la…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"After an accident with a stolen car, the Guarantee Fund alone was held liable and the motor liability insurer was released; the Fund argued that the owner's fault in leaving the keys lying around made the insurer liable. The Court held that an injured party may obtain compensation from the Fund where, in case of theft, liability is not insured under the permitted exclusion, even if the owner might be personally liable. However, the judgment was quashed for failing to address the request to deduct the statutory BEF 10,000 deductible on property damage; the appeal was otherwise dismissed.","k":"Guarantee Fund — stolen vehicle, owner's fault and deductible","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 80(1), 3°; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 3(1); RD 16.12.1981, art. 19","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1997-11-24","rol":"93AR2870","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1997:ARR.19971124.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A tenant in a state of serious mental disorder set fire to the rented building; the owner's fire insurer claimed 1,750,516 F from the co-tenant and the tenants' liability insurer. The court held that the act of a person unable to control his actions is not fault, that the co-tenant rebutted the presumption of article 1733 by proving the fire was due solely to the other tenant, and that the claim under article 1382 also failed. As the act remained intentional, it was not covered by the liability insurer under articles 16 and 33 of the 1874 Act: the claims against the insurer and the co-tenant's claim for indemnity were dismissed. Only an equitable award under article 1386bis, limited to one tenth, was made against the arsonist's minor son.","k":"Tenant fire — mental disorder and intentional-act exclusion","law":"former Civil Code, arts. 1382, 1386bis, 1733; Act of 11.6.1874, arts. 16 and 33","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1997-11-20","rol":"9624929","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1997:ARR.19971120.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Avec la Cour de Cassation (arrêt du 25/11/91 - J.T. 1992, p.221), la Cour du Travail estime que \"une loi nouvelle s'applique non seulement aux situations qui naissent à partir de sa mise en vigueur mais aussi aux effets…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The health-insurance fund sought reimbursement from the workplace-accident insurer of benefits paid for a workplace accident. Following the Court of Cassation, the court recalled that a new statute also governs the future effects of situations arising under the old law, save for irrevocably fixed rights, and reopened the hearing for the parties to argue whether article 11 of the Act of 6.8.1993 applied. It ordered production of the correspondence between the insurer and the fund; the merits were not decided.","k":"Workplace accident — health-fund recovery, temporal effect of new law","law":"Act of 9.8.1963, art. 76quater §2; Act of 6.8.1993, art. 11; Cass. 25.11.1991","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1997-11-13","rol":"C.96.0285.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1997:ARR.19971113.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le cas fortuit en raison duquel le Fonds commun de garantie automobile est tenu à réparation vise la circonstance ou l'événement qui constitue pour le conducteur du véhicule ayant causé l'accident un cas de force…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"In an accident where the driver allegedly suffered a heart attack at the wheel, the injured parties claimed from the Guarantee Fund on the basis of a fortuitous event; the Brussels Court of Appeal allowed the claim by placing the burden of proof on the Fund, as for a justification in criminal law. The Court held that the fortuitous event in question is one amounting to force majeure for the driver and that the injured party claiming against the Fund must prove it. As the claims were not based on a criminal offence, the appeal ruling breached the rules of evidence. It was quashed on the Fund's appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund — fortuitous event and burden of proof","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50(1), 2° (now art. 80); RD 16.12.1981, art. 19; former Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, art. 870","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1997-11-13","rol":"C.94.0397.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1997:ARR.19971113.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Pour que, dans l'hypothèse d'un cas fortuit, le Fonds commun de garantie automobile soit tenu à réparation, il faut non seulement que le conducteur du véhicule qui a causé l'accident provoqué par le cas fortuit soit…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Antwerp Court of Appeal, finding a fortuitous event, ordered the Guarantee Fund to pay the injured party's property damage. The Court held that, in the case of a fortuitous event, the Fund's liability requires not only that the driver be exonerated but also that it be \"by reason of\" that event that no insurer is bound to pay. The appeal judges had inferred from the fortuitous event alone that no insurer was liable. The judgment was quashed on the Fund's appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund — the \"by reason of\" fortuitous-event condition","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50(1), 1° and 2° (now art. 80); RD 16.12.1981, art. 19(1)","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1997-11-05","rol":"P.97.1014.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1997:ARR.19971105.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsqu'un accident a été causé par un véhicule automoteur non identifié, le Fonds commun de garantie automobile n'est pas tenu de réparer le dommage matériel qui en résulte.","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Brussels criminal court, sitting on appeal, found it plausible that an unidentified driver caused the accident and ordered the Guarantee Fund to compensate a company for loss not involving any bodily injury. The Court held that where the vehicle causing the accident is unidentified, the Fund's liability is limited to damage resulting from bodily injury and does not extend to property damage. The judgment was quashed on the Fund's appeal as regards that company's civil claim; the appeal was otherwise dismissed.","k":"Guarantee Fund — unidentified vehicle, property damage excluded","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 80(1), 1°","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1997-11-03","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARGNT:1997:JUG.19971103.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"De verzekeraar die de mutualiteit verwittigt, waarvan de identiteit werd meegedeeld door het slachtoffer, voldoet aan de voorschriften van artikel 63 van de Wet van 10 april 1971 en dat, zelfs indien blijkt dat intussen…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a workplace-accident insurer that notifies the health-insurance fund named by the victim complies with article 63 of the Act of 10 April 1971, even if another fund had meanwhile replaced the one originally named. Holding otherwise would require the insurer to investigate the information supplied by the victim, which article 63 does not demand.","k":"Workplace accident — change of health-insurance fund and art. 63 notice","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidsrechtbank Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1997-10-31","rol":"C.96.0461.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1997:ARR.19971031.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsqu'un accident est causé en Belgique par un véhicule volé ayant son stationnement habituel sur le territoire d'un autre Etat membre de l'Union européenne, le bureau belge des assureurs automobiles n'est, pas plus…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A car parked in Belgium was hit by a French-registered vehicle that had been stolen from its owner; the Charleroi police court ordered the national bureau to compensate the injured party. The Court held that under Directive 72/166 and the ECJ judgment of 21 June 1984, the national bureau handles such claims within the limits of its national law; since article 3 of the Act of 21 November 1989 excludes the thief's liability, the bureau, like any other insurer, is not bound to pay for damage caused by a stolen vehicle. The judgment was quashed on the bureau's appeal.","k":"Stolen foreign-registered vehicle — Belgian Bureau's liability","law":"Directive 72/166/EEC, art. 2(2); Act of 21.11.1989, art. 2, 3; Act of 9.7.1975, art. 79; RD 13.2.1991, art. 1; ECJ 21.6.1984","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1997-10-15","rol":"12600","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1997:ARR.19971015.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'article 63, alinéa 2, de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail dispose que lorsque la compagnie d'assurances refuse de prendre le cas en charge ou estime qu'il existe un doute quant à l'application de…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer received the accident report on 22.9.1987 and sent its refusal letter to the fund on 16.10.1987. The court found that, although the victim had not answered about the fund's name, the insurer did nothing for almost three weeks when nothing prevented a reminder or a home visit by an inspector. Not knowing the fund's name is not force majeure; absent an insurmountable obstacle, breach of the two-week deadline in art. 63 §2 was sanctioned.","k":"Workplace accident — late notice to the fund, no force majeure","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63 §2; Cass. 14.1.1991","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1997-10-15","rol":"P.97.0899.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1997:ARR.19971015.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le Fonds commun de garantie automobile est tenu de réparer les dommages matériels causés par un véhicule automoteur, lorsque l'assurance exclut la garantie de la responsabilité civile, du chef des dommages causés par le…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Mons Court of Appeal ordered the Guarantee Fund, jointly with the driver, to compensate the civil parties, while finding that the car was stolen and that the driver's participation in the theft was not proven. The Court held that in this situation the Fund is liable only if liability is uninsured under the permitted exclusion for those who took control of the vehicle by theft, violence or receiving; the judgment did not find that the driver had done so. On the Fund's appeal, the rulings on the civil claims were quashed, including non-final decisions tainted by the same error.","k":"Guarantee Fund — stolen car driven by someone other than the thief","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50(1), 3° (former); RD 16.12.1981, art. 17, 19; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 3","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1997-10-13","rol":"C.95.0096.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1997:ARR.19971013.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La décision du juge de renvoi qui fixerait l'incapacité permanente de travail de la victime d'un accident sur le chemin du travail à un taux différent de celui fixé par l'arrêt attaqué par le pourvoi de l'employeur et,…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The employer had taken out workplace-accident insurance only for its salaried staff; a manual worker suffered a commuting accident and the workplace-accident insurer denied cover. The Court held that where an employer insures all its salaried staff but none of its manual workers, the latter are uninsured and the Occupational Accidents Fund must pay the statutory compensation; the argument based on the single-insurer principle was rejected. The judgment was nevertheless quashed as to the 64% incapacity rate applied against the employer, the third-party opposition of the broker's liability insurer, and costs.","k":"Workplace-accident insurance — policy covering only salaried staff, manual workers uninsured","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 49, 50, 58(1), 3°, 68; Judicial Code, art. 31, 1084, 1017","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1997-10-03","rol":"C.96.0317.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1997:ARR.19971003.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Les \"pourparlers\" interrompant la prescription triennale de l'action de la partie lésée contre l'assureur de la responsabilité civile couvrant l'usage du véhicule ayant causé le préjudice n'impliquent pas nécessairement…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A health-insurance fund claimed BEF 8,092 paid for its member from the liable driver's motor liability insurer; the justice of the peace held the three-year limitation period expired for lack of negotiations, on the ground that each side had to make proposals and the insurer had to give the impression it intended to settle. Following the Benelux Court of Justice, the Court recalled that an exchange in which the injured party (including a subrogated insurer) holds the insurer liable and the insurer says it is examining the claim amounts to negotiations, unless the insurer rules out any settlement. The judgment was quashed on the health-insurance fund's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — \"negotiations\" interrupting the limitation period","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 10(3); Benelux Convention, common provisions, art. 10(3); Benelux Court of Justice 5.7.1985 (A 84/1) and 20.10.1989 (A 88/2)","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1997-10-02","rol":"C.94.0030.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1997:ARR.19971002.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La règle énoncée à l'article 4 de la loi du 17 avril 1878 contenant le titre préliminaire du Code de procédure pénale interdisant de contester à nouveau, à l'occasion d'un procès civil, les décisions rendues sur…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer sought recourse against its insured, a drunk driver, under articles 24 and 25, 10° of the model policy for sums paid to the victims; the Ghent Court of Appeal rejected it on the ground of the res judicata of the criminal judgment that imposed separate penalties for drunkenness and for causing injury. The Court held that a party who was not involved in the criminal case or could not freely defend its interests there must be able to challenge those findings in later civil proceedings (art. 6 ECHR); despite the separate penalties, the insurer may prove the causal link between drunkenness and the damage. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for drunkenness and criminal res judicata","law":"Model policy, art. 24, 25, 10°; Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16; ECHR, art. 6(1)","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1997-09-17","rol":"13722","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1997:ARR.19970917.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Il ne suffit pas, pour conclure à l'existence d'un événement soudain, de démontrer que la victime exercait son travail journalier au moment où survient la lésion, il doit y avoir dans l'exercice de ce travail…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Ordinary work must involve a specific element that could have caused the injury. Straining and then making an awkward movement while lifting a facade stone with colleagues was a sudden event, fixed in time and place; when the pain appeared is irrelevant. However, the workplace-accident insurer kept its right to rebut the presumptions of art. 7 and 9 and to prove the absence of an external cause; an expert examination on a possible pre-existing condition was upheld.","k":"Workplace accident — sudden event in ordinary work (strain, awkward movement)","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 7 and 9; Cass. 11.1.1982","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1997-09-17","rol":"12603","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1997:ARR.19970917.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'article 63, alinéa 2 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail dispose que lorsque la compagnie d'assurances refuse de prendre le cas en charge ou estime qu'il existe un doute quant à l'application de…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A workplace-accident insurer refusing cover must notify the health-insurance fund within two weeks; not knowing which fund it is neither releases it nor amounts to force majeure. The general letter of 21.5.1987, copied from a circular sent to all victims, was not the required notice; only the refusal letter of 5.6.1987 qualified. As the insurer did not prove it was unable to act earlier, the fund was awarded repayment of the incapacity benefits it had paid.","k":"Workplace accident — notifying the fund; a standard letter is not enough","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63 §2; Cass. 14.1.1991","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1997-09-17","rol":"P.97.0480.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1997:ARR.19970917.16","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Les indemnités payées à la victime d'un accident du travail, relatives aux incapacités temporaires et permanentes, ainsi que le capital représentatif de la rente, d'une part, et les dommages et intérêts qui seraient dus…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Liège Court of Appeal had limited the reimbursement claimed by the workplace-accident insurer from the fully liable third party. The Court held that statutory benefits and common-law damages for professional material loss are two methods, flat-rate and actual, of compensating the same loss, and that the insurer may recover, within the limit of common-law damages, all sums paid and the capital set aside (BEF 583,547 in outlays against a loss of BEF 4,082,915). The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal and, on the defendant's appeal, for lack of reasons on the BEF 1,550,332 award for future loss.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse against the liable third party — limit","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46, 47(1); Constitution, art. 149","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1997-09-15","rol":"96/223","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:1997:ARR.19970915.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"De vergoedingen voor de tijdelijke algehele arbeidsongeschiktheid, welke door de arbeidsongevallenverzekeraar zonder enig voorbehoud worden uitbetaald aan het slachtoffer, blijven voor deze laatste verworven, zelfs…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Temporary total incapacity benefits paid by the workplace-accident insurer to the victim without any reservation remain the victim's. The court held that this is so even where the end of the temporary incapacity is later fixed at a date earlier than the one the insurer had originally foreseen; the insurer's claim for repayment was dismissed.","k":"Workplace accident — temporary incapacity benefits paid without reservation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63 §4","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1997-09-05","rol":"C.96.0296.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1997:ARR.19970905.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Avant l'entrée en vigueur de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre, le contrat d'assurance pouvait, sans porter atteinte à l'équivalence entre les engagements de l'assureur et ceux du preneur…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A driver under 18 had been convicted for carrying a passenger on a moped; the insurer sought recourse against her under articles 24 and 25, 6. of the model contract. The Mons Court of Appeal rejected it, holding the clause upset the balance between the parties' obligations (art. 21 RD 12.3.1976). The Court held that article 11(2) of the 1956 Act allows recourse to be reserved where forfeiture stems from the contract as well as from the law; before the LCAT, such a clause covering a driver not meeting the legal requirements was valid. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — validity of recourse against an underage driver","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 11(2); RD 12.3.1976, art. 21; model contract, art. 24, 25, 6.","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1997-09-03","rol":"1354691","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1997:JUG.19970903.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Une société spécialisée en matière de courtage d'assurances ne peut ignorer qu'un contrat d'assurance-vie peut être racheté à tout moment et, qu'en ce cas il y a reprise partielle des commissions par la compagnie pas…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer sought partial repayment of commissions, after the insured surrendered a life policy, from the company that had acquired the brokerage portfolio. The court held that a specialised brokerage firm cannot ignore that a life policy may be surrendered at any time or the practice that commissions vest only after five years; under the transfer agreement, by which all transactions relating to the portfolio were for the acquirer's profit or loss, the clawback fell on the acquirer. The acquirer was ordered to pay BEF 98,027; the claim against the transferor was dismissed.","k":"Life insurance — portfolio transfer and clawback of commissions","law":"Portfolio transfer agreement, art. 2; trade practice","w":264,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1997-06-26","rol":"C.96.0281.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1997:ARR.19970626.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"L'autorité de la chose jugée en matière répressive ne s'attache qu'à ce qui a été certainement et nécessairement jugé par le juge pénal, concernant l'existence de faits mis à charge du prévenu, et en prenant en…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer sought recourse against its insured under article 25.10° of the policy, under which recourse applies if the loss occurs while the insured is drunk, unless the insured proves the loss is unrelated to drunkenness. The criminal court had imposed separate penalties for drunkenness and a traffic offence, noting doubt about the role of drunkenness in the accident. The Court held that criminal res judicata covers only what was certainly and necessarily decided; the Liège Court of Appeal's finding that the insured had not proved the absence of a causal link did not breach it. The insured's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for drunkenness, proving no causal link","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 11(2); Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16; former Civil Code, art. 1319–1320","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1997-06-25","rol":"P.96.1687.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1997:ARR.19970625.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Lorsqu'une décision a, par défaut, condamné le prévenu et, contradictoirement, n'a condamné son assureur, intervenu volontairement, à rembourser le dommage subi par la partie civile que dans la mesure où ce dommage a…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Liège Court of Appeal had ruled by default against the defendant and after full hearing against his insurer, a voluntary intervener ordered to pay only to the extent of the harm caused by the defendant. The Court of Cassation held inadmissible the civil party's appeal against the insurer, lodged before the defendant's ordinary period to oppose the default judgment had expired: because the insurer's position is indivisibly linked to the defendant's, the decision was not yet final as regards the insurer. The appeal against the defendant was withdrawn and the remainder dismissed.","k":"Criminal procedure — premature appeal against the insurer","law":"Time limits for appeal in criminal matters; premature appeal (no final decision)","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1997-06-13","rol":"C.94.0107.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1997:ARR.19970613.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsqu'un pourvoi est uniquement dirigé contre une décision n'intéressant pas tous les défendeurs, le demandeur a néanmoins l'intérêt requis à l'égard des autres, s'il a été condamné à tous les dépens. || Le juge qui…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Article 25, 6° of the model contract grants the insurer recourse where the vehicle is driven by a person not meeting the conditions laid down by Belgian law and regulations, with no further condition. Under article 8.2, 3° of the Highway Code, a moped rider under 18 may not carry a passenger. The Brussels Court of Appeal found that the rider lacked the required certificate and age, yet refused recourse; this disregarded the binding force of the contract. The judgment was partly quashed on the insurer's appeal and referred to the Antwerp Court of Appeal.","k":"Motor liability — recourse against an under-age moped rider carrying a passenger","law":"Motor liability model contract, art. 25, 6°; Highway Code (RD 1.12.1975), art. 8.2, 3°; former Civil Code, art. 1134","w":272,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1997-06-04","rol":"95AR1828","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1997:ARR.19970604.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsque le juge pénal prononce une seule peine pour un délit d'imprudence (art. 418/420 CP) et pour une infraction d'intoxication alcoolique, il décide nécessairement, conformément à l'article 65 du CP, que cette…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer sought recourse against its insured, who had caused an accident while driving a lorry and had received a single criminal sentence for negligent injury and drink-driving. The court accepted that, under article 65 of the Criminal Code, the criminal court had necessarily decided that the intoxication was an element of the negligence offence, which the civil court cannot reopen. It nevertheless held that gross fault under article 16 of the Act of 11 June 1874 was not established: nothing showed that the driver was aware of the increased risk, and a police officer's mere impression that he was unfit to drive carries no probative force. The insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — binding effect of the criminal judgment and gross fault","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16; Criminal Code, arts. 65, 418-420","w":35,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1997-06-03","rol":"P.96.0745.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1997:ARR.19970603.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La décision d'appel rendue par défaut à l'égard du prévenu sur l'appel interjeté par le seul assureur contre un jugement condamnant solidairement le prévenu et son assureur intervenant volontairement à payer des…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The first-instance court had ordered the defendant and his insurer, a voluntary intervener, jointly and severally to compensate the civil party; only the insurer appealed. The Court of Cassation held the appeal admissible because the defendant had no interest in opposing a default judgment in his favour. As the defendant had not appealed, the claim against him was not before the appeal court: the Antwerp criminal court could not, on the insurer's appeal alone, reduce his liability to 157,894 francs. The judgment was quashed to that extent and the remainder of the appeal dismissed.","k":"Criminal procedure — appeal by the insurer alone and the defendant's liability","law":"Code of Criminal Procedure, arts. 413 and 416","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1997-06-02","rol":"S.94.0006.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1997:ARR.19970602.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'assureur-loi est uniquement tenu de couvrir les risques concernant la catégorie de travailleurs au bénéfice de laquelle l'employeur a souscrit une assurance contre les accidents du travail. || La loi du 10 avril 1971…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The employer had insured only its white-collar staff with the workplace-accident insurer, not its manual workers; a manual worker was injured. The Court held that article 49 of the Act of 10 April 1971 allows an employer to insure categories of workers with different insurers, in which case the insurer covers only the insured category. The rule barring forfeiture defences against beneficiaries (art. 55) does not make the insurer pay for an accident the contract never covered. The employer's appeal was dismissed; the Brussels Labour Court of Appeal's ruling allowing the body liable under article 58 to recover from the employer stands.","k":"Workplace accident — policy limited to one category of workers","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 49(2)-(3), 55, 58 and 60","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1997-05-14","rol":"P.96.1506.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1997:ARR.19970514.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'assureur qui a payé l'indemnité due à son assuré, victime de coups ou blessures par imprudence, étant subrogé à concurrence de cette indemnité dans les droits et actions de l'assuré contre le tiers responsable du…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"An insurer that has paid its insured, the victim of unintentional injury, is subrogated under article 41 LCAT, up to the amount paid, to the insured's rights against the liable third party. The Mons Court of Appeal had declined jurisdiction over its civil claim against the defendant and the defendant's insurer, holding that the claim did not arise directly from the offences found proved. The Court of Cassation quashed that ruling: the subrogated insurer exercises the victim's own claim.","k":"Subrogation — subrogated insurer's civil claim before the criminal court","law":"LCAT art. 41(1); Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Act of 17.4.1878), art. 4","w":16,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1997-05-06","rol":"P.97.0356.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1997:ARR.19970506.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Est irrecevable, le pourvoi en cassation dirigé par le prévenu contre la décision déclarant l'arrêt commun et opposable au Fonds commun de garantie automobile.","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Ghent Court of Appeal judgment had been declared binding on and enforceable against the Guarantee Fund, which had intervened voluntarily. The Court held that the defendant had no standing to appeal against that ruling, so the appeal was inadmissible on that point. The ruling on an insurer's civil claim against the defendant was not final, so the appeal was inadmissible there too; it was dismissed.","k":"Guarantee Fund — defendant's appeal against a binding-effect ruling","law":"Code of Criminal Procedure (C.I.cr.) art. 416","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"summary"},{"d":"1997-03-17","rol":"S.96.0166.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1997:ARR.19970317.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"En matière civile, la Cour décrète le désistement du pourvoi en cassation fait à l'intervention d'un avocat à la Cour de cassation. || En matière d'accident du travail, lorsque la Cour décrète le désistement du pourvoi…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A workplace-accident victim withdrew, through a Court of Cassation lawyer, an appeal against a Brussels Labour Court of Appeal judgment. The Court recorded the withdrawal and, under article 68 of the Act of 10 April 1971, ordered the workplace-accident insurer, as a rule, to bear the costs of the cassation proceedings. The Court did not rule on the merits.","k":"Workplace accident — withdrawal of appeal and costs","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 68; Judicial Code arts. 824 and 1112","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"summary"},{"d":"1997-02-17","rol":"26784","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1997:ARR.19970217.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"De subrogatoire vordering tegen de voor het arbeidsongeval aansprakelijke derde welke artikel 47 van de Arbeidsongevallenwet aan de verzekeraar die de getroffene overeenkomstig die wet heeft vergoed, is geen rechtsgrond…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the subrogation claim against the liable third party, which article 47 of the Act grants to a workplace-accident insurer that compensated the victim, is no legal basis for a claim under article 69 by that insurer to recover what the victim may have received in excess from the third party owing to the insurer's inaction. The summary does not state the concrete fate of the claim.","k":"Workplace accident — subrogation and recovery from the victim","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47 and 69","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1997-01-16","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:1997:ARR.003","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La Cour dit pour droit : - l'article 46 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail viole les articles 10 et 11 de la Constitution s'il est interprété comme refusant une réparation intégrale de son…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"On a question from the Ghent Police Court, the Court held that article 46 of the Act of 10 April 1971 violates articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution if read as denying full compensation under ordinary civil liability law to a worker injured in a road accident caused unintentionally by the employer or the employer's agents while the worker was under the employer's authority. The distinction between a workplace accident and a commuting accident, based on difficulties of proof, is irrelevant where the accident occurs in traffic. Read as granting full compensation, article 46 is constitutional: a 'commuting accident' may cover any accident on the public road during a task required by the employment contract.","k":"Workplace accident — employer immunity and road accidents","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46; Constitution, arts. 10–11","w":-1,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"1996-12-05","rol":"12531A93","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1996:JUG.19961205.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"L'article 86 de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre octroie à \"la personne lésée un droit propre contre l'assureur\" du responsable. Cette disposition qui s'applique à toutes les assurances de…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The pillion passenger of a rented motorcycle that crashed in Greece sued the rider's Belgian motor liability insurer on the basis of the policy's extension to occasionally driven vehicles. The court held the claim admissible: although Benelux Court case law excluded a direct action in that situation, article 86 LCAT gives the injured party an own right against the insurer in all liability insurance and applies from 1 September 1994 to unamended contracts in disputes not yet decided. The claim was nevertheless dismissed on the merits because the rider's liability was not proven.","k":"Direct action — occasionally driven vehicle, application of LCAT article 86","law":"LCAT art. 86; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 12; Benelux Court 30.11.1990 and 10.5.1993","w":199,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1996-12-04","rol":"P.96.0007.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1996:ARR.19961204.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Lorsque l'assureur interjette seul appel, les décisions qui l'ont condamné, avec l'assuré à l'égard de la ou des parties civiles, n'ont pas autorité de chose jugée à son égard de manière telle qu'elles ne lui sont plus…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The police court had held the insured driver liable and declared the awards enforceable against the intervening motor liability insurer; only the insurer appealed the civil provisions. Where the insurer alone appeals, those decisions have no res judicata effect against it, either towards the insured or towards the injured parties. The Namur appeal court could therefore, despite the final criminal ruling, find that the driver had been forced to drive by irresistible coercion and that the insurer could not rely on article 3 of the Act of 21 November 1989. The insurer's appeal was dismissed; the part against the Guarantee Fund was inadmissible, as no issue had been joined with it.","k":"Motor liability — appeal by the insurer alone and driving under duress","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 3 and 14; motor liability model contract, art. 3; res judicata of criminal judgments","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1996-12-02","rol":"32297","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1996:ARR.19961202.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'article 63, alinéa 2, alinéa 1, de la loi du 10 avril 1971 oblige l'assureur-loi d'aviser dans le mois de la réception de la déclaration d'accident l'organisme assureur auquel la victime est affiliée, de son refus ou…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that article 63 of the Act of 10 April 1971 requires the workplace-accident insurer, within one month of receiving the accident report, to notify the victim's health-insurance fund of its refusal or doubt about accepting the claim. Only force majeure releases it from this statutory duty. The summary does not state the outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — duty to inform the health-insurance fund","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1996-11-28","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1996:ARR.19961128.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"L'article 86 de la loi du 25 juin 1992 ne fait que conférer à la personne lésée le droit d'invoquer à son profit l'exécution par l'assureur d'une obligation dont il est contractuellement redevable à l'égard de son…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"For a loss that occurred in 1975, the court applied article 86 of the Act of 25 June 1992. That provision merely allows the injured party to claim for its own benefit the performance of an obligation the insurer owes its insured under the contract, so applying it does not breach the principle of non-retroactivity. The outcome on the merits is not stated.","k":"Direct action — art. 86 LCAT applied to an earlier loss","law":"LCAT art. 86","w":125,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1996-11-25","rol":"S.96.0063.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1996:ARR.19961125.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Il incombe à l'assureur-loi contestant l'incorporation d'un avantage à la rémunération de base de la victime d'un accident du travail d'apporter la preuve que l'avantage ne constitue pas une rémunération au sens de la…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A victim seeking to include in the basic pay a monetary benefit granted by the employer must prove that it was granted under the employment relationship. The workplace-accident insurer contesting its inclusion must then prove that the benefit is excluded by law or reimburses costs imposed by the working conditions. The insurer's appeal against the Brussels Labour Court of Appeal ruling that included meal vouchers in the basic pay was dismissed.","k":"Workplace accident — meal vouchers and basic pay","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 34 and 35; former Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, art. 870","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1996-11-13","rol":"13342","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1996:ARR.19961113.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'article 63, alinéa 2 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail dispose que lorsque la compagnie d'assurances refuse de prendre le cas en charge ou estime qu'il existe un doute quant à l'application de…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A workplace-accident insurer refusing cover must notify the health-insurance fund within thirty days of receiving the accident report, but in case of force majeure the period runs only once it ends. For the accident of 5.7.1993, the insurer was entitled to rely on the details in the accident report and did not have to check them systematically. Since art. 63 sanctions negligence and no fault could be attributed to the insurer, the sanction did not apply.","k":"Workplace accident — art. 63 notification deadline and force majeure","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63; Cass. 14.1.1991","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1996-10-31","rol":"C.96.0013.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1996:ARR.19961031.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Lorsqu'une demande en justice est fondée sur les stipulations d'une police d'assurance qui, d'une part, instituent un cas de déchéance et non de nullité du contrat d'assurance comme prévu aux dispositions légales et,…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured had declared his trade as a rag dealer while he in fact worked as a scrap-metal dealer, which carried a higher premium. The insurer relied solely on the policy's forfeiture clause; the Mons Court of Appeal assessed the defence under articles 9 and 31 of the Act of 11 June 1874 and ordered the insurer to cover the insured. The Court of Cassation noted that the clause differs from the statute (forfeiture rather than nullity, with no requirement that the risk assessment be affected) and that by changing the basis of the defence the judgment breached articles 702, 807 and 1138, 2° of the Judicial Code. Quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Misstated activity — contractual forfeiture relied on by the insurer","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, arts. 9 and 31; Judicial Code, arts. 702, 807 and 1138, 2°","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1996-10-22","rol":"P.96.0290.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1996:ARR.19961022.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"La suspension du contrat visée à l'article 87, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 25 juin 1992 sur le contrat d'assurance terrestre, par laquelle le contrat et les obligations qui en résultent pour l'assureur et le preneur…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"Before the accident the insurer had merely suspended cover, without terminating the policy. The Tongeren criminal court treated this as suspension of the contract and ordered the Guarantee Fund to pay 58,000 francs to the injured party. The Court of Cassation distinguished suspension of the contract under article 87 LCAT (by agreement or court decision) from suspension of cover under articles 14 and 17, and held that under article 16 of the Act of 21 November 1989 suspension of cover cannot be raised against the injured party. On the Fund's appeal, the rulings concerning the Fund and the insurer were quashed.","k":"Motor liability — suspension of cover and the injured party","law":"LCAT arts. 14, 17 and 87(1); Act of 21.11.1989, art. 16","w":273,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1996-10-10","rol":"942900","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1996:ARR.19961010.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insured sought 200,000 francs of lawyer's fees from his legal expenses insurer for proceedings before the indictment chamber to lift seizures placed by an investigating judge on his bank accounts and cars. The Court of Appeal accepted that 'criminal proceedings' cover the public prosecution, including referral to an investigating judge and the remedies exercised during it, so the challenge to the seizures formed part of a criminal defence. However, the insured was prosecuted for forgery, use of forged documents and fraud, offences that can only be committed intentionally, and article 4.2 of the policy's special conditions excludes cover in that case. The insured's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Legal expenses insurance — criminal defence, intentional offences exclusion","law":"Policy special conditions, arts. 3 and 4.2 (criminal defence, intentional offences exclusion); Criminal Code, art. 42 (as then worded)","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1996-10-10","rol":"92AR3095","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1996:ARR.19961010.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La faute grave au sens de l'article 16 de la loi du 11 juin 1874, applicable au moment des faits, s'entend de celle qui est assimilable à un fait intentionnel qui entraîne une aggravation du risque au delà des…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The motor liability insurer sought recourse against its insured, who had been convicted of drink-driving. The Brussels Court of Appeal held that gross fault under article 16 of the Act of 11 June 1874, applicable at the time, is fault akin to an intentional act that increases the risk beyond the normal expectations of the contract, and of which the driver was or should have been aware. Exceeding the legal alcohol limit and the causal link found by the criminal court are not enough on their own: the police recorded coherent statements and the forensic doctor found the driver aware of his actions. The first-instance judgment was reversed and the insurer's recourse dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — recourse against a drunk driver, meaning of gross fault","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16; Liège 8.12.1981; Ghent 6.1.1988","w":35,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1996-10-09","rol":"P.96.0225.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1996:ARR.19961009.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"En vertu de la subrogation prévue à l'article 47 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail, la créance de la victime ou de ses ayants droit contre le responsable de l'accident du travail passe de leur…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"Under article 47 of the Act of 10 April 1971, the victim's claim against the liable party passes to the workplace-accident insurer, up to the benefits paid and the capital set aside, with all its elements and accessories. The subrogated insurer may claim compensatory interest from the dates of payment, insofar as the victim would be entitled to it under general law and without exceeding the general-law award. The Tournai criminal court judgment, which refused such interest as duplicating the capitalisation rate, was quashed insofar as it denied interest on 1,930,700 francs.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — compensatory interest","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 46(2) and 47; former Civil Code, arts. 1382-1383","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1996-10-06","rol":"1384593","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1996:JUG.19961006.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Lorsqu'un sinistre survient alors que l'assuré est en retard de paiement de prime mais n'a pas encore été mis en demeure, la bonne foi impose à l'assureur d'attirer spécialement l'attention de l'assuré sur le fait que…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Where a loss occurs after the premium has fallen due but before any formal notice, an insurer that accepts the claim without reservation must state expressly in its notice that failure to pay in time will leave that loss uncovered; moreover, its letter claiming a small balance misled the insured. The court held that the suspension clause had not been applied in good faith and that the insurer could not rely on it. The indemnity was reduced to BEF 364,571 on the basis of the policy's agreed value with monthly depreciation; interest ran from formal notice.","k":"Motor own-damage insurance — suspension for late premium and good faith","law":"Policy suspension clause; good-faith performance","w":264,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1996-10-02","rol":"P.96.0600.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1996:ARR.19961002.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le délai de seize jours, pendant lequel, en cas de transfert de propriété du véhicule assuré, les stipulations mettant fin par ce fait même au contrat d'assurance sont sans effet si le dommage a été causé par le…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"Under article 17 of the Act of 21 November 1989, when ownership of the insured vehicle is transferred, clauses ending the contract on that ground have no effect for sixteen days 'from the transfer' if the damage is caused by the transferred vehicle or its replacement. The Court of Cassation upheld the Mons Court of Appeal's finding that the period includes the day of the legal transaction, setting aside the usual rule of counting in full days, and dismissed the appeal. The judgment does not state the appellant's capacity.","k":"Motor liability — counting the 16-day period after transfer of the vehicle","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 17","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1996-09-30","rol":"S.95.0055.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1996:ARR.19960930.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'erreur matérielle commise dans le dispositif d'une décision judiciaire ne peut, comme telle, donner ouverture à cassation. || Le juge n'est pas tenu de répondre à des conclusions devenues sans pertinence en raison de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A workplace-accident insurer that declares the victim recovered without permanent incapacity must itself notify the victim of that decision (art. 24(1), Act of 10 April 1971). The Brussels Labour Court of Appeal, holding otherwise, found the review claim under article 72(1) time-barred; it also refused to treat the victim's challenge under article 72(2) as a cross-appeal because it was not repeated in the operative part of his submissions. The Court of Cassation held that a claim set out in the reasoning of submissions is validly before the court and that a cross-appeal needs only the form of submissions. Partly quashed on the victim's appeal.","k":"Workplace accident — notice of the recovery decision","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 24(1) and 72; Judicial Code, arts. 741-744, 1042, 1054, 1056, 4°","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1996-09-25","rol":"P.96.0552.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1996:ARR.19960925.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'employeur qui a payé en faveur de son employé, victime d'un accident de la circulation causé par la faute d'un tiers, non assuré, des sommes et avantages sociaux, non en raison de cette faute, mais en exécution…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"An employee was injured in an accident caused by the fault of an uninsured driver; the Brussels Court of Appeal had ordered the Guarantee Fund to reimburse the employer 54,441 francs in payments and social benefits made to the employee. The Court of Cassation held that an injured party under article 50 of the Act of 9 July 1975 is one who suffers loss recoverable under tort rules. Since the employer paid under statutory or contractual obligations, not because of the fault, it cannot recover those sums from the Fund. Quashed on that point on the Fund's appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund — is the employer an injured party?","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, arts. 49-50; former Civil Code, arts. 1382-1383","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1996-09-20","rol":"C.93.0367.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1996:ARR.19960920.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Viole l'autorité de la chose jugée attachée à la décision du juge pénal qui, ensuite d'un accident du roulage, a prononcé définitivement une condamnation à deux peines distinctes du chef d'avoir, d'une part, conduit un…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The police court had imposed separate penalties on the driver for drink-driving and for a traffic offence, stating that the latter was the sole cause of the collision; it thereby decided that intoxication was not a cause. By upholding the insurer's recourse on the ground that alcohol alone caused the accident, the Antwerp Court of Appeal disregarded the res judicata effect of the criminal judgment. Quashed on the insured driver's appeal and referred to the Brussels Court of Appeal.","k":"Insurer's recourse — alcohol and res judicata of the criminal judgment","law":"Criminal Code, art. 65; res judicata principle in criminal matters","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1996-09-18","rol":"P.96.0127.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1996:ARR.19960918.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Des intérêts compensatoires ne peuvent être accordés à la victime d'un accident lorsque le retard apporté à son indemnisation n'est dû qu'à sa propre faute ou négligence. || La personne responsable d'un accident du…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A subrogated workplace-accident insurer's recourse against the liable party cannot exceed what the victim could obtain under general law for the same loss; the insurer may claim compensatory interest on the capital from the date it was set aside. On the liable party's appeal, the Court quashed the Charleroi criminal court judgment which, by awarding statutory interest on 1,040,000 francs, granted more than the general-law award. On the insurer's appeal, it quashed the cap of the subrogation at that amount for failure to address the argument based on temporary incapacity; owing to indivisibility, the 103,247-franc award to the victim was also quashed.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — subrogation cap and interest","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 46(2) and 47; former Civil Code, arts. 1382-1383","w":5,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1996-09-05","rol":"C.96.0012.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1996:ARR.19960905.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Le juge qui décide qu'une demande est fondée sur l'article 1382 du Code civil et qui la rejette en raison de l'absence de relation causale nécessaire entre la faute et le dommage, ne fait que vérifier si les conditions…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Liège Court of Appeal had capped the workplace-accident insurer's recourse against the liable third party at 90% of the sum due to the victim (245,589 instead of 272,877 francs) and dismissed, for lack of causation, a claim for 11,437 francs in employer contributions. The Court of Cassation held that general-law damages and statutory benefits are two ways of compensating the same material loss: within the limit of the general-law damages, the subrogated insurer may recover all sums paid for the same period. The 90% cap was quashed; the rest of the appeal was dismissed.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — no 90% cap","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 46(2) and 47(2); former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1996-06-18","rol":"937973A","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1996:JUG.19960618.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Lorsque l'assureur, par une accumulation d'erreurs fautives, crée une apparence fallacieuse de couverture à l'époque de l'accident, incitant son assuré à se croire valablement couvert, il commet un manquement à…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Although the policy was suspended for non-payment of the first annual premium, the insurer did not point out that a partial payment did not end the suspension; a green card had been issued, an endorsement dating the suspension later was sent, and a letter claimed only the deductible. The court held that this accumulation of culpable errors created a false appearance of cover at the time of the accident, in breach of the duty to perform the contract in good faith. The insurer had to provide cover and its BEF 272,178 recourse claim against the insured was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — appearance of cover created by the insurer and recourse","law":"Model policy general conditions, art. 25.4; good-faith performance","w":274,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1996-06-13","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1996:ARR.19960613.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'assureur de la R.C. du conducteur du véhicule assuré objet du vol doit, pour invoquer utilement l'exclusion de couverture d'assurance en application de l'article 3, alinéa 1 des dispositions communes annexées à la…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insured vehicle had been stolen and was involved in an accident; the liability insurer relied on the exclusion in article 3(1) of the common provisions annexed to the Benelux Convention of 24 May 1966. The court held that the insurer must prove with certainty that the vehicle was being driven by the thief or a receiver of stolen goods at the time of the accident. That proof is lacking where the driver remains unidentified, so the exclusion did not apply.","k":"Motor liability — theft exclusion, unidentified driver","law":"Benelux Convention of 24.5.1966, common provisions, art. 3(1); Act of 19.2.1968","w":35,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1996-06-12","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1996:ARR.19960612.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Si, sans doute, le heurt d'un pavé tombé d'un camion constitue bien un accident au sens de la police, il n'en demeure pas moins que le dommage qui procède du comportement postérieur du bénéficiaire de la garantie n'est…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Hitting a paving stone that fell from a lorry is an accident within the meaning of the policy. The court held, however, that damage resulting from the beneficiary's later conduct is normally not covered where that conduct aggravated the risk, so that a cause unrelated to the accident intervened between it and the damage. The concrete outcome of the claim is not stated.","k":"Comprehensive cover — damage worsened by the insured's later conduct","law":"No legal basis given in the summary","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1996-06-08","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1996:ARR.19960608.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Il appartient à l'assureur d'établir que non seulement la maladie existait avant la souscription de la police mais encore que celle-ci constituait un risque qui, s'il avait été signalé de bonne foi par l'assuré,…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Under a hospitalisation policy, the insurer alleged non-disclosure of an illness that predated the contract. The court held that the insurer must prove not only that the illness existed before the policy was taken out, but also that, had it been disclosed in good faith, the contract would not have been concluded on the same terms. A medical expert may be appointed for that purpose, but the report is only an opinion for the court. The concrete outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Hospitalisation insurance — pre-existing illness, non-disclosure","law":"Non-disclosure (Act of 11.6.1874 regime); burden of proof; expert evidence","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1996-05-31","rol":"924806A","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1996:JUG.19960531.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsque la chaîne des circonstances d'un accident a été initiée par la faute d'un conducteur inconnu dont il n'est pas démontré qu'il aurait pu faire état d'une justification liée à la force majeure, le Fonds Commun de…","court":"first","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"On a motorway a car was struck from behind by an unidentified vehicle, veered across the lanes and was hit by another car; neither driver was at fault. The court held that, since the chain of events was set off by the unknown driver's fault, the Fund does not compensate property damage, even though the accident was a fortuitous event for the other driver, whose claim for vehicle damage was dismissed. The bodily injury of the driver struck first was, however, charged to the Fund in the amount of BEF 151,680; loss of use of her car was rejected.","k":"Guarantee Fund — unidentified vehicle, property damage and fortuitous event","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50; RD 16.12.1981, art. 17, 19; Cass. 2.5.1989","w":35,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1996-05-28","rol":"P.95.1378.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1996:ARR.19960528.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Lorsque la décision rendue par une juridiction répressive sur la demande de la victime, partie civile, n'est pas définitive au sens de l'article 416 du Code d'instruction criminelle, la décision rendue par cette…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Ghent Court of Appeal had awarded the victim an interim payment for bodily injury, appointed a medical expert and granted a sum to the victim's insurer. The Court noted that the legally subrogated insurer exercises the victim's own claim through a separate action; as long as the decision on the victim's claim is not final, neither is the decision on the subrogated insurer's claim. The insurer's premature appeal was dismissed as inadmissible.","k":"Subrogated insurer — premature appeal","law":"Code of Criminal Procedure (C.I.cr.) art. 416; Cass. 12.12.1990","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"summary"},{"d":"1996-05-24","rol":"9438","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1996:ARR.19960524.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Juportal has no summary for this judgment, only keywords. They indicate a public-sector workplace accident and a third-party claim for indemnity against the insurance company with which the municipality had contracted to cover its social risks. The outcome cannot be determined from the available information.","k":"Public-sector workplace accident — municipality's third-party claim against its insurer","law":"Public-sector workplace accident rules (per keywords); no article given","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1996-05-23","rol":"9212484A","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1996:JUG.19960523.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Il n'y a pas lieu de déroger, en matière de point de départ du délai de prescription, aux principes énoncés par l'article 32 de la loi du 11 juin 1874 au motif que l'action récursoire est fondée sur la réticence ou la…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The motor liability insurer had instructed its lawyer to bring recourse against its insured, who had concealed when taking out the policy that he was blind in one eye; the writ was issued late and the insured pleaded limitation. The court held that, since the model policy grants recourse for misrepresentation up to the amounts paid to the victim, the three-year period of article 32 of the Act of 11 June 1874 runs from each payment. The insurer's loss of chance caused by the lawyer's culpable delay was assessed at 75% and the lawyer was ordered to pay BEF 617,522.","k":"Insurer's recourse — limitation and the lawyer's liability","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 32","w":264,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1996-05-21","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1996:ARR.19960521.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"L'assuré qui circule sciemment avec des pneus lisses commet une faute grave. Celle-ci le prive du droit à l'indemnisation si la preuve est rapportée d'un lien de causalité suffisant avec l'accident. Il suffit à…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"An insured who knowingly drives on bald tyres commits gross fault. This deprives him of compensation if a sufficient causal link with the accident is proved; the insurer need only prove that tyre wear was one of the necessary causes of the loss. The summary does not say whether the loss of cover was applied in this case.","k":"Own-damage insurance — bald tyres and gross fault","law":"No legal basis given in the summary","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1996-05-17","rol":"12655","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1996:ARR.19960517.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Interrompent la prescription : une citation en justice ou une requête au tribunal du travail (Cass. 19.3.1984, JTT 1985, 201) comme le paiement des indemnités par l'assureur ou toute forme de reconnaissance du droit de…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Limitation is interrupted by a summons, an application, payment of benefits or any acknowledgement of the victim's right, but an examination made 'expressly without acknowledging any right' is not one. The victim had been sent to the insurer's medical adviser by the employer's medical service; the report bore the insurer's letterhead and claim number. The court ordered further submissions and documents on whether the doctor acted for the insurer, including by apparent authority, without ruling on the merits.","k":"Workplace accident — examination by the insurer's doctor and interruption of limitation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 70; former Civil Code, art. 2248; Cass. 28.12.1987","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1996-05-09","rol":"92827","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1996:ARR.19960509.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Un courtier d'assurances n'est pas créancier des primes d'assurances et n'a donc ni qualité ni intérêt pour agir en paiement de ces primes. Une compagnie d'assurances ne pourrait donner mandant à un courtier d'agir en…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an insurance broker is not the creditor of the premiums and therefore has neither standing nor interest to sue for their payment. Nor can an insurer authorise a broker to sue for premiums, since no one may litigate through an intermediary (nul ne plaide par procureur). An agent's account in the insurer's books is a provisional account without the legal effects of a current account.","k":"Insurance premiums — broker's standing to sue","law":"Standing and interest to sue; rule that no one may litigate by proxy","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1996-04-18","rol":"91AR1878","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1996:ARR.19960418.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insured claimed 150,000 francs from his insurer under an 'insolvency guarantee' policy; the first-instance court upheld the claim and the insurer appealed. The Court of Appeal recalled that in adhesion contracts such as insurance contracts doubt is resolved in favour of the insured, that the insurer's letters extending the cover ceiling form part of the contract, and that a 'clerical error' by the insurer's file handler cannot be held against the insured. The insured event is the debtor's established insolvency, not the mere risk of it; since the certificate of default post-dated the ceiling increase, cover applied. The insurer's appeal was dismissed and the judgment confirmed.","k":"Insolvency guarantee insurance — interpretation in favour of the insured","law":"Principles of contract interpretation (adhesion contract, doubt resolved in favour of the insured, good faith)","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"full"},{"d":"1996-03-26","rol":"P.94.1323.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1996:ARR.19960326.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Lorsque la décision, condamnant le prévenu sur l'action civile exercée contre lui, est cassée sur le pourvoi de celui-ci, cette cassation rend sans objet la décision rendue sur l'action civile exercée par le défendeur…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Tongeren criminal court judgment was quashed on the defendant's appeal because conflicting records of the bench's composition made it impossible to verify compliance with article 779 of the Judicial Code; the quashing extended to the civil awards against him. The Court of Cassation held that this also deprived of any basis the rulings on the civil claims against the voluntarily intervening insurer, even though no issue had been joined between the defendant and the insurer, no award had been made in the insurer's favour and the insurer had not appealed. The case was referred to the Hasselt criminal court.","k":"Criminal procedure — effect of quashing on the intervening insurer","law":"Judicial Code, art. 779","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1996-03-14","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1996:ARR.19960314.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En présence d'un devis de réparation produit par la victime d'un accident, l'assureur qui est professionnellement équipé pour constater ce devis et critique l'étendue du dommage réclamé, ne peut se limiter à rejeter ce…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Faced with a repair estimate produced by the injured party, the insurer, which is professionally equipped to examine it, cannot simply reject it and offer a different amount without reasons. Under its duty to cooperate fairly in gathering evidence, it must show why the estimate is excessive. Since the rejection was unreasoned, the estimate was accepted as proof of the loss.","k":"Property damage — insurer's unreasoned rejection of a repair estimate","law":"No legal basis given in the summary","w":35,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1996-03-14","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EABRL:1996:JUG.19960314.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"De bewijslast van de door de verzekeraar ingeroepen uitsluitingsgrond berust op deze laatste : bij het ontbreken van dronkenschap of alcoholintoxicatie volstaat het loutere feit dat de verzekerde toegeeft drie glazen…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the burden of proving the exclusion relied on lies with the insurer. Absent drunkenness or alcohol intoxication, the insured's mere admission that he had drunk three glasses of beer and was rather tired does not prove gross fault or the other exclusions (a manifestly dangerous and reckless act). The insurer failed to prove the exclusion.","k":"Liability insurance — burden of proving an exclusion","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":264,"c":"Nederlandstalige rechtbank eerste aanleg Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1996-03-14","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1996:JUG.19960314.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"L'assureur a la charge de la preuve de la clause d'exclusion de garantie qu'il invoque : en l'absence d'ivresse ou d'intoxication alcoolique avérée, le seul fait pour l'assuré de reconnaître avoir bu trois bières et…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the insurer bears the burden of proving the exclusion clause it relies on. Absent proven drunkenness or alcohol intoxication, the insured's admission of having drunk three beers and being rather tired was not enough to establish gross fault or the other exclusions (manifestly dangerous or reckless act).","k":"Occupants' insurance — proof of exclusion","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":264,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1996-02-06","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1996:ARR.19960206.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Celui qui paie, non la dette d'un tiers, mais exclusivement la sienne propre n'est pas légalement subrogé dans les droits du créancier envers ce tiers. L'assureur R.C. auto qui indemnise les victimes d'un accident n'a…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Liège Court of Appeal held that a motor liability insurer compensating victims pays its own debt, not that of the liable insured, and is therefore not subrogated to the injured party's rights. Gross fault under article 16 of the Act of 11 June 1874 is contractual, so the insurer cannot invoke tort rules against its insured. Article 1384(2) of the former Civil Code (parents' liability) does not apply where the minor incurred contractual liability. The final outcome of the recourse action is not stated.","k":"Motor liability — insurer's recourse, subrogation and gross fault","law":"Act of 11 June 1874, art. 16; former Civil Code, art. 1384(2)","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1996-01-05","rol":"C.95.0394.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1996:ARR.19960105.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Le tribunal de police est compétent pour statuer sur l'action récursoire de l'assureur contre son assuré responsable d'un accident de la circulation.","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The judgment under appeal had sent the insurer's recourse claim against its insured to the justice of the peace, holding that it concerned an undue payment arising from the contract rather than from the accident. The Court of Cassation held that article 601bis of the Judicial Code and its preparatory works give the police court jurisdiction over any claim connected with compensation for loss from a road accident, including the recourse claim of an insurer that compensated the victim against its liable insured. Quashed and referred to the Liège police court.","k":"Insurer's recourse against the insured — police court jurisdiction","law":"Judicial Code, arts. 601bis and 660","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1996-01-02","rol":"P.94.1296.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1996:ARR.19960102.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Toute personne lésée peut obtenir du Fonds commun de garantie automobile la réparation des dommages matériels causés par un véhicule automoteur, lorsqu'aucune entreprise d'assurances n'est obligée à ladite réparation en…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Guarantee Fund pays for bodily injury when the vehicle is unidentified, but pays for property damage only if no insurer is liable because of a fortuitous event exonerating the driver who caused the accident. By finding that the lorry that lost its load was unidentified and that its driver was solely responsible, the Ghent Court of Appeal ruled out such a fortuitous event. The appeal of the all-risks insurer claiming its property damage from the Fund was dismissed.","k":"Guarantee Fund — unidentified vehicle and property damage","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, arts. 49-50; RD of 16.12.1981, art. 19(1)","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1996-01-02","rol":"P.95.1170.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1996:ARR.19960102.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Celui qui se rend maître d'un véhicule par vol, violence ou recel en est le détenteur.","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Ghent Court of Appeal had acquitted a thief driving a stolen car of driving uninsured (art. 22 of the Act of 21 November 1989) because the owner held valid insurance. The Court of Cassation held that under article 3 compulsory insurance need not cover those who took control of the vehicle by theft, violence or receiving, that such a person is the vehicle's keeper, and that article 22 punishes not only the owner but also the keeper and the driver. The acquittal was quashed and the case referred to the Antwerp Court of Appeal.","k":"Driving uninsured — the thief driving a stolen vehicle","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, arts. 1, 2, 3, 22 and 24; Benelux Convention of 24.5.1966, art. 8(2)","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1995-12-22","rol":"9112202A","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1995:JUG.19951222.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"La faute intentionnelle de l'assuré qui exonère l'assureur de son devoir d'intervention implique la volonté consciente de l'assuré de provoquer ou du moins d'accepter le fait dommageable. La faute grave implique la…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"According to the court, intentional fault releasing the insurer requires the insured's conscious will to cause, or at least accept, the harmful event. Gross fault combines an objective aggravation of the risk with the insured's actual or required awareness of it, and is construed restrictively. Mere negligence, or an act committed in an altered state where discernment is destroyed or seriously disturbed by emotional or psychological distress, is not gross fault. The final outcome is not stated.","k":"Private liability insurance — intentional and gross fault","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":264,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-12-19","rol":"P.94.0300.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1995:ARR.19951219.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La possibilité d'intervention du Fonds commun de garantie automobile conformément à l'article 50, alinéa 4, de la loi du 9 juillet 1975 (1) est conditionnée par le fait que le juge pénal doit être régulièrement saisi de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The defendant had joined the Guarantee Fund to the criminal proceedings for his own loss, relying on the unidentified vehicle from which a metal plate had fallen onto the road. The Court of Cassation held that under article 50(4) of the Act of 9 July 1975 the Fund can be joined before a criminal court only if the civil claim is properly before that court on the basis of an offence charged against a specific defendant, which was not the case for the defendant's own claim against the Fund. The appeal against the Brussels Court of Appeal ruling that the claim was inadmissible was dismissed.","k":"Guarantee Fund — claim against the Fund in criminal proceedings","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50(4)","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1995-12-18","rol":"1739889","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1995:JUG.19951218.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"According to the court, although an insurer's subrogation is in principle excluded in group personal insurance, this does not apply to group accident insurance of an indemnity type, where benefits are set by reference to the loss (salary, age, degree and duration of incapacity). The claim transferred by subrogation keeps, up to the amount paid, the same nature, priority and accessory rights as the victim's claim. The case concerns the subrogated insurer's claim.","k":"Group accident insurance — subrogation and priority","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":264,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-12-05","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1995:ARR.19951205.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The Liège Court of Appeal held that in insurance a thing's value is its real value; for a trophy made for a competition it is the cost of an identical trophy. In case of over-insurance, a good-faith insured's policy is void only for the excess. Insuring thirty million, the owner's estimate, when replacement value was under ten million did not prove fraud; the insurer, which knew the real value and made no enquiries, could not rely on misrepresentation either. Cover was limited to the real value.","k":"Property insurance — over-insurance and misrepresentation","law":"Over-insurance and misrepresentation rules (no article cited in the summary)","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-11-30","rol":"C.93.0372.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1995:ARR.19951130.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le Fonds commun de garantie automobile est tenu de réparer les dommages matériels causés par un véhicule automoteur lorsqu'aucune entreprise d'assurance agréée n'est obligée à ladite réparation en raison d'un cas…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Antwerp Court of Appeal, finding that the accident was caused by the fault of an unidentified vehicle and amounted to a fortuitous event for the other drivers, had ordered the Guarantee Fund to pay the injured party's property damage (62,600 francs). The Court of Cassation held that the fortuitous event triggering the Fund's liability for property damage must be assessed in respect of the driver of the vehicle that caused the accident. The property-damage award, made without such a finding regarding the unidentified driver, was quashed on the Fund's appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund — fortuitous event and property damage","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50(1), 1° and 2°; RD of 16.12.1981, art. 19(1)","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1995-11-29","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1995:ARR.19951129.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'assureur - ou son mandataire - qui revêt une demande d'immatriculation d'un véhicule automoteur de son sceau et de sa signature et qui envoie, soit personnellement, soit par son mandataire, cette demande à…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an insurer which stamps and signs a vehicle registration request and sends it, itself or through its agent, to the authorities undertakes towards third parties to cover the vehicle's civil liability from the date of sending. The claim that the policy's entry into force had been postponed, and the fact that the driver neither signed a contract nor paid a premium after registration, affect only his relations with the insurer and the broker; they cannot be raised against the injured parties.","k":"Motor liability — registration request stamped by the insurer","law":"Registration request stamped by the insurer; proof towards third parties","w":35,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-11-24","rol":"248589","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1995:ARR.19951124.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that former article 20, 9° of the Mortgage Act allows the injured party to sue the insurer in its own name, within the limits of the insured's liability and the policy terms; this is not an indirect (oblique) action. The professional liability insurer cannot rely on the duty to prevent loss (art. 17 of the Act of 11 June 1874), since the cover is precisely for professional omissions and delays. The duty to notify a claim (art. 11 of the general conditions) does not require reporting every sign of impatience from a client who keeps his trust.","k":"Professional liability insurance — direct action and insurer's defences","law":"Former Mortgage Act, art. 20, 9°; Act of 11.6.1874, art. 17(1); general conditions, art. 11","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-11-16","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1995:ARR.19951116.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Begaat de fout voorzien door artikel 17 van de modelpolis de verzekerde die niet binnen de achtenveertig uren aan zijn verzekeraar de dagvaarding overmaakt om te verschijnen voor de Politierechtbank. Zo de verzekeraar…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"An insured who fails to forward to the insurer within 48 hours a summons to appear before the police court commits the breach under article 17 of the model policy. Under article 26 of the general conditions, however, recourse exists only if the insurer suffered loss. That is not the case where the insured was assisted by a lawyer whose defence matched what the insurer could have argued and the insurer does not show it could have obtained a more favourable decision; the recourse was held unfounded.","k":"Motor liability — late forwarding of a summons and recourse","law":"Model policy, art. 17 and 26","w":264,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-11-14","rol":"954375","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1995:ARR.19951114.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le jugement correctionnel condamnant un prévenu du chef de non-assurance ne prive pas les victimes de l'accident du droit de débattre avec l'assureur du prévenu de la question de son intervention, l'autorité de la chose…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The driver had been convicted of driving without insurance; the victims had joined the criminal proceedings as civil parties. The court held that this judgment does not deprive the victims of their right to argue with the driver's insurer about whether it must intervene, since the res judicata effect of criminal judgments is relative in light of every party's right to a fair trial. The outcome as to cover is not stated in the summary.","k":"Motor liability — conviction for no insurance and claim against the insurer","law":"Res judicata of criminal judgments; right to a fair trial","w":35,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-11-06","rol":"C.95.0041.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1995:ARR.19951106.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'assureur qui revêt une demande d'immatriculation d'un véhicule automoteur de son sceau et de sa signature et qui envoie cette demande à la direction pour l'immatriculation des véhicules, contracte envers les tiers…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer and the insured had agreed that the policy would take effect on 8 July 1987; the accident occurred on 4 July 1987. The justice of the peace had held the insurer not liable and ordered the Guarantee Fund to pay 16,875 francs. The Court of Cassation held that an insurer that stamps and signs a vehicle registration request is bound towards third parties, under article 25bis of the Royal Decree of 31 December 1953, to cover the vehicle's liability from the date it sends the request, regardless of any agreement postponing the policy's start. Quashed on the Fund's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — insurer bound from sending the registration request","law":"RD of 31.12.1953, art. 25bis (before the RD of 11.1.1990); Act of 9.7.1975, arts. 49-50","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1995-10-27","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1995:ARR.19951027.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"L'article 9 de la loi du 11 juin 1874 sanctionne de nullité le contrat d'assurance et ouvre à l'assureur une action récursoire en récupération de ses décaissements lorsqu'en raison d'une réticence ou d'une fausse…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Article 9 of the Act of 11 June 1874 renders the contract void and gives the insurer recourse to recover its payments where, because of the policyholder's non-disclosure or misrepresentation, it contracted on terms it would not have accepted if properly informed. This sanction applies regardless of the policyholder's good or bad faith. The insurer must prove that the omission changed its view of the risk so that it would not have contracted, or only on different terms. The outcome is not clearly stated.","k":"Motor liability — non-disclosure, misrepresentation and nullity","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-10-27","rol":"C.95.0022.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1995:ARR.19951027.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"En cas d'incendie, la créance du locataire, responsable, contre son assureur et celle qu'en vertu d'une action directe le propriétaire peut exercer contre l'assureur de son locataire ne sont pas des créances de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that, in a fire, the liable tenant's claim against its insurer and the owner's claim against the tenant's insurer by direct action are not damages claims but claims for sums of money. The insurer can therefore be ordered to pay default interest from the date the third-party (guarantee) claim was brought against it. The insurer's duty to cover arises when the risk materialises, even if the amount is fixed by the court only later. The full text is not published.","k":"Tenant's fire liability — insurer's debt and default interest","law":"former Civil Code, arts. 1153 and 1733","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-10-19","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1995:ARR.19951019.17","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Les dommages causés par la mérule peuvent être considérés comme des dégâts des eaux pouvant donner lieu à garantie de la compagnie dès le moment où ils sont imputables à une cause de sinistre visée par le contrat…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that dry-rot damage may be covered water damage where it is attributable to a cause of loss listed in the contract, which the insured must prove; the insurer must prove any fact excluding cover. An exclusion clause that largely empties the cover of meaning was set aside: the insured need not bear the consequences of a poorly drafted standard-form contract. A characteristic of the building is not an inherent defect releasing the insurer under article 18 of the Act of 11 June 1874.","k":"Water damage insurance — dry rot","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 18","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-10-19","rol":"C.95.0059.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1995:ARR.19951019.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Lorsqu'un membre du personnel de l'enseignement subventionné, victime d'un accident causé par la faute d'un tiers, n'a pas subrogé les autorités dans ses droits vis-à-vis de l'auteur de l'accident, les autorités ne…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A teacher in subsidised education was injured in an accident caused by a third party's fault, and the public authority continued to pay her salary during her absence. The Court of Cassation held that, unless it has been subrogated to the employee's rights, the authority cannot rely on statutory subrogation to recover those salaries from the liable party's insurer. The Antwerp Court of Appeal, which held that subrogation arose from payment alone, breached the law and also misread the signed subrogation declaration. Quashed and referred to the Ghent Court of Appeal.","k":"Subrogation — public authority's claim against the liable party's insurer","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1250, 1°; RD of 15.1.1974, art. 18; evidential value of documents","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1995-10-11","rol":"P.95.0508.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1995:ARR.19951011.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La demande en déclaration d'arrêt commun formée par le demandeur en cassation est irrecevable lorsque celui-ci ne justifie d'aucun intérêt à faire déclarer l'arrêt commun à la partie citée en intervention. || Est…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A public social welfare centre (CPAS) seeking reimbursement of the social assistance it paid to the victim had obtained judgment against the liable driver's motor liability insurer. The Court held that the CPAS's own right of recovery under article 98 of the Act of 8 July 1976 lies only against the 'liable persons', that the CPAS is not an injured party within the meaning of the Act of 1 July 1956, and that it cannot sue the insurer on that basis. On the insurer's appeal, the Liège Court of Appeal judgments were quashed as regards the CPAS claim; the insurer's request to have the judgment declared binding on its insured was dismissed for lack of interest.","k":"Motor liability — public social welfare centre's claim against the liable driver's insurer","law":"Act of 8.7.1976, art. 98; Act of 1.7.1956, art. 1, 6, 9; Judicial Code, art. 15–18; Cass. 29.6.1995","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1995-10-09","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1995:ARR.19951009.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"De zware fout, noodzakelijk voor de regresvordering van de verzekeraar, kan niet gelegd worden in de weigering van het nemen van een bloedstaal, nu die weigering als zodanig niet de oorzaak of de medeoorzaak van het…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The gross fault required for the insurer's recourse cannot lie in refusing a blood test, since that refusal cannot be the cause or a contributing cause of the accident, even if it prevented the exact level of intoxication from being determined. As the criminal court did not have to rule on the driver's drinking, nothing prevents the civil court from finding that drinking caused the accident. The summary does not expressly state the outcome of the recourse.","k":"Motor liability — refusal of a blood test and gross fault","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":35,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-10-09","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PINAM:1995:JUG.19951009.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"L'action récursoire de l'assureur n'est pas une action ayant pour objet direct et immédiat la réparation d'un dommage résultant d'un accident de la circulation, mais bien le recouvrement de sommes que l'assureur s'est…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an insurer's recourse action against its insured is not aimed directly at compensating loss caused by a road accident, but at recovering sums the insurer was contractually bound to pay the victim and is contractually entitled to recover from its insured. It is based on the contract, not the accident, and therefore falls outside the subject-matter jurisdiction of the police court. The ruling concerns jurisdiction only; the summary says nothing on the merits.","k":"Insurer's recourse — jurisdiction of the police court","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":264,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Namur","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-10-06","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EABRL:1995:JUG.19951006.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"De opschortingsclausule van de waarborg bij gebrek aan betaling van de premies, moet zoals elke andere clausule, te goeder trouw toegepast worden. Als een schadegeval zich voordoet terwijl de verzekerde te laat is met…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a clause suspending cover for non-payment of premiums must, like any clause, be applied in good faith. Where a loss occurs while the insured is late in paying but has not yet been given formal notice, good faith requires the insurer expressly to warn him that this loss may not be covered if he fails to pay within the set time. Otherwise a layperson cannot understand that the notice deprives him of cover for a loss that preceded it, whereas the professional insurer is aware of it.","k":"Motor liability — suspension for unpaid premium and good faith","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":264,"c":"Nederlandstalige rechtbank eerste aanleg Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-10-06","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1995:JUG.19951006.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"La clause de suspension de garantie pour défaut de paiement des primes doit, comme toute clause contractuelle, être mise en oeuvre de bonne foi. Lorsqu'un sinistre survient alors que l'assuré est en retard de paiement…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"According to the court, a clause suspending cover for unpaid premiums must be applied in good faith. Where a loss occurs while the insured is behind with the premium but has not yet received a formal notice, the insurer must specifically warn that this loss may not be covered unless the premium is paid in time. Otherwise a layperson cannot understand that the notice may deprive them of cover for the earlier loss. The concrete outcome is not stated.","k":"Unpaid premium — good-faith use of suspension clause","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":264,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-10-04","rol":"13276","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1995:ARR.19951004.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'article 28 bis de la loi du 10 avril 1971 tel qu'il a été introduit par l'arrêté royal n 530 du 31 mars 1987 dispose que le capital prothèse n'est plus à verser au Fonds des Accidents du Travail que pour les accidents…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court noted that under art. 28bis, introduced by Royal Decree no. 530 of 31.3.1987, the prosthesis capital is paid to the Occupational Accidents Fund only for accidents before 1.1.1988. As the accident occurred on 17.11.1989, the cost of the appliances and their maintenance and renewal are borne directly by the workplace-accident insurer for the victim's whole life.","k":"Workplace accident — prosthesis costs borne by the insurer","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 28bis; Royal Decree no. 530 of 31.3.1987","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-09-29","rol":"C.95.0003.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1995:ARR.19950929.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsque la responsabilité d'un accident est partagée entre la personne lésée par un accident et un tiers conduisant un véhicule non identifié ou non couvert par une assurance, l'exercice par l'organisme assureur de la…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Liability for the accident was shared between the injured party and a third party driving an unidentified or uninsured vehicle. The Court held that the health-insurance fund's own right against the Guarantee Fund under article 76quater of the Act of 9 August 1963 is capped at the benefits paid and at the maximum compensation the third party owes the victim for the economic part of the bodily injury. The health-insurance fund's claim against the Guarantee Fund was thus limited. The full text is not published.","k":"Guarantee Fund — limits of the health-insurance fund's own right","law":"Act of 9.8.1963, art. 76quater (now coordinated Act of 14.7.1994, art. 136); Cass. 10.12.1973; Cass. 4.5.1984","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-09-26","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EABRL:1995:JUG.19950926.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Door de verzekeraar niet te verwittigen dat het verzekerde onroerend goed onbewoonbaar was verklaard, maakt de verzekerde zich schuldig aan een schuldige verzwijging in de zin van artikel 9 van de wet van 11 juni 1874.…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an insured who failed to inform the insurer that the insured building had been declared uninhabitable committed culpable non-disclosure under article 9 of the Act of 11 June 1874. Since he should have known that the building's condition aggravated the risk, he also committed gross fault under article 16 of that Act. The insurer was released from any duty to indemnify and may keep the premiums paid.","k":"Fire insurance — uninhabitable building, non-disclosure and gross fault","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9 and 16","w":264,"c":"Nederlandstalige rechtbank eerste aanleg Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-09-26","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1995:JUG.19950926.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"En s'abstenant d'aviser l'assureur de ce que l'immeuble assuré avait fait l'objet d'une déclaration d'insalubrité, l'assuré se rend coupable d'une réticence coupable au sens de l'article 9 de la loi du 11 juin 1874. En…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insured had not informed the insurer that the insured building had been declared unfit for habitation. The court treated this as non-disclosure under article 9 of the Act of 11 June 1874 and, since the insured must have been aware that the building's condition aggravated the risk, as gross fault under article 16. The insurer was released from any duty to indemnify and allowed to keep the premiums paid.","k":"Fire insurance — non-disclosure of unfitness order","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9 and 16","w":264,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-09-15","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EABRL:1995:JUG.19950915.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"De uitsluiting van waarborg, waarop de verzekeraar burgerlijke aansprakelijkheid voor motorvoertuigen zich kan beroepen in geval van diefstal van het verzekerde voertuig, omvat tevens de gebruiksdiefstal zoals beoogd…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the exclusion of cover available to the motor liability insurer where the insured vehicle is stolen also covers joyriding under article 461(2) of the Criminal Code, which requires taking against the owner's will with the fraudulent intent of temporary use followed by return. The label the parties gave the act (loan rather than theft) is irrelevant. The insurer owed no cover and the Guarantee Fund stepped in.","k":"Motor liability — exclusion for joyriding","law":"Criminal Code, art. 461(2)","w":35,"c":"Nederlandstalige rechtbank eerste aanleg Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-09-15","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1995:JUG.19950915.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'exclusion de la garantie, dont peut se prévaloir l'assureur de la responsabilité civile automobile en cas de vol du véhicule assuré, s'étend également au vol d'usage tel qu'il est visé à l'article 461, al. 2, du Code…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the exclusion available to the motor liability insurer in case of theft of the vehicle also covers joyriding theft under article 461, para. 2, of the Criminal Code. That offence requires taking the vehicle against the owner's will with the fraudulent intent of temporary use and return; the parties calling it a loan is irrelevant. According to the keywords, the insurer provides no cover and the Guarantee Fund intervenes.","k":"Motor liability — exclusion for joyriding theft","law":"Criminal Code, art. 461, para. 2","w":35,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-09-06","rol":"11996","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1995:ARR.19950906.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'article 72, alinéa 2, de la loi du 10-04-1971 modifié par la loi du 01-08-1985 dispose que la victime peut intenter une action en justice contre la décision de guérison sans incapacité permanente de travail dans les…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that under art. 72 para. 2 the victim may challenge the workplace-accident insurer's decision of recovery without permanent incapacity within three years of the notification under art. 24. Although para. 1 allows a revision claim against such a decision, not every claim contesting it is automatically a revision claim. Here the original claimant's action was a compensation claim. The summary does not state the outcome on the merits.","k":"Workplace accident — compensation claim or revision against a recovery decision","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24 and 72","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-06-29","rol":"C.94.0393.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1995:ARR.19950629.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La demande en déclaration d'arrêt commun formée par le demandeur en cassation est irrecevable lorsque celui-ci ne justifie d'aucun intérêt à faire déclarer l'arrêt commun à la partie citée en intervention; tel est le…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured had asked the broker to extend his comprehensive policy to a replacement car, which was stolen before cover was confirmed. The Court of Appeal, treating the loss as the lost chance of insuring the stolen car, found fault on the part of both the broker and the insurer (an 'unjustified and abnormal delay' in taking a position), yet allowed in full the broker's claim over against the insurer. The Court held that where the damage results from concurrent faults, the other wrongdoer cannot be ordered to make good the whole loss, and quashed that part on the insurer's appeal. The insured's main claim was not challenged; the request to bind the insured was dismissed for lack of interest.","k":"Comprehensive cover — broker's claim over against the insurer, concurrent faults","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383; Judicial Code, art. 15; Cass. 26.3.1992","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1995-06-23","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EABRL:1995:JUG.19950623.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Gladde banden, bovendien van verschillende maten kunnen een abnormaal en door de bestuurder niet te kontroleren gedrag van het voertuig veroorzaken, dat van aard is om het risico daadwerkelijk te verhogen. De bestuurder…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court upheld the insurer's recourse against the insured for gross fault. Bald tyres, moreover of different sizes, can cause abnormal and uncontrollable vehicle behaviour and genuinely increase the risk; given road-safety campaigns, the driver could not have been unaware of it. Regularly having the car serviced by a garage does not relieve the owner of the duty to watch over its condition, especially for a visible tyre defect.","k":"Motor liability — bald tyres, recourse for gross fault","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":35,"c":"Nederlandstalige rechtbank eerste aanleg Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-06-22","rol":"C.92.9541.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1995:ARR.19950622.19","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le conducteur du véhicule ayant occasionné le dommage ne peut être compris dans \"les personnes transportées à quelque titre que ce soit\" dont l'assurance doit couvrir les dommages en vertu de l'article 3, alinéa 2, de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Liège Court of Appeal had upheld in principle the claim against the motor liability insurer, holding that article 3(2) of the Act of 1 July 1956 covers all carried persons, including the driver. Answering the question referred by the Court on 6 May 1993, the Benelux Court of Justice ruled that the driver of the vehicle that caused the damage cannot be counted among the 'persons carried in any capacity' whose damage the insurance must cover. On the insurer's appeal, the Court quashed the judgment on that point and referred the case to the Brussels Court of Appeal.","k":"Motor liability — the driver is not a 'carried person'","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 3(2); Benelux Common Provisions, art. 3(2); Benelux Court of Justice 8.12.1994 (A93/5); Cass. 6.5.1993","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1995-06-20","rol":"443790","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1995:ARR.19950620.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La condamnation au pénal, si sévère soit-elle, n'ôte pas au juge civil le pouvoir d'apprécier si l'assuré a commis, en l'espèce, une faute grave vis à vis de son assureur. Le fait d'emprunter la nuit une traverse de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The driver had used a crossover at night to make a U-turn on a motorway, and the insurer sought recourse for gross fault. The court held that a criminal conviction, however severe, does not deprive the civil court of its power to assess gross fault towards the insurer. As no intention to cause damage or to aggravate the risk was shown, the conduct did not amount to gross fault under articles 24 and 25/3 of the model contract, and the recourse was not upheld.","k":"Motor liability — U-turn on a motorway and gross fault","law":"Model contract RD 14.12.1992, art. 24 and 25/3; Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16 (\"1974\" in the summary)","w":180,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-06-16","rol":"C.93.0366.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1995:ARR.19950616.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"Ne constitue pas un aveu judiciaire, la déclaration faite dans une cause autre que celle sur laquelle le juge est appelé à statuer. || La règle suivant laquelle l'assureur ne répond pas de la perte ou du dommage causé…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The son and employee of a policyholder who held an industrial and commercial liability policy caused an accident through gross fault; the Ghent Court of Appeal, while finding that no gross fault could be attributed to the policyholder, dismissed his claim against the insurer because the loss stemmed from gross fault. The Court held that the gross-fault exclusion in article 16 of the Act of 11 June 1874, aimed at cases akin to fraud, does not apply to the policyholder-insured where the gross fault was committed by his employee, even if that employee is also an insured. The judgment was quashed insofar as it rejected the policyholder's claim. A statement made in another case is not a judicial admission.","k":"Liability insurance — employee's gross fault not opposable to the policyholder","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16; former Civil Code, art. 1134, 1354, 1356","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1995-06-14","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1995:ARR.19950614.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"I. Lorsque l'assureur invoque le bénéfice de l'article 9 de la loi du 11 juin 1874, soit la réticence ou la fausse déclaration du souscripteur du contrat, il lui appartient d'établir le fait qui détermine la sanction…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Liège Court of Appeal held that an insurer relying on article 9 of the Act of 11 June 1874 must prove the fact that triggers the sanction: the mere fact that the policyholder's son was driving on the day of the accident does not show he was a regular driver. Gross fault releasing the insurer must be personal to the insured; the policyholder may be targeted if he also committed gross fault under article 16, but the insurer must prove its objective and subjective elements and its causal link with the accident. The final outcome is not stated.","k":"Motor liability — regular driver declaration and gross fault","law":"Act of 11 June 1874, arts. 9 and 16","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-06-07","rol":"95776","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTBRW:1995:JUG.19950607.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"En raison des frais très importants auxquels le demandeur est exposé, ainsi que du fait que l'application de la loi du 10 avril 1971 n'est pas contestée, il apparaît raisonnable de lui allouer provisionnellement à…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Whether the policy had been validly cancelled at the time of the accident was disputed, but the application of the Act of 10 April 1971 was not. In view of the claimant's very high costs, the court awarded, on an interim basis and without prejudice, a daily allowance of 1,000 F from the accident until the dispute is decided, charged to the workplace-accident insurer as the natural debtor, the Occupational Accidents Fund intervening only residually.","k":"Workplace accident — interim daily allowance charged to the insurer","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 66","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail du Brabant Wallon","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-06-01","rol":"C.94.0405.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1995:ARR.19950601.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Les cas dans lesquels la prescription court contre les mineurs et les interdits ne sont pas seulement ceux déterminés par une disposition légale expresse; il suffit que la volonté du législateur de déroger à la règle de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The direct action brought against the liable driver's motor insurer by a victim who had become legally incapacitated as a result of the accident had been held time-barred by the Mons Court of Appeal. The Court held that exceptions to article 2252 of the Civil Code need not be laid down expressly and may follow from the purpose of the statute; the three-year period in article 10 of the Act of 1 July 1956 aims to shield the insurer from claims brought long after the event, an aim unrelated to the parties' legal capacity. It therefore runs against minors and incapacitated persons. The victim's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — limitation period for a minor or incapacitated injured party","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 6 and 10; former Civil Code, art. 2252, 2278; Cass. 21.4.1961","w":275,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1995-05-31","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1995:ARR.19950531.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La présomption instituée par l'article 1384, alinéa 1 du Code civil n'existe qu'en faveur des personnes directement victimes du dommage et ne peut être invoquée que par elles. Interdire au Fonds, auquel on oppose un cas…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The presumption in article 1384(1) of the former Civil Code exists only for those directly harmed and can be invoked only by them. The court nevertheless held that barring the Guarantee Fund, when faced with a plea of force majeure, from relying on a defect in the thing to rebut it would deprive the Fund of a defence and endanger its right to a fair trial. The concrete outcome is not stated.","k":"Guarantee Fund — force majeure and defect in a thing","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1384(1)","w":35,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-05-11","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1995:ARR.19950511.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Door op een rijbaan van 8,4 m met een voertuig waarmee men nauwelijks vertrouwd is een snelheid van 140 à 150 km per uur te voeren begaat men ongetwijfeld een zware verkeersovertreding. Het betreft een gedraging die…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Driving at 140–150 km/h on an 8.4 m road in a barely familiar vehicle is undoubtedly a serious traffic offence: dangerous, irresponsible and prohibited. It is not in itself gross fault within article 25, 9° of the general policy conditions, as it cannot be regarded as outside what the parties contemplated when concluding the contract. The insurer's recourse against the insured was rejected.","k":"Motor liability — excessive speed not gross fault","law":"General policy conditions, art. 25, 9°","w":35,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-05-11","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIHAI:1995:JUG.19950511.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"La preuve de la réalité du vol est en principe suffisamment établie par le dépôt d'une plainte et le contenu, vraisemblable de la déclaration faite par l'assuré : cette preuve n'apparaît plus suffisante dès l'instant où…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a theft is in principle sufficiently proven by filing a police complaint and the insured's plausible statement, but that this proof no longer suffices once the insurer shows serious grounds for suspicion or doubt about whether the theft occurred. The keywords refer to recovery of an undue payment and fraud; the concrete outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Theft insurance — proof of theft and grounds for suspicion","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":264,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-05-10","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1995:ARR.19950510.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"s'nachts slalommen op een eerder smalle rijbaan, dat wil zeggen het constant van links naar rechts rijden over de hele breedte van de rijbaan, getuigt van een schuldige onverantwoordelijkheid. Nochtans wordt niet…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Weaving at night across the full width of a fairly narrow road is culpably irresponsible. However, no causal link between that driving and the accident was shown: nothing indicated that the driver was still driving that way when he met an oncoming vehicle. The insurer's recourse against the insured was rejected.","k":"Motor liability — gross fault and causation (weaving)","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":35,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-04-21","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARGNT:1995:JUG.19950421.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Juportal provides only keywords for this judgment. They indicate that the case concerned the workplace-accident insurer's notice of a recovery decision after temporary incapacity, a later relapse, the insurer's refusal to cover it, and the nature of the victim's claim (whether a revision claim) and its time limit. The court's conclusion cannot be determined from the summary.","k":"Workplace accident — relapse after a declaration of recovery and revision time limit","law":"Act of 10.4.1971","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidsrechtbank Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-04-12","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1995:ARR.19950412.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En circulant de nuit avec un taux d'alcoolémie de 1,93 g par litre, l'assuré aggrave objectivement les risques d'accident au-delà des prévisions du contrat : sa réticence à reconnaître la réalité conforte l'idée qu'il…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The Liège Court of Appeal held that by driving at night with a blood alcohol level of 1.93 g per litre, the insured objectively increased the accident risk beyond what the contract foresaw. His refusal to acknowledge the facts reinforced the view that he was aware of the harmful effect of his condition on driving. The court thus found both the objective and subjective elements of the gross fault on which the insurer's recourse was based.","k":"Motor liability — driving at 1.93 g/l, gross fault","law":"Insurer's recourse for gross fault (no article cited in the summary)","w":35,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-04-12","rol":"P.94.1154.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1995:ARR.19950412.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Est recevable la demande en déclaration d'arrêt commun formée par un demandeur en cassation, lorsque ladite demande ne paraît pas dénuée d'intérêt pour ce demandeur. || Est irrecevable à défaut d'intérêt, le moyen par…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The third party liable for a commuting accident and those civilly liable for him had been ordered to compensate under ordinary law a victim left totally unfit for work; the workplace-accident insurer had been joined so the judgment would bind it. Faced with submissions that the capital set up by the insurer for a 115% incapacity exceeded the ordinary-law loss, the court had to check itself whether the part of that capital covering third-party assistance did not fully cover that head of loss; the award of 164,016 francs for third-party assistance was quashed. The complaint that no apportionment was made between victim and insurer was inadmissible for lack of interest, as the defendants were not ordered to pay more than their total debt.","k":"Commuting accident — offsetting the workplace-accident insurer's capital","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46 §2 and 47; former Civil Code, art. 1315, 1382–1383; Judicial Code, art. 15–18","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1995-04-06","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1995:ARR.19950406.17","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Het verhaal wordt gesteund op art. 25.4 van de typepolis nu de dekking geschorst was wegens niet betaling van premie. De op 1 februari 1980 vervallen premie werd op de vervaldag niet betaald en door het enkel…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The recourse was based on article 25.4 of the model policy, since cover had been suspended for non-payment of the premium. The premium due on 1 February 1980 was not paid when due and, on expiry of the 14-day period following the registered warning posted on 13 May 1980, cover was suspended with effect from the premium due date.","k":"Motor liability — suspension for unpaid premium and recourse","law":"Model policy, art. 25.4","w":35,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-04-06","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1995:ARR.19950406.18","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Het verhaal wordt gesteund op art. 25.1 typepolis en de verzekeraar verwijt aan de verzekeringnemer de verzwijging van twee vervallenverklaringen van het recht tot sturen. De verzekeraar levert niet het bewijs dat het…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer sought recourse under article 25.1 of the model policy, alleging that the policyholder had concealed two earlier driving bans. The court found that the insurer had not proven that disclosing the two bans would have had any influence on the assessment of the risk; the recourse failed.","k":"Motor liability — non-disclosure of earlier driving bans","law":"Model policy, art. 25.1","w":264,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-04-04","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRW:1995:JUG.19950404.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"I. C'est le contrat en vigueur à l'époque de l'accident qui doit régir le recours de l'assureur. II. Ce recours doit être accueilli dès lors que le conducteur n'était pas titulaire d'un permis de conduire lors de…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the insurer's recourse is governed by the contract in force at the time of the accident. Since the driver held no driving licence at the time of the accident on 15 October 1990, the recourse was allowed, without the insurer having to prove a causal link between the breach and the accident.","k":"Motor liability — no driving licence, recourse and transitional law","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":35,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Brabant Wallon","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-04-03","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1995:ARR.19950403.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"L'assureur qui invoque la nullité de l'assurance en raison d'une réticence ou d'une fausse déclaration même sans mauvaise foi doit prouver que cette réticence ou cette fausse déclaration a diminué l'opinion du risque ou…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Liège Court of Appeal held that an insurer relying on nullity for concealment or misrepresentation, even in good faith, must prove that it reduced its assessment of the risk or changed its subject, so that it would not have contracted on the same terms had it known. Merely pointing to a previous criminal conviction of the insured is not enough. The summary does not state the outcome of the case.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for misrepresentation, burden of proof","law":"Concealment and misrepresentation rule (no article cited in the summary)","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-03-30","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1995:ARR.19950330.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"De regresvordering gesteund op art. 25.9 van de typepolis verjaart overeenkomstig art. 32 verzekeringswet (1874) door verloop van 3 jaar vanaf de betalingen door de verzekeraar verricht aan de slachtoffers. De…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Recourse under article 25.9 of the model policy is time-barred, under article 32 of the Act of 11 June 1874, three years after the insurer's payments to the victims. Summoning the parents in their own name as civilly liable for their minor son does not interrupt the limitation period as regards the son. The claim, brought more than three years after the payments, was time-barred.","k":"Motor liability — limitation and interruption of recourse","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 32; model policy, art. 25.9","w":264,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-03-21","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:GHCC:1995:ARR.026","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"la Cour dit pour droit : L'article 4, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 1er juillet 1956 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs viole les articles 10 et 11 de la…","court":"const","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"On a preliminary question from the Brussels Court of First Instance, the Court of Arbitration (now the Constitutional Court) examined article 4 §1 of the Act of 1 July 1956, applicable to an accident of 5.6.1990, which excluded from compulsory motor liability cover the spouse of the driver or policyholder and their relatives in the direct line living under their roof and maintained by them. The aim of preventing collusion is legitimate, but the means is disproportionate: the excluded persons can never rebut the presumption of collusion, even though witness statements or police findings may rule it out. To that extent the provision violates articles 10 and 11 of the Constitution.","k":"Motor liability — exclusion of the spouse (1956 Act)","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 4 §1; Constitution, arts. 10–11; Benelux Court of Justice 16.4.1980","w":35,"c":"Cour constitutionnelle (Cour d'arbitrage)","m":"full"},{"d":"1995-03-13","rol":"S.94.0096.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1995:ARR.19950313.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'assureur-loi qui refuse de reconnaître l'accident comme étant un accident du travail, est tenu d'avertir l'organisme d'assurance obligatoire contre la maladie et l'invalidité dans le délai prescrit, quel que soit le…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court recalled that under article 63 §2 of the Act of 10 April 1971 a workplace-accident insurer that doubts the Act applies or refuses to recognise the accident as a workplace accident must, whatever the reason for refusal, notify the victim's health-insurance fund within two weeks of receiving the report. The insurer's ground, which criticised the labour court of appeal's reading of letters from the victim's trade union, targeted a reason that did not affect the lawfulness of the decision and was inadmissible. The insurer's appeal was dismissed; the Ghent labour court of appeal's judgment stands.","k":"Workplace accident — insurer's duty to notify the health-insurance fund","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63 §2; Cass. 3.10.1994","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1995-03-02","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1995:ARR.19950302.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"De som uitbetaald na ontvangst van een getekende provisionele kwijting uitgeschreven 'zonder enige nadelige erkenning' dient aan de B.A.-verzekeraar te worden terugbetaald als zijn verzekerde later wordt vrijgesproken.…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A sum paid against a provisional receipt signed \"without any prejudicial admission\" must be repaid to the liability insurer when its insured is later acquitted. The parties did not intend the payment to settle their rights definitively, and the insurer did not admit its insured's liability. That the insurer had earlier been willing to compensate the victim definitively is irrelevant, as the victim refused a final settlement and then accepted a provisional payment without admission.","k":"Liability insurance — repayment of a provisional payment","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":35,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-03-02","rol":"C.94.0209.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1995:ARR.19950302.17","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsqu'un accident a causé la mort de son auteur, les ayants droit de celui-ci ne peuvent prétendre à la réparation, par l'assureur de la responsabilité civile, des frais funéraires ni du dommage matériel et moral…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The driver solely liable for the accident had died; his heirs claimed funeral costs and their own consequential pecuniary and non-pecuniary loss from the motor liability insurer. The Liège Court of Appeal had held that the 'R.C. Plus' policy, which extends cover to the driver's spouse and heirs, barred the insurer from relying on the driver's fault. The Court held that the clause widens the circle of beneficiaries but does not govern the measure of recoverable loss; the judgment added a condition the clause does not contain and disregarded its binding force. On the insurer's appeal, the awards for funeral costs, non-pecuniary loss and consequential pecuniary loss were quashed.","k":"Motor liability — loss of the heirs of a solely liable driver","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 3, 4, 6; former Civil Code, art. 1134, 1382–1383","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1995-02-28","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1995:ARR.19950228.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Il appartient à l'assureur de prouver que les sinistres antérieurs dont a été victime l'assuré l'auraient amené à ne pas couvrir le risque s'ils avaient été déclaré spontanément. L'assureur est le plus à même…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Under a theft policy, the insurer sought to void the contract because the insured had not disclosed earlier losses. The court held that the insurer must prove that, had those losses been disclosed spontaneously, it would not have covered the risk. The insurer is best placed to judge what is insurable and to insure only buildings fitted with a security system. The concrete outcome is not expressly stated in the summary.","k":"Theft insurance — non-disclosure of earlier losses","law":"Act of 11.6.1874 (non-disclosure, nullity); burden of proof","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-02-24","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1995:ARR.19950224.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"De verzekeraar moet de verzwijging bewijzen en moet tevens bewijzen dat de verzwijging van die aard was dat de waardering van het risico werd verminderd en hij in de overeenkomst niet zou hebben toegestemd of slechts…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer must prove the non-disclosure and that it reduced the assessment of the risk such that it would not have contracted, or only on other terms. By notifying the insured without reservation that it had compensated the injured party at a time when it could have known of the non-disclosure, the insurer waived the nullity under article 9.","k":"Motor liability — proof of non-disclosure and waiver of nullity","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9","w":264,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-02-23","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1995:ARR.19950223.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Ingevolge art. 32 van de verzekeringswet van 11 juni 1874 is elke rechtsvordering die voortvloeit uit een verzekeringspolis verjaard door verloop van drie jaren, te rekenen van de gebeurtenis waarop zij is gegrond.…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Under article 32 of the Act of 11 June 1874, any action arising from an insurance policy is time-barred after three years from the event on which it is based. When the insurer claims from the insured, on a ground of forfeiture, repayment of sums paid to the victims, the limitation period runs only from each payment made once it is established by a final decision that the insurer is legally bound to compensate the injured third party. The summary does not say whether the claim was time-barred.","k":"Motor liability — start of the limitation period for recourse","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 32","w":264,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-02-23","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1995:ARR.19950223.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Ingevolge art. 32 van de verzekeringswet van 11 juni 1874 is elke rechtsvordering die voortvloeit uit een verzekeringspolis verjaard door verloop van drie jaren, te rekenen van de gebeurtenis waarop zij is gegrond.…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Under article 32 of the Act of 11 June 1874, any action arising from an insurance policy is time-barred after three years from the event on which it is based. When the insurer claims from the insured, on a ground of forfeiture, repayment of sums paid to the victims, the limitation period runs only from each payment made once it is established by a final decision that the insurer is legally bound to compensate the injured third party. The summary does not say whether the claim was time-barred.","k":"Motor liability — three-year limitation for recourse","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 32","w":264,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-02-16","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1995:ARR.19950216.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Il incombe à l'assuré de donner à l'assureur une connaissance exacte des éléments du risque qu'il veut faire couvrir sans que l'assureur ait à en opérer la vérification. Lorsqu'une déclaration est imprécise ou…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the insured must give the insurer an accurate account of the risk, without the insurer having to verify it. Faced with an imprecise statement or an important question left unanswered, the insurer must at least react; in some circumstances, however, it may treat a missing answer as a negative one. Once non-disclosure or misrepresentation affects the assessment of the risk, the insurer may rely on nullity even if that circumstance did not cause the loss, as no causal link is required. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Motor liability — non-disclosure and nullity of the policy","law":"Duty of disclosure (non-disclosure, nullity)","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-02-16","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1995:ARR.19950216.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Bij toepassing van artikel 24 en 25.4 van de polis kan de verzekeraar bij niet betaling van de premie de regresvordering instellen tegen de verzekeringsnemer. Bij gebreke aan betaling van de premie binnen de 14 dagen…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Under articles 24 and 25.4 of the policy, the insurer may take recourse against the policyholder if the premium is not paid. If the premium is not paid within the 14 days stated in the insurer's registered letter, cover is suspended from the premium's due date.","k":"Motor liability — unpaid premium, suspension and recourse","law":"Policy (model policy), art. 24 and 25.4","w":35,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-02-15","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1995:ARR.19950215.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"De vordering (tot terugbetaling) van het G.M.W.F. is gesteund op artikel 50 (nu art. 80), alinéa 2 van de wet van 9 juli 1975, hetwelk uitdrukkelijk stelt dat het Fonds in de rechten van de benadeelde tegen de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Guarantee Fund's repayment claim rests on article 50 (now 80), second paragraph, of the Act of 9 July 1975, which expressly subrogates the Fund to the injured party's rights against the liable persons and, where relevant, their insurers. The Fund may therefore exercise all of the victim's rights against each liable person, whatever each one's share in causing the accident and the loss. The dispute was between the Fund and an insurer.","k":"Guarantee Fund — stolen vehicle, recourse against insurer","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50 (now art. 80), §2","w":35,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-02-10","rol":"12819/91","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1995:JUG.19950210.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Action récursoire : Les articles 25.6 et 8 de la police-type du contrat d'assurance automobile autorisent l'assureur à exercer un recours récursoire contre l'assuré : - lorsqu'au moment du sinistre, le véhicule est…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Articles 25.6 and 8 of the model policy allow recourse where the vehicle is driven by a person not meeting the legal conditions to drive or not authorised to drive it. The court held that a learner-licence holder exceeding the permitted driving time (Friday, 7 p.m.) by two hours and driving on trade plates were occasional infractions, not objective breaches of a permanent legal rule, and were insufficient to found the insurer's recourse.","k":"Motor liability — recourse and learner's licence","law":"Model policy, art. 25.6 and 8","w":35,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-02-08","rol":"P.94.0581.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1995:ARR.19950208.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Pour que le Fonds commun de garantie automobile soit tenu à réparation conformément à l'article 50, alinéa 1er, 2° de la loi du 9 juillet 1975 relative au contrôle des entreprises d'assurances, il faut qu'aucune…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"In an accident in which every vehicle had been identified, the driver had been acquitted on a justification based on another driver's probable fault; an injured company and an insurer sought compensation from the Guarantee Fund, relying on a fortuitous event. The Court held that under article 50(1), 2° of the Act of 9 July 1975 the Fund steps in only where no insurer is liable because a fortuitous event exonerates the driver of the vehicle that caused the accident, not where liability simply cannot be determined. The ground against the decisions concerning the Fund was rejected. The published text is abridged and does not include the operative part.","k":"Guarantee Fund — fortuitous event versus undetermined liability","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50(1), 2°; RD 16.12.1981, art. 19; Cass. 9.1.1992; Cass. 13.11.1992","w":35,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1995-02-06","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1995:ARR.19950206.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Les intérêts compensatoires sont destinés à compléter la réparation du préjudice en assurant à la partie lésée l'indemnisation du dommage que lui cause le retard apporté à cette indemnisation. Le préjudice de la…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The health-insurance fund sought reimbursement from the liable party's liability insurer of what it had paid to the victim. The court recalled that compensatory interest completes compensation by making good the loss caused by delay. As the fund's loss arose on the dates of its payments, the insurer owes compensatory interest on the sums paid to the victim from those dates until reimbursement.","k":"Health-insurance fund's claim — start of compensatory interest","law":"Compensatory interest; health-insurance fund's recourse","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-02-06","rol":"S.94.0060.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1995:ARR.19950206.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"L'action d'un travailleur contre son employeur en exécution des garanties prévues dans un contrat d'assurance souscrit par l'employeur contre les risques d'accident des membres de son personnel survenant dans la vie…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The employment contract and work rules promised staff additional cover for accidents in private life; the policy taken out by the employer expressly excluded any third-party stipulation in favour of employees. The Mons labour court of appeal had treated the employee's claim against the employer as an action deriving from the insurance policy, subject to the three-year period in article 32 of the Act of 11 June 1874. The Court held that, as the policy excluded any stipulation for the employee, the employee's right arose solely from the employment contract and the claim did not derive from the policy. On the employer's appeal, the judgment was quashed as to the permanent-incapacity award; the insurer was not a party.","k":"Private-life accident cover taken out by the employer — limitation period","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 32(1); former Civil Code, art. 1119–1122, 1165","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1995-02-02","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1995:ARR.19950202.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Het regres van de verzekeraar WAM tegen zijn verzekerde, gesteund op artikel 25, 9° van de modelpolis, bestaat uit het feit dat de verzekerde boven hetgeen contractueel is bepaald het risico abnormaal verzwaart, op…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The motor liability insurer's recourse against its insured under article 25, 9° of the model policy requires the insured to have abnormally aggravated the risk beyond what the contract provides, while being or having to be aware of it. Misjudging a traffic obstacle and acting wrongly do not fall under article 25, 9°; the recourse was not allowed.","k":"Motor liability — abnormal aggravation of risk and recourse","law":"Model policy, art. 25, 9°","w":35,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-02-02","rol":"C.94.0134.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1995:ARR.19950202.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"N'est pas contraire à l'ordre public la clause du contrat d'assurance individuelle qui, en se référant à la législation sur les accidents du travail, n'exclut pas de la garantie les cas où l'accident est imputable à la…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer had agreed to cover a company's managers 'on the terms of the Workplace Accidents Act', for all accidents in professional and private life; a manager injured in an accident claimed under the policy and the insurer relied on his gross fault. The Mons Court of Appeal held that article 16 of the Act of 11 June 1874 is no longer a matter of public policy and that the insurer could depart from it by referring to the workplace-accident regime, which does not exclude cover for the victim's gross fault; it ordered the insurer to pay an interim sum of three million francs. The Court found that decision lawful. The insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Accident insurance — cover 'on workplace-accident terms' and gross fault","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16; former Civil Code, art. 6, 1131, 1133; Act of 10.4.1971","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1995-01-30","rol":"S.94.0010.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1995:ARR.19950130.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Les allocations qui sont dues en vertu de l'article 58, alinéa 1er, 7°, de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail, tel qu'il était applicable avant sa modification par l'arrêté royal n° 530 du 31 mars…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"A health-insurance fund sought interest from the Workplace Accidents Fund for late reimbursement of the adjustment allowances it had paid to the victim. On the health-insurance fund's appeal, the Court held that allowances granted by the Workplace Accidents Fund under article 58 of the Act of 10 April 1971 are benefits under that Act, carrying interest by operation of law from when they fall due (art. 42(3)), and quashed the rejection of the interest claim. On the Workplace Accidents Fund's appeal, it held that article 68, which puts costs on the insurer, does not apply to a dispute between that Fund and a health-insurance fund suing under article 76quater of the 1963 sickness-insurance Act; the costs order was also quashed.","k":"Workplace accident — interest on adjustment allowances and costs","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 42(3), 58, 68; Act of 9.8.1963, art. 76quater; Judicial Code, art. 1017","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1995-01-13","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1995:ARR.19950113.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Een verzekeraar beoordeelt het risico van het contract (...) in functie van de persoon die de verzekeringsovereenkomst aangaat, inzonderheid m.b.t. zijn voorspelbaar gedrag in het verkeer. Het feit dat de verzekerde…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"An insurer assesses the risk by reference to the person contracting, in particular their foreseeable behaviour on the road. The insured's four driving disqualifications since 1976 showed a persistent disposition that undermined his reliability as a normal road user and made an accident more likely. The dispute concerned recourse and change in risk; the summary does not expressly state the outcome of the recourse claim.","k":"Motor liability — repeated driving bans and the risk","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":264,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1995-01-05","rol":"C.94.0009.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1995:ARR.19950105.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"L'assuré qui fait valoir à l'égard de son assureur le droit à un payement, doit apporter la preuve, non seulement du dommage, mais encore de l'évènement qui y a donné lieu et établir que le risque réalisé était celui…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Under a vehicle occupants' accident policy, the insured had died in an accident; the insurer argued that the crash was caused by the driver's heart attack and relied on the exclusion of accidents resulting from illness. The Mons Court of Appeal had placed on the insurer the burden of proving the conditions of the exclusion. The Court held that an insured claiming payment from the insurer must prove not only the loss but also the event, and that the risk that materialised was one covered by the contract and not excluded by it; on the insurer's appeal, the judgment was quashed.","k":"Vehicle occupants' accident insurance — burden of proof","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 1 and 27, 3°; former Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, art. 870","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1994-12-23","rol":"9465387","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTBRL:1994:JUG.19941223.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La victime d'un accident du travail a droit à une provision en vertu de l'article 66 de la loi. Cette avance provisionnelle sera à charge du Fonds des accidents du travail dont c'est la mission en application de…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"As the insurance policy was disputed, the court held that the victim was entitled to an interim payment under article 66 of the Act of 10 April 1971, to be borne by the Occupational Accidents Fund, which compensates when the insurer fails to pay (art. 58(1), 3°). Given the urgency and the need to protect the victim, the Fund advances the sums until the final debtor is known; it may recover them from the employer or the defaulting insurer (art. 60).","k":"Workplace accident — interim payment by the Fund when the policy is disputed","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 58(1), 3°, 60 and 66","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-12-20","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1994:ARR.19941220.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"La clause dérogatoire au principe de l'indemnisation doit s'interpréter de façon restrictive; si un doute subsiste quant au sens et à la portée de la convention, encore faudrait-il, conformément à l'article 1162 du Code…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a clause departing from the principle of indemnity must be construed narrowly and that, where its meaning or scope is doubtful, it is to be construed under article 1162 of the former Civil Code against the insurer who drafted it and in favour of the beneficiary. The insurer bears the burden of proving the facts needed to apply the exclusion clause. The summary does not state whether the exclusion was applied in this case.","k":"Life insurance — narrow construction of an exclusion clause","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1162","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-12-19","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1994:ARR.19941219.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En matière d'action récursoire mue par l'assureur RC. auto contre l'assuré en état d'intoxication alcoolique, il convient d'adopter une conception stricte de la faute grave et d'examiner si l'assuré a commis une faute…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that where a motor liability insurer seeks recourse against an insured who drove while intoxicated, gross fault must be construed strictly and assessed 'subjectively': it exists only where the driving is comparable to fraud, i.e. an intention to eliminate the element of chance. Such cases are exceptional, for example suicidal driving or persisting to drive in a state the insured knows to be dangerous despite a previous conviction. The summary does not expressly state the concrete outcome of the recourse.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for drink-driving and gross fault","law":"Gross fault in recourse actions","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-12-05","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1994:ARR.19941205.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"La substance de la chose est tout élément qui a déterminé principalement les parties à contracter de telle sorte que sans cet élément, le contrat n'aurait pas été conclu: la double erreur de l'assureur portant sur des…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"In a policy covering fraud or dishonesty in the legal administration of a minor's funds held in a bank, the insurer claimed it had been mistaken about the capacity of guardian of the minor and of the minor's prominent and wealthy lawyer. The court treated these elements as fundamental and found the insurer's double mistake excusable: the company had no branch in Belgium and could only rely on the broker's information, the broker acting for its client and not as the company's agent.","k":"Insurance contract — fundamental mistake and broker","law":"Fundamental mistake (former Civil Code); position of the broker","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-11-29","rol":"398889","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1994:ARR.19941129.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"An insurer paying funds to a lawyer on behalf of the lawyer's client must first check the scope of the lawyer's mandate, if necessary by requiring a power of attorney; otherwise the payment may not be binding on the client, the insurer acts with culpable imprudence and its mistake cannot be regarded as legitimate. A mandate to litigate does not imply a wider mandate outside court. On exequatur, the court may convert a foreign-currency award into Belgian francs. The concrete outcome as regards the insurer is not expressly stated in the summary.","k":"Insurer's payment to a lawyer — checking the mandate","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1239; Judicial Code, art. 440","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-11-29","rol":"P.93.0861.N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1994:ARR.19941129.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'article 23 de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 implique que le certificat justifiant du contrat d'assurance doit accompagner le véhicule automoteur qu'il concerne.","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The driver had been convicted under article 23 of the Act of 21 November 1989 for not having the insurance certificate in the vehicle; he argued that the Dutch wording 'beschikken over' does not require the certificate to be on board and that the Royal Decree on the form of proof had never been adopted. Relying on the preparatory works, the Court held that article 23 reproduces word for word the former article 18(2) of the Act of 1 July 1956, that 'beschikken over' must be read as 'being provided with', and that the certificate must be in the vehicle. The driver's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — insurance certificate to be kept in the vehicle (criminal)","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 7 and 23; Act of 1.7.1956, art. 18(2)","w":276,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1994-11-24","rol":"C.93.0484.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1994:ARR.19941124.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Est irrecevable le moyen, qui indique comme dispositions légales violées les articles 23 à 28 du Code judiciaire, alors que le grief allégué consiste à soutenir que l'arrêt attaqué statue sur une contestation ayant déjà…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The workplace-accident insurer of a victim injured on the way to work based its claims against the liability insurer of the person at fault on the res judicata effect of a 1981 judgment that had awarded it one franc on an interim basis. The Liège Court of Appeal stayed the proceedings pending the outcome of third-party opposition proceedings before the labour court. The Court found that the 1981 judgment had not decided whether the accident was a workplace or commuting accident, as that description had not been disputed, so the court of appeal had not exhausted its jurisdiction on the point. The workplace-accident insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's claim — res judicata and stay of proceedings","law":"Judicial Code, art. 19–23, 807, 1126","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1994-11-18","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1994:ARR.19941118.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Het Hof beslist in casu, en doet hiermee het bestreden vonnis teniet, dat de vordering tot terugbetaling niet gegrond is. Door de betaling hebben beide partijen hun rechten definitief willen regelen. Het gemaakte…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The liability insurer sought repayment of sums paid to a victim who was later convicted as the party at fault. Setting aside the lower judgment, the court held the claim unfounded: by the payment the parties intended to settle their rights definitively. The reservation 'without admission of liability and without prejudice to the insured's rights' does not conflict with that finality; the insurer knew the circumstances of the accident when paying, and its own assessment, not followed by the criminal court, was the basis of the agreement.","k":"Liability insurer's claim to recover payment — final settlement","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":264,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-11-10","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1994:ARR.19941110.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"La circonstance que la proposition d'assurance comporte une question précise quant aux déficiences physiques dont peuvent être atteintes les personnes susceptibles de conduire le véhicule, permet suffisamment d'induire…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A specific question in the proposal form about drivers' physical impairments shows that the insurer regarded this as material to the risk. The driver had for years suffered from diabetes exposing him to sudden loss of consciousness; by failing to notify it he breached his contractual duties (art. 9(2) of the model contract). The court further held that by driving after drinking while taking substantial daily medication he aggravated the risk beyond what the contract contemplated and could not have been unaware of their combined effect: gross fault was established.","k":"Motor liability — undeclared diabetes, alcohol with medication, gross fault","law":"Model contract, art. 9(2) and art. 25, 2° and 9°","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-11-09","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIHAI:1994:JUG.19941109.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Le courtier n'est pas responsable du fait qu'il n'a pas attiré l'attention de l'assuré sur l'existence d'une clause de marquage des vitres dans le contrat d'assurance, clause qui conditionne la garantie souscrite. Une…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the broker was not liable for failing to draw the insured's attention to the window-etching clause on which theft cover depended. Such a clear and intelligible clause cannot ground a finding against the broker for failure to inform, especially where the insured, a mechanic, could not have been in doubt about what etching a car's windows means.","k":"Theft insurance — broker and the window-etching clause","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":264,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-11-07","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1994:ARR.19941107.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Le point de départ du délai de prescription de l'action récursoire est le jour du décaissement de l'indemnité par l'assureur en faveur de la victime. Lorsque l'assureur a fait successivement plusieurs paiements, le…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the limitation period for the insurer's recourse runs from the day the compensation is paid to the victim and, where there are successive payments, from each payment date. Where payment precedes the decision convicting the insured and establishing the ground for recourse, time runs only once that decision has become final. Gross fault is fault comparable to an intentional act, which the insured knew or should have known aggravated the risk beyond what the contract contemplated. The summary does not state the concrete outcome of the recourse.","k":"Motor liability — limitation of recourse and gross fault","law":"Limitation of recourse actions; res judicata effect of criminal judgments","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-11-07","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1994:ARR.19941107.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Si en prononçant deux peines distinctes, le Juge Pénal a certainement décidé que les faits commis par le prévenu étaient distincts et si, en statuant sur les actions civiles, ce même Juge s'est prononcé nécessairement…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The criminal court's imposition of two separate sentences and its ruling on the civil claims do not mean it found the traffic offences to be the sole cause of the accident, ruling out any causal link with intoxication; the civil court remains free to assess that link. Gross-fault recourse requires three elements, to be proved by the insurer: an actual aggravation of the risk, the insured's awareness of it, and a causal link with the accident. The outcome is not stated.","k":"Motor liability — gross-fault recourse and effect of the criminal judgment","law":"No legal basis given in the summary","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-11-03","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1994:ARR.19941103.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Le point de départ de l'action récursoire de l'assureur coïncide avec le jour du décaissement de l'indemnité effectué en faveur de la victime. Lorsque l'assureur a effectué successivement plusieurs paiements, le point…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The limitation period for the insurer's recourse runs from the day the compensation is paid to the victim; where several payments were made, it runs from the date of each payment. Article 1328 of the former Civil Code does not apply to the receipt recording those payments. The concrete outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Insurer's recourse — start of the limitation period","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1328","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-11-02","rol":"P.93.1493.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1994:ARR.19941102.16","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La circonstance que la pension de survie de la veuve de la victime d'un accident mortel du travail est déduite des indemnités légales et que, dès lors, la veuve ne bénéficie que d'une rente réduite, est sans incidence,…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Brussels Court of Appeal had ordered the defendant driver and his liability insurer to pay the widow of a worker killed in a workplace accident 1,857,445 francs, deducting from her ordinary-law loss of income only 90% of the annuity capital set up by the workplace-accident insurer, further reduced to the victim's probable working life. The Court held that the two forms of compensation cannot be combined for the same loss, that the workplace insurer's recourse extends to the whole capital, including the loading for management costs, and that the reduction of the annuity due to her survivor's pension is irrelevant. On the appeal of the company, which was both liability and workplace-accident insurer, the award was quashed.","k":"Fatal workplace accident — offsetting the widow's annuity capital","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 12, 42bis, 46 §2, 47, 51bis, 59quinquies; former Civil Code, art. 1382–1383","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1994-11-02","rol":"P.94.0143.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1994:ARR.19941102.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Aucune disposition légale n'attribue compétence aux juridictions répressives pour connaître d'une demande en intervention formée par l'auteur d'un accident contre l'assureur de responsabilité civile qui n'est pas…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that no statutory provision gives criminal courts jurisdiction over a joinder claim brought by the person who caused an accident against a liability insurer that is not the compulsory motor liability insurer. Because jurisdiction rules are a matter of public policy, courts, including the criminal court, must examine their jurisdiction of their own motion. The ruling settles jurisdiction only, not cover. The full text is not published.","k":"Forced joinder of a liability insurer in criminal proceedings — jurisdiction","law":"Public-policy nature of jurisdiction rules (no article cited in the summary)","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-10-26","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1994:ARR.19941026.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Een garagehouder had een WAM-polis (met handelaarsplaat) gekregen op een voorstel met in vak VII (vragen voor de voorsteller en de gewone bestuurder) de vermelding dat hij een verval van een maand had opgelopen.…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A garage owner obtained a motor liability policy (trade plate) on a proposal disclosing a one-month driving ban; he later incurred a new ban for driving uninsured and left that section blank when extending cover to fire and theft. After a car was stolen, the insurer pleaded non-disclosure under the Act of 11 June 1874. The court held that the questions related to motor liability cover, that the insured did not have to disclose the new ban, and that the fact was irrelevant to assessing fire and theft risks.","k":"Theft cover — non-disclosure of a driving ban","law":"Act of 11.6.1874 (non-disclosure; article number illegible in the summary)","w":264,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-10-21","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1994:ARR.19941021.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Het besturen van het voertuig door iemand anders dan de eigenaar-verzekeringsnemer kan ten aanzien van de verzekeringsovereenkomst slechts een storend element worden indien het niet op toevallige doch op gewone wijze…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Use of the vehicle by someone other than the owner-policyholder matters for the contract only if it is habitual rather than occasional and thus aggravates an essential element of the risk, which would have led an informed insurer to other terms. The fact that another person was twice involved in an accident with the vehicle, six months apart, is not enough to make that person a habitual driver; the non-disclosure and misrepresentation defence therefore failed.","k":"Motor liability — habitual driver and disclosure","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":276,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-10-04","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1994:ARR.19941004.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"I. La conclusion de contrats \"RC-automobile\" et \"Tous risques\" à deux dates différentes, implique l'existence de deux polices séparées. II. L'assureur 'RC-automobile' peut invoquer à l'égard de l'assuré qui ne déclare…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Motor liability and comprehensive policies taken out on different dates are two separate policies. The motor liability insurer may rely on aggravation of risk (art. 31 of the Act of 11 June 1874) against an insured who failed to disclose a drink-driving conviction handed down during the contract, and may base its recourse on articles 24 and 25.2 of the general conditions. For the comprehensive policy, non-disclosure of an earlier conviction allows the insurer to invoke article 9 of the 1874 Act; the policyholder must describe the risk spontaneously, even without a questionnaire.","k":"Motor liability and comprehensive — undisclosed drink-driving conviction","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9 and 31; general conditions, art. 24 and 25.2","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-09-26","rol":"29001","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1994:ARR.19940926.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a validly concluded settlement between the victim, the workplace-accident insurer and the Occupational Accidents Fund may, for legal certainty, be challenged only on statutory grounds (Civil Code, special statutes) or revised under article 72, regardless of whether article 1043 of the Judicial Code applies. Whether third-party assistance is absolutely and normally necessary is a question of fact for the trial judge, as the law sets no criteria. The summary does not state the outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — binding settlement, third-party assistance","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24(4) and 72; Judicial Code, art. 1043; Cass. 13.9.1972","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-09-20","rol":"11140","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1994:ARR.19940920.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A pastry worker whose index finger was crushed in a machine disputed with the workplace-accident insurer the choice of treatment (tenolysis and rehabilitation, or amputation as preferred by the insurer). The court found that medical evidence the insurer did not seriously contest showed a chance of saving the finger. Since the condition could not be consolidated, stopping temporary total incapacity benefits was unjustified and had to end; the insurer must bear the surgical costs and benefits.","k":"Workplace accident — choice of treatment and temporary incapacity benefits","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 22, 23, 23bis and 28","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-09-19","rol":"13812/92","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1994:JUG.19940919.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"La formation du contrat d'assurance est soumise au droit commun des obligations conventionnelles et en particulier au principe fondamental du consensualisme qui implique un échange libre et parfait des consentements des…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that formation of an insurance contract follows the general law of obligations and the principle of consensualism. The applicant's signature of a motor liability proposal and its forwarding by the broker do not create the contract until the insurer accepts the proposal and defines its essential terms. A provisional green card is not proof of the contract but a rebuttable presumption the insurer may overturn. The final outcome is not stated.","k":"Motor liability — formation of the contract and provisional green card","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":264,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-09-19","rol":"10724/91","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1994:JUG.19940919.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le formulaire destiné à l'OCR pour demande de plaque d'immatriculation et signé par le courtier d'assurances est exclusivement destiné à l'OCR et permet à celui-ci de présumer que le véhicule dont l'immatriculation est…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that the number-plate application form addressed to the vehicle registration office (OCR) and signed by the broker is intended solely for that office, which may infer a rebuttable presumption of cover from it. Proof of the insurance contract remains governed by the general law, and such a document cannot establish actual cover. The parties' positions and the final outcome are not stated.","k":"Motor liability — registration form is not proof of cover","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":276,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-09-15","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1994:ARR.19940915.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Rijden aan een snelheid van 160 km/uur bij nacht op een rijbaan van 7 meter breed met bomen omzoomd op een ogenblik dat andere voertuigen in de nabijheid zijn, is een roekeloze daad. Geen dekking op basis van…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Driving at 160 km/h at night on a 7-metre road lined with trees while other vehicles are nearby is a reckless act. Cover under the individual and group personal-accident policies was rightly refused. The same act was gross fault allowing the motor liability insurer to bring recourse against the heirs of the deceased insured (old policy conditions).","k":"160 km/h at night — accident cover and motor liability recourse","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":276,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-09-14","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1994:ARR.19940914.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Het krachtens artikel 70, alinéa 2 (nu art. 76quater, alinéa 2 van de Z.I.V.-wet) aan de verzekeringsinstelling verleende verhaal gegrond op subrogatie, kan worden ingesteld tegen degene die volgens het gemeen recht…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The subrogated recourse granted to the health-insurance fund by article 70(2) (now article 76quater §2) of the health and disability insurance act may be brought against the person liable under ordinary law, even if that person is a beneficiary within the meaning of that act. The dispute concerned the fund's rights against the motor liability insurer. The right to compensation for personal bodily injury belongs to the spouse's own estate, whenever acquired.","k":"Health-insurance fund's recourse — liable person who is a beneficiary","law":"Act of 9.8.1963 (health insurance), art. 70(2), now art. 76quater §2","w":264,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-07-01","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1994:ARR.19940701.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that by taking out motor liability insurance the insured mandates the insurer to deal alone with injured parties. Under the inter-insurer appraisal agreement, the liable party's insurer mandates the victim's insurer to have the damage assessed, the latter delegating that power to the appraiser. The appraiser must assess the normal cost of repair across the market; where prices can vary twofold, his professional liability requires proof of fault or negligence, which does not follow from merely comparing two appraisals.","k":"Motor liability — damage appraisal and the expert's liability","law":"Mandate; inter-insurer appraisal agreement; appraiser's professional liability","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-06-24","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1994:ARR.19940624.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Indien de toepassing van het internrechtelijk rechtsbeginsel van het gezag 'erga omnes' van het strafrechtelijk gewijsde waaruit volgt dat de feiten waarvan de strafrechter het bestaan zeker en noodzakelijk heeft…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"If the erga omnes effect of a criminal judgment conflicts with Article 6(1) ECHR, the directly effective Convention provision prevails. Proving the objective element of gross fault requires showing an increase in risk compared with the normal expectations of the contract. Under article 26 of the model policy, recourse exists only if the insurer suffered loss from the insured's omission; as the insurer did not prove this, recourse based on suspension for late payment was rejected. The outcome on gross fault is not stated.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for gross fault and suspension for non-payment","law":"ECHR, art. 6(1) (Act of 13.5.1955); model policy, art. 26","w":264,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-06-03","rol":"8336","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1994:ARR.19940603.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Il ne suit pas du rapprochement des articles 4bis de la loi du 1er juillet 1956 (Actuellement L. du 21 novembre 1989, art. 6) et 25bis, 2°, de l'arrêté royal du 31 décembre 1953 que l'assurance, dont l'existence et la…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The car involved in the accident had been sold by its owner and was being driven under a garage's trade plate; the insurer covering that plate argued that the former owner's insurer was also liable. The Brussels Court of Appeal held that the former owner's policy had been suspended since 1 June 1981 under the clause suspending cover where the vehicle is sold and not immediately replaced, and that this was enforceable against third parties. The Court held that failure to return the number plate does not keep in force, as regards injured third parties, insurance whose cover ended upon the sale. The trade-plate insurer's appeal was dismissed; it alone is liable.","k":"Motor liability — policy suspended after sale of the vehicle, two insurers","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 4bis and 6; RD 31.12.1953, art. 25bis, 2°","w":276,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1994-05-30","rol":"24995","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1994:ARR.19940530.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Dès lors que l'assureur-loi a averti l'organisme assureur de son refus de prendre le cas en charge, il n'est pas tenu de lui rembourser les indemnités versées à la suite d'une lombalgie ultérieure, étrangère à…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a workplace-accident insurer which had informed the health-insurance fund of its refusal to accept the claim is not bound to reimburse the benefits the fund later paid for back pain unrelated to the reported accident.","k":"Workplace accident — health-insurance fund recourse, unrelated back pain","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-05-19","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1994:ARR.19940519.18","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'imprévisibilité de la crise (d'épilepsie) ne portait en l'espèce que sur le moment où celle-ci pouvait se produire, non sur la probabilité de sa survenance; qu'en conséquence le seul élément fortuit ne pouvait résider…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The case, involving the Motor Guarantee Fund, turned on whether the driver's epileptic seizure was an unforeseeable event (cas fortuit). The court held that only the timing of the seizure was unforeseeable, not its likelihood, which was an established and foreseeable risk; the driver should have known that his condition could cause loss of control of the vehicle and, if necessary, refrained from driving. The outcome as regards the Fund is not stated in the summary.","k":"Guarantee Fund — epileptic seizure and unforeseeable event","law":"Unforeseeable event; foreseeability (Guarantee Fund)","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-05-05","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1994:ARR.19940505.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that article 12 of the Act of 11 June 1874 (double insurance) did not apply, as the two professional liability policies could not operate together: the first insurer was entitled to refuse cover because the policyholder had not declared that workers assisted him. Since failing to disclose the earlier policy did not affect the insurer's view of the risk, annulment under article 9 was excluded. An insurer that knew all the elements of the fault when it compensated the victim cannot invoke gross fault to recover from the insured: the recourse was rejected.","k":"Professional liability — double insurance and insurer's recourse","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9 and 12","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-04-27","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1994:ARR.19940427.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Par l'opération de la stipulation pour autrui, le tiers bénéficiaire devient dès sa désignation titulaire d'un droit propre et direct contre le promettant. Le bénéficiaire recueille le capital 'iure proprio' et non…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"An heir named as beneficiary of a life policy had murdered the insured life. The court held that, through the stipulation for a third party, the beneficiary acquires from designation a personal and direct right against the insurer and takes the capital in his own right, not as heir. Unworthiness to inherit under article 727 of the former Civil Code therefore does not affect his status as beneficiary. The summary does not identify the parties to the dispute or the concrete outcome.","k":"Life insurance — beneficiary who murdered the insured life","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 727; stipulation for a third party","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-04-19","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EABRL:1994:ARR.19940419.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"De verzekeraar die zonder enige opmerking, bemerking of voorbehoud een schadegeval afhandelt en slechts na de vergoeding van de derden met een standaardbrief een ingebrekestelling verzendt zonder de aandacht van de…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an insurer which handles a claim without any remark or reservation, and sends a standard letter of formal notice only after compensating third parties, without drawing the insured's attention to the risk arising from non-payment of the premium although a green card had been issued, loses its right of recourse. In those circumstances exercising recourse is neither reasonable nor fair.","k":"Motor liability — unpaid premium, recourse and good faith","law":"Act of 21.11.1989 (no article stated); performance in good faith","w":264,"c":"Nederlandstalige rechtbank eerste aanleg Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-04-19","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1994:ARR.19940419.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"En gérant sans remarque, observation ou réserve le règlement d'un sinistre et en se contentant d'adresser postérieurement à l'indemnisation du tiers, une mise en demeure sous forme de formulaire sans attirer l'attention…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Although a green card had been issued, the insurer handled the claim without any remark or reservation and, after compensating the third party, merely sent a standard-form reminder without warning the insured of the risk of non-payment of the premium. The court held that the insurer had lost its right of recourse against the insured, as exercising it would not be reasonable and fair in those circumstances.","k":"Motor liability — loss of recourse for unpaid premium","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":264,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-04-18","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAOVL:1994:JUG.19940418.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Op grond van de artikelen 24 en 25.3 van de (oude) modelpolis kan de verzekeraar het regres uitoefenen zelfs zonder dat er een oorzakelijk verband moet bestaan tussen het ongeval en het gebrek aan geldig…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that under articles 24 and 25.3 of the former model policy the insurer may exercise recourse without any causal link being required between the accident and the absence of a valid roadworthiness certificate. The insured did not prove that the accident would have been unavoidable with properly working brakes or that the damage would not have been smaller after effective braking; the recourse was allowed.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for lack of roadworthiness certificate","law":"Former motor liability model policy, art. 24 and 25.3","w":276,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-04-08","rol":"9116821","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1994:JUG.19940408.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"L'objet même de l'assurance R.C. familiale est de couvrir les risques non pris en charge par une autre assurance. Il s'agit là d'une appréciation qui doit être réalisée non de manière abstraite mais \"in concreto\". Il…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"According to the court, family liability insurance covers risks not borne by another insurance, assessed in concreto. It covers the insured against another insurer's recourse claim, unless the gross fault relied on by the first insurer can also be relied on by the second. Joyriding by a young driver lacking the age and licence conditions is covered only if those circumstances cannot be invoked by the insurer to decline cover. The final outcome is not stated.","k":"Family liability insurance — cover against another insurer's recourse","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":264,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-03-29","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1994:ARR.19940329.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Le caractère involontaire, au sens du contrat d'assurance, de la pulsion mortifère envahissante qui submergea le psychisme perturbé de la victime et l'amena à se suicider peut être établi par les antécédents…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The dispute concerned the wilful-suicide exclusion in a life insurance policy. The court accepted that the involuntary nature, within the meaning of the contract, of the overwhelming death impulse that took hold of the insured's disturbed mind and led to suicide may be proved by professional and medical history and by the facts. The concrete outcome as to cover is not expressly stated in the summary.","k":"Life insurance — wilful suicide exclusion","law":"Life insurance contract, wilful-suicide exclusion","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-03-29","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1994:ARR.19940329.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'article 76quater, paragraphe 2, alinéa 6 de la loi du 9 août 1963 accorde à l'organisme assureur un droit propre lui permettant d'obtenir du Fonds commun de garantie automobile le remboursement de ses décaissements au…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court recognised that article 76quater §2(6) of the Act of 9 August 1963 gives the health-insurance fund its own right to recover from the Guarantee Fund what it paid to the victim. That right cannot, however, put the Guarantee Fund in a different position depending on whether the claim comes from the health-insurance fund or the victim: the health-insurance fund cannot recover all its outlays without facing its member's possible share of liability. Apportionment of liability can be raised against it. The summary does not give the concrete outcome.","k":"Guarantee Fund — health-insurance fund's claim, victim's own fault","law":"Act of 9.8.1963, art. 76quater §2(6)","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-03-25","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1994:ARR.19940325.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Il incombe à assuré de donner à l'assureur une connaissance exacte des éléments du risque qu'il veut faire couvrir sans que l'assureur ait à en opérer la vérification. L'abstention de déclarer une circonstance…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that the insured must give the insurer an accurate picture of the risk and that non-disclosure of a circumstance aggravating the risk renders the policy void even if the insured acted in good faith. However, an incontestability clause means the insurer waives sanctions for irregularities in the disclosure; to obtain annulment it must then prove, besides non-disclosure or misrepresentation, the insured's fraud, which cannot be inferred from their mere existence. The summary does not expressly state the concrete outcome.","k":"Duty of disclosure — non-disclosure and incontestability clause","law":"Act of 11.6.1874 (disclosure); incontestability clause","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-03-24","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1994:ARR.19940324.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Aux yeux des dispositions de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs, la délivrance de la carte verte constitue la preuve formelle de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that under the Act of 21 November 1989 the issue of a green card is formal proof that an insurance contract exists. An insurer that issues it without waiting for the premium is deemed by law to waive its right to suspend cover or terminate the contract for non-payment for the whole period of validity of the certificate. The policyholder's failure to sign does not mean he refused the contract; it is mere negligence with no effect on the contract's existence.","k":"Motor liability — green card issued before premium payment","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 30","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-03-24","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1994:ARR.19940324.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The vehicle had been insured both by its owner and by a prospective buyer. The court accepted that although the duty to insure lies with the owner, another person may insure the same vehicle, the owner's duty then being suspended for the term of that contract. The green card is formal proof of the contract; an insurer issuing it before payment waives suspension or termination during its validity, and a missing signature is irrelevant. The summary does not identify the parties to the dispute or the concrete outcome.","k":"Motor liability — two policies on one vehicle, effect of the green card","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 30","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-03-24","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1994:ARR.19940324.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La couverture du FCGA ne saurait profiter ni aux propriétaires, ni aux utilisateurs d'un véhicule automobile dont la responsabilité civile ne serait pas couverte par une assurance régulièrement souscrite et ce,…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that neither the owners nor the users of a vehicle whose liability is not covered by a validly concluded insurance policy can benefit from the Guarantee Fund's cover, regardless of any criminal penalty.","k":"Guarantee Fund — owner and user of an uninsured vehicle","law":"No legal basis given in the summary","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-03-22","rol":"9219270","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1994:ARR.19940322.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"La subrogation au profit de l'organisme assureur ne suffit pas à libérer l'assureur-loi de son obligation de retenir les cotisations de sécurité sociale et le précompte professionnel sur les indemnités qu'il doit à la…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The health-insurance fund's subrogation does not release the workplace-accident insurer from its duty to withhold social security contributions and withholding tax on the benefits owed to the victim before passing them on to the fund. Where the fund's advance payments exceed what it receives from the insurer, the ban on double recovery requires the victim to repay the difference, capped at the withholding tax deducted. The summary does not otherwise state the outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — health-fund subrogation and withholding tax","law":"Act of 9.8.1963, art. 76quater; Act of 10.4.1971","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-03-21","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1994:ARR.19940321.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Le délai de prescription de l'action contre l'assureur est suspendu aussi longtemps que celui-ci dirige en son nom le procès intenté par la victime, et ce jusqu'au moment où il notifie clairement à l'assuré son refus de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the limitation period for the insured's claim against the insurer is suspended for as long as the insurer conducts, in its own name, the proceedings brought by the victim. The suspension lasts until the insurer clearly notifies the insured that it refuses cover. The concrete outcome of the case is not stated in the summary.","k":"Claim against the insurer — conduct of the defence and suspension of limitation","law":"Insurer's conduct of the defence; suspension of limitation","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-03-18","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1994:JUG.19940318.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Il n'apparaît pas qu'en consacrant l'existence d'un droit propre aux mutualités, distinct de celui de leur affilié, à l'encontre du Fonds Commun de Garantie Automobile, le législateur ait entendu au surplus déroger aux…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The dispute concerned the extent of a health-insurance fund's claim against the motor Guarantee Fund where liability was shared. The court noted that by granting health-insurance funds a claim of their own against the Guarantee Fund, separate from their member's, the legislature did not intend to depart from the ordinary rules on the extent of that claim to the Fund's detriment, the Fund's intervention being meant as subsidiary and exceptional. The summary does not give the concrete outcome.","k":"Guarantee Fund — scope of the health-insurance fund's own claim","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":276,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-03-16","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1994:ARR.19940316.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"En raison du caractère subrogatoire du recours de l'assureur-loi, son payement à la victime éteint, à concurrence de son montant, la créance de celle-ci et la transmet à l'assureur-loi avec ses accessoires et garanties,…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer brought a subrogated recourse claim against the liable third party after compensating the victim. The court held that payment transfers the victim's claim to the insurer with its accessories but also its limits, so the third party may raise every defence available against the victim. The civil claim arising from an offence is subject to a five-year limitation period; being a matter of public policy, it cannot be suspended or interrupted under the Civil Code, is not interrupted by joining the liable party before the labour court, and cannot be waived.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — limitation period","law":"Act of 10.4.1971 (workplace-accident insurer's recourse); five-year limitation period for civil claims arising from an offence","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-03-14","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1994:ARR.19940314.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En vertu de l'article 17 alinéa 2 de l'A.R. du 16.12.1981, le Fonds Commun est tenu à indemnisation \"lorsqu'aucune entreprise d'assurance agréée n'est obligée à ladite réparation en raison d'un cas fortuit exonérant le…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A moped rider was unbalanced and seriously injured after suddenly encountering a cat whose owner was never identified. The court held that under article 17(2) of the RD of 16.12.1981, the Fund's duty requires, beyond a fortuitous event, that it be because of that event that no authorised insurer covers the loss. Even without the fortuitous event, the rider's loss would not have been covered by any insurer; his claim against the Guarantee Fund was dismissed.","k":"Guarantee Fund — moped rider unbalanced by a cat","law":"RD of 16.12.1981, art. 17(2)","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-03-14","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1994:JUG.19940314.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La victime d'un accident du travail dont la rente est réduite de 50 % ou de 25 % selon que l'incapacité permanente est inférieure à 5 ou à 10 %, ne peut réclamer à l'auteur responsable une indemnité de droit commun…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a workplace-accident victim whose annuity is reduced by 50% or 25% because the permanent incapacity is below 5% or 10% cannot claim tort damages from the liable third party to offset that reduction. The workplace-accident insurer is subrogated to the full capital set aside for the annuity and may recover all of it from the liable party, even if it must pay part of it to the Occupational Accidents Fund. The opposite would make the liable party pay twice for the same loss.","k":"Workplace accident — scope of the workplace-accident insurer's subrogation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24(2)","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-03-10","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1994:ARR.19940310.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'article 11.3 de l'arrêté royal sur la circulation routière qui fixe à 18 ans l'âge requis pour conduire un cyclomoteur en portant un passager autorise l'assureur à exercer l'action récursoire sans devoir établir la…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a breach of article 11.3 of the Highway Code, which sets 18 as the minimum age for riding a moped with a passenger, entitles the insurer to exercise its recourse. The insurer does not have to prove a causal link between the breach and the accident.","k":"Motor liability — recourse, minimum age for carrying a passenger","law":"RD 1.12.1975 (Highway Code), art. 11.3","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-03-10","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1994:ARR.19940310.16","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La faute pénale reconnue dans un jugement correctionnel n'ôte pas au juge civil la faculté d'apprécier si elle est constitutive d'une faute grave à l'égard de l'assureur.","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"After an accident during speed trials by a professional driver, the insurer brought a recourse claim. The court held that the criminal fault found by the criminal court does not deprive the civil court of its power to assess whether that fault amounts to gross fault towards the insurer. The outcome of the recourse is not stated in the summary.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for gross fault, civil court's discretion","law":"Res judicata of criminal judgments; civil court's discretion","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-03-04","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1994:ARR.19940304.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Les parties peuvent postposer l'effet d'un contrat d'assurance par une clause stipulant qu'il n'entrera en vigueur que lors du paiement de la première prime. L'avance temporaire de la prime par le courtier dans le cadre…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court accepted that the parties may defer the start of the contract until the first premium is paid. A broker's temporary advance of the premium through its current account with the insurer, made to collect its commission at once, affects only the insurer-broker relationship, not the insured's rights. A debit to the broker's account counts as payment only if the insured had given the broker a mandate, which is proved by the agent's acceptance. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Start of cover — first premium payment and broker's advance","law":"Mandate and its proof; first-premium clause","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-03-01","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1994:ARR.19940301.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Le remboursement de l'indu sans intérêts compensatoires et accompagné de termes et délais peut compenser totalement ou partiellement le dommage résultant pour l'assuré du paiement erroné effectué par l'assureur.","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer had paid the insured in error and sought repayment. The court accepted that repaying the undue amount without compensatory interest and with time to pay can make good, wholly or partly, the loss the insured suffered from the mistaken payment. The summary does not set out the concrete terms ordered.","k":"Insurer's undue payment — repayment and the insured's loss","law":"Recovery of undue payment; abuse of rights; no article cited in the summary","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-03-01","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1994:ARR.19940301.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Dès lors que la condamnation encourue laisse aux juridictions civiles la faculté d'apprécier ce qui n'a pas été nécessairement jugé, à savoir si en conduisant dans cet état d'alcoolémie l'assuré constituait un danger…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer sought recourse against an insured who drove under the influence of alcohol (art. 25.9 of the general conditions), relying on the criminal conviction for unintentional injury. The court held that the conviction left the civil court free to assess whether the alcohol level created a definite danger causally linked to the accident and whether the insured must have known he was aggravating the risk; the insurer therefore could not rely on the res judicata effect of the criminal judgment. The final outcome of the recourse is not stated in the summary.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for drink-driving, effect of criminal judgment","law":"General conditions, art. 25.9 (recourse, alcohol); res judicata of criminal judgments","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-02-24","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1994:ARR.19940224.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"L'assurance de protection juridique ne couvre pas les conséquences dommageables d'un accident mais bien les frais de justice inhérents à la demande en réparation de ces conséquences dommageables. Il s'ensuit qu'en…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Legal expenses insurance covers not the harmful consequences of an accident but the legal costs of claiming compensation for them, so the limitation period runs from the lawyer's fee note. In case of doubt, a standard-form contract is construed in favour of the insured, and an insurer wishing to exclude a risk must do so unequivocally. As the policy did not exclude the costs of proceedings against an employer liable for a workplace or commuting accident, cover was upheld.","k":"Legal expenses insurance — start of limitation and contra proferentem","law":"Contra proferentem; start of limitation period; no article cited in the summary","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-02-24","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1994:ARR.19940224.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Rien n'interdit au juge, saisi du recours de l'assureur-loi contre l'assureur du tiers responsable d'un accident sur le chemin du travail, de puiser des éléments de nature à former sa conviction dans un rapport…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"In the workplace-accident insurer's recourse against the insurer of the third party liable for a commuting accident, the court may draw on an amicable expert report agreed between the victim and that insurer. The workplace-accident insurer is subrogated to the victim's rights as it pays out and, once the pension capital is constituted, to all rights against the liable party and its insurer, which cannot resist the public-order Workplace Accidents Act. Because the report was internally inconsistent, the insurer must prove the permanent economic incapacity, notably by hearing both doctors as witnesses.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — use of an amicable expert report","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-02-21","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1994:ARR.19940221.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Le fait que l'assureur \" Loi \" ait encaissé les primes pour l'assurance contre les accidents du travail de la victime ne supprime pas l'obligation légale d'existence d'un contrat de travail entre l'intéressé et…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court noted that the workplace-accident insurer's collection of premiums does not relieve the claimant of proving that an employment contract existed with the company at the time of the accident and that the accident occurred in performing it. Payment of social security contributions is not decisive either, as the NSSO checks whether affiliation is genuine. An unpaid directorship can be combined with the post of manager in charge of day-to-day management under the board's authority. The summary does not state the outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — managing director, proof of employment contract","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 1","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-02-18","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1994:ARR.19940218.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"L'assurée, souffrant de dépression nerveuse et d'anorexie, a voulu se suicider en se jetant sous un train, perturbant ainsi la circulation ferroviaire. La compagnie d'assurance refuse la garantie en invoquant la faute…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insured, suffering from depression and anorexia, attempted suicide by throwing herself under a train, disrupting rail traffic. The insurer refused cover for gross fault (art. 16 of the Act of 11 June 1874). The court recalled that gross fault requires awareness of aggravating the risk beyond what the contract contemplated, and held that a person throwing herself under a train in order to commit suicide has no such awareness: the gross-fault defence was rejected.","k":"Private liability insurance — suicide attempt and gross fault","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-02-14","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1994:ARR.19940214.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"La clause de suspension de garantie est, comme toute clause contractuelle, soumise au principe de l'exécution de bonne foi. L'assureur qui a suspendu sa garantie méconnaît les exigences de la bonne foi s'il n'avertit…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A suspension-of-cover clause, like any clause, must be performed in good faith. The insurer breached that duty by not warning the insured that, despite being granted time to pay, he remained without cover, and by not informing the beneficiary wife, whom it knew to be separated and unaware of the suspension. Exploiting a trivial, purely formal failure is an abuse of rights; the sanction is that cover is maintained, and it was held due to the beneficiary.","k":"Suspension of cover — good faith and abuse of rights","law":"Good-faith performance and abuse of rights; no article given in the summary","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-02-14","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1994:ARR.19940214.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Il y a vol avec effraction lorsque les bijoux volés étaient enfermés dans un coffret fermé à clé, qui fut fracturé par les voleurs en vue d'en emporter le contenu discrètement. Il n'y a pas lieu, dans le cadre de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court found a burglary where the stolen jewellery was in a locked box that the thieves broke open to take its contents discreetly. The policy is not to be read strictly in light of Criminal Code definitions it does not clearly refer to, but according to the meaning the words have for a reasonably informed insured. The insurer must prove the insured's gross fault; any doubt as to whether a door was locked benefits the insured.","k":"Theft insurance — burglary and proof of gross fault","law":"No legal basis given in the summary","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-02-02","rol":"P.93.1395.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1994:ARR.19940202.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsque la victime d'un accident de la circulation, causé par un conducteur non assuré, était elle-même couverte par une assurance de dommage et a ainsi été indemnisée par son assureur, ce dernier n'a aucun recours…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The victim of an accident caused by an uninsured driver had been compensated by her own property/damage insurer; that insurer, by subrogation, sought reimbursement from the Guarantee Fund, and the Mons criminal court allowed the claim up to 2,000 French francs. The Court held that under the last paragraph of article 16 of the Royal Decree of 16 December 1981 the Fund is liable only insofar as the loss exceeds what a damage or liability insurance pays; since the injured party has no claim against the Fund for loss so covered, the insurer cannot be subrogated to such a right. On the Fund's appeal, the judgment was quashed on that point.","k":"Guarantee Fund — recourse of the property/damage insurer","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50; RD 16.12.1981, art. 16; Cass. 20.1.1987","w":276,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1994-02-01","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1994:ARR.19940201.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"La clause excluant les voitures à caractère sportif, c'est-à-dire considérés comme telles par le Ministère des Affaires Economiques, figurant dans la police vol auto souscrite par un garagiste n'établissant pas sa…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A car theft policy taken out by a garage owner excluded sports cars, meaning cars classified as such by the Ministry of Economic Affairs. As the garage owner proved neither a specialisation in such cars nor the insurer's knowledge of it, the court held that the exclusion, being perfectly clear and unambiguous, must be applied.","k":"Car theft insurance — sports car exclusion","law":"Clarity of the exclusion clause; no article cited in the summary","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-01-27","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PINAM:1994:JUG.19940127.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Il n'y a pas lieu de majorer d'intérêts compensatoires les sommes dues au titre de remboursement de débours, dès lors que les débours de la mutuelle furent toujours acquittés par l'assureur du responsable dès…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court refused to add compensatory interest to the sums owed as reimbursement of outlays, because the liable party's insurer had always paid the health-insurance fund's outlays as soon as they were submitted. The fund must act diligently to limit its loss and pass its expenses on to the insurer as quickly as possible. The fund's interest claim was rejected.","k":"Health-insurance fund recourse — compensatory interest","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":264,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Namur","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-01-20","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1994:ARR.19940120.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Il n'y a pas d'abus de droit dans le chef de l'assureur dès lors que celui-ci conclut un contrat couvrant le vol d'une moto sans réussir à percevoir la moindre prime, et ce nonobstant un rappel et l'octroi d'un dernier…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer had concluded a policy covering theft of a motorcycle but never managed to collect any premium, despite a reminder and a final fifteen-day deadline. The court held that it did not abuse its rights by relying on the general conditions to refuse cover once the contractual period had expired; the refusal was legitimate.","k":"Motorcycle theft insurance — unpaid premium, no abuse of rights","law":"Abuse of rights; general conditions (non-payment of premium); no article cited in the summary","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-01-20","rol":"C.93.0133.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1994:ARR.19940120.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Le délai de prescription applicable à l'action de la partie lésée par un accident de la circulation, ou par l'assureur qui lui est subrogé, contre l'assureur de la partie responsable, est celui prévu par l'article 10 de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The accident occurred on 11 April 1977 and the victim sued on 30 August 1984. The Court held that a claim by the injured party, or a subrogated insurer, against the liable party's insurer is governed by the period in article 10 of the Act of 1 July 1956, not article 26 of the Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Even if suspended during the insurer's own action, the period resumed on 19 June 1981 and expired before suit: the ground was inadmissible for lack of interest. The operative part is not in the published text.","k":"Motor liability — limitation period for claims against the liable party's insurer","law":"Act of 1.7.1956 (motor liability), art. 10; Preliminary Title of the Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 26; Cass. 20.1.1992","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-01-19","rol":"P.93.1101.F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1994:ARR.19940119.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En subordonnant l'intervention volontaire ou forcée de l'assureur devant le juge pénal à la condition que celui-ci soit saisi de l'action civile en réparation du dommage causé par un véhicule automoteur, intentée contre…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"Ordered together with its insured to compensate the civil parties in full, the motor liability insurer asked that half of the liability be borne by them because they had knowingly travelled with a drunk driver. The Liège Court of Appeal declared itself without jurisdiction, finding that the appeal really sought to establish the insured's drunkenness and a breach of contract. The Court held that the legislature limited the criminal court's jurisdiction to protecting the interests of the injured party and the insured, and did not allow the insurer to raise its insured's faults there with a view to later recourse. The insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — insurer intervening in criminal proceedings against its insured","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 9; Code of Criminal Procedure, art. 416(2); Cass. 19.3.1973; Cass. 27.10.1992","w":276,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1994-01-18","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1994:ARR.19940118.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'assureur peut légitimement supposer que l'assuré se conformera aux règles normales de prudence en matière de circulation urbaine en s'abstenant de circuler lorsqu'il n'est plus apte à conduire un véhicule. En…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer may legitimately assume that the insured will follow ordinary rules of prudence in urban traffic and refrain from driving when no longer fit to do so. By drinking alcohol before setting off late at night on a fairly long journey, the insured breached the elementary duty of care of a normally prudent driver and of an insured careful not to aggravate the covered risk; the court upheld the gross fault on which the insurer's recourse was based.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for gross fault (alcohol and fatigue)","law":"Motor model contract (recourse for gross fault); no article cited in the summary","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-01-18","rol":"6950","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1994:ARR.19940118.19","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'action récursoire que, conformément aux articles 46, alinéa 2, alinéa 1er, et 47 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail, l'assureur-loi peut intenter contre le tiers responsable de l'accident s'exerce…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The subrogated workplace-accident insurer claimed from the employer of the worker wholly at fault the benefits it had paid and the annuity capital it had set up; the Brussels Court of Appeal added compensatory interest. The Court held that through the subrogation in articles 46 and 47 of the Act of 10 April 1971 the victim's claim passes to the insurer with its nature and accessories, so the insurer may claim compensatory interest on the capital from the date it was set up; but the recourse may not exceed, interest included, what the victim could have obtained under ordinary law. Since that cap was not checked, the judgment was quashed as to interest and costs on the employer's appeal.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — compensatory interest on the capital and its cap","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46 §2 and 47; former Civil Code, art. 1382–1384; Cass. 17.3.1987","w":-1,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1994-01-18","rol":"6613","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1994:ARR.19940118.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En décidant qu'il ne peut être question de \"conduite occasionnelle\" que lorsque celle-ci a pour origine un fait occasionnel, le juge interprète la police d'assurance d'une manière qui est inconciliable avec ses termes.","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"Article 4 of the policy extended cover to the policyholder's liability when \"occasionally\" driving a vehicle belonging to a third party. The Antwerp Court of Appeal had denied cover because the driving was not based on a chance event. The Court held that making occasional driving depend on a chance event gives the policy an interpretation incompatible with its wording and disregards its evidential value; the policyholder's ground of appeal was upheld.","k":"Motor liability — interpretation of the occasional-driving clause","law":"Policy art. 4, b (evidential value of the policy)","w":276,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-01-10","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1994:ARR.19940110.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La faculté laissée à l'assureur responsabilité civile automobile d'exercer une action récursoire résulte d'une disposition expresse de l'article 11, alinéa 2, de la loi de 1956. L'exercice de l'action récursoire suppose…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The motor insurer's recourse rests on article 11(2) of the 1956 Act and requires proof that the contractual fault is attributable. A policyholder accused of knowingly lending the car to an unlicensed driver may prove legitimate ignorance. Recourse based on drunkenness (art. 25.10 of the model policy) cannot target a policyholder who was not driving; handing the car to someone obviously drunk may be gross fault, which the insurer must prove. The driver's acquittal of theft does not prove it. The final outcome is not stated.","k":"Motor liability — recourse against the policyholder: drunk, unlicensed driver","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 11(2); Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16; model policy, arts. 25.9–25.10","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1994-01-06","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIHAI:1994:JUG.19940106.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Conduire un véhicule avec 1,69 ou 1,89 gramme d'alcool par litre de sang constitue une aggravation du risque garanti par le contrat d'assurance dès lors que pareil état altère l'acuité des réflexes, la maitrise que…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"In the insurer's recourse action, the court held that driving with 1.69 or 1.89 grams of alcohol per litre of blood is an aggravation of the insured risk, since it impairs reflexes and the driver's normal control of the vehicle. The driver, who had the flu, should have known he was less resistant to alcohol and thus been aware of the aggravation. The final outcome of the recourse is not expressly stated in the summary.","k":"Motor liability — blood alcohol and awareness of increased risk","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":276,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-12-24","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1993:ARR.19931224.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Wanneer in een polis \"eigen schade motorrijtuigen\" bedongen is dat geen recht op vergoeding geeft het ongeval overkomen wanneer de bestuurder in staat van alcoholintoxicatie is, de verzekeraar na een ongeval de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The own-damage policy excluded accidents occurring while the driver was intoxicated; the insurer had paid the insured after the accident. The receipt was not a settlement or a fact-finding agreement; since the insured was found to have been in a state of punishable intoxication, the payment was undue and the insurer was entitled to repayment. The duty to repay remains even if the payer's mistake was inexcusable.","k":"Own-damage cover — alcohol exclusion, recovery of undue payment","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1376","w":264,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-12-22","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1993:ARR.19931222.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"De WAM-verzekeraar is bij het aangaan van een dading met de moeder-voogdes van een minderjarige, slachtoffer van een verkeersongeval, niet de behartiger van de belangen van die minderjarige met betrekking tot het…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A motor liability insurer settling with the mother and guardian of a minor injured in a road accident is not the guardian of the minor's interests as to how the compensation is used. The mother acted as administrator of her son's property with the help of a lawyer of her choice; the insurer stood outside their relationship and had no right to supervise the lawyer's steps to safeguard the money until the minor came of age.","k":"Motor liability insurer — use of compensation paid to a minor","law":"Act of 21.11.1989 (no article cited in the summary)","w":276,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-12-21","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1993:ARR.19931221.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Il n'est permis de déduire de la possession de l'exemplaire de la police d'assurance-vie par une personne désignée comme bénéficiaire, aucune preuve de son acceptation lorsque le souscripteur et elle vivaient ensemble…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Possession of a copy of the policy by the designated beneficiary did not prove acceptance, since she lived with the policyholder and the proposal stated she had not accepted. Although life insurance must be proved in writing, revoking a beneficiary designation requires no form, may be tacit and need not reach the insurer before death; a written request sent through the intermediary is written evidence even if the insurer never received it. The costs of joining the life insurer fall on the party that wrongly claimed to be beneficiary, while the insurer bears registration duties and half its own costs.","k":"Life insurance — acceptance and revocation of a beneficiary designation","law":"No statutory basis cited in the summary (beneficiary designation, evidence, costs)","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-12-21","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1993:ARR.19931221.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"L'obligation faite à l'assuré de déposer plainte dans les 48 heures de la connaissance de faits de vol ou de vandalisme tend à la réalisation par les autorités judiciaires locales d'une enquête objective visant à…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The duty to file a police complaint within 48 hours of learning of theft or vandalism serves an objective local investigation that can clarify the facts and identify the perpetrators, enabling the insurer to bring a subrogated claim against them. The court held that the breach of this contractual duty by the insured's employee deprived the insurer of a chance of recourse and entitled it to refuse cover.","k":"Theft and vandalism insurance — 48-hour police complaint","law":"No statutory basis cited in the summary (duty to report, subrogation)","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-12-21","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1993:ARR.19931221.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a criminal judgment has no res judicata effect in civil proceedings against a person who was not a party to the criminal case. The motor liability insurer, unaware that the person who caused the accident was joyriding, had paid in the belief that it was bound to do so; it paid by mistake and may bring an action to recover the undue payment. Recovery requires only a payment and its undue nature; proof of mistake is needed only where the cause of the payment is in doubt.","k":"Motor liability — recovery of undue payment, unknown joyriding","law":"Recovery of undue payment; res judicata effect of criminal judgments","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-12-15","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1993:ARR.19931215.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'assuré ne peut invoquer utilement, pour écarter l'élément objectif, le fait qu'une certaine ivresse entrerait dans les prévisions de l'assureur. Par ailleurs, subjectivement, la faute grave existe dès que le…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The insured cannot avoid the objective element by arguing that some degree of drunkenness was within the insurer's expectations. Subjectively, gross fault exists as soon as the driver should have realised that his condition could create a markedly increased danger for himself and others. Since the criminal court found the drunkenness charge time-barred and convicted only for unintentional injury, the civil court is free to assess the causal link between intoxication and the accident. The summary does not state how the recourse action ended.","k":"Motor liability — drunkenness, gross fault and causation in recourse","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":276,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-12-09","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1993:ARR.19931209.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Toute clause contractuelle de suspension de la garantie doit être mise en oeuvre de bonne foi : lorsque la mise en demeure intervient après la survenance d'un sinistre dont la couverture sera retirée, il importe que…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that any clause suspending cover must be applied in good faith: where formal notice is sent after a loss whose cover will be withdrawn, the insured must not be able to misunderstand the particular importance of responding, the insurer's good faith being assessed according to the circumstances. The summary does not say whether the suspension was upheld in this case.","k":"Unpaid premium — formal notice after a loss and good faith","law":"Good-faith performance of contracts","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-12-09","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1993:ARR.19931209.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Lorsque la mise en demeure intervient après la survenance d'un sinistre dont la couverture sera retirée, il importe que l'assuré ne puisse se méprendre sur l'importance particulière de sa réponse, l'appréciation de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"On suspension of cover for non-payment of premium, the court held that where formal notice is sent after a loss whose cover will be withdrawn, the insured must not be able to misunderstand the particular importance of responding; the insurer's good faith is assessed according to the circumstances. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Motor liability — unpaid premium, formal notice after a loss","law":"Good-faith performance of contracts","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-12-06","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1993:ARR.19931206.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'obligation du Fonds commun de garantie automobile d'indemniser le propriétaire du véhicule endommagé n'est pas subordonnée à la seule existence d'un cas fortuit exonérant le conducteur de ce véhicule; il faut, en…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The driver, who lost control after a sudden illness and hit a lamp post, had been acquitted on grounds of a fortuitous event. The court held that the Fund's duty does not depend merely on a fortuitous event: it must be because of that event that no authorised insurer covers the loss. Since the driver's own loss would not have been covered by any insurer even had he been found liable, his claim against the Guarantee Fund was dismissed.","k":"Guarantee Fund — driver's sudden illness, fortuitous event","law":"RD of 16.12.1981, art. 17(2); Cass. 18.11.1987 (cited in the note)","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-11-30","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1993:ARR.19931130.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Wanneer een beklaagde slechts op strafrechtelijk gebied hoger beroep heeft ingesteld tegen een vonnis van de strafrechter dat hem tot een straf en, in solidum met zijn verzekeraar, tot betaling van een schadevergoeding…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Where the defendant appealed only on the criminal aspect of a judgment sentencing him and ordering him, jointly with his insurer, to compensate the injured party, the insurer's appeal does not deprive the civil part of the judgment of its finality as between the defendant and the injured party. The defendant's criminal-only appeal cannot alter their legal relationship on the civil claim either. The outcome for the insurer is not stated.","k":"Appeal by defendant's insurer — finality of the civil claim","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":264,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-11-24","rol":"83/1635;83/2198","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1993:ARR.19931124.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"La clause de la police d'assurance vol limitant l'indemnité au montant de la facture d'achat du véhicule, peu compatible avec la clause précisant que la valeur agréée doit correspondre pour le véhicule au prix catalogue…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A theft-policy clause capping compensation at the vehicle's purchase invoice sits uneasily with the clause setting the agreed value at the base catalogue price plus catalogue options and accessories bought with the vehicle. The court held that the cap upset the balance between the insurer's and the policyholder's obligations and treated the clause as void.","k":"Vehicle theft insurance — clause capping payment at invoice price","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 19 §2; RD 12.3.1976, art. 21","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-11-04","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1993:ARR.19931104.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"L'action récursoire de l'assureur se prescrit par trois ans. Le point de départ de cette prescription est le paiement fait par l'assureur après qu'il a été établi qu'il est légalement tenu d'indemniser la personne lésée…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the insurer's recourse action is time-barred after three years, running from payment made once the insurer's legal duty to compensate the injured party was established, and from each payment where there are several. Time does not run before the insured's liability is finally established; an amicable settlement amounting to an acknowledgement of debt suffices. As the criminal court did not rule (time bar), the civil court freely assesses intoxication. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Motor liability — start of the limitation period for recourse","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16 and 32","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-10-28","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1993:ARR.19931028.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"La subrogation de l'assureur-loi ayant lieu en vertu de l'article 47 de la loi du 10 avril 1971, notamment par la constitution du capital de la rente, le droit de l'assureur subrogé aux intérêts compensatoires sur ce…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer is subrogated under article 47 of the Act of 10 April 1971, notably by setting up the annuity capital; its right to compensatory interest on that capital arises at the time of subrogation. Interest runs from when the liable party must pay the capital to the victim, i.e. the date under article 24, fixed by agreement or final judgment, on which the incapacity becomes permanent and the capital is set up. The case concerns the subrogated insurer's recourse against the liable third party.","k":"Workplace accident — compensatory interest owed to the subrogated insurer","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 24 and 47","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-10-27","rol":"9119/90","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1993:JUG.19931027.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Si l'assureur peut légitimement conditionner l'indemnisation de l'assuré au contrôle de la réalité et des circonstances du vol de la voiture allégué, il doit cependant le faire dans un délai raisonnable. Un retard de…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court accepted that the insurer may legitimately make payment conditional on checking the reality and circumstances of the alleged vehicle theft, but it must do so within a reasonable time. A delay of several months was held unacceptable.","k":"Vehicle theft — insurer's investigation within a reasonable time","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":264,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-10-13","rol":"394490","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1993:ARR.19931013.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Le contrat d'assurance, par nature aléatoire, ne peut porter sur un risque que l'assuré sait déjà réalisé. La circonstance que le fait générateur de responsabilité n'ait pas encore donné lieu à une réclamation au moment…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"An insurance contract, being aleatory by nature, cannot cover a risk that the insured already knows has materialised. That the event giving rise to liability had not yet led to a claim when the policy was taken out is irrelevant, so the insured's argument to that effect was rejected.","k":"Liability insurance — risk already materialised at inception","law":"Aleatory nature of insurance; no article cited in the summary","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-10-12","rol":"6475","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1993:ARR.19931012.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"De verzekeraar die een verzekeringsovereenkomst heeft gesloten ter dekking van de burgerrechtelijke aansprakelijkheid waartoe in het verkeer ieder motorvoertuig aanleiding kan geven dat van de in de overeenkomst…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that an insurer covering the liability of any vehicle bearing the trade plate described in the policy cannot raise against the injured party that the vehicle's engine capacity exceeded the maximum stated in the contract. This defence is among those that cannot be raised against the injured party under compulsory motor liability insurance. The full text is not published.","k":"Motor liability — trade-plate policy, engine-capacity defence","law":"Benelux Convention of 24.5.1966, common provisions art. 11; Act of 1.7.1956, art. 11; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 16; Benelux Court 17.12.1992","w":276,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-10-08","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1993:ARR.19931008.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"En vertu de l'article 19, § 2, de l'arrêté royal du 16 décembre 1981 portant mise en vigueur et exécution des articles 49 et 50 de la loi du 9 juillet 1975 relative au contrôle des entreprises d'assurances,…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The Guarantee Fund's compensation for property damage is limited, per accident and per injured party, to the part exceeding BEF 10,000. The court held that this threshold applies to the principal compensation alone, before compensatory interest is calculated; such interest at the statutory rate offsets the loss in value since the accident. The costs of the criminal proceedings cannot be charged to the Fund, which was not a party to them.","k":"Guarantee Fund — property-damage threshold and interest","law":"RD 16.12.1981, art. 19 §2; Act of 9.7.1975, arts. 49–50","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-09-23","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILUX:1993:JUG.19930923.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsque le tribunal correctionnel n'a pas précisé laquelle ou lesquelles parmi les infractions retenues a (ont) occasionné l'accident, l'application de peines distinctes du chef d'infractions au code de roulage et…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Where the criminal court did not specify which offence caused the accident, separate penalties for traffic offences and for intoxication do not prevent a finding of causation between the loss and the intoxication. An average level of 1.96 g/l shows an objective aggravation of the risk; while a driver may sometimes be unaware that he is aggravating the risk, the way the accident unfolded and the driver's late perception of a serious traffic difficulty can amount to gross fault justifying the insurer's recourse against the insured. The case note states that the court relied on how the accident unfolded.","k":"Motor liability — 1.96 g/l alcohol, gross fault and recourse","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16; Act of 1.7.1956, art. 9(1); Act of 3.7.1978","w":276,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Luxembourg","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-09-17","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1993:ARR.19930917.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"1. Les clauses d'un contrat d'assurance visant des situations concrètes entraînant la déchéance de la garantie doivent être interprétées de façon restrictive, constituant des exceptions à celle-ci : elles ne peuvent dès…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The dispute concerned a theft claim: keys left in a letterbox and a vehicle recovered after the contractual deadline. The court held that clauses listing concrete situations that lead to forfeiture of cover are exceptions to be read narrowly and do not extend to similar situations not expressly covered. An insured who claims cover on the exact terms of the contract neither breaches the good-faith rule of article 1134(3) of the Civil Code nor abuses his rights.","k":"Theft insurance — narrow reading of forfeiture clauses","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1134(3)","w":264,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-09-07","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1993:ARR.19930907.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Il résulte de l'examen des pièces, notamment de la lettre avenant d'adaptation de la garantie principale à la suite de l'A.R. du 5 juillet 1985 portant règlement des activités d'assurance sur la vie, que la volonté…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The documents, in particular the rider adjusting the main cover after the RD of 5 July 1985, show that the parties never intended the supplementary accident (ACRA) capital always to equal twice the main cover. By announcing the increase in death/life capital and stating that supplementary benefits were unchanged, the insurer created no appearance for which it must answer, so the higher ACRA claim failed.","k":"Life insurance — scope of the supplementary accident cover (ACRA)","law":"RD 5.7.1985 (life insurance business), art. 31","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-06-29","rol":"83/1635;83/2198","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1993:ARR.19930629.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Le principe de l'exécution de bonne foi des conventions ne peut être invoqué à l'encontre du droit de l'assureur de suspendre la garantie, conformément au contrat, avec effet rétroactif, lorsque, après un sinistre,…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"After a loss, the insured was given formal notice to pay the overdue premium within fourteen days, stating that otherwise cover would be suspended under the policy conditions. The court held that the principle of good-faith performance of contracts cannot be relied on against the insurer's contractual right to suspend cover retroactively; the suspension was upheld.","k":"Unpaid premium — suspension of cover after a loss","law":"Good-faith performance of contracts; Cass. 22.4.1993 and 28.4.1993 (cited in the note)","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-06-29","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1993:ARR.19930629.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"L'intervention de l'assureur du prévenu dans l'instance pénale ne peut avoir de caractère agressif à l'égard de l'assuré car l'assureur n'a pas qualité pour débattre de l'application d'une peine unique ou de peines…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The defendant's insurer intervenes in criminal proceedings only to protect its position: it cannot act aggressively towards its insured and has no standing to argue for a single or separate sentences. Its intervention does not put the defendant's faults before the criminal court with a view to later recourse. Having regard to article 6(1) ECHR, the court held the criminal judgment not binding on the insurer to that extent. The outcome of the recourse claim is not stated.","k":"Motor liability — insurer's intervention in criminal proceedings and res judicata","law":"ECHR art. 6(1); Act of 13.5.1955","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-06-18","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1993:ARR.19930618.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsque la réclamation se limite à la réparation du dommage matériel, le Fonds de garantie n'est pas amené à accorder son intervention lorsque le véhicule en cause est uniquement identifié par la plaque…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that where the claim is limited to property damage, the Guarantee Fund does not intervene if the vehicle concerned is identified only by the (trade) plate attached to it, which had been reported stolen. The claim against the Fund was dismissed.","k":"Guarantee Fund — vehicle identified only by a stolen plate","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 49–50; RD of 16.12.1981, art. 19","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-06-17","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1993:ARR.19930617.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Le juge répressif est incompétent pour connaître d'une demande de la partie intervenant volontairement dirigée contre son assuré.","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the criminal court lacks jurisdiction to hear a claim brought by a motor liability insurer, which voluntarily intervened in the proceedings, against its own insured. The issue is purely procedural; the summary says nothing about the merits of the insurer's claim.","k":"Motor liability — intervening insurer's claim against its insured in criminal court","law":"Voluntary intervention of the insurer in criminal proceedings","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-06-04","rol":"8097-8156","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1993:ARR.19930604.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Lorsque, sur la base des articles 24 et 25.6 du contrat-type en matière d'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs, l'assureur introduit contre l'assuré une action en…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The motor liability insurer sought, under articles 24 and 25.6 of the model policy, reimbursement of what it had paid the victim from the driver at fault and the keeper of the vehicle. The Antwerp Court of Appeal held the claim against the keeper time-barred under the five-year period running from the offence in article 26 of the Act of 17 April 1878. The Court held that the limitation period for the insurer's recourse based on those model-policy articles is governed by article 32 of the Act of 11 June 1874, not by article 26 of the preliminary title of the Code of Criminal Procedure; the insurer's ground was upheld. The published text is abridged and does not include the operative part.","k":"Motor liability — limitation period for the insurer's recourse against its insured","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 32; Act of 17.4.1878, art. 26; model policy, art. 24 and 25.6","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1993-06-01","rol":"6392","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1993:ARR.19930601.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'employeur qui a payé la rémunération garantie à un travailleur victime d'une incapacité de travail résultant d'un accident autre qu'un accident de travail ou survenu sur le chemin du travail, ne peut en obtenir le…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The employer of a worker injured in an accident caused by an uninsured vehicle had paid him 36,976 francs in guaranteed wages and social contributions, which it claimed from the Guarantee Fund; the Ghent Court of Appeal accepted that the employer had stepped into the victim's shoes by paying. The Court held that article 52 §4 of the Act of 3 July 1978 gives the employer only a direct action against the liable third parties, which cannot be extended to the Fund when no insurer is liable, and that the employer, not being an injured party within the Act of 9 July 1975, cannot claim against the Fund as if it were the victim. On the Fund's appeal, the judgment was quashed.","k":"Guarantee Fund — employer's claim for guaranteed wages","law":"Act of 3.7.1978, art. 52 §4; Act of 9.7.1975, art. 49–50","w":276,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1993-05-28","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1993:ARR.19930528.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Il appartient à l'assureur qui invoque la faute grave de son assuré, auquel il reproche un taux d'alcoolémie de 2,101 gr. dans le sang d'établir que ce taux élevé est la cause ou l'une des causes de l'accident.","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"An insurer relying on its insured's gross fault, a blood alcohol level of 2.101 g, must prove that this high level was the cause or one of the causes of the accident. The burden of proof lies on the insurer; the concrete outcome of the recourse claim is not stated in the summary.","k":"Motor liability — gross-fault recourse, alcohol and causation","law":"No legal basis given in the summary","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-05-24","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1993:ARR.19930524.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Il n'incombe pas à l'assureur R.C. de la voiture confiée à l'exploitant d'un garage d'assumer les risques d'exploitation de ce garage : la qualité d'assureur autorise la compagnie à se prévaloir de la faute commise par…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The motor liability insurer of a car left with a garage operator does not have to bear the garage's business risks. As insurer, it may rely on the garage owner's fault where, without that fault, the covered loss would not have occurred as it did. The dispute concerns the insurer's recourse against a third party rather than the insurer-insured relationship.","k":"Motor liability — vehicle left with a garage, recourse","law":"No statutory basis cited in the summary (insurer's recourse)","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-05-19","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1993:ARR.19930519.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La notion de 'conducteur occasionnel' doit être prise dans son sens usuel, à savoir comme étant une conduite irrégulière ou se produisant par hasard. Il s'agit d'une question de pur fait. Application de l'article 7 de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that 'occasional driver' bears its ordinary meaning, i.e. irregular or chance driving, which is purely a question of fact. Article 4 of the model policy extends cover, and a distinction must be drawn between the 'vehicle involved' and an 'assimilated vehicle'. A passenger whose own vehicle is driven by an occasional driver with no relationship of subordination is a third party under the policy covering the responsible driver's personal vehicle; injured parties have their own right to compensation from that driver's insurer.","k":"Motor liability — occasional driver, passenger as third party","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 6 and 11; model policy, art. 4 and 7","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-05-18","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1993:ARR.19930518.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"La clause d'un contrat d'assurance-tempête en vertu de laquelle la garantie n'est pas acquise pour les dommages causés aux constructions dont la couverture extérieure est composée pour plus de 20 % de sa superficie en…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A storm-insurance clause excluding damage to buildings whose outer roofing is more than 20% light materials, and to glass or plastic roofs of verandas, conservatories and courtyards, was held sufficiently clear and precise and not to upset the balance of the parties' obligations; the objection that it was ambiguous and unbalanced was rejected. The insurer has no duty to verify the risk; the policyholder must inform it fairly of the extent of the risk.","k":"Storm insurance — exclusion for light-material roofing","law":"No legal basis given in the summary","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-05-17","rol":"9017531","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1993:ARR.19930517.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"En vertu du principe selon lequel la victime doit recevoir la même rémunération que celle qu'elle percevait avant l'accident, il y a lieu de condamner l'assureur-loi à payer la différence entre la rémunération perdue et…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"Applying the principle that the victim must receive the same pay as before the accident, the court ordered the workplace-accident insurer to pay the difference between lost pay and the health-insurance benefits or guaranteed salary received; the victim cannot combine those benefits with full pay. The insurer also owes the difference between unemployment benefit and total temporary incapacity benefit. However, no temporary incapacity benefit is due for the company's annual holiday closure.","k":"Workplace accident — pay difference and annual holidays","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 23; Cass. 7.5.1990","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-05-13","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1993:ARR.19930513.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Pour être couvert par le contrat d'assurance, il faut qu'il existe une relation causale entre le dommage et quelque usage dans la circulation du véhicule assuré, soit par la place qu'il y occupe, soit par son état ou…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, to be covered, the loss must be causally linked to some use of the insured vehicle in traffic, through its position, its condition or a manoeuvre. That is not the case for damage caused by wrongly connecting the insured car's battery to another vehicle's battery: the breakdown was merely the occasion, not the cause, of the loss. The damage fell outside the motor liability cover.","k":"Motor liability — jump-start and use in traffic","law":"Act of 1.7.1956","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-05-07","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1993:ARR.19930507.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court set out four principles: special conditions prevail over general conditions only if they conflict, which is not the case where both can apply together; the policyholder must spontaneously give the insurer an accurate picture of the risk, and the insurer has no duty to have it inspected; a broker is an independent intermediary and in principle not the insurer's agent; prolonged inaction harms a right-holder only if it amounts to waiver or the exercise of the right becomes abusive. The outcome is not stated.","k":"Storm insurance — policy conditions, disclosure, broker","law":"No legal basis given in the summary","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-05-06","rol":"9541","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1993:ARR.19930506.16","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Les règles énoncées par les articles 3 et 4 de la loi relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs, constituent depuis le 1er juillet 1976 des règles juridiques…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Liège Court of Appeal had upheld in principle the claim against the motor liability insurer because it could not be established which of two brothers was driving. The Court noted that articles 3 and 4 of the Act of 1 July 1956 have been rules common to the Benelux countries since 1 July 1976 and that their interpretation was needed to decide the case; it stayed proceedings and asked the Benelux Court of Justice whether the driver is among the 'persons carried in any capacity'; if not, whether the insurer must prove that the claiming passenger was the driver; and, where the driver cannot be identified, whether all occupants must be treated as carried persons.","k":"Motor liability — Benelux preliminary reference on 'carried persons'","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 3(2) and 4(1); Treaty on the Benelux Court of Justice, art. 1 and 6","w":276,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1993-05-05","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAWVL:1993:JUG.19930505.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Als een verzekeraar aan een benadeelde een vergoedingskwitantie verzendt, met het verzoek dat stuk gedateerd en voor akkoord ondertekend terug te zenden, doet de verzekeraar een vergoedingsaanbod dat, na aanvaarding…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an insurer which sends the injured party a settlement receipt, asking for it to be returned dated and signed \"for agreement\", makes an offer of compensation; once the injured party accepts, an agreement binding on both parties is formed. The summary does not say which party this rule favoured in the case.","k":"Settlement receipt — insurer's offer and binding agreement","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1134","w":276,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg West-Vlaanderen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-04-28","rol":"423","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1993:ARR.19930428.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Méconnaît la force obligatoire du contrat-type d'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs, le juge qui décide que la résiliation de pareil contrat par l'assureur, prévue à…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Sitting on appeal, the Namur criminal court had ordered the motor liability insurer, jointly with the defendant, to pay 179,343 francs to the injured party, holding that the termination and suspension for non-payment of premium could not be relied on against third parties because the formal notice did not clearly mention 'the right to suspend cover'. The Court held that article 12 of the model policy requires only a registered letter granting fourteen days, after which cover is suspended automatically; the judgment added a duty not in the contract and disregarded its binding force. On the insurer's appeal, the decisions on the claims against the insurer and the Guarantee Fund were quashed; the defendant's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — suspension for non-payment of premium, content of the formal notice","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 6, 11, 13; model policy, art. 12; former Civil Code, art. 1134; Cass. 29.1.1992","w":277,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1993-04-22","rol":"9629","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1993:ARR.19930422.17","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Art. 20, 9°, Hypotheekwet kent aan het slachtoffer van het ongeval dat door de schuld van de verzekerde is veroorzaakt het recht toe om van de verzekeraar op het bedrag dat deze aan de verzekerde verschuldigd is, de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Under an operational liability policy, the premium due on 1 January 1981 was unpaid and the accident happened that same morning; article 16 of the contract provided for automatic suspension, retroactive to the due date, fourteen days after a registered letter, and the insurer sent formal notices on 15 and 22 March 1981. The Liège Court of Appeal allowed the victim to exercise the statutory lien under article 20, 9° of the Mortgage Act, holding that suspension started only fourteen days after the notice. The Court held that the lien operates only within the limits of the policy conditions and that the judgment disregarded the contract's binding force; on the insurer's appeal, the ruling that the suspension defence was unenforceable against the victim was quashed.","k":"Liability insurance — retroactive suspension for non-payment and the victim's statutory lien","law":"Mortgage Act of 16.12.1851, art. 20, 9°; Act of 24.5.1937; former Civil Code, art. 1134, 1165","w":278,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1993-03-29","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1993:ARR.19930329.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"La matérialité du fait de vol n'implique pas dans le chef de l'assuré le droit d'être indemnisé du dommage vanté sans qu'il soit démontré l'étendue de son dommage et l'obligation dans le chef de l'assureur d'indemniser…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The mere fact that a theft occurred does not entitle the insured to compensation without proof of the extent of the loss. The insured's gross fault entitles the insurer to refuse payment for the theft of items left unattended and without particular precautions, whose value was disproportionate to that of the insured property.","k":"Theft insurance — proof of loss and gross fault","law":"No statutory basis cited in the summary (burden of proof, gross fault)","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-03-22","rol":"9219539","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1993:ARR.19930322.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"DE LEGE LATA, n'est pas un accident du travail l'accident survenu dans l'entreprise après que l'employeur a notifié verbalement à la victime la rupture immédiate de son contrat de travail. En ce qui concerne le congé…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, under the law as it stands, an accident on the premises after the employer orally notified the worker of immediate dismissal is not a workplace accident. Summary dismissal requires no formality and takes effect instantly on notification: the employer loses its authority and the worker is merely a third party on the premises. The court found the outcome regrettable and suggested that the legislature extend cover until the worker returns home.","k":"Workplace accident — accident after summary oral dismissal","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 7; Cass. 11.5.1981","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-03-16","rol":"6023","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1993:ARR.19930316.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"De op het Gemeenschappelijk Motorwaarborgfonds rustende verplichting tot het vergoeden van de stoffelijke schade in de gevallen vermeld in art. 17, alinéa 2, K.B. van 16 december 1981 houdende inwerkingstelling en…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Mechelen criminal court had ordered the Guarantee Fund to compensate the material loss of the owner of a vehicle whose faultless driver was exonerated by a fortuitous event. The Court of Cassation held that the Fund's duty to compensate such material loss does not lapse because an unidentified vehicle also contributed to the accident. The Fund's appeal was dismissed; it withdrew its appeal as regards the driver's claim.","k":"Guarantee Fund — fortuitous event and unidentified vehicle","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50; RD 16.12.1981, art. 17(2) and 19","w":276,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1993-03-12","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIHAI:1993:JUG.19930312.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La circonstance que l'assuré disposait d'une carte verte provisoire n'interdit pas à l'assureur de démontrer qu'il y a eu suspension de la garantie, ce qu'il fait en l'espèce. Il y a donc lieu d'accueillir l'action…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the insured's possession of a provisional green card does not prevent the insurer from proving that cover had been suspended, which the insurer did in this case. The insurer's recourse action against the insured was therefore allowed.","k":"Motor liability — provisional green card and suspended cover","law":"Act of 1.7.1956","w":276,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-03-08","rol":"8237","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1993:ARR.19930308.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The general conditions of the model contract do not allow the insurer to exercise recourse merely by showing the insured's gross fault, without regard to the causal link between that fault and the loss; general liability principles require proof of that link. Where the criminal court imposed separate penalties for drunkenness and for unintentional injury, attributing the latter to another traffic offence, res judicata prevents the civil court from finding that the intoxication contributed to the loss, so the recourse failed for lack of causation.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for gross fault and causation","law":"General conditions of the motor model contract; res judicata of the criminal judgment","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-03-08","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1993:ARR.19930308.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"La comparution de la victime @ une expertise médicale mise en mouvement par l'assureur-loi dans le cadre de la procédure mue par celui-ci contre l'assureur du responsable de l'accident n'interrompt pas la prescription…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The victim's attendance at a medical expert examination initiated by the workplace-accident insurer, in its own proceedings against the liable party's insurer, does not interrupt the limitation period for the victim's claim against that insurer. The court held that such participation does not amount to negotiations, so the claimed interruption was not accepted.","k":"Interruption of limitation — taking part in an expert examination","law":"Interruption of limitation; no article cited in the summary","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-03-03","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1993:JUG.19930303.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'assureur du véhicule tractant ne doit pas couvrir un sinistre causé par la remorque lorsque celle-ci fait l'objet d'une assurance spécifique.","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the insurer of the towing vehicle need not cover a loss caused by the trailer where the trailer has its own specific insurance; the loss falls under the trailer insurer's cover. The dispute concerned which of two insurers bore the cover.","k":"Motor liability — loss caused by a trailer","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":276,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-02-26","rol":"10953","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1993:ARR.19930226.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Pour que l'assureur loi puisse être tenu de respecter les obligations que lui impose l'article 63 de la loi du 10 avril 1971, il faut qu'il y ait eu déclaration d'un accident du travail par l'employeur conformément aux…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the workplace-accident insurer's duty to notify the health-insurance fund (art. 63) presupposes a report of a workplace accident by the employer (art. 62). Only an accident of 11.1.1985 (a minor elbow bruise) had been reported; nothing suggested a second workplace accident on 21.1.1985, the long incapacity stemming from an accident in private life. The insurer's payment for 21–27.1.1985 was a mistake caused by confusion; no duty to notify arose for that event.","k":"Workplace accident — employer's report as a condition of the art. 63 duty","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 62 and 63 §4","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-02-23","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAWVL:1993:JUG.19930223.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Wanneer de eigenaar van een auto, bij een vergeefse poging om de diefstal ervan door een onbekende te beletten, gewond is door het wegrijdend voertuig, is zijn Z.I.V.-verzekeraar met een beroep op zijn recht gerechtigd…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the health-insurance fund of an owner who was injured by his own car as an unknown thief drove off, while trying to prevent the theft, may claim from the Guarantee Fund, relying on its right, the benefits it paid to the victim. The health-insurance fund's claim against the Guarantee Fund was upheld.","k":"Guarantee Fund — owner injured by stolen car, health-insurance fund's claim","law":"Royal Decree of 16.5.1981, arts. 16 and 17 §1; Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50 §1; Act of 9.8.1963, art. 76quater; former Civil Code, arts. 1382–1383","w":264,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg West-Vlaanderen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-02-23","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1993:ARR.19930223.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Wanneer de strafrechter, met betrekking tot een door een autobestuurder veroorzaakt ongeval, uitspraak moet doen over het oorzakelijk verband tussen het alcoholmisdrijf van die bestuurder en de door hem aan een derde…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"When the criminal court rules on the causal link between the driver's alcohol offence and the injuries caused to a third party, the insurer intervening in the criminal case is legally unable to take part in that debate. Under Article 6(1) ECHR, the insurer must be able, in its recourse action against the insured before the civil court, to rebut the absence of causation found by the criminal court. The outcome of the recourse is not stated.","k":"Motor liability — recourse and challenging the criminal finding","law":"ECHR, art. 6(1) (Act of 13.5.1955)","w":276,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-02-17","rol":"91/18346","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1993:ARR.19930217.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Il y a lieu de rechercher si la loi du 1er août 1985, la présente action concernant la détermination de la consolidation, constitue une loi nouvelle de procédure la rendant immédiatement applicable. L'article 91 de…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The dispute concerned the workplace-accident insurer's decision of recovery without permanent incapacity and the date of consolidation. The court held that articles 90, 91 and 111 of the Act of 1.8.1985 (notification rules and the three-year period to sue) are substantive, not procedural, and therefore not immediately applicable as procedural law; reliance on art. 53 of the Judicial Code was rejected. The summary does not clearly say which party benefited.","k":"Workplace accident — three-year period against a recovery decision","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24 and 72; Act of 1.8.1985, art. 91 and 111; Judicial Code, art. 53","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-02-15","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1993:ARR.19930215.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Possède la qualité d'assuré, la personne qui a un intérêt à la conservation de la chose assurée notamment à raison de la responsabilité à laquelle elle se trouve engagée relativement à cette chose sans être partie au…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A person who has an interest in preserving the insured property, in particular because of their liability in respect of it, is an insured even without being party to the damage policy; an employee driving a company car is therefore an insured. A driver who drinks beer on an empty stomach all day must be aware of the risk of no longer being fit to drive, which the court assessed as gross fault. The summary does not state the concrete outcome between the parties.","k":"Motor damage insurance — status of insured and gross fault (alcohol)","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, arts. 16 and 22","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-01-21","rol":"9507","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1993:ARR.19930121.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"La constitution de partie civile devant une juridiction pénale ne peut être assimilée à une citation en justice qui, aux termes de l'article 2246 du Code civil, interromprait la prescription. || A l'inverse de l'action…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The Liège Court of Appeal had held the injured party's direct action against the motor insurer time-barred, denying any interrupting effect to the insurer's acknowledgment in its submissions before the criminal court. The Court of Cassation held that the direct action does not arise from the offence and that interruption of its limitation period is governed by article 10 of the 1956 Act and articles 2242 ff. of the Civil Code. Joining criminal proceedings as civil party is, however, not equivalent to a summons and does not interrupt limitation once the criminal action is time-barred. The judgment was quashed on the injured party's appeal, except on that point.","k":"Motor liability — interrupting limitation of the direct action","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 6 and 10; former Civil Code, art. 2242–2248","w":264,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1993-01-07","rol":"9118131","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1993:ARR.19930107.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Le délai de 30 jours imparti à l'assureur-loi ne peut prendre cours qu'à partir du moment où l'assureur-loi est informé de l'identité de l'organisme assureur de la victime, sans préjudice d'un cas de force majeure; in…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court accepted that the 30-day period granted to a workplace-accident insurer refusing cover runs only from when it learns which health-insurance fund the victim belongs to, subject to force majeure. In this case, the lack of information was due to the insurer's own negligence, so it could not rely on that rule.","k":"Workplace accident — notice period and the insurer's negligence","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-01-05","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1993:ARR.19930105.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Les objets des contrats d'assurances souscrits respectivement par le propriétaire et le locataire d'un même immeuble sont liés à la qualité de ceux-ci et ne se confondent pas. Le fait que certains risques couverts par…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Fire policies taken out by the owner and by the tenant of the same building have objects tied to their respective capacities and do not merge. That some covered risks look identical does not give the policies the same object: each party may claim performance from its own insurer, without affecting the recourse of the landlord, or of its subrogated insurer, against the tenant.","k":"Fire insurance — landlord's and tenant's policies are distinct","law":"No statutory basis cited in the summary (tenant's liability, subrogation)","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1993-01-04","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1993:ARR.19930104.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"En vertu de l'article 10 de la loi du 1er juillet 1956 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs, l'action de la personne lésée contre l'assureur se prescrit par…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The injured party's direct action against the insurer is time-barred three years after the event causing the loss (art. 10 of the Act of 1 July 1956). The court accepted that the maxim \"contra non valentem agere non currit praescriptio\" survives: limitation does not run against a person absolutely unable to act for reasons beyond their control, for as long as that lasts. That was so for victims who, through invincible ignorance of the accident's circumstances, could not bring the article 6 action.","k":"Motor liability — suspension of limitation for the direct action","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, arts. 6 and 10","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-12-17","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1992:ARR.19921217.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Le principe de l'unité d'assurance tel qu'il résulte de l'article 49 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 signifie que lorsqu'un employeur a décidé de contracter une assurance contre les accidents du travail pour une catégorie…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court explained that the single-insurer principle in article 49 requires all workers of the same legal category to be insured with the same insurer, without limiting cover to certain tasks. It does not require all categories to be insured with one insurer, nor does it extend cover taken out for one category to others. The accident of a manual worker whose employer was insured only for salaried staff must be borne by the Workplace Accidents Fund, not by the workplace-accident insurer.","k":"Workplace-accident insurance — single-insurer principle and the Fund","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 49, 60; RD of 21.12.1971, art. 59","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-12-16","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1992:ARR.19921216.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"De burgerlijke partij (arbeidsongevallenverzekeraar) treedt in de plaats van het slachtoffer in wiens hoofde hij een kapitaal vestigde, in casu 5.141.328 F op 1 november 1987. De indeplaatsstelling op 1 november 1987…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer, as civil party, is subrogated to the rights of the victim for whom it constituted a capital of BEF 5,141,328 on 1 November 1987. Since the subrogated insurer's claim has the same nature as the victim's, and the victim could not have claimed interest on future loss arising after the judgment (from 3 September 1992), the court held that the first judge wrongly awarded compensatory interest from the date the capital was constituted.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's subrogated recourse — interest","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":264,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-12-15","rol":"6758","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1992:ARR.19921215.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"De la circonstance que le propriétaire avait contracté pour le véhicule volé une assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile, ne saurait se déduire que le voleur qui met ce véhicule en circulation sur la voie…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Ghent Court of Appeal had acquitted a thief who drove a stolen car of the offence of uninsured driving, because the owner held valid motor insurance. The Court of Cassation noted that the thief's liability is excluded from cover and that the owner's insurance does not mean the thief did not commit the offence. The acquittal was quashed on the public prosecutor's appeal.","k":"Uninsured driving — thief driving a stolen car","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 18; Act of 21.11.1989, art. 2 and 22","w":276,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1992-12-14","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PINAM:1992:ARR.19921214.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La carte verte délivrée pour une durée de trois mois par le producteur de l'assurance constitue un titre de couverture engageant l'assureur à l'égard du candidat assuré. La couverture provisoire constitue un contrat…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a green card issued for three months by the insurance intermediary is a certificate of cover binding the insurer towards the prospective insured. Provisional cover is an autonomous contract, not a precarious document the parties may walk away from at will: its expiry date is binding unless the insurer proves the insured allowed early termination without complying with the law. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Motor liability — time-limited green card as provisional cover","law":"Act of 1.7.1956 (motor liability), arts. 11 and 13","w":276,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Namur","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-12-04","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1992:ARR.19921204.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La résiliation de la police d'assurance couvrant la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs n'est opposable aux victimes que si elle résulte d'un jugement ou d'un accord entre assureur et souscripteur…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Cancellation of a motor liability policy can be raised against victims only if it results from a court judgment or an agreement between the insurer and the policyholder. The summary does not state how this principle was applied in the case or in whose favour.","k":"Motor liability — enforceability of cancellation against victims","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, arts. 1, 2 §1, 18 §1 and §3; RD 1.12.1975, art. 8.3 §2; Act of 16.3.1968, art. 29","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-12-04","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1992:ARR.19921204.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'assureur est tenu d'indemniser le dommage subi par le préjudicié. Il est indifférent de savoir si le camion impliqué dans l'accident était conduit par l'assuré lui-même ou par un préposé de celui-ci, dès lors qu'il…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the insurer must compensate the injured party's loss. It makes no difference whether the lorry was driven by the insured or by an employee, since it was not alleged that the owner had refused the employee permission to use the lorry over the weekend of the accident.","k":"Motor liability — lorry driven by an employee, cover","law":"RD 1.12.1975 (Highway Code), arts. 8.3, 10.1, 16.5, 61.1; former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-12-04","rol":"88/107","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1992:ARR.19921204.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Le droit de la victime d'un accident du travail, titulaire d'une rente, à l'allocation de péréquation visée à l'article 6 de l'arrêté royal du 21 décembre 1971, prévoyant certains avantages complémentaires pour les…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A pension-receiving workplace-accident victim's right to the indexation allowance under article 6 of the RD of 21 December 1971 arises when the statutory conditions are met, not when documents reach the Occupational Accidents Fund. The workplace-accident insurer's duty to inform the Fund also covers mere agreements. An insurer that sends the information late, so that the victim definitively loses time-barred allowances, is at fault and must compensate a loss equal to those allowances.","k":"Workplace accident — insurer's late notice to the Fund","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 58; RD 21.12.1971, art. 6","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-12-01","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1992:ARR.19921201.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Ne constitue pas un abus de droit le recours de l'assureur à l'égard d'un conducteur âgé de 17 ans et 5 mois tel que prévu par la police type : la référence à une norme pénale impérative insère dans le champ contractuel…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the insurer's recourse, provided for in the model policy, against a driver aged 17 years and 5 months was not an abuse of rights: the reference to a mandatory criminal rule introduces into the contract an objective criterion unrelated to fault for the accident. As that reference is only a condition of application, not the basis of the recourse, the presumed-liability rules of article 1384 of the Civil Code (for those civilly liable) do not apply.","k":"Motor liability — recourse against an underage driver, abuse of rights","law":"Model contract, arts. 25.6 and 27; former Civil Code, art. 1384","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-11-30","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1992:ARR.19921130.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"De verzekerde die een voorafgaand gelijksoortig schadegeval opgeeft waarbij hij zich van maatschappij vergist begaat geen enkele verzwijging. De breuk van het zijraampje, behoorlijk aangetoond, bewijst de werkelijkheid…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"An insured who disclosed a similar earlier loss but named the wrong insurer did not commit any concealment. The duly established breakage of a side window proved the reality of the break-in. Leaving the luggage visible rather than in the boot was not gross fault, since it did not fit in the boot, the boot was reachable from inside and visibility could not be avoided in any event.","k":"Luggage theft insurance — no concealment, no gross fault","law":"No statutory basis cited in the summary (concealment, gross fault)","w":264,"c":"Hof van beroep van Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-11-25","rol":"77","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1992:ARR.19921125.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Les conditions auxquelles l'assureur de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs peut être mis en cause par la partie lésée ou par l'assuré, lorsque l'action civile en réparation du dommage est…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Charleroi criminal court had declared inadmissible a request to join the motor insurer as a forced intervener while the civil claim was pending before the criminal court. The Court of Cassation held that such joinder is subject to the conditions under which the insurer could have been joined before a civil court, in particular that no decision already reached jeopardises its rights of defence. The appeals of the appellants, one of them an insurance company, were dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — joining the insurer in criminal proceedings","law":"Act of 21.11.1989, art. 14 §2; Act of 1.7.1956, art. 9; Judicial Code, art. 812","w":276,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1992-11-20","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1992:ARR.19921120.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Les exceptions dérivant du contrat d'assurance, visées à l'article 11 de la loi du 1er juillet 1956, qui ne peuvent être opposées par l'assureur à la personne lésée sont celles que l'assureur peut fonder sur un contrat…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The contractual defences that the insurer cannot raise against the injured party under article 11 of the Act of 1 July 1956 are those by which it seeks, on the basis of an existing contract, to escape its obligations towards the insured. Defences concerning the very existence of the contract, its scope and the cover of the risk are not affected. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Motor liability — defences not enforceable against the injured party","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, arts. 11 and 50 §1","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-11-17","rol":"894165","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1992:ARR.19921117.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Whether premises are business or private is assessed, for the occupier's liability insurance, by reference to the occupier's activity rather than that of the injured visitor; cover applies without the accident having to occur during an act specific to the insured's profession. Although article 20, 9° of the Mortgage Act does not as such give a direct action, the victim may sue both the insured and the insurer so that the latter pays the judgment within the policy limits, even if the summons did not cite that provision from the outset.","k":"Business liability insurance — business premises and the victim's claim","law":"Mortgage Act of 16.12.1851, art. 20, 9°","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-11-17","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1992:ARR.19921117.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Lorsqu'un contrat d'assurance stipule que la couverture 'vol' est également acquise pour les dommages causés au véhicule par le fait d'un vol ou d'une tentative de vol et non à l'occasion de ces délits, ne sont pas…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The policy covered damage to the vehicle caused \"by\" theft or attempted theft, not damage occurring \"on the occasion of\" those offences. The court held that pure vandalism damage was not covered, even if committed during a theft.","k":"Theft cover — vandalism damage","law":"Theft cover clause; no article stated in the summary","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-11-17","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1992:ARR.19921117.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"L'assureur ne peut décliner sa garantie au motif que le contrat d'assurance se trouvait suspendu au moment du sinistre que s'il a donné à son assuré une information claire et loyale quant au régime de suspension auquel…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"An insurer may refuse cover on the ground that the contract was suspended at the time of the loss only if it informed the insured clearly and fairly of the suspension regime. The formal notice must point out that the suspension is retroactive and state when it takes effect; otherwise the information is too vague. Such unfair conduct causes the insured a loss, being deprived of cover, which may be repaired in kind by maintaining the cover. The concrete outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Motor liability — suspension of cover and duty to inform","law":"Good-faith performance of contracts; no article given in the summary","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-11-13","rol":"7742","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1992:ARR.19921113.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsqu'un accident n'a pas été causé par un véhicule dont le conducteur est exonéré en raison d'un cas fortuit, mais par la chute d'un arbre, le Fonds commun de garantie automobile n'est pas tenu d'indemniser la…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A driver claimed from the Guarantee Fund the material damage to his car after hitting a tree blown down by a storm that he could not avoid. The Court of Cassation held that a fortuitous event is not enough: the accident must have been caused by a vehicle whose driver is exonerated by that event. As the accident was caused by the tree and not by a driver, the Brussels Court of Appeal rightly dismissed the claim; the driver's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Guarantee Fund — accident caused by a fallen tree","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50(1), 2°; RD 16.12.1981, art. 17 and 19","w":276,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1992-11-09","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1992:ARR.19921109.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"L'action récursoire suppose, comme toute autre action en responsabilité contractuelle, une faute de l'assuré. Une action récursoire ne peut être fondée contre les parents d'un assuré mineur sur la seule base de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that recourse, like any contractual liability claim, requires fault by the insured; it cannot be brought against the parents of a minor insured solely under article 1384(2) of the Civil Code, which belongs to tort liability. An insurer ordered jointly to compensate the civil parties pays its own debt; it cannot invoke subrogation, which operates in the insured's rights, not those of the injured parties, and exists only in property insurance. The recourse against the parents failed.","k":"Motor liability — recourse against a minor insured's parents","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1384(2)","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-11-06","rol":"390/87","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1992:ARR.19921106.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Le suicide involontaire est l'acte accompli par un être privé de sa raison et dont la volonté est complètement obnubilée par une impulsion irraisonnée et irrésistible, qui l'amène fatalement et nécessairement au…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The policy excluded voluntary suicide. The court defined involuntary suicide as the act of a person deprived of reason whose will is overwhelmed by an irrational, irresistible impulse, and held that this may be proved by presumptions. It was sufficient that, for an insured whose will was undermined by depression, setbacks had plausibly triggered such an impulse; doubt as to whether the suicide was voluntary benefits the beneficiary.","k":"Life insurance — involuntary suicide","law":"Policy exclusion (voluntary suicide); no article stated in the summary","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-10-27","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1992:ARR.19921027.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"L'entrepreneur qui a conclu avec une société de crédit un contrat de location-financement concernant un camion utilisé à son activité professionnelle, n'a pas qualité pour agir directement contre l'assureur RC Auto…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A contractor who leased a work lorry from a finance company under a leasing agreement has no standing to sue the lorry's motor liability insurer directly, since the policy was taken out by the finance company. Any delay by the insurer in settling the claim can only be raised under a contract to which the contractor was not a party; only the finance company can invoke the insurer's contractual liability.","k":"Motor liability — standing of a lessee to sue the insurer","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1165 (privity of contract)","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-10-27","rol":"5356","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1992:ARR.19921027.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En subordonnant l'intervention volontaire ou forcée de l'assureur devant le juge pénal à la condition que celui-ci soit saisi de l'action civile en réparation du dommage causé par un véhicule automoteur, intentée contre…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The motor insurer had intervened in the criminal proceedings to establish that the accident resulted from the driver's alcohol intoxication and drug use, so as to keep open a later recourse against him. The Court of Cassation held that article 9 of the 1956 Act confines the criminal court's jurisdiction to protecting the injured party and the insured: the insurer may not rely there on its insured's gross fault with a view to recourse. Moreover, if intoxication did not cause the accident, a passenger's imprudence in riding with a drunk driver has no causal link with the loss. The insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — limits on insurer intervention in criminal proceedings","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 9; former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":276,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1992-10-26","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1992:ARR.19921026.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Lorsque la garantie de la police d'assurance R.C. vie privée est étendue aux dommages causés à un tiers à l'occasion du sauvetage bénévole de l'assuré ou de ses biens, il suffit d'examiner s'il y a bien, dans le cas…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The private liability policy extended cover to harm suffered by a third party while voluntarily rescuing the insured. The court treated a companion who stayed with the insured after a high-mountain accident as a volunteer rescuer; the extension being a stipulation for a third party, the rescuer could sue the insurer directly, and the insured (agency of necessity) and the insurer were held jointly liable in full. A properly prepared high-mountain expedition was not a reckless act under the policy, nor an acceptance of risk, nor gross fault the insurer could rely on.","k":"Private liability insurance — loss of a volunteer rescuer","law":"Royal Decree of 12.1.1984, art. 7; Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16; former Civil Code, arts. 1121, 1372, 1375","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-10-20","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1992:ARR.19921020.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"La qualité du courtier d'assurance implique que l'intermédiaire soit particulièrement diligent, ce qui n'entraîne, en principe, qu'une obligation de moyen, mais qui peut être aussi de résultat notamment lorsqu'il lui…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court found the broker at fault for failing to pass on effectively to the insurer the request to increase the fire-insurance cover for household contents, and for not following it up within a reasonable three to four weeks; on learning the insurer had received nothing, he should have sought provisional cover. He was held liable for the insured's loss. A broker's duty, normally one of means, may be one of result when asked to improve the client's cover promptly; the insured, who relied on a professional, was not at fault for not chasing him.","k":"Broker's liability — cover increase not passed on","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-10-16","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1992:ARR.19921016.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The summary consists only of keywords: the insurer's recourse against an insured separately convicted for drunkenness, the insurer's lack of equality of arms before the criminal court, and a fresh review of causation by the civil court. Article 6(1) ECHR is cited. The outcome is not apparent from the summary.","k":"Motor liability — recourse and effect of the criminal judgment","law":"ECHR, art. 6(1) (Act of 13.5.1955)","w":276,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-10-13","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1992:ARR.19921013.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'intervention du FONDS COMMUN DE GARANTIE AUTOMOBILE n'a qu'un caractère complémentaire et la personne lésée ne peut s'adresser à ce fonds que pour un dommage non couvert par application de la législation sur les…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that the Guarantee Fund's intervention is only subsidiary. The injured party may claim from the Fund only for loss not covered under workplace-accident legislation or by property or liability insurance. The summary does not state the concrete outcome of the claim.","k":"Guarantee Fund — subsidiary nature of its intervention","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-10-13","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1992:ARR.19921013.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Ne constitue pas la conséquence d'une réticence ou d'une fausse déclaration dans le chef de l'employeur, la circonstance que l'assureur-loi est amené à indemniser un travailleur de celui-ci, victime d'un accident du…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer argued that having to compensate an injured employee on a higher basic wage than declared resulted from the employer's non-disclosure or misrepresentation. The court rejected this: it was not shown that the declared pay and hours were inaccurate, and compensation based on a higher hypothetical wage was, in this case, required by law.","k":"Workplace-accident insurance — alleged misrepresentation by the employer","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 34–36","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-10-12","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1992:JUG.19921012.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Le remboursement anticipé d'un prêt dont les conditions imposaient à l'emprunteur de souscrire un contrat d'assurance-incendie garantissant les bâtiments hypothéqués pendant toute la durée du prêt auprès d'une compagnie…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The mortgage terms required the borrower to insure the mortgaged buildings against fire, for the whole loan term, with an insurer linked to the lender. The court found that obligation valid and held that early repayment of the loan neither ends the insurance contract automatically nor entitles the borrower to terminate it before its contractual term.","k":"Fire insurance — early loan repayment and termination","law":"RD of 12.3.1976, art. 21","w":264,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-10-06","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1992:ARR.19921006.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"L'émeute est un tumulte séditieux dans la rue : elle ne peut être confondue avec un état d'hostilité ouvert et permanent de la part d'un front national de libération qui est organisé militairement avec le soutien de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A riot is a seditious disturbance in the street and cannot be equated with an open and permanent state of hostility by a militarily organised national liberation front with foreign support. As article 19 of the Act of 11 June 1874 is silent on the burden of proof, the contract governs; failing that, the insured proves the loss (here, the loss of the aircraft) and the insurer relying on an exclusion proves its factual conditions. The summary does not state the outcome.","k":"War and riot exclusion — definition and burden of proof","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 19; Judicial Code, art. 870; former Civil Code, art. 1315(2)","w":264,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-09-21","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1992:ARR.19920921.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"I. La loi belge est applicable au litige mû en Belgique par la victime belge d'un accident survenu en France, conjoint du conducteur responsable et passagère du véhicule immatriculé en Belgique, seul impliqué dans…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"For the claim by a Belgian passenger, the liable driver's spouse, injured in France in an accident involving only the Belgian-registered car, Belgian law governed both liability and the direct action (arts. 4(a) and 9 of the 1971 Hague Convention). The policy excluded a spouse living under the driver's roof and supported by him. As the accident happened returning from a honeymoon begun on the wedding day, and the victim had her own professional income, the insurer failed to prove the exclusion.","k":"Motor liability — accident abroad, spouse exclusion","law":"Hague Convention of 4.5.1971, arts. 4(a) and 9(1); Act of 10.2.1975","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-09-14","rol":"9392","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1992:ARR.19920914.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"En cas de cumul prohibé d'assurances semblables successives, l'antériorité d'une assurance se détermine par la date à laquelle elle a été contractée. ( Loi du 11 juin 1874, art. 12. )","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The liability of the pupil who caused the loss was covered both by the family liability policy taken out by his parents in 1973 and by the school's policy concluded in 1962; the school's insurer, which had paid BEF 163,000 to the victim, sought reimbursement from the other insurer. The Court of Cassation held that where two policies cover the same risk, priority is determined by the date the contract was concluded, not by the date the person became an insured. The Brussels Court of Appeal's judgment against the family insurer was quashed.","k":"Liability insurance — priority between overlapping policies","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 12","w":279,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1992-09-11","rol":"10415","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1992:ARR.19920911.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Le texte de l'article 63, alinéa 2, al. 4 qui prévoit l'obligation pour l'assureur-loi d'avertir l'organisme assureur dans les trois jours qui suivent celui où intervient une modification du pourcentage d'incapacité est…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that art. 63, requiring the workplace-accident insurer to notify the health-insurance fund within three days of a change in the incapacity rate, is clear: the period runs from the day the change occurs, not from the day the insurer learns of it. The appeal in cassation was dismissed on 3.10.1994. The summary does not state the financial outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — deadline for notifying the fund of a change in incapacity rate","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63 §2 para. 4; Cass. 3.10.1994","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-09-08","rol":"5184","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1992:ARR.19920908.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le détenteur d'un véhicule automoteur est celui qui exerce lui-même ou par l'intermédiaire d'un tiers le pouvoir de fait sur ce véhicule : l'exercice de ce pouvoir par l'intermédiaire d'un tiers ne suppose pas…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured, sued for damages before the criminal court, had joined his motor insurer. The Court of Cassation held that the insured may join the insurer in criminal proceedings only to have the judgment declared binding on it, not to claim indemnity; moreover, a direct summons of the insurer without the policyholder is not inadmissible of the court's own motion if the insurer does not object and argues the merits. Both the insurer's appeal against the admissibility of the joinder and the insured's appeal against the dismissal of his indemnity claim were dismissed; the Antwerp Court of Appeal's judgment stands.","k":"Motor liability — insured joining the insurer in criminal proceedings","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 9(4) and (6)","w":276,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1992-09-07","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1992:ARR.19920907.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Il n'existe en la matière aucune indication permettant de déterminer avec certitude la manière dont le tambour de frein s'est retrouvé sur la chaussée. D'une part, il est acquis que le conducteur du véhicule à l'origine…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Nothing made it possible to establish with certainty how a brake drum ended up on the road. The court found that the driver of the vehicle involved was cleared because of a fortuitous event, but that it had not been sufficiently proven that this event, and hence the accident, was caused by another motor vehicle. The summary does not state expressly what became of the claim against the Fund.","k":"Guarantee Fund — fortuitous event, unidentified vehicle","law":"RD 16.12.1981, art. 19; Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50 §1","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-09-04","rol":"1253","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:1992:ARR.19920904.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"1. De verzekeraar inzake arbeidsongevallen bezit þn de hoedanigheid þn een belang om de verzekeraar van de verantwoordelijke derde in gedwongen toekomst te dagvaarden ten einde de uit te spreken beslissing, binnen de…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer has standing and an interest to join the liable third party's insurer so that the decision is declared binding on it under article 47 of the Act of 10 April 1971. As that application is purely protective, the court may not decide disputes the parties could argue in later proceedings. Since the Act of 7 July 1978 abolished the victim's right to choose, general-law compensation cannot cover the bodily harm covered by the Act; a contrary assessment by the civil court does not bind the labour court. The application was held well founded.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer — judgment declared binding on the liable insurer","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 46 §2 and 47; Act of 7.7.1978, art. 4","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-09-04","rol":"7847","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1992:ARR.19920904.18","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Ne satisfait pas aux conditions prescrites par la loi et les règlements belges pour pouvoir conduire un véhicule automoteur, au sens de l'article 25.6° de la police-type, la personne qui n'a pas le droit ou qui a été…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer sought recourse against the policyholder under article 25, 6° of the model policy, relying on the driver's final conviction for a traffic-rule offence (art. 8.3). The Antwerp Court of Appeal had read that clause as covering only persons who have no right to drive or have been deprived of it. The Court of Cassation found that reading compatible with the policy wording and dismissed the insurer's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — recourse: driver not meeting legal requirements","law":"Model policy, art. 24 and 25, 6°","w":276,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1992-06-29","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1992:ARR.19920629.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"La clause d'un contrat d'assurance-vie qui énonce qu'en cas de non-paiement d'une prime,\"...il y aura réduction du contrat et le calcul de la valeur de réduction s'opérera en se plaçant à la fin de la période…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the clause providing for reduction of the policy if a premium is unpaid operates automatically, with no act of the insurer beyond the registered letter it mentions. Since the contract required payment of arrears to restore full cover, the policyholder's unilateral intention to pay was not enough to restore it. For payment by cheque or transfer, the relevant time is when the creditor's account is credited, not when the cheque is written or the transfer ordered.","k":"Life insurance — unpaid premium, reduction and reinstatement","law":"Policy reduction clause; no article stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-06-29","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1992:ARR.19920629.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"La remise en vigueur du contrat ne dépend pas de la seule manifestation de volonté du preneur à savoir vouloir payer la prime. La date du paiement est celle à laquelle le créancier est effectivement crédité des fonds.","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that reinstatement of the policy does not depend merely on the policyholder's stated intention to pay the premium. The date of payment is when the creditor's account is actually credited. Here the premium arrears were paid after the insured event occurred; according to the summary's keywords, that payment did not reinstate the policy for the event.","k":"Life insurance — reinstatement by payment after the insured event","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-06-25","rol":"9370","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1992:ARR.19920625.16","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Pour que, dans l'hypothèse d'un cas fortuit, le Fonds commun de garantie automobile soit tenu à réparation conformément à l'article 50, alinéa 1er, 2°, de la loi du 9 juillet 1975 relative au contrôle des entreprises…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A driver claimed from the Guarantee Fund the material damage to her own car in a collision caused by an unidentified third party, and the Liège court of first instance had ordered the Fund to pay. The Court of Cassation held that the Fund compensates material damage only where no insurer is liable precisely because of the fortuitous event; here, the lack of compensation stemmed from the fact that the person who caused the accident was not identified. The judgment was quashed on the Fund's appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund — unidentified driver and material damage","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50(1), 2°; RD 16.12.1981, art. 19","w":276,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1992-06-19","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1992:ARR.19920619.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"S'il n'incombe pas au souscripteur d'une police assurant le risque d'un décès prématuré de dénoncer en cours de contrat la maladie qui va entraîner ce décès à plus ou moins brève échéance (cancer, sida, maladies…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"According to the court, the holder of a policy covering premature death need not disclose during the contract an illness that will cause death (cancer, AIDS, heart disease, etc.). By contrast, the holder of a policy covering accidental death must perform the contract loyally by enabling the insurer to assess correctly the specific risk it bears. The concrete outcome is not expressly stated in the summary.","k":"Accidental death insurance — disclosure during the contract","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, arts 9 and 31","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-06-19","rol":"P971524N","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1992:ARR.19920619.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Een motorvoertuig waarvan door een technische aanpassing het prestatievermogen is opgedreven, beantwoordt niet meer aan het begrip \" bromfiets \" in de zin van art. 2.16 van het Wegverkeersreglement, maar valt onder de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A vehicle whose performance has been raised by a technical modification no longer qualifies as a moped under article 2.16 of the Highway Code but falls within the motorcycle category (art. 2.17). As it no longer matches the moped described in the policy, its civil liability ceased to be covered by valid insurance from the time of the modification. Although the insurer cannot raise this against the injured party, as between insurer and insured there is no valid insurance under the Act of 1 July 1956; the keywords indicate a criminal case for driving uninsured.","k":"Tuned moped — no valid insurance","law":"RD of 1.12.1975 (Highway Code), arts. 2.16 and 2.17; Act of 1.7.1956","w":276,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-06-18","rol":"9349","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1992:ARR.19920618.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Le terme \"assureur\" figurant à l'article 1er, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 11 juin 1874 sur les assurances ne peut viser qu'une personne qui fait profession de conclure des contrats d'assurance. || Est irrecevable, en…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"A non-profit association and the insurer that had intervened argued that a collective sickness-and-invalidity agreement with a member was void under article 9 of the 1874 Act, because the member had concealed a serious illness at conclusion. The Court of Cassation held that the notion of 'insurer' implies taking on and pooling a body of risks and covers only those who conclude insurance contracts professionally; since the agreement was not an insurance contract, nullity for misrepresentation could not be invoked. The association's appeal was dismissed and the insurer's was inadmissible for lack of grounds; the agreement must take full effect for the member.","k":"Concept of insurance contract — professional insurer requirement","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 1 and 9; Judicial Code, art. 1080","w":279,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1992-06-17","rol":"922260","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1992:ARR.19920617.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'article 63 de la loi du 10.4.1971, en sa version applicable au cas d'espèce, c'est-à-dire avant la modification apportée par les dispositions de l'A.R. n° 530 du 31.3.1987, entré en vigueur le 1.1.1988, dispose en son…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Article 63 of the 1971 Act, as applicable before 1.1.1988, requires a workplace-accident insurer refusing cover to notify the Fund and the health-insurance fund within two weeks, and the latter within three days of any change in the incapacity rate. The insurer's letter was sent to the Fund, not to the respondent, and merely denied a workplace accident. Agreeing with the first-instance court, the court applied the article 63 sanction to the appellant insurer.","k":"Workplace accident — refusal of cover not notified to the health-insurance fund","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63; Cass. 4.1.1982; Cass. 27.2.1984","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-06-15","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1992:ARR.19920615.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'exclusion prévue à l'article 7.1 de la police type doit s'interpréter restrictivement. En outre, en matière de contrat d'adhésion, une clause équivoque s'interprète contre le professionnel qui a proposé le contrat au…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the exclusion in art. 7.1 of the standard policy must be read narrowly and that, in a standard-form contract, an ambiguous clause is construed against the professional who drafted it. Had the insurer wished to exclude a regular borrower of the insured vehicle, it could have drafted a clause to that effect; the borrower was therefore not excluded.","k":"Motor liability — narrow reading of an exclusion (regular borrower)","law":"Standard policy, art. 7.1","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-06-10","rol":"9714","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1992:ARR.19920610.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le juge qui fait application des articles 3, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 1er juillet 1956 et 3, alinéa 1er, des dispositions communes annexées à la Convention Benelux relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Charleroi criminal court had held that the hirer of a car, who had entrusted it to a third party driving at the time of the accident, was not its keeper and so was not excluded from motor-liability compensation. The Court of Cassation recalled, following the Benelux Court of Justice, that the keeper is whoever exercises actual control over the vehicle personally or through another, and that hiring as a rule transfers that control to the hirer. Entrusting the car to someone else is not enough on its own; the judgments on the hirer's claim were quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Motor liability — hirer as keeper excluded from compensation","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 3 and 4; Benelux Common Provisions, art. 3 and 4","w":276,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1992-06-09","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1992:ARR.19920609.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"L'assuré qui, au reçu d'une proposition d'avenant entraînant diminution des garanties offertes par l'assurance, effectue le paiement des primes sur la base de cet avenant, est présumé y avoir tacitement acquiescé. Le…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"An insured who receives a proposed amendment reducing cover and pays premiums on the basis of that amendment is presumed to have tacitly accepted it. According to the court, a general condition requiring any change to be made by amendment does not alter this, especially where it is not stated that the insured must sign it. The argument that silence is not acceptance was rejected, since acceptance followed from knowing and voluntary performance.","k":"Policy amendment — tacit acceptance by paying the premium","law":"No provision cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-06-09","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1992:ARR.19920609.16","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"S'il incombe au candidat assuré de déclarer spontanément les sinistres antérieurs sans que l'assureur ne doive poser des questions ou procéder à une vérification du risque, encore appartient-il à l'assureur qui soulève…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court accepted that a prospective policyholder must disclose prior claims spontaneously, without the insurer having to ask questions or check the risk. Nevertheless, an insurer relying on nullity for misrepresentation must prove that the omission was capable of influencing its assessment of the risk. The summary does not say whether that proof was provided in the case.","k":"Misrepresentation — prior claims and burden of proof","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-06-05","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1992:ARR.19920605.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"En matière d'assurance-vol, s'il est légitime d'assouplir la charge de la preuve qui incombe à l'assuré, on ne peut poser en principe que le seul fait de la déclaration de sinistre, éventuellement conforté par le dépôt…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"In theft insurance the insured's burden of proof may be eased, but a loss notification, even backed by a police complaint, does not create a presumption that the theft is plausible or shift the burden to the insurer. Plausibility is assessed on the facts. A two-hour gap between discovering the theft of a costly, conspicuous van and filing the complaint, an initially wrong registration number, and the van being found near an airport with no sign of forced entry led the court to dismiss the insured's claim.","k":"Theft insurance — proof of theft","law":"No provision cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-06-04","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1992:ARR.19920604.16","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"La garantie due par l'assureur, limitée à 2.000.000 F., ne peut produire intérêt qu'à partir de la fixation définitive des indemnités. Lorsque l'assureur n'a ni abusé de son droit de diriger la procédure, ni fait…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the insurer's cover, capped at 2,000,000 francs, can bear interest only from the date on which the compensation is definitively fixed. An insurer that neither abused its right to conduct the proceedings nor systematically delayed them was not shown to have failed to perform its obligations in good faith.","k":"Liability insurance — cover limit and interest","law":"No provision cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-06-01","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1992:ARR.19920601.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the motorist's insurer's agreement to compensate the pedestrian bound neither the court nor the insured, as no document showed that the insured had accepted it. On the merits, the pedestrian who began a risky crossing despite an approaching vehicle travelling at moderate speed, so close that he could not believe he had time to cross safely, was held entirely liable for the accident.","k":"Motor liability — insurer's offer to pay, pedestrian's fault","law":"Royal Decree of 1.12.1975 (Highway Code), art. 42.4.4°","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-05-26","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1992:ARR.19920526.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Lorsque, lors de l'acceptation d'une proposition d'assurance, une partie, compte tenu des circonstances concrètes, ne savait pas et ne devait pas savoir que l'auteur de la proposition n'agissait pas en tant qu'assureur,…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"In an insurance contract offered by a cooperative, the party who, when accepting, did not and need not have known in the circumstances that the offeror was acting as an intermediary rather than as insurer, and whose policy gave narrower cover than described, may according to the court legitimately assume that the other party acted as insurer. That party may claim payment matching the description of the policy it was given.","k":"Intermediary mistaken for insurer — legitimate reliance","law":"Protection of legitimate reliance; no provision cited","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-05-13","rol":"92/19706","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1992:ARR.19920513.20","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"De verzekeraar gesubrogeerd in de rechten van zijn verzekeringnemer wiens burgerrechtelijke aansprakelijkheid hij dekt in het voorgevallen ongeval bevat geen hoedanigheid om een rechtsvordering in te stellen tegen de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"An insurer subrogated to the rights of the policyholder whose civil liability it covers for the accident has no standing to sue the own-damage insurer of the same registered vehicle. The latter insures the same policyholder for the same accident and vehicle and is likewise subrogated to the policyholder's rights, so it is not a third party within article 22 of the Insurance Act.","k":"Liability insurer's claim against own-damage insurer","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 22","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-05-13","rol":"92/19706","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1992:ARR.19920513.21","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Wanneer de verzekeraar als partij niet betrokken was in het strafrechtelijk geding waarbij de politierechtbank de verzekerde tot 2 afzonderlijke straffen heeft veroordeeld, nl. een straf voor het niet verlenen van…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Where the insurer was not a party to the criminal case in which the police court imposed two separate penalties on the insured, for failing to give way and for intoxication, the criminal judgment does not bind the civil court. The court found that the insured knew or should have known that drinking to the point of visible intoxication, confirmed by a blood test of 1.61 per mille, was a fault aggravating the risk beyond what the contract provided. The recourse was based on articles 24 and 25.9 of the model policy.","k":"Motor liability recourse — 1.61 per mille, effect of criminal judgment","law":"Model policy, arts. 24 and 25.9","w":276,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-05-11","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1992:ARR.19920511.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"La preuve du contrat d'assurance ne peut être rapportée entre parties que par une convention écrite ou par des écrits répondant aux conditions requises par l'article 1347 du code civil pour être considéré comme un…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, between the parties, an insurance contract must be proved in writing or by a beginning of written proof (art. 1347 Civil Code), and termination by mutual agreement under article 1341, unless it can be inferred from the parties' conduct amounting to an out-of-court admission. By taking out a new policy with another insurer covering motor liability and other risks already covered, the insured unequivocally agreed to the amicable termination of the first policy for all its covers.","k":"Insurance contract — proof and tacit termination by agreement","law":"Former Civil Code, arts 1341 and 1347","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-05-08","rol":"9225","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1992:ARR.19920508.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'assureur-loi n'est pas dispensé de prévenir l'organisme assureur de son refus d'intervention pour le seul motif qu'il ignore l'identité de cet organisme (Cass., 14 janvier 1991, UNMS c/ Royale Belge). L'assureur-loi…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a workplace-accident insurer refusing cover is not released from its duty to notify the victim's health-insurance fund merely because it does not know which fund it is; it must take steps to find out. The Juportal summary does not state the concrete outcome of the case.","k":"Workplace accident — unknown health-insurance fund and duty to notify","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63; Cass. 14.1.1991","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-05-06","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1992:ARR.19920506.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Bij gebrek aan nadere bepalingen in het contract, moeten de gebruikte termen en in het bijzonder het woord 'gewelf' worden gelezen in de betekenis die er gebruikelijk in de woordenboeken aan gegeven wordt. De mededeling…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Absent a contractual definition, policy terms, in particular the word 'vault' (gewelf), bear their ordinary dictionary meaning. A notice to the insured after a first loss that the insurer would refuse cover because of the state of the building cannot be relied on at the next loss without proof of that contractual change. Since the origin and cause of the fire were not proved with certainty, the insurer could not deny cover for gross fault.","k":"Fire insurance — risk description and proof of gross fault","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, arts. 16 and 33","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-05-04","rol":"3096/87","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1992:ARR.19920504.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"L'assureur qui invoque la nullité du contrat pour réticence ou fausse déclaration, doit prouver que s'il avait été correctement informé, il n'eût point consenti à l'assurance ou n'y eût consenti qu'à d'autres conditions.","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an insurer invoking nullity of the contract for non-disclosure or misrepresentation must prove that, had it been correctly informed, it would not have agreed to the insurance or would have done so only on other terms. The concrete outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Non-disclosure or misrepresentation — burden of proof","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9; former Civil Code, art. 1315(2)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-04-28","rol":"S950009F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1992:ARR.19920428.17","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"La clause du contrat d'assurances qui prévoit que la demande d'indemnisation est prescrite après un an est une clause par laquelle les parties ont conventionnellement abrégé le délai de prescription prévu par l'article…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A clause providing that a claim is time-barred after one year contractually shortens the period in art. 32 of the Act of 11 June 1874. The court accepted, as the parties did, that the beneficiary's claim made by simple letter interrupted limitation, and that the insurer, by not rejecting the claim at once but starting the contractual procedure to check whether an exclusion applied, suspended it. Absent an express clause, the new period runs for the same length as the shortened one.","k":"Contractual one-year limitation — interruption and suspension","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 32","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-04-28","rol":"15.791","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1992:ARR.19920428.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"For a watchman shot dead on the company premises, the court applied the presumption that an accident occurring during performance of the contract arises from that performance, placing the burden of rebuttal on the insurer. The insurer's theory of a settling of scores, based on press cuttings, did not rebut the presumption, and a workplace accident was found. The criminal investigation did not stay the case, and the widow and child should not suffer from its slowness.","k":"Workplace accident — murder of a night watchman, presumption","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7–9","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-04-27","rol":"9225","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1992:ARR.19920427.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Dans le cadre du mécanisme de la preuve en matière d'accidents du travail et par dérogation au droit commun, la victime ou ses ayants droit doivent établir trois éléments : l'événement soudain, la lésion et sa…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The victim's car left the road and hit a lamp post that fell onto it; the workplace-accident insurer refused to recognise the accident. The court held that the dependants had proved the sudden event, the injury and its occurrence during the performance of the employment contract, and only had to show that the event could have caused the injury. As the insurer did not prove that the alleged illness was the sole explanation or that death had an exclusively internal cause, the art. 9 presumption was not rebutted.","k":"Workplace accident — sudden event and presumption of causation (death)","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 7 and 9","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-04-23","rol":"9236","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1992:ARR.19920423.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"En matière de contrats d'assurance, l'intérêt assurable est l'intérêt de l'assuré à ce que le sinistre ne se réalise pas. ( Loi du 11 juin 1874, art. 4. ). || Si le montant assuré dépasse la valeur de l'objet assuré au…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"The Brussels Court of Appeal had annulled, for lack of insurable interest and unlawful cause, the insurance of a trophy whose agreed value was about 450% of its replacement value. The Court of Cassation held that over-insurance does not in itself prove the absence of insurable interest; where the sum insured exceeds the value at the time of loss, the insurer owes only the actual value, and nullity requires proof of fraud or bad faith. The judgment was quashed on the appeal of the policyholder and the beneficiary, except for its refusal to apply the agreed-value clause.","k":"Property insurance — agreed value and insurable interest","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 4 and 20","w":279,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1992-04-15","rol":"92/19706","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1992:ARR.19920415.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"De bepaling van de akte van overdracht van het handelsfonds volgens welke de cessionaris zich ertoe verplicht het door de cedent gesloten verzekeringscontract voort te zetten, vormt geen derdebeding ten voordele van de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A clause in the deed transferring a business, by which the transferee undertakes to continue the insurance contract concluded by the transferor, is not a stipulation for the benefit of the insurer as a third party. The business liability insurer was therefore not entitled to claim from the transferee the premiums falling due after the transfer.","k":"Transfer of business — premiums claimed from transferee","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-04-09","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1992:ARR.19920409.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"La référence aux gains effectifs de deux compagnons de travail de la victime (serveur qui avait été engagé deux mois et demi avant l'accident et dont les activités professionnelles antérieures sont inconnues), soumis à…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"For a waiter hired two and a half months before the accident, the court preferred the actual earnings of two colleagues on identical hours and pay to the hypothetical, theoretical reconstruction made by the workplace-accident insurer. Adding double holiday pay, the year-end bonus and tips to the colleagues' annual average of 286,952 F, it set the net annual pay, on an equitable basis, at 400,000 F. The final outcome between the parties is not stated.","k":"Fatal accident — determining the victim's income","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382 (loss of income on death)","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-04-09","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1992:ARR.19920409.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Le recours de la mutuelle en récupération des débours consentis en faveur des enfants de son affilié responsable de l'accident, introduit contre l'assureur de responsabilité civile automobile, est fondé, ceux-ci étant…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court upheld the health-insurance fund's recourse claim against the motor liability insurer for reimbursement of the benefits paid for the children of its member who caused the accident. The children were the beneficiaries of those payments and the fund is subrogated to their rights by law.","k":"Health-insurance fund — recourse against the motor liability insurer","law":"Act of 9.8.1963, art. 21, 10° and art. 76quater §2(4)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-04-09","rol":"9315","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1992:ARR.19920409.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Wanneer een clausule van een verzekeringscontract in zoverre onduidelijk is gesteld dat de contracterende partij in dwaling kan worden gebracht, wordt zij, overeenkomstig art. 19, alinéa 2, wet van 9 juli 1975…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer had been ordered to pay its insured BEF 418,477 and BEF 1,000,000 after a crane bucket touched high-voltage cables; article 5.C of the general conditions, excluding professional faults, had been held void for not being worded clearly and precisely. The Court of Cassation upheld the nullity of the clause, but held that the res judicata effect of the employee's criminal conviction did not prevent the civil court from examining whether the insured itself had committed a fault contributing to the loss. The Mons Court of Appeal's judgment, which failed to do so, was partly quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Business liability insurance — unclear exclusion and insured's own fault","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 19 §2; RD 12.3.1976, art. 21; Act of 10.3.1925, art. 27","w":279,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1992-04-08","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1992:ARR.19920408.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Il appartient à l'auteur du dommage et à son assureur de faire les diligences nécessaires pour indemniser la victime et, le cas échéant, de supporter les conséquences d'un retard dans l'expertise du véhicule accidenté…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the person who caused the damage and his insurer must take the steps needed to compensate the victim and bear the consequences of a delay in the vehicle assessment caused not by excessive demands from the victim but by disagreement between the parties' experts. The liable party's insurer must pay the vehicle's immobilisation and storage costs from the accident until the day the correct amount is offered to the victim.","k":"Motor liability — vehicle immobilisation and storage costs","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382 (extent of loss); motor liability","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-04-03","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1992:ARR.19920403.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"La clause contractuelle qui prévoit que l'assuré doit déclarer le sinistre dans les 8 jours de sa survenance, sauf cas de force majeure, sous peine d'encourir la sanction de la déchéance, est valable en elle-même. Son…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a clause requiring the insured to report the loss within eight days, save force majeure, on pain of forfeiture is valid in itself. Its application cannot be set aside on the ground that the insurer has not shown any prejudice from the delay. The published note observes that the LCAT of 25 June 1992 provides milder sanctions: absent intent, only a reduction proportional to the proven prejudice will be allowed.","k":"Private liability — forfeiture for late notice","law":"Contractual eight-day notice clause; no provision cited","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-04-03","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1992:ARR.19920403.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Lorsque l'assuré a gardé le silence relativement à certaines questions figurant sur la proposition d'assurance et que, nonobstant cette lacune évidente, l'assureur s'est abstenu de toute réaction, ce dernier est…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that where the insured left certain questions in the proposal form unanswered and the insurer, despite that obvious gap, did not react at all, the insurer's ignorance of the undisclosed circumstance was inexcusable. It had not made the policy depend on those answers, thereby losing the benefit of article 9 of the Act of 11 June 1874; the disputed motor liability contract must be performed.","k":"Non-disclosure — insurer failing to react to an incomplete proposal","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-03-27","rol":"5722","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1992:ARR.19920327.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'article 4, alinéa 1er, 2, de la loi du 1er juillet 1956 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs permet d'exclure du bénéfice de l'assurance les parents et…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The party subrogated to the rights of the child victim claimed BEF 2,365,241 from the driving father's motor insurer; the policy excluded descendants living with and maintained by the driver. Relying on the Benelux Court of Justice's interpretation, the Court of Cassation held that the 'maintained' condition is met where, at the time of the event, the person's upkeep is in fact borne entirely by the driver. The Ghent Court of Appeal lawfully found that the child, not yet 14, working for a few weeks and not yet paid, was maintained by his father; the appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — exclusion of a cohabiting child maintained by the driver","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 4(1), 2; Benelux Common Provisions, art. 4","w":276,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1992-03-25","rol":"92/19706","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1992:ARR.19920325.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"Aangezien het contract B.A.-privé-leven een uitsluiting van opzettelijk veroorzaakte schade bevat, dient de verzekeraar geen vergoeding te betalen wanneer de verzekerde opzettelijk goederen van derden in brand heeft…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Because the family liability policy excludes intentionally caused damage, the insurer owes nothing where the insured deliberately set fire to third parties' property. The insured's severe mental disorder at the time, depriving him of control over his acts, did not change this, since the indictment chamber had established that the act was intentional.","k":"Family liability — intentional arson exclusion","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-03-18","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PINAM:1992:JUG.19920318.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that recourse is a purely contractual action, not subrogation under article 1251(3) of the Civil Code, and that for intentional or gross fault (art. 25, 9° model contract) it lies only against the insured who caused the loss. The insurer's prolonged silence towards the driver and its choice to recover its payments from his employer amounted to a waiver, so its action was inadmissible. Having first defended its insured and then turned against him at a late stage to claim indemnity, the insurer was also ordered to pay damages for breach of good faith.","k":"Motor liability — waiver of recourse and disloyal conduct","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1251(3); motor model contract, art. 25, 9°","w":276,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Namur","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-03-10","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1992:ARR.19920310.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Le refus de prendre en charge le sinistre au prétexte purement formel de l'absence de déclaration d'assolement indiquant la rotation des parcelles agricoles cultivées par année heurterait tant le principe de l'exécution…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that refusing to pay the loss on the purely formal ground that no crop-rotation declaration listing the yearly rotation of the plots had been filed would breach both the principle of good-faith performance of contracts, which requires the insurer to be reasonable in choosing sanctions, and equity. Cover was granted.","k":"Hail insurance — missing crop-rotation declaration","law":"former Civil Code, arts 1134(3) and 1195","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-03-03","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1992:ARR.19920303.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that where the insured vehicle is driven by a person not meeting the legal and regulatory requirements, the insurer's recourse under article 25, 6° of the model contract is unconditional and requires no causal link between the lack of a driving entitlement and the accident. An insurance contract signed by a minor can be annulled only for prejudice to the minor; since the insurance contract did not harm the minor's interests, annulment was refused.","k":"Motor liability — unconditional recourse (unqualified driver), minor's contract","law":"Motor liability model contract, art. 25, 6°; minor's contract (prejudice)","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-02-24","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1992:ARR.19920224.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Si le terme \"pourparlers\" doit s'interpréter d'une manière large, il doit toutefois impliquer qu'entre la personne lésée et l'assureur se nouent une négociation, une discussion ou des échanges de nature à laisser…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Although 'negotiations' is construed broadly for limitation purposes, it requires negotiation, discussion or exchanges between the injured party and the insurer that suggest the victim might receive some compensation. The court held that this is not the case where the insurer writes that the accident was caused by an unidentified third party and refuses any payment: such correspondence does not amount to negotiations.","k":"Direct action — 'negotiations' and the limitation period","law":"No provision cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-02-24","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1992:ARR.19920224.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"En cas de doute, le contrat d'adhésion s'interprète en faveur de celui qui adhère au contrat; Lorsque la confusion des termes employés par l'assureur laisse subsister une ambiguïté sur le sens que les parties…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that doubt in a standard-form contract is construed in favour of the adhering party and that the insurer, as a professional, had to remove the ambiguity created by its own wording. The insured, covered against theft of valuables including cheques, could legitimately believe that theft of a chequebook with blank cheques was covered. Theft cover also extends to the logical and foreseeable consequences, such as use of the cheques, up to the 7,000-franc ceiling.","k":"Theft insurance — stolen chequebook, construction of the policy","law":"No provision cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-02-18","rol":"86/245","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1992:ARR.19920218.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer refused cover, arguing that the change of vehicle had not been notified; given its agent's sworn testimony and his final acquittal of perjury, notification was held established. The court held that termination or suspension before the accident can be raised against an injured party bringing a direct action only if it results from an agreement with the insured or a court decision, and that the insurer must prove any fraud. The allegation of a tampered moped and nullity for misrepresentation could not be raised against the injured parties.","k":"Motor liability — change of vehicle, defences against injured parties","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-02-13","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1992:JUG.19920213.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'assureur doit avertir spécialement son assuré des conséquences du défaut de paiement de la prime en attirant expressément son attention sur le caractère rétroactif de la suspension de la garantie. A défaut, la…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the insurer must specifically warn the insured of the consequences of non-payment of the premium, expressly drawing attention to the retroactive nature of the suspension of cover. Having failed to do so, the insurer had not applied the suspension clause in good faith, and cover remained in place for the insured.","k":"Unpaid premium — suspension of cover and good faith","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":276,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-02-10","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1992:ARR.19920210.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Lorsque la victime n'a pas subi de perte de revenus - durant son incapacité temporaire de travail - et que son préjudice résulte uniquement du surcroît d'efforts consentis pour exercer sa profession, une évaluation par…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court upheld the motor liability insurer's recourse against its insured, who had intentionally closed his car window on the victim's right hand and driven off, forcing the victim to follow the car until falling after some fifty metres. For a victim with no loss of income during temporary incapacity, whose loss lay in extra effort at work, a flat-rate award was required rather than an income-based calculation; the 5% permanent incapacity without loss of income was assessed ex aequo et bono.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for intentional act and assessment of loss","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-02-07","rol":"7375","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1992:ARR.19920207.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"La demande tendant à la réparation d'un dommage causé par une infraction est soumise au délai de prescription prévu par l'article 26 du titre préliminaire du Code de procédure pénale. || Lorsqu'un parent a payé le…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The father's family liability insurer, as subrogee, claimed from the son the compensation paid for an act qualifying as an offence that the son committed as a minor; the Antwerp Court of Appeal had awarded half, BEF 261,307. The Court of Cassation held that the recourse of a parent who compensated the victim under article 1384 of the Civil Code against the child rests on the child's act and, if that act is an offence, is subject to the limitation period of article 26 of the Act of 17 April 1878; the same applies to the insurer subrogated to the father's rights under article 22 of the 1874 Act. The judgment allowing the late recourse was quashed on the son's appeal.","k":"Subrogation — criminal limitation period for the insurer's recourse","law":"Act of 17.4.1878, art. 26; Act of 11.6.1874, art. 22; former Civil Code, art. 1384","w":279,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1992-02-05","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1992:ARR.19920205.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"L'omission, même de bonne foi, de déclarer une circonstance susceptible de modifier l'appréciation du risque, constitue une réticence au sens de l'article 9 de la loi du 11 juin 1874.","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that failing to disclose, even in good faith, a circumstance capable of altering the assessment of the risk amounts to misrepresentation (réticence) under art. 9 of the Act of 11 June 1874. The published note points out that an unintentional omission will no longer be a ground of nullity under the new Land Insurance Contracts Act (art. 7 LCAT).","k":"Misrepresentation — omission in good faith","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-02-05","rol":"9218","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1992:ARR.19920205.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Ne méconnaît ni la foi due à l'article 33 du contrat-type d'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs, ni la force obligatoire de cette clause, l'arrêt qui assimile à la…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured's car had been wrecked in an accident and the replacement car had been notified to the agent in time; the motor insurer refused cover, relying on article 35 of the model policy (risk ceasing to exist). The Liège criminal court had treated the wrecking as equivalent to a transfer under article 33 and held the new car covered; the Court of Cassation found that reading compatible with the policy and held that the notification duty in article 34 obliges the insurer to cover the new risk at the tariff then applicable. The insurer's appeal, concerning another insurance company's claim of BEF 260,250, was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — replacement vehicle after the insured car is wrecked","law":"Model policy, art. 33–35; Act of 1.7.1956, art. 6 and 11","w":276,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1992-01-31","rol":"7580","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1992:ARR.19920131.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Le droit propre contre l'assureur, créé par l'article 6 de la loi du 1er juillet 1956 au profit de la personne lésée, est subordonné à l'existence d'une assurance au moment de l'accident; mais l'assureur ne peut, tant…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The motor insurer argued against the injured party that the policy had been terminated by mutual agreement, by an addendum dated 20.11.1974 effective 30.10.1974, before the accident of 20.12.1974. The Antwerp Court of Appeal had held that this private deed had no certain date, under article 1328 of the Civil Code, against the non-trader injured party. The Court of Cassation held that the insurer may set up against the injured party only a termination resulting from agreement with the insured or a court decision, but that the date of a deed containing a commercial obligation may be proved by any legal means by the party for whom it is commercial; the judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal insofar as it held the insurer liable to cover.","k":"Motor liability — proving pre-accident termination against the injured party","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 6 and 13; former Civil Code, art. 1328","w":279,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1992-01-30","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1992:ARR.19920130.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Par application de l'article 10 de la loi du 1er juillet 1956 l'action directe dont dispose la victime d'un accident de roulage contre l'assureur du responsable, se prescrit par trois ans à compter du fait générateur du…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that under art. 10 of the Act of 1 July 1956 a road accident victim's direct action against the liable party's insurer is time-barred three years after the event causing the loss, even if that event is a criminal offence and the direct action is brought, as here, before the criminal courts under art. 9 of that Act. The concrete effect on the claim is not expressly stated.","k":"Direct action — three-year limitation before criminal courts","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, arts 9 and 10","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-01-29","rol":"9340","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1992:ARR.19920129.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Les exceptions visées à l'article 11 de la loi relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs, qui ne peuvent être opposées par l'assureur à la personne lésée, sont…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The insured's policy covered a Ford, and the Mazda involved had only provisional cover from 1 to 28 February 1989; the accident occurred on 18.4.1989. The Liège Court of Appeal had held that, under article 11 of the 1956 Act, the insurer could not raise this defence against the injured parties. The Court of Cassation held that the non-opposable defences in article 11 are those the insurer derives from an existing contract to free itself from its duties towards the insured, not those concerning the contract's existence, scope or coverage of the risk. The judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal, and the quashing extended to the decision releasing the Guarantee Fund from the case.","k":"Motor liability — defences available against the injured party","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 2, 3 and 11","w":276,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1992-01-23","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1992:ARR.19920123.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"En déclarant le sinistre près de six mois après sa réalisation l'assuré viole l'obligation de déclaration dans les quinze jours, sauf cas fortuit ou de force majeure. Il ne peut exciper de sa bonne foi dès lors que…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"By reporting the loss almost six months after it occurred, the insured breached the duty to give notice within fifteen days, absent an unforeseeable event or force majeure. The court held that the insured could not rely on good faith, having deliberately kept the insurer out of steps that ran directly against its interests while knowing that liability was being alleged.","k":"Notice of loss — six-month delay and bad faith","law":"No provision cited (contractual fifteen-day notice period)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-01-20","rol":"7116;7623","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1992:ARR.19920120.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"La prescription de l'action directe de la personne lésée contre l'assureur, visée à l'article 6 de la loi du 1er juillet 1956 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"After a 1978 accident, the Belgian Motor Insurers' Bureau (BBAA) claimed from the other liable party's motor insurer half of the sums paid to the workplace-accident insurer; the Ghent Court of Appeal had held the claim time-barred under the 1878 Act. Relying on the Benelux Court of Justice's judgment of 21.12.1990, the Court of Cassation held that the action of the injured party or a subrogated insurer against the liable party's insurer is subject to the three-year period of article 10 of the 1956 Act, even where it arises from an offence by the insured. The judgment was quashed on that point; a new challenge to the workplace-accident insurer's claim of BEF 992,188 (incl. BEF 420,000 permanent disability treated as material loss) was inadmissible, and the appeals were otherwise dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — limitation of a subrogated insurer's direct action","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 6 and 10; Act of 17.4.1878, art. 26; Benelux Court 21.12.1990","w":279,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1992-01-17","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1992:ARR.19920117.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"L'assureur qui invoque la nullité du contrat pour réticence doit prouver l'influence de celle-ci sur l'opinion du risque : pour résoudre cette question de fait, le juge peut notamment avoir égard à l'attitude de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that an insurer invoking nullity for non-disclosure must prove its effect on the assessment of the risk, and the court may consider the insurer's reaction to the insured's failure to answer certain questions in the proposal form. By not reacting at all, the insurer showed that it had not made the issue of the policy or the usual terms depend on those answers; the nullity defence failed.","k":"Non-disclosure — unanswered questions and the insurer's silence","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9; former Civil Code, art. 1315(2)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-01-13","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1992:ARR.19920113.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Le contrat d'assurance se forme et se prouve par un écrit. Lorsque la police précise que le contrat est formé dès signature soit de la police par les parties, soit du formulaire de \"demande d'assurance\" par l'assuré et…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"An insurance contract is formed and proved in writing. Where the policy provides that the contract is formed on signature either of the policy by both parties or of the proposal form by the insured and the policy by the insurer, and the insurer asks for the signed copy to be returned while allowing an exceptionally long period, the court found that it created a doubt which must be construed against it.","k":"Contract formation — written proof and doubt against the insurer","law":"No provision cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-01-13","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1992:ARR.19920113.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En mettant en circulation un véhicule automoteur valablement assuré par le propriétaire-preneur d'assurance, le conducteur adhère aux clauses de la convention d'assurance qui le concernent, aussi bien à celles qui lui…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a driver who uses a vehicle validly insured by the owner-policyholder adheres to the policy clauses concerning him, both those imposing duties and those benefiting him. Under article 25.6 of the model contract, the insurer may claim recourse against persons who do not meet the legal or regulatory requirements to drive: no licence or learner's permit, licence withdrawn, disqualified from driving, or under the minimum age. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Motor liability — recourse against an unlicensed driver","law":"Model contract, art. 25.6; Act of 1.7.1956, art. 11 §2; Act of 16.3.1968, arts. 28 and 30","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-01-13","rol":"9283","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1992:ARR.19920113.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'action de l'article 63 de l'organisme assureur, en récupération des indemnités payées, à charge de l'assureur loi ayant avisé tardivement de son refus d'intervention n'est ni une action en paiement d'indemnité, ni une…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the health-insurance fund's art. 63 claim to recover benefits from a workplace-accident insurer that notified its refusal late is neither a claim for benefits, nor for repayment, nor a subrogation claim: it sanctions the insurer's negligence. The three-year limitation period of art. 69 does not apply; the claim is time-barred only after thirty years. It is irrelevant that the victim informed the fund personally. The appeal in cassation was dismissed on 3.10.1994.","k":"Workplace accident — limitation period for the health-insurance fund's art. 63 claim","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63 and 69; Cass. 14.12.1987; Cass. 3.10.1994","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-01-10","rol":"7585","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1992:ARR.19920110.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Une citation en justice interrompt la prescription pour la demande qu'elle introduit et pour celles qui y sont virtuellement comprises; une demande introduite en payement d'une partie de la dette, exigible en entier,…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The insurer sought reimbursement from its insured of sums paid at various dates to persons injured through the insured's fault; its 1979 writ claimed only a provisional BEF 150,000, later payments being claimed only in 1986 submissions. The Court of Cassation held that the three-year period of article 32 of the 1874 Act runs from each payment made after the insurer's duty to compensate is established, and that the writ does not interrupt limitation for sums not yet paid and therefore not yet due. The Ghent Court of Appeal rightly held the claim time-barred; the insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Insurer's recourse against the insured — start and interruption of limitation","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 32; former Civil Code, art. 2244","w":279,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1992-01-09","rol":"9104","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1992:ARR.19920109.16","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Ne peut être accueillie une fin de non-recevoir opposée à un moyen et déduite de ce que celui-ci est mélangé de fait et de droit, lorsque l'examen du moyen ne requiert pas la vérification d'éléments de fait. ||…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"Struck by a lorry whose driver remained unknown, the driver's car was pushed into a parked vehicle; the Liège Court of Appeal had ordered the Guarantee Fund to compensate the material damage to his own car. The Court of Cassation held that in two successive collisions, the 'driver of the vehicle that caused the (second) accident' is the one who physically struck the third vehicle, and that the Fund is liable only if no insurer is bound precisely because of the fortuitous event. Even had the driver been held liable, no insurer would have had to pay for damage to his own car; the judgment was quashed on the Fund's appeal.","k":"Guarantee Fund — material damage in a chain collision","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50(1), 2°; RD 16.12.1981, art. 19","w":276,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1992-01-08","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1992:ARR.19920108.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La suspension de la garantie prévue contractuellement en cas de non-paiement de la prime rétroagit à la date de l'échéance de la prime. Il est indifférent que l'accident, cause des décaissements dont l'assureur poursuit…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the contractual suspension of cover for non-payment of the premium is retroactive to the premium due date. It does not matter that the accident giving rise to the payments the insurer seeks to recover occurred before the registered letter was sent, provided it occurred after the due date. The summary does not state the concrete outcome of the insurer's claim.","k":"Motor liability — unpaid premium, retroactive suspension","law":"Contractual suspension clause; C. jud. art. 751 (cited in the summary)","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-01-08","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1992:ARR.19920108.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"1. Het feit dat het verzekeringsvoorstel geen vragenlijst bevat, betekent niet dat de verzekeringnemer niet verplicht is de verzekeraar spontaan te informeren over de beoordelingselementen van het risico. 2. Een…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The absence of a questionnaire in the proposal form does not release the policyholder from the duty to inform the insurer spontaneously of factors relevant to assessing the risk. The court held that pending prosecutions against the policyholder for drink-driving or drunkenness are such a factor. It made no difference that the insurer had earlier agreed to another contract when the policyholder already had a conviction on that ground.","k":"Comprehensive motor cover — spontaneous disclosure of pending prosecution","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-01-07","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1992:ARR.19920107.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le vol d'usage consiste en l'utilisation abusive momentanée de la chose d'autrui en sachant que celle-ci a pour objet la chose d'autrui, qu'elle a lieu contre le gré du propriétaire ou légitime possesseur mais qu'elle…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court defined joyriding as the temporary unauthorised use of another's vehicle against the owner's will, followed by its return. The lack of a formal complaint required by the policy did not allow the insurer to refuse cover, as the investigation opened by the authorities on their own initiative had informed it sufficiently. A person who took control of the vehicle by theft is not its keeper within article 3 of the Act of 1 July 1956, so the insurer could not rely on the thief's intoxication.","k":"Motor liability — joyriding and the thief's intoxication","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 3(1)","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1992-01-02","rol":"91/18746","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTHAI:1992:JUG.19920102.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Le médecin de garde attaché à un hôpital se trouve sous l'autorité de son employeur lorsqu'il se tient à la disposition de celui-ci dans un endroit autorisé et d'où il peut rejoindre l'hôpital à bref délai et sur un…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"A hospital's on-call doctor remains under the employer's authority while waiting at an authorised place from which he can quickly reach the hospital when called; an accident between that place and his home is a commuting accident. However, the right to funeral costs is not a benefit tied to the status of beneficiary: the claim of the person who advanced them was extinguished when the liable third party's insurer reimbursed them, so it can no longer be brought against the workplace-accident insurer.","k":"Workplace accident — on-call doctor's commuting accident and funeral costs","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 8","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-12-17","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1991:ARR.19911217.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La faute grave invoquée par l'assureur à l'encontre de son assuré consiste en la faute assimilable à un fait intentionnel dont l'assuré a eu ou a dû avoir conscience qu'elle entraînait une aggravation du risque garanti.…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court defined gross fault as fault akin to an intentional act which the insured knew or should have known aggravated the risk; it may follow from the insured's whole conduct leading to the accident. By riding a 750 cc motorcycle with a blood alcohol level of 2.19 g/l and a passenger he could not provide with a helmet, the insured committed gross fault. As the excessive speed and slow reflexes were due to alcohol, causation was established and the insurer's recourse was upheld.","k":"Motor liability — recourse against a drunk motorcyclist","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-12-12","rol":"9290","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1991:ARR.19911212.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Le pourvoi en cassation est valablement signifié au domicile élu dans l'acte de signification de la décision attaquée. ( Code judiciaire, art. 1079. ) || L'élection de domicile qui est faite dans l'exploit de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A driver using his employer's vehicle brought a recourse action on 1.12.1981 against the motor insurer for the damages he had been ordered to pay the injured party. The Court of Cassation held that 'insured' in article 32(2) of the 1874 Act means, for motor vehicles, the person whose liability is covered under the 1956 Act, including the driver of the insured vehicle, and that for the insured's recourse the three-year period runs from the victim's court claim. As the driver had been ordered to pay provisional damages on 16.1.1975, the period began at the latest on that date and had expired; the Liège Court of Appeal's judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Insured's recourse against the insurer — limitation and meaning of 'insured'","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 32(2); Act of 1.7.1956, art. 1 and 3; Judicial Code, art. 39 and 1079","w":279,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1991-12-10","rol":"87/7144","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1991:ARR.19911210.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"1. De nalatigheid die bestaat in het feit dat geen voorzorgsmaatregelen werden genomen om een werk uit te voeren of dat alleen ontoereikende maatregelen worden genomen, mag niet automatisch beschouwd worden als een…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Negligence in taking no or inadequate precautions is not automatically gross fault under article 16 of the Act of 11 June 1874. Cover may nevertheless be refused where the policy expressly excludes damage that, for a person of normal competence, is a foreseeable consequence of the policyholder's activity or the way it is carried out. The court applied that exclusion to a specialised contractor that had taken only wholly inadequate precautions.","k":"Business liability — exclusion of foreseeable damage","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-12-03","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1991:ARR.19911203.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsqu'un article du contrat d'assurance prévoit un droit de recours de l'assureur si le sinistre survient pendant la participation à une course, à un concours de vitesse, de régularité ou d'adresse non autorisé, cet…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a policy clause giving the insurer a right of recourse where the loss occurs during an unauthorised race or speed, regularity or skill contest has a general scope. It covers any speed contest between vehicles, whether sporting, organised between drivers comparing their cars, or improvised between two drivers trying to outrun each other. The concrete outcome of the recourse is not stated in the summary.","k":"Motor liability — recourse clause for racing","law":"No provision cited in the summary","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-12-02","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIHAI:1991:JUG.19911202.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"L'article 10, alinéa 2, de la loi du 1er juillet 1956 prévoit que la prescription est interrompue à l'égard de l'assureur par tous pourparlers entre l'assureur et la personne lésée et qu'un nouveau délai de trois ans ne…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that under article 10(2) of the Act of 1 July 1956, any negotiations between the insurer and the injured party interrupt the limitation period against the insurer, and a new three-year period runs only once a party ends them by bailiff's writ or registered letter. Negotiations require two-way exchanges suggesting to the injured party that the insurer is considering settling the claim; a unilateral demand, even repeated, does not qualify. The concrete outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Direct action — what counts as negotiations interrupting limitation","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 10(2)","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-11-21","rol":"42691","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTHAI:1991:JUG.19911121.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"1. Les dispositions de la loi sur les accidents du travail sont d'ordre public, de sorte que la prise en charge par l'assureur-loi d'indemnités d'incapacité ne préjuge nécessairement ni de la réalité d'un accident, ni…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the Workplace Accidents Act is a matter of public policy, so the insurer's payment of incapacity benefits does not amount to an admission of the accident's occurrence, nature or consequences. The sanction in article 63 applies only where the workplace-accident insurer failed to notify the health-insurance fund of a change in the rate of an incapacity it was obliged to compensate. The summary does not state the concrete outcome of the fund's claim.","k":"Workplace accident — conditions of the sanction for failing to inform the health fund","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63 §2, para. 4","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-11-20","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1991:ARR.19911120.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Het strafrechtelijk gewijsde is niet tegenstelbaar aan de verzekeraar die noch rechtstreeks noch onrechtstreeks aan het strafproces deelnam. Het is een zware fout in de zin van art. 25.9 van de modelpolis en art. 16 van…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A criminal judgment has no binding effect against an insurer that took no part, directly or indirectly, in the criminal proceedings. The court held that driving after drinking to the point of an alcohol level of at least 2.41 per mille is gross fault within article 25.9 of the model policy and article 16 of the Act of 11 June 1874.","k":"Motor liability recourse — heavy intoxication as gross fault","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16; model policy, art. 25.9","w":276,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-11-18","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1991:ARR.19911118.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"La faculté que s'est réservée l'assureur de demander une autopsie de la victime ne peut lui permettre, lorsqu'il a estimé sans intérêt d'en faire usage alors qu'il en avait le loisir et le temps, d'exciper de l'absence…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"An insurer that reserved the right to request an autopsy, and chose not to use it although it had the time and opportunity, cannot rely on the absence of an autopsy months after the victim's burial to put forward a 'sudden illness' theory unsupported by any objective evidence. The court rejected this defence of the insurer.","k":"Accident insurance — no autopsy and the 'sudden illness' defence","law":"No provision cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-11-18","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1991:ARR.19911118.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'article 4 de la loi du 1er juillet 1956 qui prévoit des possibilités d'exclusion du bénéfice de l'assurance notamment du conducteur, constitue une exception à l'article 3 alinéa 2 qui précise que l'assurance doit…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the exclusions allowed by article 4 of the Act of 1 July 1956, notably of the driver, are an exception to article 3(2), which requires cover for passengers. The insurer must therefore prove that the claimant victim was the driver; it cannot rely on the presumption against the registered keeper, which applies only to traffic offences and not to article 418 of the Criminal Code. The summary does not state how the proof issue was resolved.","k":"Motor liability — burden of proving the driver exclusion","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, arts. 3 and 4; Criminal Code, art. 418","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-11-15","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1991:ARR.19911115.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Dans le cadre de l'ancienne rédaction de l'article 2513 du contrat-type, le recours de l'assureur n'est pas subordonné à l'existence d'une faute qui, commise par l'assuré ou le preneur d'assurance, aurait aggravé le…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, under the former wording of the relevant model-contract clause, the insurer's recourse did not depend on a fault of the insured or policyholder that aggravated the risk. A causal link between the contractual breach and the loss is in principle not a condition of recourse; it becomes one only if the model contract expressly so provides. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Motor liability — fault and causation as conditions of recourse","law":"Model contract, former wording (summary refers to \"art. 2513\")","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-11-15","rol":"89/3060","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1991:JUG.19911115.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Exonération de responsabilité de l'assureur en cas de vol d'usage. La charge de la preuve incombe à celui qui invoque l'exception. Lorsqu'il y a eu acquittement coulé en force de chose jugée de l'infraction de…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that, where the insurer claims exoneration for joyriding theft (vol d'usage), the burden of proof lies on the party invoking the exception. The final acquittal of the vehicle's user on the charge of driving uninsured binds, as res judicata, the insurer of the owner of the duly insured vehicle. The parties' positions and the final outcome are not stated.","k":"Motor liability — joyriding theft and res judicata","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 3","w":276,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-11-07","rol":"84/409;84/562","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:1991:ARR.19911107.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A claim for compensation for an accident suffered by an unemployed person on benefits while performing a vocational-training agreement in a company falls within the labour courts' jurisdiction as a dispute concerning unemployment (Judicial Code, art. 580, 3°). The court held that, having no employment contract with the company, the person has no claim against it nor against the National Employment Office; the right to accident compensation derives directly from the training agreement, against the insurer named in it with its policy number. The accident was not treated as a workplace accident; the concrete outcome of the claim against the insurer is not apparent from the summary.","k":"Unemployed person in vocational training — jurisdiction and direct claim against the insurer","law":"Judicial Code, art. 580, 3°; RD 20.12.1963, art. 169","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-11-07","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1991:ARR.19911107.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Wanneer de bestuurder van een tractor op een bedrijfsterrein de varkensbeerput komt leegpompen, de flexibele darm reeds aan de tractor heeft gehecht en hem reeds in de beerput heeft neergelaten om te pompen, en schade…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A tractor driver emptying a slurry pit on farm premises caused damage while briefly reversing to lower the hose, already connected and placed in the pit. The court held that at that moment he was not taking part in traffic and the tractor was used solely as a work tool. Cover lay with the business liability insurer, not the motor liability insurer.","k":"Tractor used as a work tool — motor or business liability cover","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":276,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-10-31","rol":"9034","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1991:ARR.19911031.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'article 22, alinéa 1er, de la loi du 11 juin 1874 ne soumet la subrogation de l'assureur dans les droits de l'assuré qu'à la seule condition que le dommage ait été payé par l'assureur, qu'il y fût ou non obligé.","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The material-damage insurer had paid its insured BEF 245,315 even though the policy excluded accidents caused by alcohol intoxication, and then sought recourse against the drunk driver to whom the car had been lent. The Liège Court of Appeal had held there was no subrogation because the insurer was not bound to pay. The Court of Cassation held that article 22(1) of the 1874 Act makes payment of the loss by the insurer the only condition for subrogation, whether or not it was obliged to pay; the judgment was quashed on that point on the insurer's appeal.","k":"Subrogation — insurer that paid an uncovered loss","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 22(1)","w":279,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1991-10-30","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1991:ARR.19911030.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsqu'il apparaît qu'un sinistre s'est produit au cours d'une phase de la manoeuvre qu'un camion devait exécuter pour charger, transporter et décharger des déchets dans l'enceinte du chantier et que les déplacements du…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an accident occurring while a lorry was loading, carrying and unloading waste within a building site, its movements and tipper operation being inseparably linked to the site operations, resulted from use unrelated to traffic within article 2 §1 of the Act of 1 July 1956. The risk is not covered by compulsory motor liability insurance; the operations liability insurer must indemnify the insured.","k":"Motor vs. operations liability — use unrelated to traffic","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 2 §1","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-10-30","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1991:ARR.19911030.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Het feit van vijf jaar na de opzegging van een verzekeringsovereenkomst door de verzekeraar verschillende premies te innen met betrekking tot de opgezegde polis kan niet de ter zake vereiste bepaalde, gewichtige en…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer's collection of several premiums under the policy for five years after terminating it does not amount to the serious, precise and consistent presumptions needed to conclude with certainty that it waived the termination. Since an insurance contract must be proved in writing, no new contract was held to have been formed. The termination stood and the contract did not revive.","k":"Terminated policy — premiums collected by mistake","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-10-29","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1991:ARR.19911029.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"L'assureur n'a pas l'obligation d'indemniser lorsqu'une faute grave est la cause du dommage au véhicule assuré. Le juge civil est libre de décider que la faute a été la cause de l'accident même lorsque le conducteur n'a…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that the insurer need not pay when gross fault caused the damage to the insured vehicle. The civil judge may freely find that the fault caused the accident even if the driver was prosecuted only for drink-driving and traffic offences, and not under articles 418 and 420 of the Criminal Code. The summary does not expressly state the outcome of the claim.","k":"Vehicle damage cover — gross fault and causation","law":"Criminal Code, arts. 418 and 420","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-10-18","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1991:ARR.19911018.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La faute grave implique la réunion de deux éléments : - un élément objectif : l'aggravation effective du risque par rapport aux prévisions du contrat; - un élément subjectif : l'assuré a eu ou a dû avoir conscience que…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that gross fault requires an objective element (an actual aggravation of the risk compared with the contract's assumptions) and a subjective element (the insured knew or should have known of it), plus a causal link with the accident. The objective element and causation followed from the military court's finding that intoxication was part of the careless-injury offence. The insured's failure to disclose his drinking the night before and his movements proved the subjective element; the insurer's recourse was upheld.","k":"Motor liability — gross fault through intoxication and recourse","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-10-15","rol":"21781","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1991:ARR.19911015.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Une intervention judiciaire est toujours nécessaire, à défaut d'accord des parties, pour faire disparaître un contrat , quelle que soit la cause de nullité, ce qui implique que le contrat judiciaire soit valablement…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"After the policyholder's death and payment of the capital, the insurer sought repayment from the beneficiary, alleging false statements at inception. The court noted that a contract can only be set aside by a court and that the third-party beneficiary is not a party to the underlying contract, even if it has a direct claim. Because the other contracting party or its successors were not joined, the insurer's action was held inadmissible.","k":"Life insurance — claim for repayment against the beneficiary","law":"Stipulation for a third party; no article stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-10-14","rol":"7453","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1991:ARR.19911014.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'alinéa 1er du paragraphe 2 de l'article 70 de la loi du 9 août 1963 fait partie d'un ensemble et ne peut donc être lu que dans son contexte; cet alinéa ne peut se lire différemment suivant que les termes utilisés :…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Liège Court of Appeal held that article 70 §2 of the Act of 9 August 1963 must be read as a whole: a settlement concluded without the consent of the health-insurance fund cannot be relied on against it and does not count, as regards the fund, as compensation under the \"general law\". The rule is a matter of public policy protecting the fund's recovery of its payments; mere \"notification\" cannot replace its consent. The summary does not identify the opposing party or the concrete outcome.","k":"Health-insurance fund subrogation — settlement without its consent","law":"Act of 9.8.1963, art. 70 §2","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-10-11","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1991:ARR.19911011.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court laid down several principles: the building owner enjoys the privilege of art. 20, 9° of the Mortgage Act over sums owed by the architect's liability insurer, defects counting as an \"accident\"; the insurer may rely on an exclusion even after taking over the defence and paying an advance, since waiver is not presumed; the exclusion for readily foreseeable damage spells out gross fault under art. 16 of the 1874 Act; the insurer covers only its insured's contributory share. The concrete outcome is not stated.","k":"Architect liability insurance — privilege, exclusion and cover limit","law":"Mortgage Act of 16.12.1851, art. 20, 2° and 9°; Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-10-11","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1991:ARR.19911011.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"C'est à tort que l'assuré soutient qu'il appartient à l'assureur d'établir dans son chef les éléments \"subjectif et objectif\" qui caractérisent la faute grave au sens de la loi. Dans le cadre de l'application de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insured argued that the insurer had to prove the 'subjective and objective' elements of gross fault; the court rejected that argument. Under article 25, 6° of the model contract, the contractual fault lies solely in the vehicle being driven, at the time of the accident, by a person who did not meet the Belgian legal or regulatory requirements to drive (licence withdrawn by a public authority); the recourse was allowed.","k":"Motor liability recourse — driver whose licence had been withdrawn","law":"Motor liability model contract, art. 25, 6°","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-10-04","rol":"10081","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1991:ARR.19911004.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Même si, vu son caractère exceptionnel, une clause abréviative de prescription insérée dans un contrat d'assurance doit être interprétée restrictivement et, dans le doute, contre l'assureur qui l'a stipulée, elle est…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a clause in an insurance contract shortening the limitation period, while to be construed narrowly and, in case of doubt, against the insurer, is entirely lawful. It cannot be set aside if it is clear, especially where the insurer did not enter into any negotiations that might have led the insured not to sue. The concrete outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Insurance — validity of a clause shortening the limitation period","law":"Contractual clause shortening limitation; contra proferentem construction","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-10-02","rol":"10081","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1991:ARR.19911002.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En prenant le volant de sa puissante voiture après avoir été le témoin de coups de feu tirés sur un tiers et s'être rendu compte de la gravité de la situation et en embarquant l'auteur desdits coups de feu dans le but…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an insured who, after witnessing shots fired at a third party, took the wheel of his powerful car and drove off with the gunman to flee the scene, in a state of exceptional agitation and, in his own words, panic, must have been aware that he would sooner or later commit a driving error causing an accident. He thereby upset the balance between the parties' obligations and aggravated the risk; gross fault grounding the insurer's recourse was accepted.","k":"Vehicle damage insurance — driving in panic, gross fault","law":"Gross fault and aggravation of risk (vehicle damage policy)","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-10-02","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1991:ARR.19911002.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Wanneer artikel 24, eerste lid van de algemene voorwaarden van de verplichte aansprakelijkheidsverzekering ook van toepassing wordt verklaard op de verzekering Eigen Schade, kan de verzekeraar die geen regresvordering…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Where article 24, first paragraph, of the general conditions of compulsory motor liability insurance is declared applicable to own-damage cover, an insurer that brings no recourse claim but merely defends against the policyholder may rely on the insured's breach to refuse cover. The case involved separate penalties for a traffic offence and for alcohol intoxication. The concrete outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Own-damage cover — clause borrowed from compulsory liability policy","law":"General conditions of compulsory motor liability insurance, art. 24(1) (summary)","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-10-01","rol":"10081","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1991:ARR.19911001.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En matière d'action récursoire mue par l'assureur R.C. auto contre l'assuré en état d'intoxication alcoolique, il échet d'adopter une conception stricte de la faute grave et dès lors d'examiner si cet assuré a commis…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"For a motor liability insurer's recourse against an intoxicated insured, the court adopted a strict view of gross fault, akin to wilful misconduct: it must be established that the insured consciously chose to put himself at risk, even of a suicidal kind. Nothing proved that the driver, at 2.04 g/l and having drunk eight to ten beers up to a quarter of an hour before the accident, deliberately or almost deliberately accepted the risk of causing an accident. The recourse under article 25, 9° of the model contract was not allowed.","k":"Motor liability recourse — 2.04 g/l alcohol and strict view of gross fault","law":"Motor liability model contract, art. 25, 9°","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-10-01","rol":"91/13250","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1991:ARR.19911001.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Eu égard aux circonstances de l'espèce, notamment de temps et de lieu, le fait de laisser sciemment son véhicule ouvert, les clés sur le tableau de bord, constitue une faute grave, exclusive de l'indemnisation par…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Having regard to the circumstances of the case, in particular time and place, the court held that knowingly leaving one's car open with the keys on the dashboard constitutes gross fault, which excludes indemnification by the theft insurer. The insured's claim was rejected.","k":"Theft insurance — car left open with keys on the dashboard, gross fault","law":"Gross-fault exclusion in the theft policy","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-09-26","rol":"9064;9075","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1991:ARR.19910926.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Ne justifie pas légalement sa décision, le juge qui se fonde sur les articles 37 et 38 de la loi du 11 juin 1874 sur les assurances, pour condamner l'assureur du risque \"recours des voisins en cas d'incendie\" à…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The trial court had ordered the insurer of the \"neighbours' recourse in case of fire\" risk, under articles 37 and 38 of the 1874 Insurance Act, to compensate the loss of use of the building. The Court held that this order, concerning a loss that necessarily flows from the damage covered by the policy, was not legally justified on that basis; the decision against the insurer was quashed on that point. The full text is not published.","k":"Fire — neighbours' recourse cover, loss of use","law":"Insurance Act of 11.6.1874, arts. 37–38","w":279,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-09-18","rol":"8877","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1991:ARR.19910918.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Viole l'article 50, alinéa 1er, 2°, de la loi du 9 juillet 1975 relative au contrôle des entreprises d'assurances l'arrêt qui, ayant admis l'existence d'un cas fortuit exonérant le conducteur du véhicule qui a causé…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The accident was caused by the blow-out of the left rear tyre of the driver's car; the Mons Court of Appeal, while accepting a fortuitous event, dismissed the injured parties' claims against the Guarantee Fund because the tyre might have been defective and the insurer covering the custodian of the defective thing might have to pay. The Court of Cassation held that a court that accepts a fortuitous event cannot dismiss such claims on the mere possibility of compensation by another insurer without finding unambiguously that such an insurer is liable. The judgment was quashed, on the injured parties' appeal, as regards the Fund.","k":"Guarantee Fund — tyre blow-out, mere possibility of another insurer","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50(1), 2°; RD 16.12.1981, art. 19","w":276,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1991-09-13","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1991:JUG.19910913.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Un document par lequel les assurés indemnisés par leur assureur s'engagent à agir judiciairement au nom de celui-ci, malgré la subrogation dont bénéficie l'assureur après cette indemnisation est parfaitement valable.…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held valid a document by which insureds who had been indemnified undertook to sue in their insurer's name despite the insurer's subrogation. An insurer relying on a forfeiture clause must act in good faith; it does not do so where it sent the premium reminder to a wrong address while aware that the insured had moved. The summary does not state which insurer invoked forfeiture against whom, nor the final outcome.","k":"Subrogation and good faith in premium reminder","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-09-13","rol":"7050","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1991:ARR.19910913.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsque sur le territoire d'un Etat membre de la CEE un dommage a été causé par un véhicule non identifié ayant son stationnement habituel sur le territoire d'un autre Etat membre de la CEE, le Bureau national de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The injured party claimed compensation from the Belgian motor insurers' bureau for damage caused by a German-registered vehicle that was never identified. Reading articles 2 and 16 of the Act of 1.7.1956 together with the EEC directive of 24.4.1972, the Court held that where the vehicle is not identified, neither the national bureau nor any other insurer must compensate: the bureau system rests on a recourse, which presupposes an identified vehicle. The injured party's appeal was dismissed; the Antwerp Court of Appeal's ruling stands.","k":"Unidentified foreign-registered vehicle — Belgian Bureau","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 2(2) and art. 16; Directive 72/166/EEC, art. 2(2)","w":276,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1991-09-10","rol":"87/7144","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1991:JUG.19910910.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Il y a lieu de faire droit à l'action de l'assureur en répétition de l'indu, dans le cas d'un paiement fait par erreur, à la suite d'une réticence dolosive et en l'absence de toute transaction.","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court granted the insurer's action to recover an indemnity paid by mistake following fraudulent non-disclosure, there being no settlement between the parties.","k":"Fraudulent non-disclosure — recovery of undue payment","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1116, 1235","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-09-10","rol":"2050","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1991:ARR.19910910.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'assureur de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs est tenu de couvrir la responsabilité des parents, propriétaires du véhicule automoteur assuré et preneurs d'assurance et qui sont déclarés…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The parents, owners and policyholders of the car, had been held civilly liable for the accident caused by their minor son, who had stolen the car from them; the motor liability insurer denied cover. Following the Benelux Court of Justice ruling of 21.12.1990, the Court held that the insurer must cover the parents' liability for damage caused by the minor as driver, even though he had taken the car by theft. The insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — parents liable for a minor who stole their car","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 3(1); Benelux Common Provisions, art. 3(1); Benelux Court 21.12.1990 (A 89/3)","w":276,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1991-09-06","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1991:JUG.19910906.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Police d'assurance contre le vol d'un véhicule automobile. Véhicule volé représentant une valeur patrimoniale comportant la TVA, légalement dûe et dont rien n'indique qu'elle n'ait pas été payée à l'achat du véhicule…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The purchase invoice for the stolen vehicle could not be produced. The court held that the vehicle represented an asset value including the VAT legally due, and nothing indicated that the VAT had not been paid on purchase. The insurer was required to indemnify the insured on the VAT-inclusive value.","k":"Vehicle theft insurance — indemnity including VAT","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-09-02","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1991:JUG.19910902.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"L'assurance-vie est une stipulation pour autrui qui crée immédiatement un droit de créance au profit du tiers bénéficiaire à l'encontre du promettant (l'assureur) et qui ne fait jamais partie du patrimoine du stipulant.…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that life insurance is a stipulation for the benefit of a third party, giving the beneficiary an immediate claim against the insurer that never forms part of the policyholder's estate; it amounts to an indirect gift only up to the premiums paid (art. 43(1) of the 1874 Act). Under the second paragraph added by the 1976 matrimonial property Act, premiums paid by one spouse to insure life for the other's benefit are not an indirect gift unless manifestly excessive in light of the insured's means.","k":"Life insurance — premiums paid for a spouse and indirect gift","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 43(1); Act of 14.7.1976","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-06-28","rol":"87/7144","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1991:ARR.19910628.32","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"En déterminant d'une manière nominative les divers bénéficiaires et en fixant la clé de répartition du capital d'une manière claire et mathématique, l'affilié a certainement et indéniablement voulu écarter l'ordre…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"By naming the beneficiaries and setting a clear formula for dividing the capital, the member deliberately departed from the order laid down in the group insurance rules. Where the first wife, named as beneficiary, died before him, the second wife could not automatically take her place, since naming a beneficiary is an act intuitu personae. The court treated the designation as a stipulation for a third party subject to the condition that the beneficiary be alive when the capital falls due, and awarded the predeceased beneficiary's share to the member's estate.","k":"Group life insurance — beneficiary dying before the insured","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1121 (stipulation for a third party); group insurance rules","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-06-27","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1991:ARR.19910627.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Les articles 24 et 27 du contrat d'assurance, autorisant l'assureur à exercer une action récursoire contre l'assuré (recours total si le nombre de personnes transportées dépasse le nombre autorisé par la réglementation…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that contract articles 24 and 27, providing full recourse where the number of passengers exceeds the regulatory limit and proportional recourse where it exceeds the contractual number, do not require the insurer to prove awareness of an aggravated risk or a causal link between the fault and the loss. The policy entry \"persons carried: 5\" includes the driver. The concrete outcome of the recourse is not expressly stated in the summary.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for carrying excess passengers","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16; policy arts 24 and 27","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-06-26","rol":"87/7144","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1991:ARR.19910626.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"1. Lorsqu'un contrat d'assurance collective droit commun se réfère à la notion légale d'accident du travail, il ne suffit pas, pour que la garantie soit acquise, que l'assuré ait été victime d'un infarctus sur les lieux…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Where a common-law group insurance contract refers to the statutory notion of a workplace accident, a heart attack suffered at work is not enough for cover: a sudden event must also be proved. The court found that this proof was not provided, as nothing in the insured's activities showed physical or nervous strain capable of causing the heart attack; cover was not granted.","k":"Group insurance — heart attack at work, sudden event","law":"No provision cited (contractual reference to the statutory workplace-accident notion)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-06-20","rol":"9028","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1991:ARR.19910620.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le Fonds commun de garantie automobile est tenu de réparer les dommages matériels causés par un véhicule automoteur lorsqu'aucune entreprise d'assurance agréée n'est obligée à la dite réparation en raison d'un cas…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court of Appeal found that the accident was caused by the fault of an unidentified driver, yet ordered the Guarantee Fund to pay the property damage because that fault was a fortuitous event for the other driver. The Court held that the fortuitous event must be assessed from the standpoint of the driver of the vehicle that caused the accident. On the Fund's appeal, the judgment was quashed insofar as it ordered the Fund to pay the property damage.","k":"Guarantee Fund — property damage and fortuitous event","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50(1), 2°; RD of 16.12.1981, art. 19(1)","w":276,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1991-06-14","rol":"9040","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1991:JUG.19910614.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Absence de preuve écrite de la demande de changement du bénéficiaire dans l'autre police. Preuve indirecte par notification dans ce sens par le courtier à l'assureur, enregistrement de cette demande et établissement…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"There was no written proof of the request to change the beneficiary in one of two symmetrical life policies. The court accepted as sufficient indirect proof the broker's notice to the insurer, the recording of the request and the drafting of an endorsement, even though it was not signed before death. The insurer owes interest on the capital it did not deposit productively while the competing beneficiaries' dispute was pending.","k":"Life insurance — proof of change of beneficiary","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-06-10","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1991:ARR.19910610.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"La pratique du deltaplane fait partie des vols à voile, soit tout engin sans moteur qui se déplace par la seule utilisation des courants atmosphériques.","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"In a life insurance dispute, the court held that hang-gliding falls within gliding (vol à voile), meaning the use of any engineless craft that moves solely by atmospheric currents. The concrete consequence of this classification for cover is not stated in the summary.","k":"Life insurance — hang-gliding as gliding","law":"No provision cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-06-07","rol":"8237","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTBRL:1991:JUG.19910607.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'assureur-loi ne doit indemniser la victime que de la perte du potentiel économique résultant des séquelles de l'accident. Si à la date de la consolidation, une maladie prive la victime de toute capacité économique,…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that the workplace-accident insurer compensates only the loss of earning potential caused by the after-effects of the accident. If, at the date of consolidation, an illness has deprived the victim of all earning capacity, the after-effects can no longer affect a non-existent capacity to work; that loss was therefore not placed on the insurer.","k":"Workplace accident — illness eliminating all earning capacity","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-06-05","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1991:ARR.19910605.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"L'assureur, en sa qualité de professionnel, est tenu au devoir de prudence, de diligence et de bonne foi. Le fait d'insérer dans une convention une clause impossible engage la responsabilité de l'assureur vis-à-vis de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the insurer, as a professional, owes a duty of care, diligence and good faith. By inserting an impossible clause into the contract, the insurer incurred liability towards the other party.","k":"Company-director policy — impossible clause and insurer liability","law":"Insurer's duty of care and good faith (general law)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-05-23","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1991:ARR.19910523.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"La compagnie d'assurance R.C. automobile qui, ayant examiné le dossier et les circonstances exactes de l'accident, émet des quittances d'indemnité au profit de la victime d'un accident de la circulation, n'est pas…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A motor liability insurer that examined the file and paid the victim by means of indemnity receipts cannot recover the payments as undue after its insured is definitively acquitted. It did not claim that any decisive fact had been concealed from it; by settling, it chose to end the dispute before the criminal trial and accepted the risk of a different assessment of liability. The recovery claim was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — recovering payments after acquittal","law":"Recovery of undue payment; no provision cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-05-23","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1991:ARR.19910523.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Les paiements effectués par un assureur par l'émission de quittances d'indemnité faites sans aucune réserve et valant offre de paiement acceptée par le destinataire desdites quittances, ne peuvent être que l'expression…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Payments made by an insurer through indemnity receipts issued without reservation and accepted by the recipient express its intention to settle definitively with the victims. The court held that these payments had a definite cause and were not undue, even though the insured was later acquitted on the benefit of the doubt or otherwise. The judgment upheld the Brussels Commercial Court decision of 17.3.1989 that an accepted receipt is an agreement binding the insurer.","k":"Motor liability — binding effect of an indemnity receipt","law":"former Civil Code, arts 1235 and 2053","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-05-22","rol":"87/7144","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1991:ARR.19910522.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Wanneer de algemene voorwaarden van een verzekeringsovereenkomst de schade veroorzaakt door het terugvloeien of het niet afvloeien van het water van openbare rioleringen uitsluiten, heeft het geen belang te onderzoeken…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Where the general conditions exclude damage caused by backflow or non-drainage of water from public sewers, there is no need to determine whether the damage came from public sewer backflow or from rainwater in private pipes that could not drain normally because the public sewer was saturated. The exclusion applies in either case.","k":"Water damage insurance — sewer backflow exclusion","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-05-21","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1991:ARR.19910521.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'assureur du véhicule automobiliste piloté par un conducteur qui en perd la maîtrise par suite de force majeure n'est pas demandeur sur exception et ne doit pas prouver le cas fortuit à partir du moment où il établit…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the motor liability insurer of a vehicle whose driver lost control through force majeure is not a claimant by way of defence and need not prove the unforeseeable event once it shows a justification that is not devoid of credibility. Where the claim rests on a criminal offence, the claimant must prove imputability or the absence of the alleged justification. The concrete outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Motor liability — force majeure and burden of proof","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1382; RD 1.12.1975, art. 8.3; Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50","w":276,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-05-07","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1991:JUG.19910507.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le taux d'alcoolémie ne constitue pas en règle générale l'élément suffisant à lui seul à établir le caractère objectif de l'aggravation du risque pris en charge par l'assureur; cependant, il y a aggravation objective…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a blood-alcohol level is generally not enough on its own to prove an objective aggravation of the insured risk, but that there is objective aggravation once the level reaches 2.5 grams per litre, a point of no return for anyone. A lorry driver who drank freely in a private club for almost eight hours cannot claim that his outward signs of unfitness could have escaped him. The keywords point to the insurer's recourse action.","k":"Motor liability — gross fault, intoxication and recourse","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":276,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-05-06","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1991:ARR.19910506.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"L'assurance prévue par la loi du 1er juillet 1956 relative à l'assurance automobile obligatoire est applicable à la réparation de dommages provoqués intentionnellement par l'assuré. L'intention de l'assuré de causer un…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the insurance required by the Act of 1 July 1956 extends to damage caused intentionally by the insured. The insured's intention to harm another person by means of a motor vehicle is not a defence the insurer can raise against the injured party, and covering an intentional act is not contrary to public policy.","k":"Motor liability — intentional damage and cover towards the injured party","law":"Act of 1.7.1956 (compulsory motor liability insurance); public policy","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-05-02","rol":"S950009F","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1991:ARR.19910502.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le Fonds commun de garantie automobile ne doit pas d'intérêts compensatoires sur le montant de la franchise légale prévu à l'article 19, alinéa 2, de l'arrêté royal du 16 décembre 1981 portant mise en vigueur et…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the Guarantee Fund owes no compensatory interest on the BEF 10,000 statutory deductible under article 19(2) of the Royal Decree of 16 December 1981. Holding otherwise would make the Fund liable in cases where the damage does not reach BEF 10,000.","k":"Guarantee Fund — interest on the statutory deductible","law":"RD of 16.12.1981, art. 19(2); Act of 9.7.1975, arts. 49–50","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-05-02","rol":"6207","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1991:ARR.19910502.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"La prescription de l'action directe de la personne lésée contre l'assureur, visée à l'article 6 de la loi du 1er juillet 1956, relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The victim's insurer sued the liable person and his motor liability insurer; the Court of Appeal held the claim time-barred under the five-year period for civil claims arising from an offence. Following the Benelux Court ruling of 21.12.1990, the Court held that a direct action against the insurer that is not yet time-barred under article 10 is not lost because the claim against the liable person is time-barred under national law. The judgment was quashed as to the claim against the motor insurer; the appeal was otherwise dismissed. Dispute between two insurers.","k":"Direct action — limitation: art. 10 of the 1956 Act, not the criminal-law period","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, arts 6 and 10; Benelux Common Provisions, arts 6 and 10; Act of 17.4.1878, art. 26; Benelux Court 21.12.1990","w":279,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1991-04-26","rol":"7387","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1991:ARR.19910426.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'expression \"cas fortuit\" au sens de l'article 50, alinéa 1er, 2°, de la loi du 9 juillet 1975 relative au contrôle des entreprises d'assurances, vise tout fait qui, quel que soit son origine, constitue pour le…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The victim was injured by a stone of unknown origin thrown up from between a lorry's rear wheels; as no fault of the driver was proven, the claim was brought against the Guarantee Fund. The Court held that it is not enough that the driver escapes liability: he must do so because of a fortuitous event, i.e. a fact that, whatever its origin, amounted to force majeure for him. Here it was merely not proven that the driver was careless. The victims' appeal was dismissed; the Brussels Court of Appeal's ruling stands.","k":"Guarantee Fund — meaning of fortuitous event (thrown-up stone)","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50(1), 2°; RD of 16.12.1981, art. 19(1)","w":280,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1991-04-25","rol":"10081","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1991:ARR.19910425.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Le producteur d'assurances peut agir comme mandataire lorsqu'il est habilité par l'assureur à encaisser les primes et à mettre en circulation les formulaires de couverture provisoire préalablement signés par cet…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court accepted that an intermediary authorised to collect premiums and issue provisional-cover forms pre-signed by the insurer may act as the insurer's agent. However, the principal bears the risk of the agent exceeding his powers only if the third party could reasonably and legitimately be mistaken about their scope; good faith alone is not enough. The third party should have heeded the statements, clear even to a layperson, that plainly limited the insurer's provisional-cover offer, so the insurer was not bound beyond it.","k":"Provisional cover — broker's apparent authority","law":"Apparent authority; provisional cover","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-04-25","rol":"390/87","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1991:ARR.19910425.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En application de l'article 11 de la loi du 1er juillet 1956, une suspension de garantie - pour non-paiement de prime - constitue une exception inopposable aux tiers lésés. Les exceptions visées à cet article, qui ne…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Suspension of cover for unpaid premium is a defence that cannot be raised against injured parties under article 11 of the Act of 1 July 1956; the provision covers defences based on an existing contract that release the insurer towards the insured, not those concerning the contract's existence, scope or the cover of the risk. An intermediary authorised to collect premiums and holding green cards for temporary cover is at least an apparent agent, so the insured could validly notify him of the change of vehicle, whether he was an agent or a broker.","k":"Motor liability — suspension for unpaid premium, not opposable to injured parties","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 11; apparent agency","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-04-25","rol":"8892","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1991:ARR.19910425.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"L'action de l'assureur contre l'assuré en répétition des sommes payées à la victime d'un accident causé par la faute grave de l'assuré, étant fondée sur l'engagement contractuel de celui-ci, est soumise à la…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The motor liability insurer sought repayment from its insured, who had committed gross fault, of BEF 171,844 paid to the victim, relying on subrogation to avoid the short limitation period. The Court held that this recourse is based not on article 11(2) of the Act of 1.7.1956 or the Benelux Common Provisions, which merely allow it to be reserved, but on the insured's contractual undertaking; the three-year limitation period of article 32 of the Act of 11.6.1874 therefore applies. The insurer's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Insurer's recourse against the insured for gross fault — three-year limitation","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 32; Act of 1.7.1956, art. 11(2); Benelux Common Provisions, art. 11(2)","w":279,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1991-04-18","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1991:ARR.19910418.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'article 9 de la loi du 1er juillet 1956 autorise l'intervention volontaire de l'assureur dans l'action civile intentée contre l'assuré devant la juridiction répressive sans cependant que celle-ci puisse statuer sur…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court noted that article 9 of the Act of 1 July 1956 allows the insurer to intervene voluntarily in the civil claim against the insured before the criminal court, but that court cannot rule on the insurer's rights against the insured. The insurer may not raise the insured's faults there, even indirectly, with a view to a later recourse action. The ruling is procedural and does not decide the merits of recourse; it was appealed to the Court of Cassation.","k":"Motor liability — limits of insurer's intervention in criminal court","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 9","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-03-29","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1991:ARR.19910329.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Est inopposable à l'assuré l'évaluation du dommage convenue entre la victime et l'assureur lorsque celui-ci agit en la double qualité de mandataire et de créancier de son assuré, contre lequel l'assureur envisage…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an assessment of the damage agreed between the victim and the insurer cannot be relied on against the insured where the insurer acts both as the insured's agent and as the creditor intending to bring recourse against him. An assessment made by the insurer alone does not bind the insured in the recourse action.","k":"Motor liability recourse — settlement with victim not binding on insured","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-03-27","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1991:ARR.19910327.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"De afstand van verhaal, voorzien in de artikelen 19 en 20 van de Antwerpse Brandpolis, houdt een beding ten behoeve van een derde in: de verzekeraar van de goederen verzekert tevens de aansprakelijkheid van de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the waiver of recourse in articles 19 and 20 of the Antwerp Fire Policy is a stipulation for the benefit of a third party: the property insurer also covers the liability of bailees of the insured goods, owners, landlords and co-users of the buildings, neighbours and other liable persons. The insurer cannot claim against them for the loss it has paid, provided they have likewise waived all recourse against the policyholder.","k":"Fire insurance — waiver of recourse in the Antwerp Fire Policy","law":"Antwerp Fire Policy, art. 19–20","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-03-27","rol":"6656","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1991:ARR.19910327.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La définition de la notion \"véhicules automoteurs\" énoncée à l'article 1er des Dispositions communes annexées à la Convention Benelux relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The driver was operating a lorry towing a trailer on which the rear of a car rested; the Court of Appeal held that the towing vehicle's insurance covered the whole convoy. Following the Benelux Court ruling of 30.11.1990, the Court held that a car partly resting on the coupled trailer and partly touching the ground, so that it moves with the insured vehicle, is coupled to and forms part of that vehicle. The appeal was dismissed. The text does not say who brought it.","k":"Motor liability — car carried on a trailer as part of the towing vehicle","law":"Benelux Common Provisions, art. 1; Benelux Court 30.11.1990 (A 88/1)","w":280,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1991-03-20","rol":"7230","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1991:ARR.19910320.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"L'action directe de la personne lésée contre l'assureur du responsable de l'accident se prescrit par trois ans à compter du fait générateur du dommage, même si le fait constitue une infraction à la loi pénale et si…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court of Appeal rejected the motor liability insurer's limitation defence and ordered it, jointly with its insured, to pay half the loss. The Court held that the direct action under article 6 of the Act of 1.7.1956 is time-barred three years after the event (article 10), even where the event is an offence and the action is brought before the criminal court; acts interrupting limitation against the insured also interrupt it against the insurer. As the judges had not checked for interruption, the judgment was quashed on the insurer's appeal as regards the orders against it.","k":"Direct action — three-year limitation and its interruption","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, arts 6, 9 and 10","w":279,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1991-03-20","rol":"6824","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1991:ARR.19910320.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsque le véhicule ayant causé le dommage est couvert par une assurance responsabilité civile contenant une clause limitant la couverture de l'assurance à la responsabilité civile du propriétaire du véhicule assuré, à…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The criminal court held that the 'exclusive use' clause in the owner's policy, limiting cover to the owner, could be relied on against the injured parties, and ordered the insurer of the driver's supplementary policy to pay. The Court held that accepting that the clause is enforceable against injured third parties, and making this depend on another policy, breaches articles 2, 3, 6, 11 and 13 of the Benelux Common Provisions. On the appeal of the driver's insurer, the order against it was quashed. The dispute essentially concerns which insurer must pay.","k":"Motor liability — exclusive-use clause not enforceable against injured parties","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, arts 2, 3, 6, 11(1) and 18; Benelux Common Provisions, arts 2, 3, 6, 11(1) and 13; Benelux Court 30.11.1990 (A 89/5)","w":280,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1991-03-12","rol":"92/19706","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1991:ARR.19910312.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Les invraisemblances et imprécisions contenues dans les déclarations de l'assuré rendent celles-ci éminemment suspectes de telle sorte qu'il ne démontre pas, à suffisance de droit, l'existence de la marchandise et la…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The carrier had allegedly been attacked and the gold being transported stolen. The court found that the implausibilities and inconsistencies in the insured's statements made them highly suspect, so that the insured failed to prove to the required standard that the goods existed or that the alleged theft was plausible. The insurer was not liable to pay.","k":"Valuables-in-transit insurance — proof of theft","law":"Burden of proving the loss lies on the insured","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-03-12","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1991:ARR.19910312.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"In geval van miskenning van het beding van exclusief besturen is de verzekeraar gerechtigd lastens zijn verzekerde een verhaalrecht uit te oefenen voor de aan de schadelijder van een ongeval uitgekeerde vergoedingen. Er…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that where the sole-driver clause is breached, the insurer is entitled to recourse against its insured for the compensation paid to the injured party. Having to cover several drivers instead of one constitutes a serious aggravation of the risk.","k":"Compulsory motor insurance — sole-driver clause and recourse","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-03-07","rol":"84/1293","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1991:ARR.19910307.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"La nature et le taux de l'incapacité permanente que la victime subira normalement pendant toute sa vie sont appréciés en fonction de la profession que la victime peut exercer eu égard à son âge, ses qualifications et…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court assessed permanent incapacity by reference to the work the victim can do given age, qualifications, career, the labour market and the effect on competitiveness; switching from employment to self-employment does not change the nature of the loss. The workplace-accident insurer may exercise its subrogated recourse against the liable third party up to the sums paid and the capital set aside, within the limit of the victim's ordinary-law rights for permanent incapacity.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer — scope of recourse against the liable third party","law":"Act of 10.4.1971 (workplace-accident insurer's recourse)","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-02-27","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILUX:1991:JUG.19910227.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La convention signée par la partie civile avec l'assureur \"responsabilité civile\" du prévenu \"agissant en droits et obligations de celui-ci\", constitue une transaction. En vertu de l'article 2046 du code civil, on peut…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court treated the agreement signed by the civil party with the defendant's liability insurer, acting in the defendant's rights and obligations, as a settlement; under article 2046 of the Civil Code the civil interest arising from an offence may be settled without barring the prosecution. Between the parties the settlement has the force of res judicata and exhausts the injured party's rights, who can no longer join as civil party or sue the liable person directly. In the amicable medical assessment, the third expert's report is an arbitral award that can only be challenged by an action for annulment before the court of first instance, not before the criminal court.","k":"Settlement with the liability insurer and amicable medical assessment","law":"former Civil Code, art. 2046","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Luxembourg","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-02-25","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1991:JUG.19910225.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'endormissement au volant constitue manifestement une aggravation objective du risque assuré. Il n'en est pas pour autant constitutif d'une faute grave équipollente au dol si l'assureur ne démontre pas que ce phénomène…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that falling asleep at the wheel clearly amounts to an objective aggravation of the insured risk, but is not gross fault equivalent to intent unless the insurer proves that it was foreseeable for the insured or that the insured deliberately and culpably entered circumstances that usually cause such a state. The summary does not expressly say whether that proof was provided or how the recourse claim was decided.","k":"Motor liability — falling asleep at the wheel and gross fault equivalent to intent","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-02-21","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1991:ARR.19910221.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"La circonstance que le solvens se serait montré négligent ne donne pas une cause au paiement si celui-ci en est dépourvu et le caractère inexcusable de l'erreur commise par le solvens ne peut expliquer que l'accipiens…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A motor liability insurer that had paid for a burnt-out vehicle sought repayment from the fire insurers, as the fire resulted from malicious damage rather than a defect in the vehicle. The court held that the payer's negligence does not supply a cause for a payment that has none, and that even an inexcusable mistake does not allow the recipient to keep an undue payment and be unjustly enriched: the claim for recovery was upheld.","k":"Between insurers — recovery of undue payment for a burnt-out vehicle","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1378 (recovery of undue payment)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-02-20","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1991:ARR.19910220.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Het bezit van een groene kaart is zonder invloed op de retroactieve schorsing van de polis. De groene kaart geldt enkel als een aanwijzing die toelaat te vermoeden dat er een verzekeringenscontract bestaat. De…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that holding a green card has no bearing on the retroactive suspension of the policy for non-payment of the premium. The green card is merely evidence raising a presumption that an insurance contract exists; the insurer retains the right to prove that the contract was terminated or suspended before the accident. The outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Compulsory motor insurance — suspension despite a green card","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-02-15","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1991:ARR.19910215.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Eenzelfde persoon kan ten opzichte van eenzelfde verzekeraar en betreffende eenzelfde schade niet tegelijkertijd de 'verzekerde' en een 'derde' zijn; de rechthebbende van eenzelfde schadegeval kan onmogelijk…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The accident was caused by the husband and injured his wife and child; the motor cover extended to close family members. The court held that the same person cannot, towards the same insurance body and for the same loss, be both 'insured' and 'third party': save for gross or intentional fault, the beneficiary cannot be liable to his own insurance body. The health-and-disability insurance body therefore has no subrogated recourse against its own insured.","k":"Health-insurance subrogation — recourse against its own insured","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-02-13","rol":"8517","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1991:ARR.19910213.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsque les parents d'un mineur ont été condamnés comme civilement responsables d'un accident causé par leur fils mineur au moyen d'un véhicule qu'il leur avait volé, est irrecevable, à défaut d'intérêt, le moyen de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The parents of a minor who had stolen their car were held civilly liable for the accident, and the motor liability insurer was ordered to compensate the injured party. Following the Benelux Court ruling of 21.12.1990, the Court held that the parents' liability is a sufficient basis for the insurer's liability, whether or not the minor took the car for temporary use. The insurer's ground based on the theft exclusion was inadmissible for lack of interest; it withdrew its appeal against the other injured parties.","k":"Motor liability — minor who stole his parents' car, theft exclusion","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 3(1); Benelux Common Provisions, art. 3(1); Benelux Court 21.12.1990 (A 89/3)","w":280,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1991-02-11","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1991:ARR.19910211.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le lien de causalité entre la faute commise par le propriétaire de la voiture en abandonnant les clés sur le contacteur et l'accident causé par le receleur de la voiture se trouve interrompu par le vol et le recel…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The accident was caused by a person handling a stolen car, and the Motor Guarantee Fund was involved in the dispute. The court held that the causal link between the owner's fault in leaving the keys in the ignition and the accident was broken by the subsequent theft and handling of the car. The summary does not indicate the parties' positions or the concrete outcome.","k":"Guarantee Fund — stolen car, keys left in the ignition and causation","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382 (break in causation); Guarantee Fund","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-01-23","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1991:ARR.19910123.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"L'article 32 de la loi du 11 juin 1874 dispose que \"toute action dérivant d'une police d'assurances est prescrite par trois ans, à compter de l'événement qui y donne ouverture\". La découverte de l'erreur invoquée par un…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, for the three-year limitation period in article 32 of the 1874 Act, the insured's action for annulment based on mistake runs from discovery of the mistake. A receipt without mutual concessions is not a settlement but remains binding and subject to articles 1109 et seq. of the Civil Code. An insured who misunderstood the scope of the contract cannot obtain annulment if the mistake was inexcusable. The concrete outcome is not stated.","k":"Insurance — limitation, receipt and mistake","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 32; Civil Code, arts 1109 et seq.","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-01-21","rol":"10081","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1991:JUG.19910121.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the insurer may rely on forfeiture where the insured reports the accident after the contractual deadline, unless it is shown that timely notice was impossible. A 'medical arbitration agreement' under which each party appoints its own doctor-arbitrator is not arbitration under the Judicial Code but a sui generis contract governed by article 1134 of the Civil Code. A private investigator's photographs, taken covertly with telephoto lenses after trespassing on neighbouring property, were excluded. The summary does not state the overall outcome.","k":"Late notice of claim, medical expertise agreement and private investigator's report","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1134","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-01-17","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1991:ARR.19910117.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Hoewel de groene kaart geen zekere titel van geldige verzekering is, kunnen de benadeelde derden, zelfs in geval van niet-betaling van de voorlopige premie, er zich op beroepen zolang de verzekeraar aan de verzekerde…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Although a green card is not conclusive proof of valid insurance, injured third parties may rely on it, even if the provisional premium was unpaid, as long as the insurer has not told the insured that it considers the card void. An insurer that leaves its company stamp unsupervised with a third party to issue green cards in its name commits a fault obliging it to compensate the loss. Liability was shared between the driver who drove on knowing a person was hanging onto the vehicle and the victim who clung to it; the parents were liable for their minor son, the Act of 19.1.1990 lowering the age of majority having no retroactive effect.","k":"Motor liability — green card and apparent agency","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1384; Act of 19.1.1990 (age of majority)","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-01-16","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1991:ARR.19910116.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'existence de la police d'assurance R.C. véhicules automoteurs répondant aux conditions fixées par la loi du 1er juillet 1956 est attestée par la demande d'immatriculation revêtue du sceau de l'assureur et de la…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court noted that the existence of a liability policy complying with the Act of 1 July 1956 is proved by the registration application bearing the insurer's stamp and signature, formalities that mark the start of cover vis-à-vis third parties. As the parties had not linked cover to a specific number plate, the insurer had to cover the loss caused by the insured vehicle fitted with false plates.","k":"Motor liability — insured vehicle with false plates","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, arts. 1, 2 §1 and 18","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-01-10","rol":"8822","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1991:ARR.19910110.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'article 3 de la loi du 1er juillet 1956 qui exclut la garantie, par l'assurance, de la responsabilité civile du voleur du véhicule assuré, n'empêche pas que l'assureur doive intervenir si la victime d'un accident…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The garage to which the car had been entrusted for servicing was held liable for the accident caused by the thief, having failed to take precautions against theft; the Court of Appeal rejected its claim against the car's motor liability insurer, holding that a fault in running the garage is not covered. The Court recalled that article 3 of the Act of 1.7.1956 excludes only the thief's liability and covers that of any holder: the claim could not be rejected without checking whether the garage was the holder. On the garage's appeal, the judgment was quashed.","k":"Motor liability — fault of a garage holding a stolen car, and cover","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, arts 2 and 3","w":280,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1991-01-07","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EABRL:1991:JUG.19910107.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"De rechtstreekse vordering ingesteld door de verzekeraar van de eigenaar tegen de verzekeraar die de aansprakelijkheid van de huurder wegens brand dekt, is een autonome vordering en valt niet onder de bijzondere…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the direct action brought by the owner's insurer against the insurer covering the tenant's fire liability is an autonomous action outside the justice of the peace's special jurisdiction over leases. Since all defendants were traders and the claim concerned commercial acts on their part, the case was referred to the commercial court.","k":"Fire — owner's insurer against tenant's insurer, jurisdiction","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 38","w":279,"c":"Nederlandstalige rechtbank eerste aanleg Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-01-07","rol":"29919","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRW:1991:JUG.19910107.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Le contrat d'assurance prend cours et date par l'émission de la police d'assurance reprenant l'ensemble des conditions de couverture et de prime. Est insuffisante la seule demande de modification des capitaux assurés…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an insurance contract takes effect when the policy setting out all cover and premium terms is issued. A broker's request to change the sums insured, forwarded to the insurer, is not enough without the insurer's formal and specific acceptance. The defence of non-performance (exceptio non adimpleti contractus) raised to justify non-payment of premiums on other contracts was held unfounded.","k":"Formation of the contract — request to increase cover and premiums","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Brabant Wallon","m":"summary"},{"d":"1991-01-02","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1991:ARR.19910102.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Il appartient à l'usage que les sociétés d'assurances laissent présenter au public par des intermédiaires des polices d'assurances présignées par elles. En pareil cas, le contrat est formé au moment qui y est prévu, à…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court noted that insurers customarily have intermediaries present pre-signed policies to the public. The contract is then formed at the time stated in it, namely when the insurer receives its copy; the fact that the intermediary acted as the insurer's agent makes no difference. The concrete outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Pre-signed policy — when the contract is formed","law":"Formation of contract; intermediary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-12-18","rol":"86/8391","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1990:ARR.19901218.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La vitesse excessive de véhicules automobiles et le dépassement de l'un par l'autre dans un virage, alors qu'ils s'essayaient à une course, sont révélateurs de fautes graves au sens de l'article 16 de la loi du 11 juin…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Excessive speed and overtaking on a bend by drivers who were racing amount to gross fault: by leaving almost no chance of avoiding an accident they removed the element of chance, and the risk was covered only by operation of law (injured parties' direct action). The recourse was admissible and well founded, despite the drivers' young age. The insurer's reliance on the policy's 'races' clause was rejected (it covers organised but unauthorised races). Interest runs only from formal notice, and the apportionment of liability carries over to the relations with the insurers.","k":"Motor liability recourse — drivers racing, gross fault","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16 ('1875' in the summary); model contract, arts 24 and 25, 9°","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-12-14","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1990:ARR.19901214.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La décision du juge pénal prononçant des peines distinctes pour lésions involontaires et alcoolémie ou ivresse demeure étrangère à l'action civile de la société de transport concernant le dommage matériel causé à son…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a criminal judgment imposing separate sentences for unintentional injury and for alcohol or drunkenness has no bearing on the transport company's civil claim for material damage to its vehicle. The civil court remains competent to decide on any causal link between that damage and the traffic offences, the alcohol level or drunkenness. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Motor liability recourse — separate sentences and civil court's assessment of causation","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-12-07","rol":"86/1495","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1990:ARR.19901207.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"L'évènement donnant ouverture à l'action récursoire est soit le paiement soit le jugement coulé en force de chose jugée condamnant l'assureur qualitate qua à indemniser le tiers victime. La prescription ne prend cours…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the event giving rise to the insurer's recourse action is either the payment or the final judgment ordering the insurer, in that capacity, to compensate the injured third party. The limitation period runs only from when that judgment becomes final, even if payment was made before it was delivered. The concrete outcome is not expressly stated in the summary.","k":"Start of the limitation period for the insurer's recourse","law":"Insurer's recourse action; limitation","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-12-05","rol":"8184;8374","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1990:ARR.19901205.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"La prescription de l'action publique ne fait pas, en soi, obstacle à ce que la juridiction répressive statue sur l'action directe exercée postérieurement à celle-ci par la personne lésée contre l'assureur du prévenu. (…","court":"cass","out":"kismen","src":"yargitay","s":"The injured parties brought their claim against the motor liability insurer before the criminal court after the prosecution had become time-barred. The Court held that this does not bar the direct action, and that a civil claim brought in time against the insured interrupts the three-year period against the insurer until the final judgment. However, loss of earnings during temporary incapacity may be calculated on gross pay only if the charges on the award match those on the salary. The judgment was partly quashed on that point and as to the future material loss from permanent incapacity.","k":"Direct action — interruption of limitation and loss calculated on gross pay","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 9(4) and art. 10(2); Act of 17.4.1878, art. 4; former Civil Code, arts 1382–1383","w":279,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1990-12-04","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1990:ARR.19901204.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"De clausule van het verzekeringscontract, naar luid waarvan ongevallen geen recht op vergoeding in hoofde van de verzekerde doen ontstaan 'wanneer de bestuurder in staat van alcoholvergiftiging is' onderwerpt de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a clause denying the insured any indemnity for accidents occurring 'when the driver is in a state of alcohol intoxication' does not make the exclusion conditional on proof of a necessary link between the accident and the intoxication found. The Dutch terms for 'poisoning' and 'intoxication' have the same meaning. The final outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Motor insurance — alcohol exclusion and causation","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-11-30","rol":"91/13250","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1990:ARR.19901130.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La décision pénale est entachée de contradiction lorsque le juge répressif, tout en condamnant l'assuré à deux peines distinctes, a cependant, dans ses motifs, constaté que \"l'accident ne peut être qu'attribué à l'état…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The criminal judgment was self-contradictory because the court imposed two separate sentences while stating in its reasons that the accident could only be attributed to drunkenness; the civil court was therefore not bound by it. A blood alcohol level of 1.63 to 1.73 g/l objectively aggravates the insured risk, and the insured must have been aware of it. The limitation period for the recourse action runs from the insurer's last payment.","k":"Motor liability recourse — alcohol, effect of criminal judgment, limitation","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16; res judicata effect of criminal judgments","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-11-28","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1990:ARR.19901128.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Dès lors que la faute aquilienne génératrice du dommage consiste dans une erreur commise en France par un employé ou un organe de la société de droit français assurée, la loi du fait dommageable - \"lex loci delicti…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"As the fault causing the damage was committed in France by the French insured company, the court applied French law to the tort, including articles 124.1 and 121.3 of the French Insurance Code. The direct action rests on the insurance contract, whose law governs it, and also belongs to subrogees, including insurers that compensated the victim. The Belgian subsidiary that defended the insured without reservation, appearing to be the insurer, and failed to disclose the insured's court-supervised insolvency committed a fault causally linked to the third parties' loss.","k":"Cross-border business liability — French law, direct action","law":"French Insurance Code, arts. 124.1 and 121.3; lex loci delicti","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-11-26","rol":"71/2.595","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1990:ARR.19901126.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Les clauses restrictives de garantie telles une clause \"risque exclus\" doivent s'interpréter contre l'assureur qui entend s'en prévaloir et en faveur de l'assuré exposé à n'être pas couvert; les articles 1134 et 1135 du…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that clauses restricting cover, such as an excluded-risk clause, are construed against the insurer relying on them and in favour of the insured at risk of losing cover. Under a storm policy excluding damage to fences, a fence means any obstacle on the boundary of a property intended to prevent entry or to separate two properties. A wall joining two parts of a building owned by the same person and marking no boundary is not a fence, so the exclusion did not apply.","k":"Storm insurance — construing the fences exclusion","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1134 and 1135","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-11-22","rol":"8814","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1990:ARR.19901122.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Il incombe au preneur d'assurance de donner à l'assureur une connaissance exacte du risque qu'il veut faire couvrir; l'abstention de déclarer une circonstance légitimement ignorée de l'assureur et susceptible d'aggraver…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court of Appeal annulled a family liability policy for non-disclosure: the policyholder knew of her minor son's habitual criminal conduct but did not tell the insurer. The Court held that the policyholder must give an accurate picture of the risk; failing to disclose a circumstance the insurer could not know and which could aggravate its assessment of the risk is non-disclosure under article 9 of the Act of 11.6.1874, even if the policyholder believed in good faith, but wrongly, that it need not be disclosed. The absence of a detailed questionnaire made no difference. The appeal was dismissed; the nullity stands.","k":"Family liability insurance — good-faith non-disclosure and nullity","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9; Cass. 20.6.1983","w":279,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1990-11-20","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1990:ARR.19901120.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Dans les assurances de choses au sens large, l'indemnité d'assurance ne peut jamais être source d'enrichissement. Ce principe indemnitaire procède de la crainte des sinistres volontaires et du danger des paris et de la…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that the indemnity principle is a matter of public policy in property insurance: on a total loss, the indemnity is based on the value on the day of the loss, and a 'declared value' sum insured is no proof of it. An agreed value of almost 450% of replacement value is not genuine: from the outset the beneficiary had an interest in the loss occurring, so there was no insurable interest. The contract, based on an unlawful cause, was annulled.","k":"Property insurance — excessive agreed value, indemnity principle","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 20(1) and (2)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-11-20","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1990:JUG.19901120.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'assureur est professionnellement équipé pour critiquer de façon précise et constructive l'étendue du dommage, certain dans son existence. En raison de son devoir de collaborer loyalement à l'administration de la…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an insurer, being professionally equipped to challenge precisely and constructively the extent of a loss whose existence is certain, cannot, given its duty to cooperate fairly in producing evidence, simply reject any compensation. The victim's claims were therefore allowed, especially as the cost of an expert examination would have been out of proportion to the modest amount at stake.","k":"Damages claim — insurer's duty to cooperate in providing evidence","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-11-13","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1990:ARR.19901113.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"N'est pas constitutif de faute grave le fait de prendre le volant en ayant passé une nuit sans sommeil mais sans boire d'alcool dans le chef d'un conducteur âgé de 25 ans surpris par un endormissement de quelques…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a 25-year-old driver who took the wheel after a sleepless night, without drinking, and dozed off for a few seconds did not commit gross fault. On the other hand, tuning the engine ('gonflement') amounted to an aggravation of risk under article 31 of the Act of 11 June 1874, since it concerns one of the factors the insurer uses to assess the risk. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Vehicle damage insurance — sleepless night and engine tuning","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, arts 16 and 31","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-11-05","rol":"86/25.599","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1990:ARR.19901105.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Ne constitue pas un acte interruptif de prescription, la lettre par laquelle un assureur-loi notifie à une victime d'accident du travail qu'\"il résulte des dernières constatations médicales qu'il n'y a plus de séquelles…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer had written to the victim that, according to the latest medical findings, no after-effects affecting the victim's earning capacity remained and that the file was closed unless a related relapse was reported within the three-year statutory period. The court held that this letter does not interrupt the limitation period: since its purpose was expressly to dispute the right, it cannot amount to an acknowledgment of it.","k":"Workplace accident — insurer's file-closure letter and limitation period","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 70","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-11-02","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1990:ARR.19901102.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Le point de départ du délai de prescription de l'action récursoire de l'assureur contre l'assuré, en remboursement des sommes versées à la suite d'un accident de roulage, n'est pas l'accident de roulage, mais la date de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The limitation period for the insurer's recourse against the insured runs not from the accident but from the date of payment to the victim. Although the contract allows the insurer to settle with the injured parties, good-faith performance requires an insurer intending to seek recourse to involve the insured in the negotiations or at least submit its intended decision for comment; otherwise the insurer must prove the insured's liability for the accident. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Motor liability recourse — start of limitation period and involving the insured","law":"Good-faith performance (former Civil Code, art. 1134(3)); limitation of recourse action","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-11-02","rol":"6878","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1990:ARR.19901102.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"L'assureur qui invoque que le fait, sur lequel il fonde la nullité d'un contrat d'assurance sur la vie ou l'exception de réticence, prévue à l'article 9 de la loi sur les assurances, existait avant que la proposition…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The life insurer sought to annul the policy, alleging that the insured had concealed, when completing the proposal, that he took sedatives and had consulted a psychiatrist; the Court of Appeal upheld the beneficiary's claim for payment. The Court held that an insurer relying on nullity or the non-disclosure defence of article 9 of the Act of 11.6.1874 must prove that the fact existed when the proposal was completed and was withheld by the policyholder. The insurer's appeal was dismissed; the Antwerp Court of Appeal's ruling stands.","k":"Life insurance — burden of proving non-disclosure lies on the insurer","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9; Civil Code, art. 1315; Judicial Code, art. 870","w":279,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1990-10-31","rol":"10081","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1990:ARR.19901031.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"De actie ingesteld door het slachtoffer van een brand tegen zijn verzekeraar meer dan één jaar na de dag van het schadegeval is verjaard, wanneer de algemene polisvoorwaarden voorzien dat iedere actie tot betaling van…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The general conditions provided that any action for payment of an indemnity is time-barred one year after the loss. The court accepted that clause as valid and held that the fire victim's action against its insurer, brought more than a year after the loss, was time-barred, as the parties did not prove any intervening negotiations. A claim notification sent a few days after the loss was not equivalent to a formal notice.","k":"Fire insurance — one-year contractual limitation period","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-10-22","rol":"84/1293","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1990:ARR.19901022.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"37-jarige N.M.B.S.-bediende, B.I. 18 % T.O.: moreel: 500 F/dag (ziekenhuisv.) 350 F/dag daarna B.I.: - moreel: 30.000 F per punt. - materieel: verlies van een kans op promotie: 650 F/maand (er dient geen rekening te…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"For a 37-year-old railway employee with 18% permanent incapacity, non-pecuniary loss was set at 30,000 F per point, temporary incapacity at 500 F per day (in hospital) then 350 F, and loss of a chance of promotion at 650 F per month. The employer is subrogated only for what it paid under the staff regulations, up to what the insurer owes under ordinary law. The summary does not state the overall outcome.","k":"Personal injury — assessment and employer's subrogation","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":5,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-10-15","rol":"10081","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1990:ARR.19901015.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"En vertu de l'article 10, alinéa premier, de la loi du 1er juillet 1956, l'action directe de la victime d'un accident de la circulation se prescrit par trois ans à compter du fait générateur du dommage. Aux termes de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that the victim's direct action is time-barred three years after the harmful event (art. 10 of the Act of 1 July 1956), but acts interrupting limitation against the insured also interrupt it against the insurer. A civil claim brought in time in the criminal court against the insured alone therefore interrupts limitation; the direct action, brought less than three years after the criminal judgment finally ruling on that civil claim, was not time-barred.","k":"Motor liability — interruption of limitation for the direct action","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 10","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-10-12","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1990:ARR.19901012.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"L'assureur qui garantit une société sur base d'une police RC exploitation ne doit pas indemniser la victime d'un accident survenu dans un contexte de conflit social grave alors que les ouvriers protégés voulant remettre…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A protected worker was seriously injured by a foreman in charge of security when workers forced their way into the negotiating room. The court held that the business-liability insurer did not have to compensate the victim: the policy excluded damage caused by serious labour conflicts preventing the normal operation of the business, which falls within the notion of a strike. The foreman's conviction for intentional assault did not prevent reliance on the exclusion. Exclusions are construed narrowly, but the parties' real intention must be sought.","k":"Business liability — exclusion for serious labour conflicts","law":"Construction of the policy exclusion clause","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-10-12","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1990:ARR.19901012.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'action récursoire de l'assureur R.C. automobile, basée sur la faute grave de l'assuré, est fondée lorsque l'assureur prouve que la faute de l'assuré, en relation de cause à effet avec le dommage, a été de nature à…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Recourse based on gross fault succeeds if the insurer proves that the fault, causally linked to the damage, objectively aggravated the risk beyond all foreseeability and that the insured was or should have been aware of it. A single sentence for intoxication and unintentional injury binds the civil court on causation. Driving with an average blood alcohol level of 1.93 g/l objectively aggravates the risk; having reached that state gradually and deliberately, the insured should have realised the consequences, so the recourse was upheld.","k":"Motor liability — gross fault and 1.93 g/l alcohol, recourse","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16; motor liability model contract (recourse for gross fault)","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-10-09","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1990:ARR.19901009.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'assureur qui laisse atteindre par la prescription l'action directe et principale dont il dispose à l'égard des parties qu'il estime coresponsables du fait dommageable n'est pas fondé à invoquer ultérieurement…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an insurer which lets its main action against the parties it considers jointly liable become time-barred cannot later rely on unjust enrichment to escape the limitation period. The limitation period for the subrogation claim runs from each payment only where the subrogated insurer directs its recourse action against its own insured.","k":"Subrogated insurer — limitation and unjust enrichment","law":"Former Civil Code, arts 1382–1384(1); RD of 1.12.1975, art. 7.1","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-10-03","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1990:ARR.19901003.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"De eis van de verzekeraar tot terugbetaling van de vergoedingen die hij uit hoofde van een verkeersongeval aan derde benadeelden heeft uitgekeerd is ongegrond, wanneer niet is aangetoond welke zware fout zou zijn gedaan…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer sought repayment of the compensation paid to injured third parties. The court found that no rule prohibits a test drive under trade plates by the owner of the repaired vehicle, and that neither gross fault nor an aggravation of risk beyond the insurer's normal expectations was proven. The loss of control was caused by an external cause, a piece of wood on the road. The insurer's recourse claim was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — test drive by the owner, gross fault not proven","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-10-02","rol":"10835","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1990:ARR.19901002.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Il n'y a pas lieu à indemnisation par le Fonds Commun de Garantie Automobile lorsque l'accident de roulage n'est pas dû à un cas fortuit prévu par l'article 50, alinéa 1er, 2°, de la loi du 9 juillet 1975, mais à une…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court found that the accident was not due to a fortuitous event within article 50 §1, 2° of the Act of 9 July 1975, but to the fault of the driver, who knew or should have known he was at risk of a cardiac incident and should not have resumed driving after pain that required him to take medication. The Guarantee Fund was therefore not liable to pay compensation.","k":"Guarantee Fund — no fortuitous event, driver at fault","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50 §1, 2°","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-09-26","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1990:ARR.19900926.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Wanneer een verzekeringscontract bepaalt dat het, enerzijds, maar de dag na de overhandiging aan de verzekeraar van het voor hem bestemde exemplaar in werking treedt en, anderzijds, dat iedere mededeling aan de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Where the policy provides that it takes effect only on the day after the insurer's copy is handed to the insurer, and that any communication to the insurer is valid only if sent to its registered office, sending that copy to the private address of an insurance inspector is not sufficient for the policy to take effect. The outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Entry into force of the policy — delivery of the insurer's copy","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-09-24","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PINAM:1990:JUG.19900924.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'action récursoire de l'assureur R.C. automobile contre son assuré basée sur l'article 25.3 de la police type est fondée lorsque l'accident se produit alors que le véhicule de l'assuré n'est pas muni d'un certificat…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court upheld the motor liability insurer's recourse against its insured under article 25.3 of the model policy, as the accident occurred while the vehicle had no valid roadworthiness certificate. This applies regardless of the insured's good or bad faith and without any need for a causal link between the breach and the accident.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for lack of roadworthiness certificate","law":"Motor liability model policy, art. 25.3","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Namur","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-09-10","rol":"9410","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1990:ARR.19900910.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'action de la mutuelle tendant à réclamer à l'assureur-loi le remboursement des indemnités décaissées pendant une période d'incapacité attribuée à un accident du travail n'est pas une demande fondée sur la loi du 10…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The health-insurance fund sought reimbursement from the workplace-accident insurer of benefits paid during a period of incapacity attributed to a workplace accident. The court held that this claim is not one based on the Act of 10 April 1971 within the meaning of its article 68, so the costs cannot be charged to the insurer under that article.","k":"Workplace accident — costs of the health fund's recovery action","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 68; Cass. 17.2.1986; Cass. 6.4.1987","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-09-04","rol":"88/61281;88/61282","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1990:JUG.19900904.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Les indemnités que l'assureur va devoir éventuellement payer à son assuré sont celles que l'employeur devra lui-même payer à son employé ou travailleur. Dès lors, l'employé a un droit d'action directe contre son…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"According to the court, the sums the insurer may have to pay its insured (the employer) are those the employer must pay its employee. The employee therefore has a direct right of action, even though the policy was concluded only between insurer and employer; the insurance contract guarantees the employee that the sums due will be paid. The summary names the employer as defendant, the keywords the insurer; the outcome is not stated.","k":"Employer's insurance — employee's direct claim","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-09-04","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1990:JUG.19900904.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Le mécanisme de suspension de la garantie de l'assurance accompagnée de la réclamation des primes postérieures à la suspension ne constitue ni une clause pénale ni une exception d'inexécution ni une astreinte ni une…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court noted that suspending cover while claiming premiums falling due during the suspension is not a penalty clause, a defence of non-performance, a coercive fine or a private penalty, but a pressure device specific to insurance. This power, which may act like a penalty when prolonged, is lawful, but the courts review whether the insurer uses it in good faith, proportionately and with moderation. The remedy is moderation of its effects, not annulment of the clause; the summary does not give the final ruling.","k":"Unpaid premiums — premiums claimed during suspension, moderation","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1134(3)","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-07-05","rol":"10081","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1990:ARR.19900705.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Lorsqu'un contrat d'assurance de la responsabilité civile \"vie privée\" exclut de la garantie les dommages causés par les chevaux de selle, il faut entendre l'expression \"cheval de selle\" dans le sens communément admis…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court construed the exclusion of damage caused by \"riding horses\" in a private-life liability policy in its ordinary meaning: a horse built and trained to be ridden. A pony aged seventeen months at the time of the accident, too young to be ridden, does not meet that definition, so the exclusion did not apply.","k":"Private-life liability insurance — riding-horse exclusion","law":"Construction of a policy exclusion (private-life liability)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-06-27","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1990:ARR.19900627.18","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Valt niet onder het begrip 'burgeroorlog of oorlog met een andere Staat' de bomontploffing die als een geïsoleerd feit moet beschouwd worden uitgaande van een terroristische groepering, die sporadisch doch gewelddadig…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a bomb explosion, an isolated act by a terrorist group sporadically but violently drawing attention to its political aims, does not fall within 'civil war or war with another State'. In the context of the policy, 'political or civil unrest' means prolonged political or civil strife requiring the ostensible concerted action of a significant group of people. The final outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Motor insurance — war and civil-unrest exclusion, bomb attack","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-06-26","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EABRL:1990:JUG.19900626.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Indien een verzekeringscontract een kortere verjaring voorziet dan de wettelijke termijn van drie jaar, dan wordt deze verjaring gestuit door de onderhandelingen tussen verzekeraar en verzekerde. Deze onderhandelingen…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a contractual limitation period shorter than the statutory three years is interrupted by negotiations between insurer and insured, running from the day the insurer ordered an appraisal until its final refusal of cover. The new period after interruption is, unless otherwise agreed, the statutory three years, not the shortened contractual period. An arbitration clause raised in the alternative to limitation is not raised 'before any other plea' as required by article 1679(2) of the Judicial Code and must be set aside. The summary does not state the outcome on the merits.","k":"Shortened contractual limitation — interruption by negotiations","law":"Judicial Code, art. 1679 and 854","w":279,"c":"Nederlandstalige rechtbank eerste aanleg Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-06-26","rol":"87/7144","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1990:JUG.19900626.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Lorsqu'un contrat d'assurance prévoit un délai de prescription plus court que le délai légal de trois ans, ce délai est interrompu par les pourparlers entre assureur et assuré. Ces pourparlers s'étendent du jour de la…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a contractual limitation period shorter than the statutory three years is interrupted by negotiations between insurer and insured, lasting from the insurer's expert appraisal to the final refusal of cover. The new period running afterwards is the statutory three years, not the shortened one, unless otherwise agreed. The arbitration clause, raised only in the alternative, was set aside because it was not raised before all other defences. The final outcome is not stated.","k":"Shortened contractual limitation — negotiations and arbitration clause","law":"Judicial Code, art. 1679 and 854","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-06-25","rol":"25.002","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1990:ARR.19900625.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'article 25, alinéa 3 de la loi sur les accidents du travail ne s'applique pas si l'incapacité consécutive à l'accident ne constitue pas une aggravation temporaire de l'incapacité permanente mais fait partie intégrante…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that article 25(3) of the Act does not apply where the incapacity following the accident is not a temporary aggravation of the permanent incapacity but part of it from consolidation; the aggravation allowance under article 7 of the RD of 21.12.1971 is then not due, the reference point being the situation at the approved settlement. For accidents before 1.1.1988, such a claim lies only against the Occupational Accidents Fund; the workplace-accident insurer was not held jointly liable.","k":"Workplace accident — aggravation allowance after consolidation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 25(3); RD 21.12.1971, art. 7","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-06-25","rol":"49457","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1990:JUG.19900625.16","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Art. 10 al. 3 de la loi du 1er juillet 1956. La prescritpion triennale peut être interrompue par des pourparlers entre l'assureur et la personne lésée. La réalité des pourparlers suppose que la victime ait pu…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court accepted that the three-year limitation period for the injured party's claim against the insurer can be interrupted by negotiations. Negotiations require that the victim could reasonably believe the insurer was considering a favourable outcome (letter, advance payment, promises). A mere offer of a medical examination that was not followed up does not amount to negotiations. The final outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Motor liability — interruption of limitation by negotiations","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 10, para. 3","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-06-19","rol":"89/2780","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1990:JUG.19900619.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Une légère intoxication alcoolique mondaine ne constitue point la faute grave qui autorise le recours de l'assureur. Le juge civil n'est pas lié par la décision pénale prononçant des peines distinctes pour intoxication…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that slight social intoxication does not amount to the gross fault that entitles the insurer to recourse under articles 24 and 25 of the model contract; the recourse therefore failed. A civil court is not bound by a criminal judgment imposing separate penalties for intoxication and for a traffic offence where that judgment's reasoning contradicts its operative part.","k":"Motor liability — slight alcohol intoxication is not gross fault","law":"Motor liability model contract, arts. 24 and 25","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-06-19","rol":"2771","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1990:ARR.19900619.18","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Ne méconnaît pas la force obligatoire de l'article 4.1.b. de la police type assurance automobile obligatoire, le juge qui, ayant considéré qu'un conducteur impliqué dans l'accident litigieux n'était pas un conducteur…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"One insurer claimed against the driver's own liability insurer; the Court of Appeal found that the driver had taken the car by force, against the will of the frightened owner, and held that he was not an 'occasional driver' within article 4.1(b) of the model policy, so his liability was not covered by that policy. The Court held that this reading, requiring at least the owner's consent, does not disregard the binding force of the model policy. The appeal was dismissed. Dispute between two insurers.","k":"Model policy — a person who takes the wheel by force is not an 'occasional driver'","law":"Model policy, art. 4.1(b)","w":280,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1990-06-19","rol":"3729","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1990:ARR.19900619.19","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Il a été satisfait au prescrit de l'article 418 du Code d'instruction criminelle lorsqu'a été annexée à l'original de l'exploit de signification de la déclaration de pourvoi déposé au greffe de la Cour une copie de…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The accident occurred on 22.7.1985; the insurer stamped the registration application and sent it to the ministry on 23.7.1985. The Court of Appeal held the vehicle insured at the time of the accident, relying on the start date of 20.7.1985 in the proposal form. The Court held that an insurer who signs and sends the registration application is bound towards third parties only from the date it sends it, and that a contract between absent parties is formed when the offeror knows or could know of the acceptance. On the insurer's appeal, the orders against it were quashed.","k":"Motor liability — start of cover and the registration application","law":"RD of 31.12.1953, art. 25bis; Act of 1.7.1956, art. 6","w":280,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1990-06-18","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1990:ARR.19900618.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le contrat fait la loi des parties. Il n'appartient pas au juge de le réécrire au motif que l'assureur responsabilité automobile civile préfère l'exécution en nature du contrat à sa résiliation. En matière d'assurance…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that the contract is binding as law between the parties and that a judge cannot rewrite it because the motor liability insurer prefers performance in kind to termination. Where premiums remain unpaid for a long time, an insurer that chooses performance rather than termination does not abuse its rights, especially as it remains liable towards injured third parties.","k":"Motor liability — unpaid premium: performance chosen over termination","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1134 (binding force of contract); abuse of rights","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-06-15","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1990:ARR.19900615.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"La clause du contrat d'assurance en responsabilité civile familiale étendant la garantie aux dommages causés aux immeubles, partie d'immeubles ou meubles n'appartenant pas à l'assuré et pris en location ou occupés par…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A family liability policy clause covering damage to property not owned by the insured, rented or occupied during holidays or trips not exceeding 90 consecutive days, also covers damage caused during an occupation lasting only one or a few hours. The court held that the word 'trip' (déplacement) ordinarily means changing place and that the clause does not allow cover to be limited to an occupation of a minimum length.","k":"Family liability insurance — occupation lasting a few hours","law":"Interpretation of the family liability policy","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-06-08","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILUX:1990:JUG.19900608.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Est fondé le recours exercé par l'assureur en remboursement par l'assuré du montant versé au tiers préjudicié, sur la base de l'article 16 de la loi du 11 juin 1874 sur les assurances en général, en raison de la faute…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court upheld the insurer's claim to recover from the insured the sums paid to the injured third party, under article 16 of the Act of 11 June 1874, on the ground of the insured's gross fault. He had driven at night in thick fog at an admitted 90 to 100 km/h with four passengers, aggravating the risk beyond what the contract contemplated, and after a night out with many beers he must have realised that his conduct increased the risk.","k":"Motor liability — insurer's recourse for gross fault","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Luxembourg","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-06-05","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1990:ARR.19900605.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le défaut de certificat de visite valable ouvre à l'assureur le recours prévu à l'article 24 sans qu'aucun lien causal ne doive être établi entre cette faute et l'accident. Le propriétaire et le conducteur sont…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the lack of a valid roadworthiness certificate gives the insurer the recourse under article 24 of the model contract without any causal link between that breach and the accident having to be shown. The owner and the driver were ordered jointly (in solidum) to pay the insurer, as both their contractual faults contributed to its loss. Between them, the driver's contribution claim against the owner succeeded as to 9/10, the owner's fault being much more serious.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for lack of roadworthiness certificate","law":"Model contract, art. 24 and 25(3)","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-05-31","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PINAM:1990:JUG.19900531.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le principe de l'exécution de bonne foi impose à l'assureur impayé qui entend suspendre sa garantie d'exprimer clairement ses intentions dans l'avertissement préalable qu'il adresse à l'assuré. Ainsi, lorsqu'un sinistre…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that good-faith performance requires an unpaid insurer wishing to suspend cover to state its intentions clearly in the prior warning sent to the insured. Where a loss occurs while the insured is behind with payment but has not yet received formal notice, the warning must specifically draw attention to the risk that the loss will not be covered. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Motor liability — suspension of cover for unpaid premium","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Namur","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-05-29","rol":"647;2689;2702","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1990:ARR.19900529.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La décision aux termes de laquelle l'assureur de la responsabilité civile à laquelle un véhicule automobile peut donner lieu est tenu d'indemniser la personne lésée ne fait pas obstacle à ce que le conducteur du…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The driver had boosted the engine of a vehicle insured as a 'moped' so that it became a motorcycle, and was convicted of driving uninsured. The Court held that the insurer's duty to compensate the injured third party does not mean that, between insurer and insured, there is insurance complying with the Act; this circumstance, which cannot be raised against the injured party, does not prevent the driver's conviction under article 18 of the Act of 1.7.1956. The driver's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Driving uninsured (criminal) — insurer's duty towards the injured party","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, arts 2 and 18(1); Cass. 30.1.1990","w":280,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1990-05-28","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1990:JUG.19900528.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La faute grave, prévue à l'article 25/9 du contrat-type d'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs, n'exonère l'assureur que si sont réunis: un élément objectif,…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the gross fault provided for in article 25/9 of the model contract releases the insurer only if three elements are present: an objective element (aggravation of the risk compared with what the contract foresaw), a subjective element (the insured knew or should have known that the fault caused such aggravation) and a causal link between the gross fault and the loss. The summary does not say whether these conditions were met or how the recourse was decided.","k":"Motor liability — conditions for recourse based on gross fault","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 11(2); motor liability model contract, arts. 24 and 25/9","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-05-25","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1990:ARR.19900525.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"L'assureur qui s'instaure conseiller en vue de promouvoir la souscription d'un contrat d'assurance - en l'espèce d'un contrat d'assurance vie des dirigeants - est responsable du préjudice subi par l'assuré si le conseil…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"An insurer that acted as adviser to promote the taking out of a directors' life insurance policy was held liable for the insured's loss, because its advice, which proved wrong, was given without reasonably careful prior study and without qualification, when it should have drawn the insured's attention to the risks of the proposed contract.","k":"Life insurance — insurer's liability for wrong advice","law":"Insurer's liability as adviser (no provision cited in the summary)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-05-18","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1990:ARR.19900518.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Il n'apparaît pas raisonnable d'évaluer à 100.000 F. la plus value que conférait à une voiture Mercedes sa couleur alors que le coût de la peinture complète d'une voiture est de notoriété inférieur à 20.000 F. Si le…","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The court found it unreasonable to value at BEF 100,000 the premium a Mercedes owed to its colour, since a full respray is well known to cost under BEF 20,000. A taxi owner deprived of his only vehicle from 28 May to 29 October 1983 is entitled to compensation for lost earnings, a direct consequence of the accident and of the dispute over the vehicle's value. He could not be blamed for not buying a new vehicle at once, as the insurance company had failed to offer him reasonable compensation.","k":"Damage to a taxi — colour premium and loss of earnings","law":"Assessment of damage (no provision cited in the summary)","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-05-16","rol":"851672","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1990:ARR.19900516.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'assureur-loi a le droit de poser les bases de son recours ultérieur en faisant appeler en déclaration de jugement commun le tiers responsable dans l'instance mue devant les juridictions sociales. L'intérêt de cette…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the workplace-accident insurer may lay the groundwork for its later recourse by joining the liable third party in the labour-court proceedings for a declaration of common judgment. This forced intervention establishes, in adversarial proceedings against the third party, the facts on which the subrogation action will rest, so that the third party cannot later rely on the relative effect of res judicata. The claim against the third party's liability insurer was held admissible.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — joinder for common judgment","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46 §1","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-05-15","rol":"3628","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1990:ARR.19900515.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le Fonds commun de garantie automobile n'est tenu de réparer le dommage matériel que lorsqu'aucune entreprise d'assurance agréée n'est obligée à ladite réparation en raison soit d'un cas fortuit exonérant le conducteur…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"The criminal court apportioned the accident 1/4 to the driver and 3/4 to an unforeseeable oil patch, treated as a fortuitous event, and ordered the Guarantee Fund, jointly with the driver, to pay BEF 88,667 to the injured party. The Court held that the Fund pays property damage only where no insurer is liable, either because of a fortuitous event exonerating the driver or because the duty to insure was not complied with. Here the driver's fault was established and no lack of insurance was found. On the Fund's appeal, the judgment was quashed as to the claims against it.","k":"Guarantee Fund — property damage where the driver was at fault","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50(1), 2°, and last paragraph; RD of 16.12.1981, art. 19(1)","w":280,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1990-05-10","rol":"89/2780","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PINAM:1990:JUG.19900510.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En vertu du mécanisme de l'article 9 de la loi du 10 juillet 1956, le jugement rendu dans une instance entre la victime et l'assuré est opposable à l'assureur s'il est établi que celui-ci a en fait assumé la direction…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that under article 9 of the Act of 10 July 1956, a judgment between the victim and the insured is binding on the insurer where the insurer is shown to have actually conducted the defence. Since res judicata then applies between the injured party and the insurer, the insurer may also rely on it. Sued by the victim, the insurer may therefore raise the res judicata defence based on the earlier judgment in the victim's case against the insured.","k":"Direct action — insurer conducting the defence and res judicata","law":"Act of 10.7.1956, art. 9","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Namur","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-05-09","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1990:ARR.19900509.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En vertu des articles 3 et 25, 6°, du contrat-type d'assurances obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs, est fondée l'action récursoire de l'assureur contre l'assuré qui a confié les…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court upheld the insurer's recourse against the insured who had handed the vehicle keys to a person who, at the time of the accident, was driving without meeting the legal requirements (no driving licence). The decision rests on articles 3 and 25, 6° of the model contract.","k":"Motor liability — keys given to an unlicensed driver, recourse","law":"Motor liability model contract, arts 3 and 25, 6°","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-05-09","rol":"85/71162","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1990:ARR.19900509.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Is gegrond de regresvordering van de verzekeraar, gesteund op de zware fout van de verzekerde, bestaande in het in het verkeer brengen van een vrachtwagen in zeer slechte technische toestand.","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court upheld the insurer's recourse claim based on the insured's gross fault in putting a lorry in very poor technical condition on the road; the insured lost the right to cover.","k":"Liability insurance — gross fault (unroadworthy lorry) and recourse","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-04-27","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1990:ARR.19900427.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"N'est pas constitutif de faute grave le fait de confier son véhicule à une personne qui a l'âge de conduire un véhicule, sans exiger la production du permis de conduire de celle-ci, compte tenu de la généralisation du…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that lending one's vehicle to a person of driving age without asking to see a licence is not gross fault: given how widespread licences are, someone lending a car to an adult may assume that the adult holds one. The insurer must prove that the insured knew or should have known, when lending the car, that the driver had no valid licence, or at least that there were serious indications of this; absent such proof, the insurer's recourse failed.","k":"Motor liability — lending the car to an unlicensed driver","law":"Insurer's recourse action; gross fault","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-04-26","rol":"8309","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1990:ARR.19900426.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"L'action directe reconnue à la personne lésée contre l'assureur par l'article 6 de la loi du 1er juillet 1956 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs, n'a lieu…","court":"cass","out":"sigortaci","src":"yargitay","s":"A passenger injured in France in a single-vehicle accident involving a Belgian-registered car brought a direct action against the motor liability insurer; the Court of Appeal applied Belgian law to liability but French law, as the law of the place of the accident, to the extent of cover. The Court held that under articles 4(a) and 9 of the Hague Convention of 4.5.1971, Belgian law governs both liability and the direct action; the green card merely raises a presumption that a contract exists and does not stop the insurer from proving that the loss was not covered. On the insurer's appeal, the judgment was quashed.","k":"Accident abroad — law governing the direct action and the green card","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 6; Hague Convention of 4.5.1971, arts 4(a) and 9","w":279,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1990-04-24","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1990:ARR.19900424.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"1. Is niet bij wet verboden de clausule van een verzekeringscontract die de verjaringstermijn van 3 jaar, bepaald bij artikel 32 van de wet van 11 juni 1874 op de verzekeringen, verkort. De briefwisseling tussen de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A clause shortening the three-year limitation period of article 32 of the 1874 Act is not prohibited. Post-loss correspondence interrupts or suspends limitation only if it amounts to negotiations showing that the insurer is willing to accept the claim (interruption) or to halt the running of time (suspension); the mere appointment of an expert is not enough. An alarm installer owes only an obligation of means and is liable only if fault is proven. The outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Limitation — contractual shortening and effect of correspondence","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 32","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-04-23","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1990:ARR.19900423.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"L'assuré qui a provoqué volontairement un sinistre ne peut reprocher à son assureur d'avoir indemnisé le tiers à l'amiable, surtout lorsque l'assuré n'a jamais contesté sa responsabilité.","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"An insured who deliberately caused the loss cannot criticise the insurer for settling with the third party out of court, especially where the insured never disputed liability. The court found the insurer's settlement justified and upheld its recourse against the insured.","k":"Intentional loss — insurer's settlement and recourse","law":"Insurer's recourse action; intentional loss","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-04-23","rol":"89/3060","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1990:ARR.19900423.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"De verzekerde die aan zijn verplichting de oorzaken en omstandigheden van het ongeval aan de verzekeraar aan te geven tekortkomt, verliest, overeenkomstig artikel 24 van het modelcontract, het recht op de dekking.","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an insured who fails to report the causes and circumstances of the accident to the insurer loses the right to cover under article 24 of the model contract.","k":"Motor liability — failure to report the circumstances of the accident","law":"Model contract, art. 24","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-04-19","rol":"8483","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1990:ARR.19900419.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le \"cas fortuit\" au sens de l'article 50, alinéa 1er, 2°, de la loi du 9 juillet 1975 relative au contrôle des entreprises d'assurances, est une circonstance ou un événement qui constituent pour le conducteur du…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"The driver skidded on a large patch of fuel oil, barely visible in the rain, and hit a parked car; he claimed his own loss from the Guarantee Fund. The lower court rejected the claim because the damage was not caused by another vehicle and the road authority should have been sued. The Court held that a fortuitous event is any circumstance amounting to force majeure for the driver, not necessarily independent of human will, and that the owner's right to compensation from the Fund does not require damage caused by another vehicle. On the driver's appeal, the judgment was quashed.","k":"Guarantee Fund — fortuitous event and the owner's own loss","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, arts 49 and 50(1), 2°; RD of 16.12.1981, art. 17(1), 1°, and (2)","w":280,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1990-04-18","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1990:ARR.19900418.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that the insurer makes a firm offer when the proposal contains the essential terms (risks, sums insured, premium), that the contract is formed once the essential terms are agreed, and that acceptance must be expressed irrevocably. Under article 28 of the Act of 11 June 1874, insurance has no effect if the property was never at risk or the loss already existed when the contract was made; the risk must be a future event, and this public-policy point must be raised by the court of its own motion. The concrete outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Formation of the insurance contract and pre-existing loss","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 28","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-04-05","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1990:ARR.19900405.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"De regresvordering van de verzekeraar, op grond van de artikelen 16 van de wet op de verzekeringen en 24, 25/9 en 25/10 van het modelcontract dient te worden afgewezen bij gebrek aan bewijs van dronkenschap en van…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court dismissed the motor liability insurer's recourse claim based on the provisions allowing recourse for gross fault or drunkenness. Neither drunkenness nor a causal link between the accident and the alcohol intoxication found was proven.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for drunkenness, proof and causation","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16; model contract, art. 24, 25/9, 25/10","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-04-04","rol":"89/3060","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1990:ARR.19900404.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Is gegrond de door de verzekeraar ingestelde regresvordering, steunende, overeenkomstig artikel 25, 3 van het modelcontract, op het feit dat het voertuig op het ogenblik van het ongeval niet voorzien was van een geldig…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court upheld the insurer's recourse claim under article 25, 3 of the model contract, on the ground that the vehicle had no valid roadworthiness certificate at the time of the accident. The published note recalls that, under the same article, recourse is excluded if the insured proves that there was no causal link between the vehicle's condition and the accident.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for lack of a roadworthiness certificate","law":"Model contract, art. 25, 3","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-04-03","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1990:ARR.19900403.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Where successive policies of different rank cover the same property without agreement between co-insurers, the order system of article 13 of the 1874 Act applies; the insurer that paid without being liable for the whole has a subrogated recourse against the liable co-insurer. The court held that the latter may raise contractual defences against the subrogee, that the shortened contractual limitation period runs from the date of loss, and that the subrogee bears its insured's inaction. Agency without authority and unjust enrichment were rejected.","k":"Fire insurance — recourse between successive co-insurers and limitation","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 13","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-03-27","rol":"84/1293","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1990:ARR.19900327.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La charge de la preuve ne doit pas être confondue avec son administration pour laquelle chaque partie a l'obligation de collaborer loyalement. On ne peut admettre l'attitude de la victime qui s'obstine à ne pas se…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court distinguished the burden of proof from the taking of evidence, in which each party must cooperate fairly. The victim's deliberate and repeated failure to attend examinations by the insurer's medical adviser and by the court-appointed expert amounted to a refusal to cooperate. In the revision proceedings, this allowed the court to accept as true the workplace-accident insurer's assertion that no incapacity remained.","k":"Workplace accident — refusal of medical examination in revision","law":"Act of 10.4.1971 (revision)","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-03-23","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1990:JUG.19900323.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Le principe de l'exécution de bonne foi des conventions oblige l'assureur désireux de suspendre sa garantie d'attirer spécialement l'attention de l'assuré sur le fait que tout sinistre ultérieur sera à sa charge. La…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the principle of performing contracts in good faith requires an insurer wishing to suspend cover to draw the insured's specific attention to the fact that any later loss will be at the insured's own expense. A mere statement that cover is suspended in accordance with the policy terms was held insufficient for that purpose.","k":"Motor liability — unpaid premium, specific warning before suspension","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-03-02","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1990:ARR.19900302.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Wanneer geen aangifte van ongeval aan de maatschappij is gebeurd laat niets toe aan te nemen dat zij alzo schade heeft geleden indien een andere verzekeraar met gelijklopende belangen in haar plaats onderzocht wie…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, where the accident was not reported, nothing shows the insurer suffered prejudice if another insurer with parallel interests investigated liability and the third parties' loss in its place. Under articles 33 and 34 of the model contract, however, failure to notify the transfer of the vehicle and its replacement suspends the contract automatically, from the transfer date if the vehicle is not replaced immediately, or after eight days if it is. The final outcome is not stated.","k":"Motor liability — missing claim notice and suspension after vehicle transfer","law":"Model contract, arts. 33 and 34","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-03-02","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1990:JUG.19900302.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'action récursoire exercée par l'assureur contre son assuré est justifiée, sur la base des articles 24 et 25, 6 du contrat-type d'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs,…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court upheld the insurer's recourse action against its insured under articles 24 and 25, 6 of the model contract. The insured failed to prove that the acts giving rise to recourse, committed by another insured, occurred against their instructions or without their knowledge, and the vehicle was driven by a person without a licence or below the minimum age.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for unlicensed driver","law":"Model contract, art. 24 and 25, 6","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-03-02","rol":"5689","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1990:ARR.19900302.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Encore que sont exclus de la couverture obligatoire \"ceux qui se seraient rendus maîtres du véhicule par vol ou violence\", en vertu de l'article 3, alinéa 1er, des Dispositions communes annexées à la Convention Benelux…","court":"cass","out":"sigortali","src":"yargitay","s":"An accident was caused in Antwerp with a car stolen in Great Britain, by a driver who was never identified; the Court of Appeal ordered the bureau that guarantees foreign vehicles to compensate the injured party. Following the Benelux Court ruling of 26.6.1989, the Court held that the exclusion in article 3(1) of the Common Provisions targets those who took control of the vehicle by theft or violence; absent proof that the driver was the thief or receiver, the liability of an unknown driver of a stolen car is not excluded. The Bureau's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Car stolen abroad — Bureau's liability where the driver is unknown","law":"Benelux Common Provisions, art. 2(2) and art. 3(1); Act of 4.7.1972, art. 2(2); Benelux Court 26.6.1989 (88/3)","w":280,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1990-03-01","rol":"6975","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1990:ARR.19900301.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La règle prévue par l'article 4, alinéa 2, de la loi du 1er juillet 1956 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs qui autorise d'exclure de l'assurance le…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A motorcyclist on his way to the start of a race knocked down a pedestrian on a path reserved for spectators; the Court of Appeal held that the damage resulted not from taking part in the race but from riding on a forbidden path, and that the organiser did not have to have it covered by the special race insurance. Noting that article 4(2) of the Act of 1.7.1956 is a common Benelux rule, the Court asked the Benelux Court whether the exclusion covers only damage caused during the race or also travel to and from it, and stayed the proceedings. No ruling on the merits.","k":"Speed-race exclusion — accident on the way to the start (Benelux referral)","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 4(2) and art. 20; Benelux Convention of 24.5.1966, art. 3; Benelux Court Treaty, art. 6","w":280,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1990-02-28","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1990:ARR.19900228.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En vertu de l'article 16 de la loi du 11 juin 1874 sur les assurances en général et de l'article 25-9 du contrat-type d'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs, l'action…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court upheld the motor liability insurer's recourse against the insured based on gross fault connected with the accident. Drink-driving, treated by the criminal court as a single offence together with unintentional injury, is causally linked to the accident. Under the equivalence-of-conditions theory, the insured's fault need not be the sole or decisive cause of the damage.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for drink-driving, causation","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16; model contract, art. 25, 9°; Criminal Code, arts 418 and 420","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-02-28","rol":"89/2780","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1990:ARR.19900228.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"L'article 9 de la loi sur les assurances englobe tant les omissions volontaires que les omissions involontaires. La fausse déclaration entraîne la nullité du contrat lorsqu'elle diminue l'opinion du risque de telle…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that article 9 of the 1874 Act covers both deliberate and innocent omissions; misrepresentation voids the contract where it reduces the insurer's assessment of the risk such that it would not have contracted, or not on the same terms, which the insurer may prove by any means. A policyholder who signed the proposal cannot claim that inaccurate answers are unenforceable because the broker or agent acting as his representative filled it in. The final outcome is not stated.","k":"Misrepresentation — proposal form completed by the broker","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-02-21","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1990:ARR.19900221.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"En matière d'assurance de responsabilité civile, la victime est un tiers au contrat d'assurance et ne peut donc, hormis une stipulation pour autrui ou certains cas expressément prévus par la loi, assigner directement…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that in liability insurance the victim is a third party to the contract and, absent a stipulation for a third party or a statutory exception, cannot sue the insurer directly. The contractor's forwarding to the project owner of an insurer's certificate describing the covered risks does not create a stipulation for a third party. Article 20, 9° of the Mortgage Act grants a preferential right, not a direct action; the owner's claim against the insurer failed.","k":"Contractors' all-risks insurance — direct claim by the project owner","law":"Mortgage Act of 16.12.1851, art. 20, 9°","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-02-21","rol":"85/71162","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAANT:1990:JUG.19900221.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Het toevallig feit, dat overeenkomstig artikel 50, alinéa 1, 2°, van de Wet van 9 juli 1975, de vergoeding van schade door het Gemeenschappelijk Motorwaarborgfonds tot gevolg kan hebben, dient beoordeeld te worden aan…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the fortuitous event which, under article 50(1)(2°) of the Act of 9 July 1975, may lead to compensation by the motor Guarantee Fund must be assessed from the standpoint of the driver of the vehicle that caused the accident. The summary does not say whether the Fund was ordered to pay.","k":"Guarantee Fund — meaning of a fortuitous event","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50(1)(2°); Cass. 2.5.1989","w":280,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-02-21","rol":"7737","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1990:ARR.19900221.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Les règles énoncées par les articles 1er, 6 et 9 de la loi relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs, constituent depuis le 1er juillet 1976 des règles juridiques…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"A public social welfare centre (CPAS/OCMW) claimed from the liable person's motor insurer, before the criminal court, the cost of social assistance provided because of the injuries; the claim was rejected. The Court noted that whether the centre is an 'injured party' within articles 1, 6 and 9 of the Act of 1.7.1956 requires interpreting a common Benelux rule; it referred the question to the Benelux Court and stayed the proceedings. The centre's appeal against the defendant was inadmissible. No ruling on the merits.","k":"Public social welfare centre's direct action against the motor insurer — Benelux referral","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, arts 1, 6 and 9; CPAS Act of 8.7.1976, art. 98(2); Benelux Court Treaty, art. 6","w":280,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1990-02-13","rol":"85/71162","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1990:ARR.19900213.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"De verzekeraar die misbruik maakt van het feit dat verzekerde zijn tijdige aangifte niet rechtstreeks tot de verzekeringsmaatschappij maar wel tot de tussenpersoon voor de luchtreisovereenkomst richtte, handelt strijdig…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insured had reported the loss of luggage in time, not directly to the insurer but to the intermediary for the air travel contract. The court held that an insurer taking advantage of this acts contrary to good faith and cannot rely on the clause requiring notice within 15 days on pain of forfeiture. The first judge's ex aequo et bono assessment of the loss was found reasonable.","k":"Baggage insurance — notice given to the intermediary and good faith","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-02-12","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1990:ARR.19900212.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"La dépression nerveuse constitue une maladie caractérisée par opposition à toutes sortes d'états d'âme plus ou moins difficiles à vivre, avec lesquels on la confond souvent; la perte de l'élan vital et de l'instinct de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court characterised nervous depression as a definite illness, distinct from mere moods and linked to specific organic disorders; a person suffering from it cannot sign a document attesting to good health. The full good faith required of the insurer must be matched by complete honesty of the insured when the contract is formed. The contract signed by an insured who, while depressed, declared without reservation that he was in good health was held void.","k":"Personal insurance — concealed depression, nullity","law":"Act of 11.6.1874 (concealment)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-02-02","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1990:ARR.19900202.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Aux termes de l'article 9, alinéa 2, de la loi du 1er juillet 1956 (art. 14, alinéa 1er, 2, de la loi du 21 novembre 1989 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité en matière de véhicules automoteurs), le…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a judgment given between the injured party and the insured is binding on the insurer where it is shown that the insurer in fact conducted the proceedings. From the parties' intention it inferred that they did not mean to exclude the spouse of the insured, policyholder or driver from cover unconditionally. A first-instance decision on admissibility adjourning the case on the merits is not an investigative measure under art. 1068(2) of the Judicial Code, so the appeal court cannot send the case back to the first judge.","k":"Motor liability — insurer conducting the defence and the insured's spouse","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 9(2); Act of 21.11.1989, art. 14 §1; Judicial Code, art. 1068(2)","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-01-31","rol":"7797","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1990:ARR.19900131.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsque le Fonds commun de garantie automobile s'est pourvu en cassation contre toutes les dispositions de l'arrêt attaqué qui le concernent, la cassation de la décision disant l'intervention du Fonds irrecevable et…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court of Appeal declared inadmissible the Guarantee Fund's voluntary intervention in the criminal proceedings and the civil parties' claims against it, because no civil claim had been brought against an insured, the third party being unidentified. The Court held that article 50(4) of the Act of 9.7.1975 allows the Fund to be joined or to intervene voluntarily when the civil claim is brought before the criminal court, and that the judgment added a condition not found in the Act. The judgment was quashed on that point. Procedural ruling; the outcome on the merits is unknown.","k":"Guarantee Fund's intervention in criminal proceedings — unidentified vehicle","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50(4); Act of 1.7.1956, art. 9","w":280,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1990-01-30","rol":"4107","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1990:ARR.19900130.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La décision aux termes de laquelle l'assureur de la responsabilité civile à laquelle un véhicule automoteur peut donner lieu est tenu d'indemniser la personne lésée ne fait pas obstacle à ce que le conducteur du…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The driver was convicted of driving uninsured because, for the trade plate he used, the requirements of registration and vehicle-specific insurance were not met, although the motor liability insurer had been ordered in the civil proceedings to compensate the injured third party. The Court held that the insurer's duty towards the injured third party does not mean that, between insurer and insured, there is insurance complying with the Act, and that this order does not prevent punishing the driver under article 18 of the Act of 1.7.1956. The driver's appeal was dismissed.","k":"Driving uninsured under a trade plate (criminal)","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, arts 1, 2(1) and 18(1); Benelux Court 15.12.1989 (A 88/5)","w":280,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1990-01-26","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EABRL:1990:JUG.19900126.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"De Rechtsbijstandverzekeraar, die gerechtskosten en honoraria van een expert, dokter en advocaat betaald heeft voor een bedrag dat hoger ligt dan het gedekte bedrag, heeft het recht om voor het overschreden bedrag een…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a legal-expenses insurer which paid court costs and expert, doctor and lawyer fees beyond the insured amount may recover the excess from its insured as an undue payment, unless the insured proves that the insurer had agreed to bear all those costs definitively. That claim derives directly from the insurance contract and is time-barred after three years under article 32 of the Act of 11 June 1874, running from the dates of the undue payments. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Legal expenses — recovery of overpayment, limitation","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 32","w":279,"c":"Nederlandstalige rechtbank eerste aanleg Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-01-26","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1990:JUG.19900126.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"L'assureur de Protection Juridique, qui a payé des frais de justice ainsi que des honoraires d'expert, de médecin et d'avocat pour un montant supérieur au montant garanti, est en droit, dans la mesure du dépassement,…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The legal expenses insurer had paid court costs and expert, medical and lawyer's fees exceeding the insured amount. The court held that it may recover the excess from the insured as an undue payment, unless the insured proves that the insurer intended to bear those costs definitively. This action is directly linked to the insurance contract and is subject to the three-year limitation period of article 32 of the Act of 11 June 1874, running from the dates of the undue payments. The concrete outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Legal expenses insurance — recovery of payments above the cover limit","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 32","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-01-18","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1990:ARR.19900118.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"1. Begaat een grove fout de verzekerde die op een canapé rookt na het verbruik van een hoeveelheid alcohol (gehalte van 2,78 g per 100 ml) zodat hij niet meer de nodige beheersing en aandacht bezit om veilig en zonder…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an insured who smoked on a sofa after drinking (2.78 g of alcohol per 100 ml), no longer having the control and attention needed to smoke safely, committed gross fault under article 16 of the 1874 Act. Article 38 of that Act gives the owner of the burnt building, or the owner's subrogated insurer, its own action against the tenant's insurer without joining the tenant; but that insurer is not liable to the owner to the extent it can raise against its insured the lack of cover under article 16.","k":"Fire — smoking while drunk as gross fault, owner's direct action","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, arts. 16 and 38","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-01-11","rol":"84/1293","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1990:ARR.19900111.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Overwegende dat voor de berekening van de schade voortspruitende uit het inkomstenverlies, het nettoloon in aanmerking dient te worden genomen, daar ten deze geenszins blijkt dat de burgerlijke partij op deze…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court assessed the loss of income on net wages, with a 20% allowance for possible tax, a 5% capitalisation rate and the Levie tables. The annuity paid by the workplace-accident insurer to the victim's daughter was not deducted from the mother's award, as it compensates the daughter's own loss. Since the daughter had no loss-of-income claim under ordinary law, the workplace-accident insurer's claim to recover that annuity was rejected.","k":"Death claim — loss of income and workplace-accident insurer's recourse","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":5,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1990-01-09","rol":"2657","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CASS:1990:ARR.19900109.21","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Est légalement justifiée la décision suivant laquelle les normes pénales contenues dans la loi du 1er juillet 1956 tendent non seulement à défendre les intérêts des tiers mais aussi à inciter, dans l'intérêt général,…","court":"cass","out":"diger","src":"yargitay","s":"The Court held that article 18 of the Act of 1 July 1956 applies when a vehicle is put on the road while its cover is suspended for non-payment of the premium, even though under article 11 the suspension cannot be raised against the injured party. The criminal provisions do not only protect third parties; they also push road users to meet their obligations and protect the economic structure of the insurance sector. The defendant's appeal was dismissed and the Antwerp Court of Appeal judgment stands.","k":"Motor liability — cover suspended for unpaid premium and criminal offence","law":"Act of 1.7.1956 (motor liability), arts. 11 and 18; ECHR art. 6.1","w":280,"c":"Cour de cassation","m":"full"},{"d":"1990-01-04","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1990:ARR.19900104.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court defined the gross fault grounding recourse under article 25.9 of the model contract as a fault akin to an intentional act, making the risk extraordinary (objective element) and of which the insured must have been aware (subjective element). Separate criminal penalties for drink-driving and traffic offences do not rule out a causal link between intoxication and the damage; the civil court may treat intoxication as one of the causes. The outcome of the recourse is not stated.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for gross fault and intoxication","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16; motor liability model contract, art. 25.9; res judicata effect of criminal judgments","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-12-27","rol":"89/3060","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1989:JUG.19891227.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Est tenu de prendre en charge la réparation du préjudice résultant d'un accident de roulage, l'assureur qui a contribué à créer l'apparence qu'il était engagé, en remettant au courtier des cartes vertes provisoires et…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer had given the broker provisional green cards and did not react to the broker's letter informing it that a green card had been issued to the client. The court held that the insurer, having thus helped create the appearance that it was bound, must compensate the loss resulting from the road accident.","k":"Motor liability — provisional green card issued by a broker","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-12-21","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1989:ARR.19891221.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"La réticence s'analyse dans le chef de l'assuré et l'assureur n'est pas tenu de vérifier le risque présenté et les déclarations faites; il ne peut cependant plus invoquer la nulluité lorsque, ayant ultérieurement appris…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that concealment is assessed from the insured's standpoint and that the insurer is under no duty to verify the risk presented or the statements made. However, an insurer that later learns of the undisclosed facts and goes on performing the contract thereby confirms it and can no longer rely on nullity. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Duty of disclosure — concealment and confirmation of the contract","law":"Act of 11.6.1874 (duty of disclosure)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-12-21","rol":"87/7144","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1989:ARR.19891221.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"L'assuré qui déclare qu'il ne souffre d'aucune infirmité grave n'est pas coupable de réticence s'il omet de déclarer un accident dont il a conservé une incapacité de 8%, dès lors que celle-ci ne l'a pas empêché de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"An insured who declared having no serious infirmity was not guilty of concealment for failing to disclose an earlier accident that left an 8% incapacity, since it had not prevented him from resuming his occupation normally. The court added that an insurer that knowingly continues to perform the contract after learning of the concealment can no longer rely on nullity.","k":"Duty of disclosure — earlier accident and 8% incapacity","law":"Act of 11.6.1874 (duty of disclosure)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-12-20","rol":"85/71162","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1989:ARR.19891220.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"Alhoewel opzettelijk kan de schadeverwekkende daad zeker niet als bewust gepleegd worden beschouwd aangezien de partijen het er over eens zijn dat de dader in een ernstige staat van geestesstoornis verkeerde. De…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The parties agreed that the person who started the fire was in a serious state of mental disorder. The court held that the act, although intentional, could not be regarded as consciously committed: the fire, caused entirely outside the author's free will, had the required accidental character. The family liability insurer was ordered to provide cover.","k":"Family liability insurance — fire started by a mentally ill person","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-12-20","rol":"89/236","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1989:JUG.19891220.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Contrat d'assurance couvrant le bris accidentel ou inopiné du pare-brise des vitrages latéraux et arrière y compris les frais exposés pour leur remplacement. La conjonction des termes \" accidentel \" et \" inopiné \" donne…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The policy covered accidental or unexpected breakage of the windscreen and side and rear windows, including replacement costs. The court held that combining the words 'accidental' and 'unexpected' gave the clause a clear meaning with no reference to fault on the insured's part, and that 'accident' must be understood broadly as a fortuitous event. The concrete outcome of the claim is not stated in the summary.","k":"Glass breakage cover — meaning of 'accidental or unexpected'","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-12-19","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1989:ARR.19891219.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that concealment or misrepresentation under article 9 of the Act of 11 June 1874 means silence about a known fact, irrespective of good or bad faith, which must lessen the insurer's view of the risk. Failing to disclose 'a few minor claims' while riding the moped or driving the car insured by his mother definitely affected the theft insurer's assessment. A premium request by the underwriting department or the time elapsed did not amount to waiver of the nullity invoked by the claims department. A broker may incur contractual liability even without a mandate.","k":"Theft insurance — concealment of prior claims and nullity","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-12-18","rol":"84/18","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1989:ARR.19891218.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Si la victime ou ses ayants droit apportent la preuve d'n événement soudain (choc de la voiture contre un poteau) et d'une lésion (arrêt cardiaque), la lésion est supposée trouver sa cause dans l'événement soudain…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that where the victim or their dependants prove a sudden event (the car hitting a post) and an injury (cardiac arrest), the injury is presumed to result from that event. The workplace-accident insurer may still rebut the presumption by showing that the death was wholly unrelated to the impact; medical findings made shortly after the accident by the doctor appointed by the public prosecutor may be decisive. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — cardiac arrest, rebutting the presumption","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 9","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-12-11","rol":"86/8391","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PINAM:1989:JUG.19891211.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsque, dans la croyance de la culpabilité de son assuré , un assureur règle à la partie préjudiciée, pour compte de son assuré, le montant de son dommage et que l'intention des parties a été que, par ce règlement,…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer had compensated the injured party before the criminal ruling, believing its insured to be at fault; the insured was later acquitted. The court held that where the parties intended to settle the matter definitively, the payment rests on a valid cause and is not an undue payment. To recover it, the insurer must prove it paid not merely to end the dispute on a lump-sum basis but in the mistaken belief that its insured was liable; the undue-payment claim failed.","k":"Motor liability — reclaiming a payment after the insured's acquittal","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Namur","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-12-08","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EABRL:1989:JUG.19891208.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"In principe is het artikel 9 van de Wet van 11 juni 1874 op de verzekeringen, dat de nietigheid bepaalt van het verzekeringscontract in geval van verzwijging of valse verklaringen van de verzekeringnemer bij de…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that article 9 of the Act of 11 June 1874, providing for nullity in case of non-disclosure or misrepresentation, also applies to life insurance; the incontestability clause does not exclude nullity in case of fraud. A policyholder who, expressly asked about his health, withholds recent and serious health problems commits such fraud. The insurer may invoke nullity of the contract and need not refund the premiums paid.","k":"Life insurance — fraudulent non-disclosure of health","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9","w":279,"c":"Nederlandstalige rechtbank eerste aanleg Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-12-08","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1989:JUG.19891208.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"En principe, l'article 9 de la loi sur les assurances du 11 juin 1874 qui prévoit la nullité du contrat d'assurance en cas de réticences ou de fausses déclarations du preneur d'assurances lors de la souscription…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that article 9 of the Act of 11 June 1874 (nullity for misrepresentation) also applies to life insurance, but that the incontestability clause in such policies excludes nullity except in case of fraud. A policyholder who, expressly asked about his health, fails to disclose recent and serious health problems commits fraud. The insurer may therefore rely on the nullity of the contract and need not refund the premiums paid.","k":"Life insurance — incontestability clause and fraud","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-12-06","rol":"85/71162","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1989:ARR.19891206.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Het Hof beslist dat om aanspraak te kunnen maken op de waarborg stoffelijke schade in wezen steeds is vereist dat het gedekte voertuig in welke staat van materiële vernieling dat het zich ook moge bevinden aan de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The rental car had disappeared through a fraud committed by an unidentified person using stolen identity papers. The court held that the material-damage cover requires the insured vehicle, whatever its state of destruction, to be shown or capable of being shown to the insurer, which was impossible. As the facts were not theft, the theft cover did not apply either; cover was denied.","k":"Vehicle damage cover — rental car lost through fraud","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-12-05","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1989:ARR.19891205.17","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"L'attitude de l'assureur contre l'insolvabilité qui , ayant obtenu un jugement exécutoire par provision contre le débiteur, ne prend pas le risque de diligenter une mesure d'exécution alors que le débiteur a lui-même…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the credit insurer, as assignee of the debt, was justified in not enforcing a provisionally enforceable judgment against the debtor while the debtor's action on the merits against the assignor was pending: provisional enforcement is at the enforcing party's risk, and the debtor might have obtained from the assignor damages well above the assigned debt. The insurer did levy a protective attachment; the debtor's unforeseeable departure abroad defeated it. No fault was found on the assignee insurer's part.","k":"Credit insurance — enforcement by the assignee insurer","law":"No provision cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-12-05","rol":"84/1293","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1989:ARR.19891205.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'existence d'un contrat de travail est déterminée, non pas par la qualification donnée par les parties à leur convention, mais par un ensemble d'éléments de fait attestant de la présence ou de l'absence entre elles…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that whether an employment contract exists depends not on the parties' label but on facts showing a relationship of authority. While under the employer's direction and supervision, the worker is performing the contract and not on the way to work. Nullity of the contract cannot be raised against the Act's application; the victim has no action against the employer, only against the workplace-accident insurer or, failing it, the Workplace Accidents Fund. The summary does not state the outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — existence of employment contract, employer immunity","law":"Act of 10.4.1971","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-12-01","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1989:JUG.19891201.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Le conducteur d'un véhicule en perd le contrôle. Le propriétaire de celui-ci, passager, est blessé. La responsabilité de l'accident incombe audit conducteur. La mutuelle de la victime, subrogée aux droits de celle-ci,…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A driver lost control of a vehicle whose owner, travelling as a passenger, was injured; the driver was held liable. The court held that the victim's health-insurance fund, subrogated to the victim's rights, could sue both the driver and the driver's motor liability insurer, because article 4 of the driver's policy covered occasional driving of another vehicle. The owner remains a third party under the driver's policy; treating the owner's car as the insured vehicle does not make the owner a policyholder.","k":"Motor liability — occasional driving of another vehicle, owner-passenger as third party","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary (policy art. 4)","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-11-30","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1989:ARR.19891130.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Le recouvrement est l'action de recouvrer une somme, d'en recevoir le paiement. Dès lors, en l'absence de précision dans le texte de la police, ni les frais d'envoi de la lettre recommandée de mise en demeure ni les…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, absent any precision in the policy, neither the cost of sending the registered formal notice nor lawyers' fees are collection costs. The suspension-of-cover clause is subject to the good-faith performance of contracts; even if they were collection costs, refusing cover for their non-payment would give the insurer a disproportionate advantage and amount to an abuse of rights.","k":"Suspension of cover — collection costs and abuse of rights","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1134","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-11-30","rol":"88/2786","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1989:ARR.19891130.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Garantie ne reprenant ses effets que le lendemain du jour du paiement intégrale des sommes dues ainsi que des frais de recouvrement. Notion des frais de recouvrement. Imprécisions dans le contrat. Frais administratifs…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The policy provided that cover resumed only the day after full payment of the sums due and the collection costs. Given the imprecise wording, the court held that administrative charges are not collection costs and that the suspension clause is subject to good-faith performance: the insurer may not abuse its contractual rights to gain an advantage disproportionate to the other party's burden. Whether cover was actually restored is not expressly stated in the summary.","k":"Unpaid premium — suspension and the notion of collection costs","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1134","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-11-28","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIHAI:1989:JUG.19891128.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La couverture d'un sinistre survenu sur une chaussée rendue très glissante à cause de déversements de boue consécutifs aux passages de tracteurs agricoles circulant du champ à la ferme, incombe à l'assureur R.C.…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that cover for an accident on a road made very slippery by mud dropped by farm tractors driving from the field to the farm falls on the motor liability insurer, not the business liability insurer. The tractors spread the mud while being driven on the road, and without the use of the vehicles there the accident would not have happened. The dispute concerned the allocation of cover between two insurers.","k":"Motor or business liability insurance — mud on the road","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-11-23","rol":"10081","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1989:ARR.19891123.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Il ressort du texte de l'article 25 bis de l'A.R. du 31 décembre 1953 relatif à l'immatriculation des véhicules que l'apposition, sur la demande d'immatriculation introduite à l'Office de la Circulation Routière, du…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the insurer's stamp and signature on the vehicle registration application mean that insurance was actually taken out, and that these formalities mark the start of cover vis-à-vis third parties. It is irrelevant to injured parties that the motorist then neither signed a written contract nor paid the premium: the vehicle was deemed insured.","k":"Motor liability — insurer's stamp on the registration application","law":"RD of 31.12.1953, art. 25bis","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-11-17","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1989:ARR.19891117.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le Bureau belge des assureurs automobiles doit être considéré comme un assureur qui, sous réserve des obligations particulières qui lui sont imposées par la loi, doit assumer à l'égard des personnes lésées la charge de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court treated the Belgian Motor Insurers' Bureau as an insurer bound to compensate injured parties for damage caused in Belgium by vehicles normally based abroad. For a non-EEC vehicle it intervenes only if the vehicle is properly insured; for an EEC vehicle, even if the insurance obligation was breached. It is not, however, bound to intervene where the damage was caused by a stolen vehicle. The concrete outcome is not stated.","k":"Belgian Motor Insurers' Bureau — stolen foreign vehicle","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 3(1); Directive 72/166/EEC, art. 2 §2","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-11-14","rol":"87/7144","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1989:ARR.19891114.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Constitue une aggravation du risque pouvant servir de fondement au recours de l'assureur r.c. auto à l'égard de l'assuré, le fait qu'un véhicule déclaré à l'assureur comme étant affecté au transport de personnes à titre…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a vehicle declared to the insurer as used for carrying passengers free of charge and goods on own account, but actually used for paid passenger transport, amounts to an aggravation of risk. Under articles 24 and 25, 2 of the model contract, this may ground the motor liability insurer's recourse against the insured.","k":"Motor liability — actual use of the vehicle, aggravation of risk","law":"Motor liability model contract, arts 24 and 25, 2","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-11-08","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1989:ARR.19891108.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"De schuldsaldoverzekeringen zijn zoals de andere verzekeringen onderworpen aan de verjaring van drie jaar waarin artikel 32 van de Wet van 11 juni 1874 op de verzekeringen voorziet. De gebeurtenis vanaf welke de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Outstanding-balance life policies are subject, like other insurance, to the three-year limitation period of article 32 of the 1874 Act, which runs from the death of the life insured. The beneficiaries' ignorance of the policy is not force majeure suspending limitation. Correspondence in which the insurer asked them to establish the cause of death and that the illness was absent at inception is not an acknowledgment of debt interrupting limitation, as it lacks certainty. The outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Outstanding-balance life insurance — start and interruption of limitation","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 32","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-11-07","rol":"91/13250","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1989:ARR.19891107.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Il découle de l'article 21 de l'arrêté royal du 12 mars 1976 et de l'article 19, paragraphe 2, de la loi du 9 juillet 1975 que les conditions générales et particulières des contrats d'assurance doivent être rédigées en…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that insurance terms must be drafted clearly and precisely and may not upset the balance between the insurer's and the policyholder's obligations, failing which the clause is void. A clause referring to the vehicle being driven by \"a person not meeting the conditions laid down by Belgian laws and regulations\" was found unacceptably vague and only apparently clear; it was annulled and treated as non-existent.","k":"Personal road-accident insurance — nullity of a vague clause","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 19 §2; RD of 12.3.1976, art. 21","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-11-07","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1989:JUG.19891107.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La compagnie d'assurance qui a conclu le contrat d'assurance \"responsabilité civile exploitation du garage\", et non la compagnie d'assurance qui a conclu le contrat \"responsabilité civile véhicules\", est tenue de…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A garage employee caused damage during working hours, in the course of the garage's business, in the garage car park. The court held that the insurer under the 'garage operations liability' policy, not the insurer under the 'motor vehicle liability' policy, must cover the loss.","k":"Garage operations liability v. motor liability: which insurer pays","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-11-06","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIHAI:1989:JUG.19891106.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le juge pénal qui prononce des peines distinctes du chef, d'une part, de conduite en état d'ivresse et d'intoxication alcoolique et, d'autre part, d'infraction au règlement général sur la police de la circulation…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"In the insurer's recourse action, the court held that a criminal judge who imposes separate sentences for drunkenness and alcohol intoxication on the one hand and a traffic offence on the other does decide that these are distinct acts, but does not necessarily and certainly exclude any causal link between the intoxication and the damage. The criminal judgment therefore does not establish that the traffic offence was the sole cause of the accident. The final outcome of the recourse is not stated in the summary.","k":"Motor liability — alcohol recourse, separate sentences and causation","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-11-02","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILUX:1989:JUG.19891102.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'article 25, 6, de la police type, qui permet à l'assurance d'exercer l'action récursoire lorsque, au moment du sinistre, le véhicule est conduit par une personne ne satisfaisant pas aux conditions prescrites par la…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that article 25, 6 of the model policy, which allows recourse where the vehicle is driven by someone not meeting the legal requirements such as minimum age, penalises a legal incapacity defined independently of the driver's actual ability, driving and the circumstances of the accident. The contractual fault of a moped rider aged over sixteen but under eighteen who carried a passenger justified the insurer's recourse in itself, with no need to establish a causal link with the accident.","k":"Motor liability — minimum age and recourse without causation","law":"Model policy, art. 25, 6","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Luxembourg","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-10-26","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PINAM:1989:JUG.19891026.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"L'action en annulation de la police d'assurance se prescrit par trois ans. Il n'en va pas de même de l'exception que l'assureur est en droit d'opposer, sur base de réticences ou de fausses déclarations, à la demande…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court accepted that an action to annul the policy is time-barred after three years, but that the misrepresentation defence against the insured's claim is perpetual, and that the insured's silence on a material fact, even in good faith, can make the contract void. That nullity is relative, however: an insurer that learns of the misrepresentation after signing, does not rely on it and keeps performing the contract confirms it, even if it reserved its rights. By knowingly presenting the insured with an interim settlement receipt, the insurer lost the right to rely on the misrepresentation.","k":"Misrepresentation — perpetual defence and tacit confirmation","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Namur","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-10-16","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1989:ARR.19891016.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"D'une part, l'assureur n'est en droit d'exercer un recours que dans les conditions et la mesure prévues par l'article 11, alinéa 2 de la loi du 1er juillet 1956. D'autre part, il ressort de l'économie des articles 24 et…","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer may exercise recourse only within article 11(2) of the Act of 1 July 1956 and articles 24–25 of the model contract, which presuppose a breach by the policyholder or the insured driver. Driving while disqualified or under the legal age may be attributed to either; article 24(2) bars recourse against an insured who proves that the facts are attributable to another insured and occurred against his instructions or without his knowledge. According to the keywords, recourse lay against the driver under 18, not against the policyholder.","k":"Motor liability — under-age driver, who bears the recourse","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 11(2); model contract, art. 24–25","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-10-13","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PINAM:1989:JUG.19891013.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"A défaut de clause d'exclusion expresse, le fait de laisser les portes d'un véhicule ouvertes et les clés accessibles ne constitue pas une faute grave justifiant la décharge de l'assureur.","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, absent an express exclusion clause, leaving the vehicle's doors open and the keys within reach is not gross negligence releasing the insurer from liability. The insurer's forfeiture defence was rejected.","k":"Vehicle theft insurance — open doors and keys, gross negligence","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Namur","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-10-13","rol":"10081","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PINAM:1989:JUG.19891013.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'article 25/6 du contrat-type sanctionne une incapacité juridique et a pour objet de permettre à l'assureur d'exercer une action récursoire contre l'assuré lorsqu'au moment du sinistre, le véhicule était conduit par…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court noted that article 25/6 of the model contract penalises a legal incapacity and allows the insurer to take recourse against the insured where, at the time of the accident, the vehicle was driven by a person not meeting the requirements of Belgian law. It is irrelevant that the driver, a Spanish national living in Belgium, could have obtained a Belgian licence without a test simply by producing his Spanish one; that argument did not defeat the insurer's recourse.","k":"Motor liability — insurer's recourse, foreign driving licence","law":"Motor liability model contract, art. 25/6","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Namur","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-10-10","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1989:ARR.19891010.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Tout assureur doit respecter le devoir de neutralité à l'égard des courtiers lui proposant une même affaire. Lorsque ce devoir est violé, l'assureur engage sa responsabilité. Le dommage qui résulte de cette faute…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that every insurer owes a duty of neutrality to brokers who submit the same business to it and is liable if it breaches that duty. The excluded broker's loss is a loss of a chance, which can only be assessed ex aequo et bono. The dispute was between an insurer and a broker.","k":"Insurer's duty of neutrality towards brokers","law":"Liability towards the broker; loss of a chance","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-10-10","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1989:ARR.19891010.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le droit propre contre l'assureur conféré à la personne lésée par l'article 6 de la loi du 1er juillet 1956 est subordonné à l'existence d'un contrat d'assurance régulier. La détention d'une carte verte ne constitue…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the injured party's own right against the insurer under article 6 of the Act of 1 July 1956 depends on the existence of a valid insurance contract. A green card is only an indication from which the contract may be presumed; it does not deprive the insurer of the right to prove that no contract existed or that the loss was not covered. The insurance certificate meets administrative requirements and serves as evidence towards third parties. The summary does not state the outcome of that proof.","k":"Motor liability — evidential value of the green card","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 6","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-10-10","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1989:ARR.19891010.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La détention du certificat international d'assurance (carte verte) ne constitue qu'un indice qui permet de présumer l'existence d'un contrat d'assurance mais demeure insuffisant à ôter à l'assureur le droit d'établir…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the international certificate of insurance (green card) is merely evidence giving rise to a presumption that an insurance contract exists. It does not replace the contract, of which it is only a derivative, and does not alter the policy terms: the insurer may still prove that no contract exists or that the loss is not covered. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Motor liability — evidential value of the green card","law":"International certificate of insurance (green card); motor liability","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-10-05","rol":"89/2780","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1989:JUG.19891005.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En cas de fausse déclaration quant aux circonstances du sinistre et d'escroquerie, l'assureur r.c. auto possède un recours tant à l'égard du preneur d'assurance que contre l'assuré autre que le preneur. En outre, il lui…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, where false statements were made about the circumstances of the loss and fraud was committed, the motor liability insurer has recourse against both the policyholder and an insured other than the policyholder. The insurer was also awarded damages, because the policyholder and the insured had by their fault made it harder for the insurer to defend its interests before the criminal court.","k":"Motor liability — false statement on the circumstances of the loss and fraud","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-10-04","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1989:ARR.19891004.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"De verzekeringsmakelaar is niet de mandataris van de verzekeraar aan wie hij zaken bezorgt. Bijgevolg is de schadeaangifte die de verzekerde hem doet toekomen, niet tegenwerpbaar aan de verzekeraar. De bepaling van…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an insurance broker is not the agent of the insurer to whom he brings business, so a claim notification sent by the insured to the broker cannot be relied on against the insurer. Article 17 of the 1874 Act penalises late notification only to the extent of the insurer's prejudice, but as it is not mandatory, a policy clause imposing forfeiture regardless of prejudice is valid. The notice period may be suspended by force majeure, which requires an insurmountable obstacle. The outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Late claim notification — broker and forfeiture clause","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 17","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-10-04","rol":"89/3060","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1989:ARR.19891004.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"De onderhandelingen tussen de verzekeraar en de verzekerde die de schorsing van de verjaring tot gevolg kunnen hebben, zijn alleen de onderhandelingen die de verzekerde hebben aangezet zijn vordering tot…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that only negotiations that led the insured to refrain from suing can suspend the limitation period. Letters in which the insurer repeatedly states that it will not cover the loss because the policy was suspended for non-payment of the premium on the date of the loss do not suspend it. The outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Suspension of limitation — refusal letters are not negotiations","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-09-27","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EABRL:1989:JUG.19890927.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"De aansprakelijke partij of haar verzekeraar moeten de nodige diligentie aan de dag leggen om de slachtoffers te vergoeden. Zij moeten instaan voor de gevolgen van een vertraging bij de expertise van het in het ongeval…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the liable party or its insurer must act diligently to compensate victims and bear the consequences of a delay in appraising the damaged vehicle, even where the delay is due to the victim's own insurer. Under the RDR agreement, the victim's insurer acts in the name and on behalf of the liable party's insurer. The latter may, however, turn to the victim's insurer for the fault committed in carrying out that task.","k":"Motor liability — delayed vehicle appraisal and RDR agreement","law":"No legal basis stated; RDR agreement","w":280,"c":"Nederlandstalige rechtbank eerste aanleg Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-09-27","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1989:JUG.19890927.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Il appartient au responsable du dommage ou à son assureur de faire les diligences nécessaires pour indemniser les victimes. Ils doivent donc supporter les conséquences d'un retard dans l'expertise du véhicule accidenté,…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that it is for the liable party or its insurer to take the steps needed to compensate victims. They therefore bear the consequences of a delay in appraising the damaged vehicle, even where the delay is attributable to the victim's insurer, which acts under the RDR agreement in the name and on behalf of the liable party's insurer. The latter may, however, claim indemnity from the victim's insurer for the fault committed in carrying out that task.","k":"Motor liability — delay in vehicle appraisal under the RDR agreement","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-09-26","rol":"85/71162","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1989:ARR.19890926.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"L'action de l'assureur subrogé dans les droits de l'assuré ne dérive pas du contrat d'assurance, mais de la créance de dommages-intérêts que détient l'assuré. La prescription quinquennale s'applique, même lorsque la…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The theft insurer that indemnified the employer, owner of the stolen vehicle, brought a subrogated recourse against the employee who had left the vehicle unlocked with the keys beside the seat. The court held that the action derives from the insured's damages claim, not from the insurance contract; subject to the five-year limitation period, it was not time-barred. It was nevertheless dismissed on the merits, as this conduct is not gross negligence under article 18 of the Act of 3 July 1978; nor could the insurer rely on article 16 of the 1874 Act.","k":"Theft insurer's subrogated recourse against an employee","law":"Act of 3.7.1978, art. 18; Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-09-26","rol":"78/5792","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1989:ARR.19890926.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that the civil judge must raise of its own motion the five-year limitation period of article 26 of the Act of 18 April 1878, which applies even where damages for an offence are claimed on a contractual basis. The subrogated insurer's action derives from the insured's damages claim, not from the insurance contract; an employee is liable to the employer only for wilful misconduct, gross negligence or habitual minor fault. The concrete outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Subrogated insurer's action — limitation and employee's gross negligence","law":"Act of 18.4.1878, art. 26; Act of 3.7.1978, art. 18","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-09-25","rol":"85/71162","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EABRL:1989:JUG.19890925.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Het verzekeringscontract dat voorziet in het recht van verhaal van de verzekeringsmaatschappij op de verzekerde indien het vermogen en de tonnemaat van het voertuig groter zijn dan wat in de bijzondere voorwaarden van…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a policy giving the insurer recourse against the insured where the vehicle's power and tonnage exceed those in the special conditions does not amount to use of an uninsured vehicle. It is a risk covered towards third parties only, with recourse against the policyholder or insured; the excess cannot be raised against third parties. The summary does not state the concrete outcome between the parties.","k":"Motor liability — vehicle more powerful than declared, recourse","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Nederlandstalige rechtbank eerste aanleg Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-09-25","rol":"89/3060","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1989:JUG.19890925.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le contrat d'assurance prévoyant le recours de la compagnie d'assurance contre l'assuré si les véhicules dépassent la puissance et le tonnage fixés aux conditions particulières du contrat constitue un cas d'application,…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The policy gave the insurer a right of recourse against the policyholder or insured if the vehicles exceeded the engine power and tonnage set in the special conditions. The court held that this is not the use of an uninsured vehicle but a risk covered vis-à-vis third parties only, with a right of recourse against the policyholder or insured; the excess cannot be raised against third parties. The concrete outcome between the parties is not stated in the summary.","k":"Motor liability — recourse where engine power and tonnage are exceeded","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-09-12","rol":"85/71162","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EABRL:1989:JUG.19890912.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Begaat een fout, die ze verplicht om een schadegeval te vergoeden, de verzekeringsmaatschappij die zonder toezicht de instrumenten, en met name de stempel van de maatschappij, in handen van een derde laat, wat hem in…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The Dutch-speaking Brussels Court of First Instance held that an insurer which leaves its instruments, in particular the company stamp, unsupervised in the hands of a third party, enabling him to issue green cards in its name at will and to appear as its agent, commits a fault obliging it to compensate the loss. Liability was based on the doctrine of apparent agency. That fault does not prevent the insurer from taking recourse against the third party for the improper issue of green cards.","k":"Motor liability — green card, apparent agency","law":"No legal basis stated; apparent agency doctrine (note cites J.P. Grâce-Hollogne 20.5.1986)","w":279,"c":"Nederlandstalige rechtbank eerste aanleg Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-09-12","rol":"89/3060","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1989:JUG.19890912.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Commet une faute, qui l'oblige à l'indemnisation d'un sinistre, la compagnie d'assurances qui laisse sans contrôle entre les mains d'un tiers les instruments et notamment le cachet de la compagnie, lui permettant…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer had left in a third party's hands, without supervision, the means, including the company stamp, to issue green cards in its name at will, creating the impression that the third party was its agent. Relying on the theory of apparent agency, the court held that this was a fault obliging the insurer to compensate the loss. That fault did not prevent the insurer from seeking recourse against the third party for the improper issue of the green cards.","k":"Motor liability — apparent agency and green cards","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-09-08","rol":"2988","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1989:JUG.19890908.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that the workplace-accident insurer's recourse under article 47 of the Act of 10 April 1971 lies, save for intentional fault, only against persons other than the employer, its employees and agents, and that a user undertaking to which a worker is temporarily assigned does not thereby become the employer's agent. It also held that the five-year limitation period of article 26 of the Act of 17 April 1878 applies where the damage results from an offence, that joining a third party in labour-court proceedings does not interrupt limitation, and that failing to raise the plea at the outset is not in itself a waiver. The final outcome is not stated.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — user undertaking and limitation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47; Act of 17.4.1878, art. 26","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-09-06","rol":"60125","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1989:JUG.19890906.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Action dirigée par l'assureur contre les accidents de travail à l'encontre de la personne présumée responsable dudit accident. Action de droit commun. Compétence du tribunal de première instance. Le fait que l'article…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer sued the person allegedly responsible for the accident. The court held this to be an ordinary-law action within the jurisdiction of the court of first instance: the need to interpret article 46 of the Act of 10 April 1971 to assess the third party's liability does not automatically give the labour court jurisdiction. Subrogation into the worker's rights does not make the insurer a worker; jurisdiction depends on the cause of action, not the nature of the damage.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's action against a third party — jurisdiction","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-09-05","rol":"84/33190","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARBRL:1989:JUG.19890905.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"De ontstentenis, in de verzekeringspolis, van een dekking van het risico van arbeidsongevallen aan arbeiders kan niet worden ingeroepen tegen de arbeider die op 2 november 1986 door een arbeidsongeval is getroffen. Het…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The absence of cover for manual workers in a policy covering only salaried staff cannot be raised against a manual worker injured in a workplace accident on 2 November 1986. The court held that the workplace-accident insurer, not the Occupational Accidents Fund, must compensate the accident; the limitation of cover has only restricted effect.","k":"Workplace accident — policy not covering manual workers","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 49","w":-1,"c":"Nederlandstalige arbeidsrechtbank Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-09-05","rol":"21.393","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTBRL:1989:JUG.19890905.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'absence, dans la police d'assurance, d'une couverture du risque d'accidents du travail pour le personnel ouvrier n'étant pas opposable à l'ouvrier, victime d'un accident du travail à lui survenu le 2 novembre 1986,…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The employer's policy covered only salaried staff and excluded manual workers. The court held that this lack of cover could not be raised against the manual worker injured in a workplace accident on 2 November 1986. Compensation was placed on the workplace-accident insurer, not on the Occupational Accidents Fund.","k":"Workplace accident — policy limited to salaried staff, not enforceable against a manual worker","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 49","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-08-14","rol":"34072","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1989:JUG.19890814.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Action subrogatoire de l'assureur - art. 22 Loi du 11 juin 1974. Elle transmet à l'assureur la créance même de l'assuré; il s'ensuit que ladite créance a, entre les mains du subrogé, la même nature qu'entre celles du…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that subrogation transfers to the insurer the insured's very claim, which keeps the same nature, with all its elements and accessories, in the subrogated insurer's hands. The debtor may raise against the insurer the defences it could have raised against the original creditor. A claim arising from a tenancy keeps that character after subrogation, so the justice of the peace has jurisdiction.","k":"Insurer's subrogation action — tenancy nature of the claim and jurisdiction","law":"Insurance Act of 11 June 1874, art. 22 (listed as '11-06-1974' in the summary)","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-08-14","rol":"135341","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1989:JUG.19890814.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Action subrogatoire de l'assureur-loi contre l'assureur du responsable : art. 47 de la loi du 10 avril 1971. Les intérêts compensatoires se rapportant aux débours de l'assureur-loi doivent lui être remboursés à dater du…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer brought a subrogation action against the liable party's insurer under article 47 of the Act of 10 April 1971. The court held that compensatory interest on the workplace-accident insurer's outlays must be reimbursed from the date of each payment.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — start of compensatory interest","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-07-20","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PINAM:1989:JUG.19890720.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"En vertu de l'article 41, al. 4 de la Loi du 11 juin 1874 sont exclu de la garantie d'un contrat d'assurance-vie, les décès qui sont le résultat d'une condamnation judiciaire, d'un duel, d'un suicide - sauf la preuve…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that under article 41(4) of the Act of 11 June 1874, life cover excludes deaths resulting from a court sentence, a duel, suicide (unless shown to be involuntary), and deaths directly and immediately caused by a crime or offence committed by the insured whose consequences he could foresee. The keywords refer to self-defence; the summary does not state the concrete outcome of the case.","k":"Life insurance — exclusion for death caused by the insured's crime","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 41(4)","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Namur","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-07-20","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PINAM:1989:JUG.19890720.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"L'article 41, alinéa 4, de la loi du 11 juin 1874 stipule que l'assureur ne répond point de la mort de celui qui a fait assurer sa propre vie lorsque cette mort a eu pour cause immédiate et directe un crime ou un délit…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court noted that under article 41(4) of the Act of 11 June 1874, the insurer is not liable for the death of a person who insured his own life where the death is the direct and immediate result of a crime or offence he committed and whose consequences he could foresee. The legislature had in mind an insured killed while assaulting a third party who exercised the right of self-defence; here, the persons acting in self-defence were police officers. The summary does not expressly state the outcome.","k":"Life insurance — death during an assault, police self-defence","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 41(4)","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Namur","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-06-30","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1989:ARR.19890630.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Une compagnie d'assurance ne commet aucune faute délictuelle en n'avisant pas dans un délai de quinze jours le preneur d'assurance de son refus ou de son acceptation d'une demande d'augmentation des montants assurés.…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the insurer committed no tort by failing to tell the policyholder within fifteen days whether it accepted or refused a request to increase the sums insured. The insured, who could not prove having instructed the broker to obtain provisional cover, was not entitled to damages from the broker.","k":"Insurer's silence on a request to increase cover and broker liability","law":"Tort liability; broker's mandate","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-06-30","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1989:JUG.19890630.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'assureur qui indemnise la victime d'un accident ne peut, en cas d'acquittement ultérieur de l'assuré, répéter le montant payé dès lors que les parties ont voulu, par cette indemnisation, régler définitivement leurs…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an insurer that compensated an accident victim cannot recover the amount paid after its insured is later acquitted, since the parties intended the payment to settle their rights definitively. The words 'for the account of whom it may concern' on the receipt make no difference; the insurer's claim for repayment was rejected.","k":"Motor liability — reclaiming compensation after the insured's acquittal","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-06-29","rol":"21.696","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1989:ARR.19890629.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Est licite la cause - qui figure dans la police constituant l'offre de conclure le contrat d'assurances - qui postpose la formation du contrat jusqu'à la signature de la police par les deux parties et à la réception de…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court upheld a policy clause postponing formation of the contract until both parties sign and the offeror receives the acceptance. The insurer must keep its offer open long enough for a reply, and provisional cover lasts only until the date set for returning the signed policy. An employer who does not respond is no longer covered, so the Workplace Accidents Fund must compensate the accident that occurred after provisional cover expired.","k":"Workplace-accident insurance — contract formation, provisional cover","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 49","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-06-27","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1989:ARR.19890627.16","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"La loi applicable à la prescription des recours formés par une compagnie d'assurances et une mutuelle française suite à un accident survenu en Belgique doit être déterminée par les règles de conflit du for. En effet ,…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"After an accident in Belgium, a French insurer and a French health-insurance fund brought recourse claims. Since the Hague Convention of 4 May 1971 excludes recourse by insurers and social security bodies, the law governing limitation is determined by the forum's conflict rules: the law of the place of the harmful event governs compensation, including limitation. This holds even where subrogation derives from French law; the subrogated insurer's claim arises from the victim's damages claim against the liable party, not from the insurance contract.","k":"Subrogated insurer's recourse — law governing limitation","law":"Hague Convention of 4.5.1971, art. 2(5) and (6)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-06-20","rol":"86/3092","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EALIM:1989:JUG.19890620.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a building owner's claim against the tenant's insurer after a fire is not a claim arising from the insurance contract and is therefore not subject to the three-year limitation period of article 32 of the Act of 11 June 1874. The justice of the peace was held to have jurisdiction. The summary does not state the outcome on the merits; the decision concerns preliminary issues.","k":"Fire — owner's claim against tenant's insurer, limitation and jurisdiction","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 32(1) and 38; Judicial Code, art. 571(1)","w":279,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg Limburg","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-06-13","rol":"10081","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1989:ARR.19890613.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"L'assureur ayant émis une couverture provisoire dont l'existence et la validité n'étaient pas subordonnées à la conclusion d'une police future, doit couvrir le sinistre survenu pendant la période visée. La circonstance…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an insurer that issued provisional cover whose existence and validity did not depend on a future policy being concluded must cover the loss that occurred during that period. The fact that the victim obtained a judgment against the person who caused the accident does not deprive the victim of recourse against the insurer as long as the victim has not been compensated.","k":"Provisional cover note — loss covered without a final policy","law":"Provisional cover","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-06-13","rol":"85/71162","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1989:ARR.19890613.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Il n'existe pas d'obligation d'investigation ou de contrôle de la part de l'assureur. Ainsi, lorsqu'il remet une proposition d'assurance au preneur d'assurance, il appartient à ce dernier de la remplir complètement et…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the insurer has no duty to investigate or verify. When it hands the policyholder a proposal form, it is for the policyholder to complete it fully and correctly, and he may not omit a fact about which he is specifically asked. The summary does not state the concrete consequence drawn from this rule.","k":"Duty of disclosure — no duty for the insurer to investigate","law":"No provision cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-06-06","rol":"89/2780","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1989:ARR.19890606.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Les déclarations du preneur d'assurance doivent être spontanées, l'assureur n'étant tenu à aucune vérification, ni investigation préalable à la formation du contrat. Toutefois, lorsque l'assureur connaissait le fait…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that the policyholder's disclosures must be spontaneous and the insurer has no duty to investigate before contracting. However, where the insurer knew the undisclosed fact and contracted anyway, the inaccuracy did not affect its assessment of the risk. From its total lack of reaction to a proposal form with contradictory answers, it could be inferred that the point was not decisive for refusing cover or charging a higher premium. The sanction of nullity could not be applied.","k":"Duty of disclosure — inconsistency known to the insurer","law":"No provision cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-06-06","rol":"15.791","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EABRL:1989:JUG.19890606.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Het overkomen van een ongeval aan het slachtoffer gedurende een periode van invaliditeit ingevolge een andere aandoening waaraan het vreemd is, is niet van aard om de economische weerslag van dit ongeval ongedaan te…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court accepted that the accident's occurrence while the victim was disabled because of another, unrelated condition did not cancel out its economic impact (permanent incapacity). The victim's delay in asserting their rights caused no loss to the liable party's insurer, which had kept the funds owed to the victim in the meantime, so compensatory interest was owed despite the delay.","k":"Compensation — accident during disability, compensatory interest","law":"Law of damages; compensatory interest","w":5,"c":"Nederlandstalige rechtbank eerste aanleg Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-06-06","rol":"21781","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1989:JUG.19890606.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"La survenance d'un accident durant une période d'invalidité de la victime consécutive à une autre affection à laquelle il est étranger n'est pas de nature à supprimer l'incidence économique de cet accident. Le retard…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"At the time of the accident the victim was already incapacitated by an unrelated illness. The court held that this did not remove the economic impact of the accident. It further held that the victim's delay in stating her claims caused no prejudice to the liable party's insurer, which had kept and invested the funds and could have paid what it considered undisputedly due; compensatory interest therefore remained payable.","k":"Liability insurer — damages and compensatory interest despite delay","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":5,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-06-05","rol":"89/3060","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1989:ARR.19890605.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Un contrat, notamment un contrat d'assurance, ne peut être modifié que de l'accord des deux parties. Il n'est dès lors par permis à l'assureur d'imposer unilatéralement une modification contractuelle à un preneur…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"An insurance contract can be amended only by agreement of both parties: the insurer cannot impose a unilateral change, even as part of a general update of all its family liability policies. A clause providing for forfeiture if a formality is not completed in time, save good faith and prompt remedy, and limiting the insurer's reduction to its prejudice, means: no forfeiture for an insured acting in good faith who remedied the omission as soon as possible; otherwise forfeiture cannot exceed the insurer's prejudice. The summary does not state the outcome.","k":"Family liability insurance — unilateral amendment and forfeiture clause","law":"Binding force of contract; interpretation of the forfeiture clause","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-06-05","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1989:JUG.19890605.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'article 24 du contrat type automobile permet à l'assureur d'exercer un recours, non seulement lorsque l'assuré méconnait une obligation contractuelle autre que celles énumérées de façon exemplaire et non limitative…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that article 24 of the motor model contract allows the insurer's recourse not only for breach of contractual duties other than those listed by way of example in articles 25 to 27, but also for breach of duties arising from default statutory provisions governing the contract. By fleeing the scene, the insured breached the duty to mitigate the loss under article 17 of the 1874 Act; as flight also suggests impairment by alcohol or drugs, the recourse was upheld.","k":"Motor liability — hit-and-run and the insurer's recourse","law":"Motor liability model contract, arts. 24–27; Act of 11.6.1874, art. 17","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-05-31","rol":"15.791","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1989:ARR.19890531.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Sont nulles les clauses des conditions générales et particulières des contrats d'assurances rédigées en termes obscurs et imprécis et portant atteinte à l'équivalence entre les engagements de l'assureur et ceux du…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Clauses in the general and special conditions that are worded obscurely and imprecisely and upset the balance between the insurer's and the policyholder's obligations are void. The clause excluding \"damage caused intentionally, resulting from gross negligence or a clear professional fault\" was set aside for lack of clarity or, at least, construed under article 1162 of the Civil Code as covering only intentional acts.","k":"Liability insurance — unclear gross-negligence exclusion","law":"Civil Code, art. 1162; Act of 9.7.1975, art. 19(2); RD of 12.3.1976, art. 21","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-05-25","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1989:ARR.19890525.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Est recevable l'intervention de l'assureur du prévenu devant la juridiction répressive, lorsque cet assureur oppose à la partie lésée la faute qu'elle a commise en prenant place à bord du véhicule qu'allait conduire le…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The intervention of the defendant's motor liability insurer in the criminal proceedings is admissible where the insurer raises against the injured party the fault of getting into the vehicle the defendant was about to drive. This intervention is unrelated to any rights the insurer may assert against its insured. The summary does not state the outcome on the merits.","k":"Intervention of the motor liability insurer in criminal proceedings","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 9; Act of 9.8.1963, art. 70","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-05-25","rol":"89/3060","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1989:JUG.19890525.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La suspension de la garantie, suite à l'envoi par l'assureur de la mise en demeure prévue à l'article 12, aliéa 3, du contrat-type d'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs,…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer had sent the formal notice provided for in article 12(3) of the compulsory motor liability model contract. The court held that suspension of cover does not apply to an insured who, in good faith, paid the wrong amount because no exact and precise statement had been received.","k":"Motor liability — suspension of cover for unpaid premium","law":"Motor liability model contract, art. 12(3)","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-05-17","rol":"24702","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1989:JUG.19890517.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Ce concept doit, dans le cadre de pareille police s'interpréter conformément aux dispositions légales régissant les accidents de travail et les accidents sur le chemin du travail. Il en résulte que l'ayant-droit doit…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the notion of accident in a group accident policy must be interpreted in line with the legislation on workplace and commuting accidents. The beneficiary need only prove the injury or death and the sudden nature of the event; the event is then presumed to be an accident and the insurer must prove that the injury had another cause. The concrete outcome of the claim is not stated in the summary.","k":"Group accident insurance — notion of accident and burden of proof","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-05-16","rol":"85/71162","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1989:ARR.19890516.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsque le véhicule qui a occasionné l'accident est équipé d'une plaque d'immatriculation délivrée pour un autre véhicule, il y a non-assurance du véhicule qui a occassionné l'accident; et non pas suspension des effets…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The vehicle involved in the accident carried a registration plate issued for another vehicle. The court held that this was a case of the vehicle being uninsured, not a suspension of the policy that could not be raised against third parties; the Guarantee Fund therefore had to intervene.","k":"Motor liability — plate of another vehicle, no insurance and Guarantee Fund","law":"Act of 1.7.1956 (motor liability); Guarantee Fund","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-05-16","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1989:ARR.19890516.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Constitue la faute grave, que sanctionne l'article 16 de la Loi du 11 juin 1874 sur les assurances en général et l'article 25, 9 ° du contrat type d'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that driving at night in heavy rain, with bald rear tyres, at 120 km/h where the limit was 90 km/h is gross fault within article 16 of the Act of 11 June 1874 and article 25, 9° of the motor liability model contract. An insurer that has paid the indemnity and later learns that the loss was due to uninsurable gross fault is entitled to recover it.","k":"Motor liability — recovery of indemnity paid for gross fault","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16; motor liability model contract, art. 25, 9°","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-05-12","rol":"10081","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1989:JUG.19890512.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Le mécanisme habituel de la suspension de la garantie du contrat d'assurance en cas de non paiement des primes par l'assuré est exorbitant du droit commun. Abuse de ce mécanisme l'assureur qui, disposant de l'option…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court noted that the usual mechanism of suspending cover for unpaid premiums departs from ordinary contract law. An insurer that could choose between suspending cover and unilaterally terminating the contract, but keeps cover suspended for more than three years, abuses that mechanism; the court found such an abuse on the insurer's part.","k":"Unpaid premiums — suspension beyond three years, abuse","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-05-11","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1989:ARR.19890511.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"L'assureur peut, en vertu de l'article 31 de la loi de 1874 sur les assurances, refuser l'application de sa garantie lorsqu'une modification du risque est intervenue depuis la formation du contrat et que cette…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that under article 31 of the 1874 Insurance Act the insurer may refuse cover where a change of risk arising after the contract was concluded was not reported by the policyholder, regardless of whether the change played any role in the loss. A change of risk exists where the insurer, had it known, would not have contracted or would have done so on other terms. In business liability insurance, a policyholder who, instead of working alone, began to be assisted by a third party made such a change.","k":"Business liability insurance — undisclosed change of risk","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 31","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-05-11","rol":"51665","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1989:JUG.19890511.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Absence de dol (art. 1116 du Code Civil) ou de nullité du contrat pour réticences ou fausses déclarations (art. 9 de la loi du 11 juin 1874 sur les assurances) dans le chef du souscripteur d'une police d'assurance…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The policy contained an incontestability clause by which the insurer waived reliance on nullity for erroneous statements or omissions made in good faith. The insured had disclosed a hospital stay without stating its cause, an earlier assault by the person who later killed him. The court rejected fraud (former Civil Code, art. 1116) and nullity for misrepresentation (art. 9 of the Act of 11 June 1874), noted that assessing the danger was highly uncertain, and held that a life policy in favour of a cohabiting partner is not unlawful in principle.","k":"Life insurance — incontestability clause and disclosure","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1116; Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-05-11","rol":"87/7144","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1989:JUG.19890511.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"- Ne se rend pas coupable de dol, de réticence ou de fausse déclaration, le souscripteur d'une assurance sur la vie qui, ayant été agressé par l'époux de sa concubine, sont futur meurtrier, complète la police sous la…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"In the health declaration, the policyholder had mentioned his hospital stay following a knife attack by his partner's husband, who killed him after the policy was concluded. The court found no fraud, concealment or misrepresentation, since assessing a danger arising from human passions is highly uncertain. As cohabitation does not create a presumption of unlawfulness and the party seeking annulment did not prove a decisive unlawful motive, the life policy in favour of the partner was valid.","k":"Life insurance — no misrepresentation, validity in favour of a cohabiting partner","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-05-02","rol":"87/324","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:1989:ARR.19890502.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Wanneer de verzekeraar niet tijdig door de betrokkene op de hoogte werd gebracht van het herval en van de overwogen chirurgische ingreep, en de verzekeraar bijgevolg in de onmogelijkheid werd gesteld conform artikel 32…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The victim failed to notify the workplace-accident insurer in time of the relapse and the planned surgery, so that the insurer was unable to appoint, under article 32 of the Act of 10 April 1971, a doctor to supervise the treatment and the need for the operation. The court held that the costs and benefits relating to the relapse and the operation could not be charged to the insurer and that the sums already paid were undue and recoverable.","k":"Workplace accident — relapse and surgery not notified in time to the insurer","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 32","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-04-27","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1989:ARR.19890427.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Si le fait de conduire un véhicuile avec un taux d'alcoolémie supérieur à 0,8 gr/l. n'implique pas automatiquement, dès lors qu'il est la cause ou l'une des causes de l'accident, l'existence d'une faute grave autorisant…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that driving with a blood alcohol level above 0.8 g/l, even where it caused or contributed to the accident, does not automatically amount to the gross fault allowing the insurer's recourse. The civil court must look at all the circumstances to assess this fault, equated with an intentional act, which requires an objective aggravation of the insured risk and the insured's subjective awareness of it. The concrete outcome is not stated.","k":"Motor liability — blood alcohol above 0.8 g/l is not automatically gross fault","law":"No provision cited in the summary","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-04-25","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1989:ARR.19890425.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Het bezit van de groene kaart bewijst wel dat een verzekeringsovereenkomst gesloten werd, maar niet dat deze overeenkomst nog steeds uitwerking heeft. Wanneer de bestuurder in het bezit is van een groene kaart, waarvan…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a green card proves that an insurance contract was concluded, but not that it is still in force. Even where its validity extends beyond the accident, the insurer may prove that the contract was terminated or suspended beforehand; it may, however, rely on this against the injured party only if the termination or suspension results from a court decision or from the insured's consent, which may lie in the policy's termination clause. The concrete outcome is not stated.","k":"Motor liability — evidential value of the green card and termination defence","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, arts. 1, 2 §1, 6, 11, 13, 17, 18 §§1 and 3","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-04-21","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1989:ARR.19890421.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"1. Bij de billijkheidsbeoordeling van de aansprakelijkheid van een krankzinnige is het feit dat de aansprakelijke persoon een rechtsgeldige verzekeringsovereenkomst heeft gesloten met betrekking tot het schadefeit en…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court accepted that, in assessing on equitable grounds the liability of a mentally ill person, the judge may consider that he holds valid insurance and can normally pass the compensation on to his insurer. A mentally ill tenant cannot be contractually liable to the owner, but under article 1386bis of the former Civil Code the owner may rely on the tenant's insurance contract for the loss the tenant would have owed under the lease. Subrogation under article 22 of the 1874 Act transfers the claim, including compensatory interest. The outcome is not stated.","k":"Mentally ill tenant — liability insurance and subrogation","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1386bis; Act of 11.6.1874, art. 22","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-04-19","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAOVL:1989:JUG.19890419.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Krachtens artikel 1134 B.W. strekken alle overeenkomsten die wettig zijn aangegaan, met name de verzekeringscontracten, degenen die deze hebben aangegaan, tot wet. Zij kunnen niet herroepen worden dan met hun…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that under article 1134 of the former Civil Code lawfully formed insurance contracts bind the parties as law, and equity cannot relieve a party from applying a clearly worded clause. The own-damage clause providing that the premium is calculated on the vehicle's catalogue value throughout the contract is valid and applicable, even though the actual value falls and the insurer uses a lower actual value when settling a claim.","k":"Own-damage cover — premium based on catalogue value","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1134; Cass. 19.11.1982 (note)","w":279,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-04-19","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1989:ARR.19890419.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"De zware fout die volgens de bewoordingen van artikel 16 van de Wet 1874 op de verzekeringen het de verzekeraar mogelijk maakt zijn dekking te weigeren is de zware fout die met bedrog wordt gelijkgesteld. Het bestaan…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Under article 16 of the 1874 Act, the gross fault allowing the insurer to refuse cover is fault equivalent to fraud: the risk must be aggravated beyond the insurer's normal expectations and the insured must have been, or should have been, aware of it. Merely keeping in service an electrical installation that met the general workplace-safety regulations when installed ten years before the loss, but not the rules in force at the time of the loss, is not gross fault. The final outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Gross fault — outdated electrical installation","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-04-12","rol":"71/2.595","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1989:ARR.19890412.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Il est communément reçu que des négociations et pourparlers entre assureur et assuré suspendent le cours de la prescription conventionnelle abrégée surtout lorsque l'assureur amène l'assuré à retarder l'intentement de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court accepted that negotiations between insurer and insured suspend a contractually shortened limitation period, especially where the insurer leads the insured to delay suing by holding out hope of a settlement, even if they concern only a conditional commercial offer. Separately, where theft cover for a stockbroker's office applies only if two persons are present, there is no cover if the loss occurs when only one is present. The summary does not clearly state how these rules were applied to the facts.","k":"Theft insurance — negotiations suspending limitation and a cover condition","law":"No provision cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-04-06","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1989:ARR.19890406.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"De term 'onderhandeling' als bedoeld in artikel 10 lid 3 van de Wet van 1 juli 1956 moet ruim worden opgevat. Als zodanig moet worden beschouwd elke uitwisseling van berichten die van die aard is dat zij aan de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that \"negotiations\" in article 10(3) of the Act of 1 July 1956 must be read broadly: any exchange of correspondence giving the injured party the impression that the insurer is considering a settlement counts. It is enough that, given the insurer's reply, the injured party need not assume that the insurer rules out a settlement altogether. The concrete outcome is not stated; no appeal in cassation was lodged.","k":"Direct action — limitation interrupted by negotiations","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 10(3)","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-04-05","rol":"85/71162","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1989:ARR.19890405.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'article 33 du contrat type d'assurance automobile obligatoire dispose qu' en cas de cession du véhicule assuré, le preneur d'assurance doit en informer son assureur dans les huit jours et que, dans ce cas, la garantie…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that article 33 of the model contract, requiring the policyholder to inform the insurer within eight days of transferring the insured vehicle, is clear and must be applied strictly. An insured who bought a replacement vehicle only nine days after the transfer had not replaced it immediately, so under the last paragraph of article 33 the contract was suspended.","k":"Motor liability — transfer of vehicle, eight-day period and suspension","law":"Motor liability model contract, art. 33","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-03-23","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1989:ARR.19890323.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'article 32 de la loi du 8 avril 1965 modifiant la loi du 9 août 1963 a octroyé à l'organisme assureur un droit propre de poursuite en remboursement des prestations accordées contre le fonds commun de garantie…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that section 32 of the Act of 8 April 1965 gives the health-insurance body its own right to claim reimbursement of its benefits from the motor Guarantee Fund where the loss is caused by an unidentified or uninsured vehicle. That right is distinct from the subrogated recourse under section 10 of the Act of 9 August 1963. The health-insurance fund is therefore entitled to full reimbursement, and apportionment of liability cannot be raised against it.","k":"Guarantee Fund — health-insurance fund's own right of reimbursement","law":"Act of 8.4.1965, s. 32; Act of 9.8.1963, s. 10 §2(4)","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-03-22","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1989:ARR.19890322.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"L'assureur peut opposer au bénéficiaire toutes les exceptions opposables au souscripteur d'origine, notamment les conséquences du défaut de paiement de primes : le bénéficiaire ne saurait échapper à la déchéance en…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the insurer may raise against the beneficiary every defence available against the original policyholder, in particular the consequences of non-payment of premiums. The beneficiary cannot escape the resulting forfeiture by arguing that the company did not inform him or serve him with formal notice to pay the premiums.","k":"Life insurance — non-payment of premiums binds the beneficiary","law":"No provision cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-03-20","rol":"88/826","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1989:ARR.19890320.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Les exceptions dérivant du contrat d'assurance qui, aux termes de l'article 11 de la loi du 1er juillet 1956 ne peuvent être opposées par l'assureur à la personne lésée sont celles que l'assureur peut fonder sur un…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the policy defences which, under article 11 of the Act of 1 July 1956, the insurer cannot raise against the injured party are those it may base on an existing contract to escape its obligations to the insured, not those concerning the very existence of the contract, its scope or whether the risk is covered. The Juportal summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Motor liability — defences not enforceable against the injured party","law":"Act of 1.7.1956 (motor liability), art. 11","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-03-16","rol":"8801","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1989:ARR.19890316.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Le législateur a entendu donner à l'assureur-loi un délai de deux semaines; faire courir ce délai à partir d'une déclaration incomplète aboutit à ce qu'en réalité le délai soit variable et incertain. Il apparaît dès…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A workplace-accident insurer that refuses a claim must notify the health-insurance fund within two weeks. The court held that this period runs only from receipt of a complete declaration identifying the fund, since otherwise the period would be variable and uncertain. According to the Juportal note, this judgment was quashed by the Court of Cassation on 14.1.1991 and the case referred to the Brussels Labour Court of Appeal.","k":"Workplace accident — start of the period to notify refusal to the health fund","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63 §2; Cass. 14.1.1991","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-03-16","rol":"8355(2)","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1989:ARR.19890316.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Si l'assureur-loi n'est pas déchargé de son obligation de prévenir l'organisme assureur lorsqu'il ne connaît pas son identité qui n'est pas renseignée sur la déclaration d'accident et doit effectuer les démarches…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that where the declaration of accident does not identify the health-insurance fund, the workplace-accident insurer must take steps to obtain that information, but the two-week period of article 63 cannot run from receipt of an incomplete declaration. It runs only from receipt of a complete declaration identifying the fund, even though, in this case, meeting a deadline counted from the earlier date would have been materially possible.","k":"Workplace accident — incomplete declaration and period to inform the health fund","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63 §§1–2","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-03-15","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1989:ARR.19890315.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Wanneer het verzekeringscontract in geval van niet-betaling van de premie bepaalt dat de dekking wordt geschorst en dat ze slechts de dag die op de betaling van deze premie volgt, opnieuw van kracht kan worden, is de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The policy provided that cover is suspended if the premium is unpaid and resumes only on the day after payment. The court held that there was no cover for a loss occurring before payment, even though the insurer accepted payment made a few days after the loss: that acceptance cannot be read as an intention to restore cover retroactively.","k":"Unpaid premium — suspended cover and late payment","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-03-06","rol":"C-91/91","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARGNT:1989:JUG.19890306.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Indien de verzekeraar een overeenkomst met de getroffene tot herziening van de graad van blijvende arbeidsongeschiktheid, wegens het ontbreken van een medisch attest uitgaande van de behandelende arts van de getroffene,…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a workplace-accident insurer unable to submit a revision agreement on the permanent-incapacity rate to the Occupational Accidents Fund for ratification, because the victim's treating doctor had issued no medical certificate, may bring the matter before the labour court. The summary does not state the outcome on the merits.","k":"Workplace accident — revision agreement that cannot be ratified and recourse to court","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts 59, 59quinquies and 64; Judicial Code, art. 579","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidsrechtbank Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-03-06","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1989:JUG.19890306.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"La nullité prévue, en vertu de l'article 9 de la loi sur les assurances de 1874, en cas de réticence ou de fausse déclaration n'est applicable que pour autant que la réticence ou la fausse déclaration ait été telle que…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that nullity under article 9 of the 1874 Act applies only if the insurer, had it known the undisclosed fact, would not have contracted or would have done so on different terms, which the insurer must prove. When taking out vehicle theft cover, failing to disclose drink-driving convictions does not affect the assessment of the theft risk. Article 9 applies to each separate insurance in a policy, not to the policy as a whole, even where it also includes liability cover. The insurer's nullity defence was rejected.","k":"Theft insurance — undisclosed drink-driving convictions","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-03-01","rol":"85/71162","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1989:ARR.19890301.20","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"De verjaringstermijn van de vordering tot betaling van de verzekeringspremies neemt een aanvang de dag volgend op de mededeling van de loonschalen en weddestaten door de verzekeringnemer aan de verzekeraar. Bij gebrek…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the limitation period for the insurer's premium claim starts on the day after the policyholder communicates the wage and salary statements to the insurer. Absent an express clause on when premiums fall due, they are claimable from the moment the insurer is able to calculate them. The outcome of the case is not stated in the summary.","k":"Premium claim — start of the limitation period","law":"former Civil Code, art. 2251","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-02-27","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1989:ARR.19890227.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La faute grave qui autorise l'action récursoire de l'assureur est celle qui est assimilée à un fait intentionnel, l'assuré ayant eu ou ayant dû avoir conscience que son comportement entraînait une aggravation du risque…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that the gross fault allowing the insurer's recourse is fault equated with an intentional act, the insured having known or having had to know that his conduct aggravated the insured risk (Cass. 19 January 1973). It requires an objective aggravation of the risk and the insured's subjective awareness of it; recourse also requires a causal link between the gross fault and the accident. The summary does not state the concrete outcome for the drink-driver.","k":"Motor liability — gross fault justifying recourse (alcohol)","law":"Cass. 19.1.1973","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-02-22","rol":"82/1599","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1989:ARR.19890222.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an objectively unlawful act of a child, even one with limited discernment, makes the parents liable under article 1384(2) of the former Civil Code unless they prove no fault in upbringing and supervision. The family policy taken out by the father and covering his wife no longer covers her once the divorce is registered, even if she kept paying the premiums herself: without an endorsement, those payments do not change the contractual relationship.","k":"Family liability insurance — ex-spouse's cover after divorce","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1384(2)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-02-22","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1989:ARR.19890222.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Bien qu'aux termes de l'article 18 du contrat-type d'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs, en cas de sinistre, la compagnie a seule le droit de traiter avec les personnes…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Although article 18 of the model contract gives the insurer the sole right to deal with and compensate injured parties, an insurer that has decided to seek recourse against its insured under article 25.9 cannot rely, against the insured, on a loss assessment made without involving the insured in the negotiations with the injured party. The insured is ultimately exposed to bearing the compensation alone.","k":"Motor liability — recourse where the insured was left out of negotiations","law":"Model contract, art. 18 and 25.9; Civil Code, art. 1134(3); Cass. 19.9.1983","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-02-22","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1989:ARR.19890222.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Dient als bestuurder van een motorrijtuig beschouwd te worden, de aangestelde van een garagehouder, die, al had hij niet de intentie het voertuig in beweging te brengen en ook hanteerde hij het stuurwiel niet,…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a garage owner's employee who set a vehicle in motion during repairs is its driver within the meaning of article 1 of the Highway Code, even though he did not intend to move it or handle the steering wheel. The claim for intervention and indemnity against the garage owner's professional liability insurer was rejected, as the policy expressly provided that cover applied only where the owner or user of a vehicle entrusted by a customer was uninsured or had no effective cover.","k":"Garage liability insurance — supplementary cover","law":"Highway Code, art. 1","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-02-22","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1989:ARR.19890222.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"De schade die voortspruit uit een ernstige tekortkoming van de verzekerde aan zijn schadebeperkingsplicht, namelijk door niet onmiddellijk te stoppen bij het waarnemen van het alarmlichtje van zijn voertuig, komt niet…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an insured who did not stop immediately on seeing his vehicle's warning light seriously breached his duty to mitigate the loss. The damage resulting from that serious breach is not borne by the insurer.","k":"Motor insurance — breach of the duty to mitigate the loss","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16 (cross-reference in the Juportal note)","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-02-17","rol":"12.480","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1989:ARR.19890217.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Juportal publishes no summary for this judgment, only keywords. According to them, it concerns who bears the compensation for an accident to a manual worker when the workplace-accident policy covered clerical staff, and the role of the Workplace Accidents Fund (FAT). The outcome cannot be determined from the available material.","k":"Workplace accident — policy covering clerical staff, accident to a manual worker","law":"Act of 10.4.1971","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-02-13","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1989:ARR.19890213.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'auteur responsable d'un accident du travail ou son assureur de droit commun doit payer à l'assureur-loi des intérêts compensatoires sur les frais médicaux et les indemnités d'incapacité temporaire depuis la date du…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the person liable for a workplace accident, or that person's liability insurer, must pay the workplace-accident insurer compensatory interest on medical costs and temporary incapacity benefits from the date of payment until the decision awarding the interest, by virtue of the insurer's statutory subrogation to the victim's rights.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — compensatory interest","law":"Act of 10.4.1971 (statutory subrogation)","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-02-09","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1989:JUG.19890209.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Seule la personne lésée, dont l'action civile est régulièrement introduite devant la juridiction repressive, peut mettre en cause le fonds commun devant cette juridiction. La personne lésée, lorsqu'elle est seule…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that only an injured party whose civil claim has been properly brought before the criminal court may join the Guarantee Fund in those proceedings. An injured party who is the sole defendant in the criminal case cannot bring a civil claim before that court and so cannot sue the Fund there, even if, because the accident is found to be fortuitous, it would have a right against the Fund. The claim against the Fund was held inadmissible.","k":"Guarantee Fund — joining the Fund before the criminal court","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-02-01","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1989:ARR.19890201.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Elke bijkomende uitbetaling wordt geweigerd op basis van de polis die de wedersamenstelling vereist van de in de brand vernielde goederen. Het storten van een provisioneel bedrag betekent nog niet dat de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court refused any further payment to the insured tenant under the policy, which required reinstatement of the property destroyed by fire. Paying an advance does not mean the insurer waived its rights, and the termination of the lease and the owner's failure to rebuild do not amount to force majeure on the tenant's part. Suspending payment was in line with the contract and is not unjust enrichment of the insurer; it results from the tenant's own failure to reinstate.","k":"Fire insurance — reinstatement condition and further payment","law":"The summary cites no legal basis","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-01-24","rol":"86/8391","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1989:ARR.19890124.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'assureur qui a indemnisé son assuré à titre de garantie \" dégâts matériels \" avec subrogation expresse dans tous les droits de l'assuré à l'égard de tous les responsables du sinistre, est fondé à exercer un recours…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an insurer that compensated its insured under own-damage cover, with express subrogation to all the insured's rights against those liable, may bring recourse against the person found co-liable for the road accident by the criminal court.","k":"Own-damage insurer's recourse against a co-liable party","law":"Contractual subrogation","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-01-24","rol":"87/789","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1989:ARR.19890124.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"1. Paiement d'un sinistre automobile fait à titre de règlement amiable forfaitaire et définitif : il y a lieu d'en déduire que l'intention des parties a été de régler définitivement les conséquences de l'accident. Le…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A motor claim had been paid as a lump-sum, final amicable settlement; the court inferred that the parties intended to settle the consequences of the accident once and for all, so a later apportionment of liability by the criminal court did not allow recovery of half the sums paid. It noted that a settlement agreement requires uncertainty about the dispute and mutual concessions. The summary does not say who paid and who received the money.","k":"Motor claim — final amicable settlement, no recovery","law":"Former Civil Code (settlement, recovery of undue payment)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-01-23","rol":"C-91/91","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARGNT:1989:JUG.19890123.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"In zoverre pijn ontstaat tijdens het werk ingevolge een voorafbestaande toestand, doch zonder dat het uitgevoerde werk enige invloed had op het ontstaan van de pijn, kan er geen sprake zijn van een arbeidsongeval. De…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that pain arising at work from a pre-existing condition, where the work performed played no part in causing it, is not a workplace accident. Because the Workplace Accidents Act is a matter of public policy, the workplace-accident insurer may withdraw an earlier acceptance of the accident.","k":"Workplace accident — pre-existing condition and withdrawal of acceptance","law":"Act of 10.4.1971","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidsrechtbank Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-01-17","rol":"83/1435","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1989:ARR.19890117.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Le Juge des référés outrepasse sa compétence en condamnant l'assureur-loi à poursuivre le paiement des indemnités légales pour incapacité temporaire totale en considérant que cela ne pouvait causer préjudice à…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the interim-relief judge exceeded his powers by ordering the workplace-accident insurer to keep paying total temporary incapacity benefits. The insurer's doctor's view is not a priori less credible than that of the health-insurance fund's medical adviser, and court-appointed experts must inform the trial court. Urgency was doubtful because the person was receiving health-insurance benefits, and the order could cause the insurer irrecoverable loss.","k":"Workplace accident — interim order to keep paying benefits","law":"Judicial Code, art. 1039","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-01-16","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1989:ARR.19890116.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"Artikel 16 van de wet op de verzekeringen is van toepassing wanneer de grove fout wegens de opzettelijke brandstichting, wordt gesteld door een fysische persoon die de vennootschap verpersoonlijkt. Het optreden van het…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that article 16 of the Act of 11 June 1874 applies where the gross fault, namely deliberate arson, is committed by the natural person who embodies the company (its managing director). The organ's conduct is identified with the company, which therefore owes the insurers the indemnities wrongly paid.","k":"Fire insurance — deliberate arson by the company's officer","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-01-10","rol":"89/3060","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1989:ARR.19890110.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A signed proposal containing all the details requested by the insurer is an offer; the contract is formed when the policyholder receives the policy issued by the insurer, but may take effect earlier, and it does not matter that the insured did not return a signed copy. The general and special conditions form part of the contract, so the insured had to sue within the contractual period, here six months from the insurer's refusal to pay. The summary does not state the outcome.","k":"Formation of the insurance contract and contractual time limit for action","law":"Contract formation (offer and acceptance); contractual time limit","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1989-01-09","rol":"144.516;147.878","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1989:ARR.19890109.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'action en remboursement du capital versé par erreur à la victime d'un accident du travail par l'assureur-loi est de la compétence exclusive du tribunal du travail (Code judiciaire, art. 579). Cette compétence se…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"An action by the workplace-accident insurer to recover capital paid to the victim in error falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the labour tribunal (Judicial Code, art. 579), as confirmed by article 69 of the Workplace Accidents Act. The victim's related damages claim against the insurer under the Civil Code does not alter that jurisdiction. The labour court must check whether the Civil Code rules relied on are displaced by the special public-policy rules of workplace-accident law.","k":"Workplace accident — jurisdiction over repayment of capital paid in error","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 51bis and 69; Judicial Code, art. 579","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-12-23","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1988:ARR.19881223.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"En matière d'assurance vie, l'assureur qui invoque la clause d'exclusion de garantie en cas de suicide intentionnel doit apporter la preuve du suicide. Le bénéficiaire du contrat a la charge de la preuve du caractère…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, in life insurance, an insurer relying on the intentional-suicide exclusion must prove the suicide, while the beneficiary bears the burden of proving that it was involuntary. A suicide is involuntary when it results from an irrational, irresistible impulse by a person no longer in full possession of their mental faculties, whose will is clouded and resistance destroyed to the point of not grasping the moral significance and consequences of the act. The concrete outcome is not stated.","k":"Life insurance — suicide exclusion and burden of proof","law":"No provision cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-12-23","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1988:ARR.19881223.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"1. L'action en répétition de sommes que l'assureur a payées aux victimes contre l'assuré pour l'une des causes de déchéance conventionnelle se prescrit par trois ans. Le point de départ de ce délai de prescription est…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the insurer's action against the insured to recover sums paid to victims on the basis of a contractual forfeiture ground is time-barred after three years. Time runs from each payment made by the insurer once it was established that it was legally bound to compensate the injured third party. For assumption of risk, the risk must be, if not obvious, at least apparent, and the person must be able to perceive the aggravation of the normal risk. The concrete outcome is not stated.","k":"Motor liability — limitation period for the insurer's recourse","law":"No provision cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-12-22","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIHAI:1988:JUG.19881222.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Dans le cas particulier d'un contrat d'assurance relatif à des véhicules avec immatriculation spéciale \" marchand \", le seul critère qui permet de déterminer l'objet du contrat n'est pas le véhicule - puisque celui-ci,…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, in motor liability insurance for vehicles with a special trade (\"marchand\") registration, the only criterion defining the subject of the contract is not the vehicle, which may vary within certain power limits, but the plate issued by the road traffic office. Where the policy covers the vehicle bearing a given trade plate, this means the authentic official plate, not duplicates that can be multiplied indefinitely. The concrete outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Motor liability — subject of cover for a trade (\"marchand\") plate","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-12-21","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1988:ARR.19881221.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"De juiste oorzaak van het lek in de waterleiding is niet te achterhalen. Naargelang de oorzaak, nl. bevriezing enerzijds of ondeugdelijkheid of ouderdom anderzijds, kan de aansprakelijkheid van de schadelijke gevolgen…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The exact cause of the leak in the water pipe (frost, or defect and wear) could not be established; depending on the cause, liability could rest with the tenant or the owner. The court rejected the claim based on articles 1382 to 1384 of the former Civil Code, since a leak does not in itself show that the pipes were defective, but held that the water seepage abnormally upset the balance between neighbouring properties and awarded appropriate compensation to the insurer of the owner of the adjoining building.","k":"Water damage — neighbour's insurer's recourse, nuisance between neighbours","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1382, 1383, 1384(1) and 544","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-12-19","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1988:ARR.19881219.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"De uitoefening van het eigen recht van de benadeelde tegen de verzekeraar, enerzijds, en het verbod om nietigheden, excepties of verval tegen te werpen, anderzijds, respectievelijk voorzien bij de artikelen 6 en 11 van…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the injured party's direct action against the insurer and the rule that nullities, defences and forfeitures cannot be raised against the injured party, laid down in articles 6 and 11 of the common provisions annexed to the Benelux Convention of 24 May 1966, no longer apply where the insurance contract had ceased to exist before the accident. The summary does not expressly state whether that was so here or how the case ended.","k":"Motor liability — contract ended before the accident, direct action","law":"Benelux Convention of 24.5.1966, common provisions, arts. 6 and 11","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-12-15","rol":"84/36818","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:1988:ARR.19881215.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The victim cannot obtain from the workplace-accident insurer compensation for bodily harm already covered under other legislation, and the gross benefits paid provisionally by the health-insurance fund are not undue. The fund is subrogated, up to its benefits, to the whole of the sums owed under other Belgian legislation. The court held that the tax withheld by the insurer and paid to the tax authority on the victim's behalf forms part of what was owed and counts towards the subrogation; the insurer may in turn recover it from the victim as an undue payment.","k":"Health-insurance fund subrogation — tax withheld by the workplace-accident insurer","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46; Act of 9.8.1963, art. 70","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-12-12","rol":"21.393","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1988:ARR.19881212.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Because workplace-accident law is a matter of public policy, there can be no acquiescence, particularly one inferred from provisional enforcement required by law. The three-year period for a revision action runs from a final decision, which requires service of the judgment fixing permanent incapacity. If the workplace-accident insurer paid the capital to the Workplace Accidents Fund prematurely, the Fund must refund it if the first-instance judge, to whom the case is referred back, sets a rate below 10%. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — acquiescence, revision period, capital paid to the Fund","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 6 §2, 51bis and 72","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-12-08","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILUX:1988:JUG.19881208.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Ne peut être approuvée, la thèse de la Cour de cassation selon laquelle en mettant en circulation un véhicule automoteur assuré conformément aux dispositions de la loi du 1er juillet 1956 par le propriétaire-preneur…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court declined to follow the Court of Cassation's view that a driver who takes a vehicle insured by the owner-policyholder onto the road adheres to the policy clauses concerning him. Tacit adherence cannot be presumed and cannot bind minors to a contract they cannot in principle conclude and which, given the automatic recourse for driving without a licence, amounts to an act of disposal. The insurer's recourse based on the owner's policy could therefore not be exercised against the minor driver.","k":"Motor liability — recourse against a minor driver, no tacit adherence","law":"Act of 1.7.1956 (motor liability)","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Luxembourg","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-12-08","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILUX:1988:JUG.19881208.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'action récursoire d'une compagnie d'assurance R.C. automobile contre un mineur d'âge, responsable d'un accident de la circulation au volant d'un véhicule appartenant à un tiers seul signataire du contrat d'assurance,…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court dismissed the motor insurer's recourse action against a minor who caused an accident while driving a vehicle owned by a third party, the sole signatory of the policy. The recourse is contractual and tacit adherence to a contract cannot be presumed; moreover, a minor cannot be bound by the terms of an insurance contract he lacks capacity, in principle, to conclude.","k":"Motor liability — insurer's recourse against a minor driver","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Luxembourg","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-12-07","rol":"85/71162","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1988:ARR.19881207.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"La mise en demeure de payer la prime a pour effet de suspendre la garantie si elle n'est pas suivie du paiement dans le délai prévu par le contrat. Peu importe que cette mise en demeure ait été ou non effectivement…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that formal notice to pay the premium suspends cover if payment is not made within the contractual period, whether or not the policyholder actually received it. It does not matter that the insurer had not first sent a premium invoice, and sending an unregistered reminder after the registered notice does not cancel its effect. Since suspension does not suspend the whole contract, the insurer may without contradiction rely on it and also claim the premium for the suspension period.","k":"Unpaid premium — unreceived formal notice and suspension of cover","law":"Contractual premium and suspension clauses","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-12-07","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1988:ARR.19881207.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Het Hof meent dat de bedoeling van de contractpartijen duidelijk was om een caravan te verzekeren als woning en gelijk te stellen als gebouw wanneer deze niet werd aangewend als een aanhangwagen van een in het verkeer…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court found that the parties clearly intended to insure the caravan as a dwelling and to treat it as a building when it was not being used as a trailer of a vehicle on the road. It inferred this from the facts: the caravan was set up in a car park off the road as a home, washing lines were strung between trees, people were inside and the stove was lit. Fire cover was upheld; according to the Juportal note, the argument of intentional loss was not accepted.","k":"Fire insurance — caravan used as a dwelling","law":"The summary cites no legal basis","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-12-05","rol":"10e","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1988:ARR.19881205.21","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"1. Lorsque l'indemnité allouée à la veuve en réparation du dommage matériel consécutif au décès de son mari, est calculée sur base de la rémunération nette de celui-ci, il convient d'accorder à cette veuve des réserves…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"As the widow's material loss was calculated on her late husband's net pay, tax reservations were granted, without any duty to exhaust tax appeals, which has no legal basis. Benefits paid under a group \"private life\" accident policy are deducted from compensation for loss of income if that cover is indemnity-based; depending on the insurer's commitments, group accident cover is either fixed-sum insurance with no subrogated recourse or indemnity insurance allowing it. Non-material damages: BEF 300,000 to the 26-year-old widow and BEF 150,000 to each of the two children.","k":"Fatal accident — deduction of group private-life insurance benefits","law":"Tort damages; fixed-sum vs indemnity insurance","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-11-30","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1988:ARR.19881130.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Krachtens artikel 4, par. 3, a/, van de modelvoorwaarden voor de verplichte verzekering inzake motorrijtuigen, heeft de uitbreiding van de dekking tot het vervangingsvoertuig bedoeld bij gezegd artikel 4, par. 1, a/,…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, under article 4 of the model conditions for compulsory motor liability insurance, extending cover to a vehicle temporarily replacing the insured vehicle that has become unusable is merely supplementary. It has no effect to the extent that the injured third party can actually obtain compensation under a current policy covering the liability arising from the replacement vehicle. The summary states neither the parties nor the outcome of the dispute.","k":"Motor liability — subsidiary nature of replacement-vehicle cover","law":"Motor liability model contract, art. 4","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-11-23","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1988:ARR.19881123.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"De verzekerde verliest het recht op de dekking van het verzekeringscontract wegens verzwijging van de verzwaring van het risico, met name wegens het feit dat het vermogen van het voertuig opgevoerd werd tot…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the insured lost the right to cover under the policy for concealing an aggravation of risk: the vehicle's power had been raised to 100 kW (135 hp), whereas the policy expressly stated the insured power as 81 kW (110 hp). Such a change in power and cylinder capacity aggravates the risk to the point that the insurer would have agreed to cover only on other terms, in particular at a higher premium, had the new situation existed when the contract was made.","k":"Motor liability — failure to report increased engine power","law":"The summary cites no legal basis","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-11-22","rol":"86/25.599","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1988:ARR.19881122.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'action récursoire prévue par l'article 47 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents de travail n'est ouverte à l'assureur-loi, qui a payé les indemnités résultant de ladite loi, contre le responsable de l'accident,…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the recourse action under section 47 of the Act of 10 April 1971 is open to the workplace-accident insurer that paid the statutory benefits only against a liable party who is a third party to the insurance contract. It cannot be brought against an employee of the insured employer, who, like the employer, benefits from the insurance, even if the accident was due to his fault. The same rule bars the insurer from suing by subrogation to the victim's rights.","k":"Workplace accident — insurer's recourse against the employer's employee","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, s. 47","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-11-22","rol":"89/3060","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRW:1988:JUG.19881122.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le recours de l'assureur du chef d'un accident causé par une personne non autorisée à conduire le véhicule désigné, ne peut être exercé, aux termes de l'article 25, dernier alinéa, du contrat type d'assurance…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The loss was caused by a minor who was not authorised to drive the insured vehicle. The court held that, under article 25, last paragraph, of the model contract, the insurer's recourse may only be brought against the insured who caused the loss. It recalled that parents are presumed at fault in upbringing or supervision (art. 1384) unless they prove they could not prevent the act. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Motor liability — unauthorised minor driver, target of recourse","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1384; model contract, art. 25, last paragraph","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Brabant Wallon","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-11-17","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1988:ARR.19881117.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Hoewel, ingevolge weigering van de bloedproef van de betrokkene, geen precieze vaststelling omtrent zijn toestand van alcoholintoxicatie gedaan werden, kan op grond van het geheel van de elementen van het strafdossier…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Because the driver refused a blood test, his level of intoxication could not be established precisely. From the criminal file as a whole the court found that, at the time of the accident, he was so abnormally affected by alcohol and \"seresta\" that driving amounted to gross fault under article 25, 9° and 10° of the model policy. He increased the risk beyond what the contract provided and knew or should have known it: the insurer's recourse was upheld.","k":"Motor liability — gross fault under alcohol and medication, recourse","law":"Model policy, art. 25, 9° and 10°","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-11-07","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1988:ARR.19881107.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Pour que la sanction prévue par l'article 9 de la loi sur les assurances de 1874 relatif aux réticences et aux fausses déclarations puisse être appliquée, il est nécessaire que la réticence ou la fausse déclaration…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the sanction under article 9 of the 1874 Act for concealment or misrepresentation requires fault by the policyholder, meaning a lack of the care a reasonable person would show. A policyholder who, when taking out bodily-injury insurance, did not mention phlebitis twelve years earlier, lasting about two weeks and never recurring, was not at fault, so the sanction did not apply.","k":"Misrepresentation — undisclosed past illness and fault requirement","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-10-26","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAANT:1988:JUG.19881026.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Een brand is ontstaan ten gevolge van een kortsluiting in het bord met de elektriciteitszekeringen, vermoedelijk door het \" overbruggen \" van de zekeringen met een bijkomende koperen draad. De rechtbank meent dat de…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The fire was caused by a short circuit in the fuse board, probably because the fuses had been bypassed with an extra copper wire. The court held the tenants liable and characterised this as gross fault equivalent to intent under article 16 of the Act of 11 June 1874, since bypassing removed the protection against short circuits and so aggravated the risk. The tenant's fire insurer was not required to pay and the advance must be repaid; the owner's fire insurer, which intervened voluntarily, was subrogated to the owner's rights.","k":"Fire insurance — bypassed fuses, gross fault","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16","w":279,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-10-24","rol":"24038","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1988:ARR.19881024.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La rupture du contrat de travail est un fait juridique opposable aux tiers. La victime, et elle seule, peut, à partir de ce moment, faire valoir son droit à une indemnité, en raison d'un accident du travail, contre…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Termination of the employment contract is a legal fact enforceable against third parties: from then on, only the victim may claim workplace-accident benefits from the workplace-accident insurer, the sole debtor, and the former employer, which had not paid guaranteed wages, can neither demand nor validly receive them. That the documents the former employer sent the insurer were inaccurate does not remove or reduce the rights of the victim, who is not at fault.","k":"Workplace accident — who may claim benefits after the job ends","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 23","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-10-20","rol":"86/3092","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1988:ARR.19881020.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'action récursoire de l'assureur fondé sur les articles 24 et 25,9° de la police type automobile exige que l'assureur démontre qu'il existe une aggravation objective du risque, une aggravation subjective de ce risque…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that recourse under articles 24 and 25, 9° of the model motor policy requires the insurer to prove an objective aggravation of the risk, a subjective one (the insured knew or should have known that driving in that state aggravated the risk) and a causal link with the accident. Separately, an own-damage policy's exclusion for gross fault or alcohol is not to be set aside automatically because the insured was acquitted of the offence under article 34, 1° of the Highway Code: intoxication below 0.8 g/l remains possible. The concrete outcome is not stated.","k":"Motor liability and own-damage — gross-fault recourse and alcohol exclusion","law":"Model motor policy, art. 24 and 25, 9°; coordinated Acts of 16.3.1968, art. 34, 1°","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-10-20","rol":"8237","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1988:ARR.19881020.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Article 11 de la loi du 1er juillet 1956. - Inopposabilité des exceptions aux tiers lésés. - Résiliation du contrat d'assurances antérieure à l'accident. - Résiliation résultant d'un accord ou d'une décision de justice.…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held, under article 11 of the Act of 1 July 1956, that termination of the contract before the accident, by agreement or court decision, can be raised against injured third parties. Where the policy was terminated for non-payment of premiums, the insurer's acceptance of a part payment made after the fourteen-day period following notice of termination does not amount to a waiver of the termination. The contract was therefore treated as terminated.","k":"Motor liability — termination before the accident and injured third parties","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 11","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-10-13","rol":"86/3092","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1988:JUG.19881013.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'assureur commet un abus de droit en poursuivant l'exécution du contrat d'assurance obligatoire RC automobile, avec suspension de la garantie au-delà de deux années de suspension, lorsque l'assuré n'a effectué aucun…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an insurer abuses its rights when it continues to enforce a compulsory motor liability contract while keeping cover suspended for more than two years, where the insured has made no payment since the suspension began. The insurer's claim based on performance of the contract failed to that extent.","k":"Motor liability — suspension of cover beyond two years, abuse of rights","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-09-27","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1988:ARR.19880927.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Door herhaaldelijk zijn zonen met de verzekerde tractor te laten rijden, hoewel het verzekeringscontract een clausule \" alleensturen \" bevatte, is de verzekerde tekortgekomen aan de uitvoering te goeder trouw van de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Despite a \"sole driver\" clause, the insured repeatedly let his sons drive the insured tractor. The court held that he breached the duty to perform the contract in good faith: under article 1134(3) of the former Civil Code, good faith means not only the absence of fraudulent intent but the absence of culpable failure, judged by reasonableness and fairness. The ruling was given in the insurer's recourse against the insured.","k":"Motor liability — sole-driver clause and good-faith performance","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1134(3)","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-09-19","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PINAM:1988:JUG.19880919.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"L'article 10 de la Loi du 1er juillet 1956 relative à l'assurance de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs donne au terme 'pourparlers' un sens très large qui comprend toutes correspondances et…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court gave the term \"negotiations\" in article 10 of the Act of 1 July 1956 a very broad meaning, covering all correspondence and all oral or written negotiations concerning the injured party's rights. Negotiations continue while the insurer reserves its decision pending review of the criminal investigation opened against its insured. The summary does not expressly state the outcome of the case.","k":"Motor liability — limitation interrupted by negotiations","law":"Act of 1.7.1956 (motor liability), art. 10","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Namur","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-09-16","rol":"10350","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1988:ARR.19880916.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'assureur-loi est autorisé à récupérer le montant total de ses débours, y compris les cotisations sociales y afférentes, à concurrence du montant auquel la victime aurait eu droit en droit commun.","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the workplace-accident insurer may recover from the liable third party all its outlays, including the related social security contributions, up to the amount the victim would have been entitled to under ordinary law.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — extent of subrogation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-09-13","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1988:ARR.19880913.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"L'assurance incendie souscrite par un garagiste pour couvrir des biens appartenant à des tiers est une assurance pour compte dont le fondement juridique repose sur la stipulation pour autrui. Le propriétaire du véhicule…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court characterised fire insurance taken out by a garage owner for third parties' property as insurance on behalf of another, based on a stipulation for a third party: the owner of a vehicle left at the garage and destroyed by fire acquires an own, direct right to the indemnity. If the third party does not accept the stipulation, the fire policy does not turn into liability insurance of the policyholder. The Juportal summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Fire insurance — third-party vehicle at a garage, insurance on behalf of another","law":"Stipulation for a third party; insurance on behalf of another","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-06-27","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAANT:1988:JUG.19880627.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"In de tussen verzekeraar en slachtoffer van een verkeersongeval gesloten overeenkomst, waarbij \" de begunstigde de betaling aanvaardt als forfaitaire en definitieve vergoeding zowel van de bekende als van de niet…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer and a road-accident victim had concluded an agreement under which the victim accepted payment as a lump-sum and final settlement of all consequences of the accident, known or unknown, foreseeable or not. The court found that the parties intended to settle their relationship once and for all, whatever the court might later decide on the insured's liability. The insured's subsequent acquittal did not allow the insurer to revoke the agreement unilaterally.","k":"Settlement agreement — later acquittal, binding force","law":"Binding force of the compensation agreement between insurer and victim","w":280,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-06-23","rol":"91/18346","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1988:ARR.19880623.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"1. La police \"compte G.\" est une assurance pour compte par laquelle le souscripteur (la banque) couvre l'intérêt d'assurance d'un assuré à qui sera versée l'indemnité ou dont le patrimoine sera protégé grâce au…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court characterised the policy taken out by the bank for its account holders as insurance on behalf of another, covering the insured's insurable interest; a change to the general conditions binds the account holder or their heirs only if notified to them. It also held that article 31 of the Act of 11 June 1874, which ends the insurer's obligations on aggravation of the risk, does not apply to life or death insurance. The Juportal summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Death cover linked to a bank account — change of terms and aggravation of risk","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 31","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-06-22","rol":"14.982","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1988:ARR.19880622.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"De arbeidsongevallenverzekeraar van het minderjarig slachtoffer van een dodelijk ongeval vordert betaling van het overgroot gedeelte van het kapitaal dat deze arbeidsongevallenverzekeraar heeft uitgekeerd aan de ouders.…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer of a minor killed in an accident sought, by subrogation, most of the capital it had paid to the parents from the liable party. The court rejected the claim: there was no reason to assume the victim contributed more to his parents than the cost of his own maintenance, so the parents' material loss was not established.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's subrogation — death of a child","law":"The summary cites no legal basis","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-06-20","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAWVL:1988:JUG.19880620.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Maakt een zware fout uit, als bedoeld bij artikel 16 van de Wet van 11 juni 1874 op de verzekeringen, het negeren van een neergelaten halve slagboom en van het rode licht bij het oprijden van een spoorweg. Het…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that ignoring a lowered half-barrier and a red light when driving onto a level crossing amounts to gross fault within article 16 of the Act of 11 June 1874. The driver's impatience did not excuse such a reckless act. According to the keywords, the dispute concerns the insurer's recourse against the insured.","k":"Insurer's recourse — ignoring barrier and red light at a level crossing","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16","w":280,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg West-Vlaanderen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-06-14","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1988:ARR.19880614.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the victim of an insured liable party may, under article 20, 9° of the Mortgage Act, proceed against the insurer, after obtaining judgment against the insured or together with that claim, to have the judgment declared enforceable against the insurance indemnity and the insurer pay the victim directly. A young man who left to study in the United States, leaving his dog with his parents without cancelling his family liability policy, remained its legal keeper even when the dog was later entrusted to a friend. The summary does not state that the insurer was ordered to pay.","k":"Family liability insurance — article 20, 9° action and keeper of a dog","law":"Mortgage Act of 16.12.1851, art. 20, 9°","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-06-13","rol":"14.982","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1988:ARR.19880613.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Wanneer de veroorzaker van een ongeval - onder meer zijn staat van dronkenschap in acht genomen - een dading afsluit met de verzekeraar van het slachtoffer, en achteraf door de strafrechter hiervoor wordt vrijgesproken,…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The person who caused an accident had settled with the victim's insurer, partly in view of his drunkenness, and was later acquitted of that charge by the criminal court. The court held that the settlement could not be annulled for error of law (former Civil Code, art. 2052(2)) or error of fact, since the parties had deliberately separated compensation from the criminal proceedings; the outcome of the prosecution was one of the risks included in the agreement. The settlement stood.","k":"Settlement — later acquittal, no annulment","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 2052(2)","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Bergen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-06-13","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1988:DEC.19880613.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsque l'auteur d'un accident transige avec l'assureur de la victime notamment en considération de son état d'ivresse, et qu'il est ultérieurement acquitté de ce chef par le juge répressif, la transaction ne peut pas…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The person who caused an accident had settled with the victim's insurer, partly in view of his drunkenness, and was later acquitted of that charge by the criminal court. The court held that the settlement could not be annulled for error of law (former Civil Code, art. 2052(2)) or error of fact, since the parties had deliberately separated compensation from the criminal proceedings; the outcome of the prosecution was one of the risks included in the agreement. The settlement stood.","k":"Settlement — later acquittal, no annulment","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 2052(2)","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-06-13","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1988:ARR.19880613.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Het bureau, belast met de afwikkeling van de schade, welke in België is veroorzaakt door motorrijtuigen, die gewoonlijk in het buitenland zijn gestald, moet ingevolge art. 1. laatste lid van de wet van 1 juli 1956 als…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the Bureau handling claims for damage caused in Belgium by vehicles normally based abroad counts as an insurer under the last paragraph of article 1 of the Act of 1 July 1956 and is bound to cover only as any other insurer. The Act of 4 July 1972, implementing Directive 72/166/EEC, extended its duty to uninsured vehicles, but not to stolen vehicles lawfully excluded from cover by article 3 of the 1956 Act; the Bureau was not liable for the damage caused by the stolen vehicle.","k":"Motor liability — stolen foreign vehicle and the Bureau","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 1 last para. and art. 3; Directive 72/166/EEC; Act of 4.7.1972; ECJ 21.6.1984","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-06-10","rol":"20439","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1988:ARR.19880610.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Est normal pour un travailleur qui ne connaît pas bien la région pour n'y avoir travaillé que sur un chantier, de choisir de rejoindre par le chemin qui lui était habituel, de grands axes routiers sur lesquels il ne…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held it normal for a worker unfamiliar with the area to use his usual main roads to avoid getting lost: the route, though not the most direct, is not a detour. It further held that the health-insurance fund is not a third party in relation to the victim, so the liable third party or its insurer may rely against the fund on the res judicata of the judgment given between them and the victim, even though the fund was not a party. The precise outcome is not clear from the summary; an appeal to the Court of Cassation was lodged.","k":"Commuting accident — normal route and res judicata against the health fund","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 8 §1","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-05-31","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1988:JUG.19880531.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Dès lors que l'assuré s'est contractuellement engagé à permettre un contrôle médical par le médecin-conseil de l'assureur, il n'existe aucune raison d'écarter des débats le rapport établi par ce médecin-conseil.…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, since the insured had contractually agreed to a medical examination by the insurer's medical adviser, there was no reason to exclude that doctor's report. The insured is answerable for false or inaccurate statements entered on the questionnaire by the broker, who acted only as the insured's agent. Whether the concealment or misrepresentation is linked to the loss is irrelevant once it altered the insurer's assessment of the risk; the sanction of article 9 of the 1874 Act applied against the insured.","k":"Life insurance — misrepresentation in a form completed by the broker","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-05-30","rol":"89/2780","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1988:ARR.19880530.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Le courtier que l'assureur investit de la mission d'encaisser les primes devient le mandataire de l'assureur et le paiement que le preneur d'assurance fait au courtier libère valablement ce preneur. Comme tout autre…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A broker instructed by the insurer to collect premiums becomes the insurer's agent, so payment to the broker discharges the policyholder; revocation of that mandate binds the policyholder only if notified to them. An insurer that does not forbid claim notifications through the broker creates an apparent mandate, so a notice given to the broker within the contractual time limit is binding on the insurer. However, a clause backdating suspension of cover to the unpaid premium's due date was held valid. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Insurance broker — premium collection and claim notification","law":"Agency and apparent agency; Act of 16.12.1851, art. 20(9)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-05-25","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1988:ARR.19880525.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Est fondé le recours de l'assureur basé sur l'article 25.3 du contrat-type d'assurance, en raison du fait que, lors de l'accident de roulage litigieux, le véhicule piloté par l'auteur responsable de l'accident n'était…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer's recourse under article 25.3 of the model contract was upheld because the vehicle had no valid roadworthiness certificate at the time of the accident; no mandatory rule prohibits the clause and it is not contrary to public policy. The duty to comply with roadworthiness rules cannot be equated with duties to perform specific acts, whose breach gives rise to recourse only if the insurer proves prejudice. Objections that the widow's pension and a life-insurance payout were ignored, and that compensation was adjusted for inflation, were rejected.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for lack of a roadworthiness certificate","law":"Model contract, art. 25.3; Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-05-18","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PINAM:1988:JUG.19880518.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"1.Le préjudice matériel que subissent les parents lors du décès d'un adolescent qui travaillait déjà, tout en vivant encore au foyer parental, peut difficilement être apprécié autrement qu'ex aequo et bono, tant en ce…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court assessed ex aequo et bono the material loss of the mother of a 19-year-old worker still living at home at 60,000 F a year for 4 years, i.e. 240,000 F, taking into account his net monthly wage of 13,695 F and the cost of his own upkeep (a powerful, expensive motorbike). The workplace-accident insurer, which waited several years before suing the liable third party, was penalised for its inaction: the compensatory interest owed to it was stopped several years before the judgment.","k":"Death of a young worker — workplace-accident insurer's recourse and interest","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":5,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Namur","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-05-09","rol":"89/3060","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1988:ARR.19880509.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer's letter to the victim's lawyer stating that it would take over the claim and compensate in full was held to be a firm personal undertaking giving the victim its own action against the insurer, which could no longer rely on suspension of cover for unpaid premiums. A suspension clause must be applied in good faith: without an express warning of its retroactive effect, cover continues. By contrast, an employee covered by a private-life accident policy payable only to the employer as policyholder has no direct right against the insurer, but may claim the sums paid from the employer.","k":"Family liability insurance — insurer's firm undertaking and suspension for non-payment","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1385; good faith; stipulation for a third party","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-05-09","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1988:ARR.19880509.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En consommant 4,7 litres de bière, en deux heures de temps, l'assuré a dû avoir conscience qu'il dissimulait son habileté et ses réflexes et, par voie de conséquence, son aptitude à conduire sa voiture et que, par le…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"By drinking 4.7 litres of beer in two hours, the insured must have been aware that he was impairing his skill, his reflexes and thus his fitness to drive, thereby increasing the likelihood and severity of the insured risk. This alcohol intoxication was classed as a serious fault for the purposes of the insurer's recourse action.","k":"Motor liability — drink-driving as serious fault, insurer's recourse","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-05-06","rol":"4609","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1988:JUG.19880506.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Aux termes de l'article 32 de la loi du 11 juin 1874, toute action fondée sur un contrat d'assurance se prescrit par trois ans. Terme conventionnellement réduit à deux ans. Aucune disposition légale ou conventionnelle…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Article 32 of the Act of 11 June 1874 set a three-year limitation period for any action based on an insurance contract, which the contract had reduced to two years. As no statutory or contractual provision allowed the agreed period to be interrupted, and limitation rules being a matter of public policy, the court declared the action inadmissible as time-barred.","k":"Insurance contract — contractually shortened limitation period","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 32","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-04-25","rol":"14792","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1988:ARR.19880425.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'assureur-loi doit avertir l'assureur maladie-invalidité des modifications intervenant dans le pourcentage d'incapacité attribué à la victime qui y est affiliée ou inscrite. Cette obligation pèse sur l'assureur de…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer must inform the health-insurance fund of changes in the victim's incapacity rate, including recovery. The court held that an insurer which failed to give notice within three days of recovery must bear the incapacity benefits provided under the Act of 9.8.1963 until the fund is informed.","k":"Workplace accident — recovery not notified to the health-insurance fund","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-04-18","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIHAI:1988:JUG.19880418.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Conformément à l'article 16 de la loi du 11 juin 1874 sur les assurances en général et aux articles 24 et 25 du contrat-type d'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs, le…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court upheld the insurer's recourse for reimbursement of the loss resulting from the insured's gross fault. Driving after altercations, after drinking and after an eye injury, then running a red light and causing a collision, despite a passenger's repeated warnings, was gross fault that objectively aggravated the risk, since the driver was or should have been aware of the heightened danger.","k":"Motor liability — insurer's recourse for gross fault","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16; model contract, art. 24–25","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-04-11","rol":"21.393","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1988:ARR.19880411.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La législation sur les accidents du travail est d'ordre public. La proposition faite par l'assureur-loi avant tout litige ne le lie dès lors nullement. Ayant recours à l'expertise, la victime prend le risque de voir…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Because workplace-accident legislation is a matter of public policy, the workplace-accident insurer is not bound by an offer made before any dispute. By seeking an expert assessment, the victim accepts the risk that the expert sets a lower incapacity rate than the one offered. The insurer's continued payments at the offered rate during the dispute reflect a statutory duty (art. 63(4)) and cannot be used against it.","k":"Workplace accident — insurer's initial offer not binding","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 6 and 63(4)","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-04-01","rol":"87/1587","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1988:ARR.19880401.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Accident en état d'intoxication alcoolique. Deux peines distinctes prononcées par le juge correctionnel sans qu'il se prononce, pour autant, ni sur la cause de l'accident ni sur la relation de ces infractions avec le…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The criminal court had imposed two separate penalties on the intoxicated driver without ruling, in the absence of a civil party, on the cause of the accident or the link between the offences and the damage. The court held that the civil judge hearing the recourse action of the insurer that had compensated the victim may, without breaching the res judicata of the criminal judgment, find that drunk driving caused the accident. The Juportal summary does not state the outcome of the recourse claim.","k":"Motor liability — recourse against drunk driver and criminal res judicata","law":"Res judicata of criminal judgments; Cass. 18.6.1987","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-03-31","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1988:ARR.19880331.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"En raison d'un taux d'invalidité de 20%, des séquelles qui affectent la partie supérieure droite du corps, de l'âge de la victime (40 ans à la consolidation), il échet de fixer le dommage matériel à 850.000 F et le…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Given a 20% disability rate, after-effects on the upper right side of the body and the victim's age (40 at consolidation), the court set material loss at BEF 850,000 and non-material loss at BEF 150,000. Compensatory interest makes good the further loss caused by the delay of the wrongdoer or its insurer in paying; on an indexed award the rate may be set at 3%. The summary does not say who was ordered to pay or whether the insurer was a party.","k":"Personal injury — permanent incapacity and compensatory interest","law":"No provision cited in the summary","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-03-29","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1988:ARR.19880329.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"La prescription est interrompue à l'égard de l'assureur par les pourparlers entre l'assureur et la personne lésée. L'assureur doit notifier, de la façon prévue à l'article 10, al. 3, de la loi du 1er juillet 1956…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that negotiations between the insurer and the injured party interrupt the limitation period against the insurer, and that the insurer must give notice of breaking them off in the statutory form for a new period to start. Res judicata of the criminal judgment does not extend to the criminal judge's findings on external cause or fault of the victim or a third party, which that judge did not have to examine. The summary also refers to material and non-material damage but does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Motor liability — no notice ending negotiations, limitation","law":"Act of 1.7.1956 (motor liability), art. 10(3)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-03-29","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAANT:1988:JUG.19880329.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Is gegrond de vordering van de verzekeraar tot terugbetaling door de verzekerde van het aan een derde-benadeelde gestorte bedrag, op basis van de artikelen 16 van de Wet van 11 juni 1874 op de verzekeringen in het…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court upheld the insurer's recourse claim for repayment by the insured of the amount paid to the injured third party, under article 16 of the Act of 11 June 1874 and article 25-9 of the model policy. Following the car in front at two metres while driving at 120 km/h was held to be gross fault on the insured's part.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for gross fault (tailgating)","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16; motor liability model policy, art. 25-9","w":280,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-03-28","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1988:ARR.19880328.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Commet une faute grave justifiant une action récursoire de l'assureur, l'automobiliste qui, sur une route verglacée à grande circulation, circule à une vitesse de 100 km/h par un brouillard épais.","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A driver travelling at 100 km/h on an icy, busy road in thick fog commits a serious fault justifying the insurer's recourse action. The insurer's recourse against its insured was upheld.","k":"Motor liability — speeding on ice and in fog, serious fault","law":"Motor liability model contract (recourse for serious fault)","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-03-28","rol":"8237","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIHAI:1988:JUG.19880328.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Non-paiement à l'échéance. - Article 12 du contrat type. - Mise en demeure. - Conséquence. - Suspension de la garantie en cas de non-paiement de la prime dans les quinze jours de la mise en demeure. - Accident survenu…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The accident occurred between the premium due date and the sending of the formal notice; under article 12 of the model contract, cover is suspended only if the premium remains unpaid fifteen days after that notice. The insurer, duly notified of the loss, compensated the injured third party and then sought recourse against the insured. The court found this conduct contrary to good faith and dismissed the recourse claim.","k":"Motor liability — unpaid premium, recourse and good faith","law":"Model contract, art. 12","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-03-22","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1988:ARR.19880322.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Le courtier qui remplit et signe la proposition d'assurance agit comme mandataire du preneur d'assurance. Il s'ensuit que les réticences ou les fausses déclarations qui marquent la description du risque sont opposables…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A broker who completes and signs the proposal form acts as the policyholder's agent, so non-disclosure and false statements in the description of the risk are binding on the policyholder. The condition for annulment under article 9 of the 1874 Act is met where the vehicle's year of manufacture and engine power were misstated, as these factors affect the premium. A waiver of annulment by the insurer must be certain; it does not follow from merely issuing a suspension endorsement. Annulment was applied.","k":"Motor liability — proposal completed by the broker, misrepresentation and annulment","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-03-22","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIHAI:1988:JUG.19880322.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Vu le nombre et la diversité des campagnes d'information, plus aucun usager de la route ne peut prétendre ignorer les effets néfastes de l'alcool sur ses aptitudes à conduire un véhicule. En l'espèce, en consommant des…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"In the insurer's recourse claim for drunkenness, the court noted that, given the many information campaigns, no road user can claim ignorance of alcohol's harmful effects on driving. By drinking for \"an hour or two\" at a reception he had already arrived at drunk, the insured knowingly and deliberately put himself in the state of intoxication alleged against him.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for drunkenness and proof","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-03-22","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIHAI:1988:JUG.19880322.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsque le recours de l'assureur contre l'assuré est basé sur le fait que le véhicule soumis à la réglementation sur le contrôle technique n'était plus muni d'un certificat de visite valable, sur la base de l'article…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer sought recourse against the insured under article 25, 3° of the model contract because the vehicle, subject to roadworthiness testing, no longer had a valid certificate. The court held that the insured may prove that the loss was not caused by a defect that could lead to, or had justified, the vehicle's rejection at inspection. The summary does not say whether that proof was provided.","k":"Motor liability — expired roadworthiness certificate, proof of no causation","law":"Model contract, art. 25, 3°","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-03-21","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1988:JUG.19880321.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Est fondée l'action récursoire de l'assureur, basée sur l'article 25, 6 du contrat-type d'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs, lorsque le véhicule a été conduit par une…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court upheld the insurer's recourse claim under article 25, 6 of the model contract, as the vehicle had been driven by a person who did not meet the legal requirements, holding no driving entitlement. The parents' liability under article 1384(2) of the Civil Code was rejected because their 19-year-old son's theft of the car and the ensuing damage were sudden and unforeseeable. Under article 4 of the Hague Convention of 4 May 1971, the law of the State of registration governed the accident in Germany.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for an unlicensed driver","law":"Motor liability model contract, art. 25, 6; former Civil Code, art. 1384(2); Hague Convention of 4.5.1971, art. 4; Act of 10.2.1975","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-03-16","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1988:ARR.19880316.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'assurance-crédit est une assurance de dommages et tombe sous l'application de l'article 22 de la loi du 11 juin 1874, relatif à la subrogation de l'assureur.","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that credit insurance is a form of indemnity insurance and is therefore governed by article 22 of the Act of 11 June 1874 on the insurer's subrogation. The Juportal summary does not identify the parties or the concrete outcome.","k":"Credit insurance — indemnity insurance and subrogation","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 22","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-03-14","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PINAM:1988:JUG.19880314.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Le paiement fait de bonne foi à celui qui est en possession de la créance, est valable, encore que le possesseur en soit par la suite évincé (art. 1240 C.c.). Doit être considéré comme un tel paiement, celui effectué…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The liable party's insurer had paid the public social welfare centre that supported the victim at a time when the victim was not up to date with contributions to his health-insurance fund, which later paid him benefits once his file was regularised. The court held that a payment made in good faith to the person in possession of the claim is valid (art. 1240 of the Civil Code) and that the insurer's payment was such a payment. For those benefits the health-insurance fund has only an unjust-enrichment claim against the person who received double compensation.","k":"Health-insurance fund's recourse — liability insurer's discharging payment","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1240","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Namur","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-03-09","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1988:ARR.19880309.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Luidens artikel 50, alinéa 1, van de wet van 9 juli 1975 betreffende de controle van de verzekeringsondernemingen, kan elke benadeelde van het Gemeenschappelijk Motorwaarborgfonds de vergoeding bekomen van de schade…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that, under article 50(1) of the Act of 9 July 1975, an injured party may obtain compensation for bodily injury from the Guarantee Fund where the motor vehicle that caused the accident has not been identified, the Fund taking the place of the liable person. A vehicle is not identified merely because several people saw it; it is identified only if its owner or registered keeper is known, so that the injured party can sue that person or its insurer. The Fund's defence based on the sightings was rejected.","k":"Guarantee Fund — meaning of an unidentified vehicle","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50(1)","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-03-07","rol":"14.982","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1988:ARR.19880307.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'assureur-loi de l'employeur de la victime d'un accident du travail qui constitue également un accident de droit commun ne peut se voir accorder le remboursement de ses débours calculés sur la base du salaire brut que…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Where a workplace accident is also an accident under ordinary law, the workplace-accident insurer can recover outlays calculated on gross salary only if the charges on the compensation are shown to equal those on salary; according to the court, there has been no such tax equivalence since 1962. Social security contributions, not payable by the victim during temporary incapacity, cannot be claimed, and the relevant pay is the actual pay of the year before the accident. No capitalisation was granted for a 10% incapacity of an unqualified victim with irregular employment.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — gross salary and capitalisation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971 (subrogation of the workplace-accident insurer)","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-03-01","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1988:ARR.19880301.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the exclusion in article 7 of the model contract does not apply to a victim named as authorised driver who was a pedestrian at the time and was neither policyholder nor keeper of the vehicle. Driving by an unauthorised driver is not a case of non-insurance that can be raised against injured third parties. No preliminary reference to the Benelux Court on intentional harm was needed, as the act was unintentional. The health-insurance fund is subrogated up to its outlay; the CPAS acts on its own right.","k":"Motor liability — exclusive-driver clause and the victim","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 11(1); model contract, art. 7; Act of 9.8.1963, art. 70 §2; Act of 8.7.1976, art. 98","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-02-26","rol":"17.764","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1988:ARR.19880226.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'article 63, alinéa 2, al. 4, de la loi du 10 avril 1971 fait obligation à l'assureur-loi d'informer non seulement la victime mais également l'organisme assureur de toute modification dans le pourcentage d'incapacité;…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that article 63 of the Act of 10 April 1971 requires the workplace-accident insurer to notify any change in the disability rate not only to the victim but also to the health-insurance fund; complying with the first duty does not discharge the second. The insurer, which notified its return-to-work decision to the victim alone, was in breach and, as a result, must bear the sickness and invalidity benefits for the disputed period.","k":"Workplace accident — insurer's duty to inform the health fund","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63 §2(4)","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-02-24","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1988:ARR.19880224.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Le terme \"pourparlers\" implique une négociation, une discussion, des échanges de nature à laisser entendre à la personne lésée que l'assureur envisage un règlement de sinistre. Conformément à l'article 10, alinéa 3, de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that \"negotiations\" mean discussions or exchanges that lead the injured party to believe the insurer is considering settling the claim; such negotiations interrupt the limitation period against the insurer. The breaking-off of negotiations must be notified by bailiff's writ or registered letter, and a notice coming from the insurer must be made at the insurer's own request, not the insured's. The Juportal summary does not state how the dispute itself was resolved.","k":"Motor liability — limitation interrupted by negotiations","law":"Act of 1.7.1956 (motor liability), art. 10(3)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-02-23","rol":"84/1293","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1988:ARR.19880223.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'action de l'organisme assureur contre la maladie et l'invalidité intentée contre l'auteur responsable d'un accident plus de cinq ans après celui-ci n'est pas prescrite si la victime a valablement interrompu la…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the health-insurance fund's claim against the liable party, brought more than five years after the accident, is not time-barred if the victim validly interrupted the limitation period for his own claim, since the fund is subrogated to his rights, even if the victim then belonged to another fund. The final settlement between the victim and the liable party's insurer cannot be raised against the fund, whose involvement was known. The fund may recover daily incapacity benefits only on the basis of the ordinary-law expert report.","k":"Health-insurance fund subrogation — limitation and settlement","law":"Subrogation; interruption of limitation; Act of 9.8.1963 (health and disability insurance)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-02-23","rol":"2988","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1988:ARR.19880223.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'action de l'organisme assureur contre la maladie et l'invalidité intentée contre l'auteur responsable d'un accident plus de cinq ans après celui-ci n'est pas prescrite si la victime a valablement interrompu la…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the health-insurance fund's claim against the liable party, brought more than five years after the accident, is not time-barred if the victim validly interrupted the limitation period for his own claim, since the fund is subrogated to his rights, even if the victim then belonged to another fund. The final settlement between the victim and the liable party's insurer cannot be raised against the fund, whose involvement was known. The fund may recover daily incapacity benefits only on the basis of the ordinary-law expert report.","k":"Health-insurance fund subrogation — limitation and settlement","law":"Act of 9.8.1963, art. 70 §2; subrogation; interruption of limitation","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-02-17","rol":"390/87","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1988:ARR.19880217.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"De derde die schade lijdt ingevolge een ongeval beschikt niet, krachtens artikel 20-9° van de Hypotheekwet, over een rechtstreekse vordering tegen de verzekeraar van de burgerlijke aansprakelijkheid. Hij mag evenwel…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a third party injured in an accident has no direct action against the liability insurer under article 20, 9° of the Mortgage Act. He may, however, sue the person who caused the damage and the insurer together, so that the insurer pays him the sums it owes the insured under the policy. The concrete outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Liability insurance — injured party's claim against the insurer","law":"Mortgage Act of 16.12.1851, art. 20, 9°","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-02-16","rol":"36545","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1988:ARR.19880216.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le seul fait que le juge répressif a prononcé, fut-ce en présence des parties civiles constituées, diverses peines distinctes, n'interdit pas au juge civil de juger le lien causal entre l'état d'intoxication alcoolique…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the mere fact that the criminal court imposed several separate penalties, even with civil parties present, does not prevent the civil court from assessing the causal link between alcohol intoxication and the loss. The insurer's recourse action based on the insured's gross fault was held admissible and well founded.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for gross fault (alcohol intoxication)","law":"Model policy (recourse for gross fault); Cass. 18.6.1987","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-02-15","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1988:JUG.19880215.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, under an all-risks policy, sums paid by the insurer to its insured stem from agreements that do not aim to repair the damage caused by the liable third party but were merely triggered by it. The cost of the deductible can therefore be recovered from the liable third party under general tort law, even if the insured received from its insurer more than the loss suffered. The summary does not say whether the insurer was a party.","k":"All-risks policy — insurance payment and deductible claimed from the third party","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 22","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-02-15","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PINAM:1988:JUG.19880215.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Les déclarations de sinistre, de cession de véhicule assuré et de remise en circulation d'un autre véhicule sont valablement faites au représentant local ou régional de la compagnie d'assurance. Lorsque le véhicule…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that notices of a claim, of transfer of the insured vehicle and of putting another vehicle into service are validly given to the insurer's local or regional agent. When the insured vehicle is taken out of use and not replaced at once, the contract is suspended under article 34 of the model contract and revives as soon as the policyholder informs the insurer of the replacement and the new vehicle's details. No deadline applies to that notice; here, with only the registration documents of the new vehicle missing, the notice met the legal requirements.","k":"Motor liability — vehicle taken out of use, suspension and replacement","law":"Model contract, art. 34","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Namur","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-02-10","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1988:ARR.19880210.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'acquittement d'un prévenu a l'autorité de la chose jugée même s'il a été prononcé au bénéfice du doute ou s'il n'est pas motivé. L'article 4, alinéa 4, des statuts du Fonds commun de garantie automobile dispose que :…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that an acquittal is res judicata even when given on the benefit of the doubt or without reasons. Under article 4, paragraph 4 of the statutes of the motor Guarantee Fund, a member insurer that has compensated the injured party under a personal or property insurance contract has no recourse against the Fund to recover its outlay. The Fund always remains subsidiary to the intervention of insurers.","k":"Guarantee Fund — no recourse for an insurer that has paid","law":"Statutes of the motor Guarantee Fund, art. 4, para. 4","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-02-10","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1988:ARR.19880210.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Krachtens de artikelen 15bis en 15ter van koninklijk besluit van 31 december 1953, mag een handelaarsplaat slechts gebruikt worden door bouwers, monteerders, verkopers en voortverkopers, en dit voor voertuigen die…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that, under articles 15bis and 15ter of the Royal Decree of 31 December 1953, a trade plate may be used only by manufacturers, assemblers, dealers and resellers, for vehicles entered in a special register. A policyholder who lends his vehicle's trade plate outside those legal conditions breaches his obligations; the insurer's recourse against him under article 24 of the model conditions for compulsory motor liability insurance was allowed.","k":"Motor liability — lending a trade plate, insurer's recourse","law":"RD of 31.12.1953, arts. 15bis, 15ter; model contract, art. 24","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-02-08","rol":"15.791","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1988:ARR.19880208.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Pour l'application des articles 1733 et 1734 du Code civil, instituant, sous certaines conditions, une présomption de responsabilité solidaire des locataires pour l'incendie survenu dans les lieux loués, il n'y a pas…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that unlet attic space to which tenants had no access falls outside the presumption in articles 1733 and 1734 of the Civil Code; where a fire starts on the garret floor without being located, only tenants who rent a garret are presumed liable. A tenant must prove a construction defect and its decisive role. Although article 20, 9° of the Mortgage Act gives no direct action, the victim may sue the liable party and its insurer together; they are liable in solidum. The concrete outcome is not stated.","k":"Tenants' fire liability — joinder of the insurer","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1733 and 1734; Mortgage Act of 16.12.1851, art. 20, 9°","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-02-02","rol":"87/710","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1988:ARR.19880202.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Bien qu'en pratique, les assureurs invitent souvent le preneur d'assurance à remplir un questionnaire détaillé, cet usage ne dispense pas l'assuré de l'obligation d'informer également l'assureur sur les points qui…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the insurers' practice of using a detailed questionnaire does not relieve the insured of the duty to inform the insurer on points not expressly asked, and the insurer need not verify the risk factors itself. A special policy clause may validly relieve the insurer of the proof required by article 9 of the Act of 11 June 1874 that the misrepresentation would have led it not to contract or to contract on other terms; it is then enough that the insured failed to disclose a material fact needed to assess the risk. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Duty of disclosure — facts outside the questionnaire","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-02-02","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1988:ARR.19880202.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Le fait de laisser un véhicule en stationnement pendant la nuit, à proximité de la voie publique, en laissant les portières ouvertes et la clé sur le tableau de bord constitue incontestablement une négligence…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Leaving a car parked overnight near the public road with the doors open and the key on the dashboard is clear negligence, but it is a common fault the insurer must have taken into account when assessing the risk. It therefore cannot be treated as so serious as to destroy the balance of the contract. Moreover, the insured's fault was overridden by two causes of the damage, the driving error of the person who caused the accident and the theft; no causal link was found.","k":"Vehicle theft — key left on the dashboard, no gross negligence","law":"Policy conditions (theft cover); gross negligence","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-02-02","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1988:ARR.19880202.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le Fonds commun de garantie automobile doit intervenir pour réparer le préjudice subi par la personne lésée lorsque celle-ci établit que le conducteur du véhicule non identifié est responsable du dommage en application…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Guarantee Fund must compensate the injured party where that party proves that the driver of the unidentified vehicle is liable under articles 1382 et seq. of the former Civil Code, or that the driver who caused the accident is exonerated by a fortuitous event. The Fund does not intervene if the injured party is itself responsible for the accident. The summary does not state the outcome.","k":"Guarantee Fund — unidentified vehicle, conditions for intervention","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50 §1; RD of 1.12.1975, art. 8.3, 9.3, 15.2; former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-02-01","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1988:ARR.19880201.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'article 25.6 du contrat type d'assurance des véhicules automoteurs sanctionne une incapacité juridique. Elle a pour objet de permettre à l'assureur d'exercer une action récursoire contre l'assuré lorsque, au moment du…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Article 25.6 of the model contract sanctions a legal incapacity: it allows the insurer to bring a recourse action against the insured where, at the time of the accident, the vehicle was driven by a person who did not meet the conditions laid down by Belgian law and regulations for driving that type of vehicle. The case concerned driving without a licence issued under the Royal Decree of 1 February 1977. The summary does not expressly state the outcome.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for driving without a valid licence","law":"Model contract, art. 25.6; RD of 1.2.1977, art. 31","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-01-25","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAOVL:1988:JUG.19880125.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Is gegrond de regresvordering van de verzekeraar op grond van artikel 25, 6 van de modelpolis, wanneer het motorrijtuig op het ogenblik van het ongeval was bestuurd door een persoon die niet voldeed aan de door de…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court upheld the insurer's recourse under article 25(6) of the model policy. At the time of the accident the vehicle was driven by a person who, in breach of article 34(2) of the Road Traffic Act, drove despite a temporary driving ban imposed under article 60 of that Act, and therefore did not meet the Belgian legal requirements to drive.","k":"Motor liability — driving while disqualified, recourse","law":"Motor liability model policy, art. 25(6); Act of 16.3.1968, art. 34(2) and 60","w":280,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-01-21","rol":"86/3092","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1988:ARR.19880121.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Il résulte des articles 33 et 34 de la police d'assurance automobile, rapprochés notamment de l'article 1er de celle-ci aux termes duquel \"La Compagnie couvre, conformément à la loi du 1er juillet 1956 et aux conditions…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Under articles 1, 33 and 34 of the model policy, if the sale and replacement of the vehicle are not notified, the contract is automatically suspended on the day of sale (replacement not immediate) or after eight days (immediate replacement), and reinstatement before the end of the fifth year of suspension requires prior notice from the policyholder. That notice may take the form of a step taken with the insurance agent by an insured who completed a proposal form and requested a green card. Notice to the agent was held valid.","k":"Motor liability — reinstatement by notice to the agent","law":"Model policy, art. 1, 33, 34 and 36; Act of 1.7.1956","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-01-19","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1988:JUG.19880119.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"La clause des contrats d'assurance qui prévoit que la suspension de garantie consécutive au défaut de paiement de la prime rétroagit à la date d'échéance de celle-ci est valable. Elle ne constitue ni une clause pénale,…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held valid the clause making the suspension of cover for non-payment of premium retroactive to the due date: it is not a penalty clause, a defence of non-performance, a coercive fine or a civil penalty, but a contractual measure pressing the policyholder to pay on time. Applying the suspension retroactively where the loss occurred between the due date and the formal notice is not contrary to good faith, and the insurer need not remind the policyholder that the loss will not be covered.","k":"Motor liability — unpaid premium, retroactive suspension of cover","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, arts. 6 and 11","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-01-18","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1988:JUG.19880118.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that good faith in performing contracts prevents an insurer that, knowing of a ground for forfeiture, took up the insured's defence in court without reservation from later claiming reimbursement of its payments from the insured on the basis of that same forfeiture. The insurer's recourse claim therefore failed. The judgment also noted that a criminal court imposing several penalties implicitly finds that the offences are distinct facts.","k":"Waiver of recourse — insurer taking over the insured's defence","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-01-14","rol":"84/1293","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1988:ARR.19880114.15","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Lorsqu'il y a lieu de déterminer le dommage résultant d'une atteinte à l'intégrité physique entraînant une perte de revenus en se basant sur le salaire de la victime, il convient de calculer les dommages-intérêts…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"In the workplace-accident insurer's recourse action against the liable third party, the court held that lost income is calculated on net salary, since the parties did not show that the tax and social charges on the award equal those on the salary. As the wages lost during temporary incapacity could not be calculated precisely, they were assessed ex aequo et bono. For 19% permanent incapacity of a victim aged 29 at the time of the accident, material loss was set at BEF 30,000 per point.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — calculation of lost income","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47; former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-01-12","rol":"85/71162","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAWVL:1988:JUG.19880112.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"De Duitse verzekeringsmaatschappij \"B.A. Auto\" is geen verzekeringsonderneming door de Koning toegelaten in de zin van artikel 2 alinéa 1 van de wet van 1 juli 1956 betreffende de verplichte…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The direct action brought before Belgian courts by Belgian victims against a German insurer, for an accident in Germany caused by a German driver, was held inadmissible. The insurer was not an approved undertaking within article 2 of the Act of 1 July 1956, so article 6 did not apply; article 10(2) of the 1968 Brussels Convention creates no direct action but only designates the competent court. Under the 1971 Hague Convention German law applied, which according to the summary does not recognise a direct action.","k":"Motor liability — direct action against a German insurer, applicable law","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, arts. 2 §1 and 6; Brussels Convention of 27.9.1968, art. 10(2); Hague Convention of 4.5.1971","w":280,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg West-Vlaanderen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-01-11","rol":"29302","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1988:ARR.19880111.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"L'économie d'une assurance en responsabilité civile familiale est de garantir les parents et les enfants des conséquences dommageables des \" sottises \" que ces derniers commettent à l'insu des parents. S'il est loisible…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court noted that family liability insurance is meant to protect parents and children against the harmful consequences of 'mischief' children commit without the parents' knowledge. The insurer may stipulate exclusions, but they must be precise and unambiguous. The accident caused by a minor who had bought a vehicle without his mother's knowledge remained an exceptional act, as habitual use was not proved. A standard-form contract cannot be read restrictively, so the insurer had to pay.","k":"Family liability insurance — interpretation of an exclusion","law":"Interpretation of standard-form contracts; clarity of exclusions","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-01-07","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1988:ARR.19880107.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"La clause de la police d'assurance vol prévoyant l'indemnisation de l'assuré par le paiement des frais de remise en état si le véhicule est retrouvé avant l'expiration d'un délai de 30 jours ne peut être invoquée par…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The policy provided that only repair costs would be paid if the car was found within 30 days. The police found the car the day after the theft, but the insured was told only more than 30 days after the loss. The court held that the insurer could not rely on that clause in those circumstances.","k":"Theft insurance — meaning of a vehicle being 'found'","law":"Interpretation of the policy's general conditions","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-01-07","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1988:ARR.19880107.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Sauf dérogation résultant d'une loi spéciale, les dispositions du code judiciaire relatives à l'intervention ne sont pas applicables aux juridictions répressives. Le code d'instruction criminelle et les lois relatives à…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Unless a special statute provides otherwise, the Judicial Code rules on joinder do not apply in criminal courts; a third party may intervene or be joined there only where a specific statute so provides or the criminal court may impose a measure on that third party. No provision empowers the criminal court to hear a claim for a declaration of common judgment brought by the person who caused an accident against a liability insurer that is not the compulsory motor liability insurer under the Act of 1 July 1956. The ruling concerns jurisdiction and admissibility, not the merits.","k":"Joinder of the insurer before the criminal court","law":"Judicial Code (joinder); Act of 1.7.1956","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-01-05","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1988:ARR.19880105.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"L'assureur ne peut faire valoir devant le juge répressif une faute grave dans le chef de son assuré sur base de laquelle il pourrait ultérieurement exercer un recours. Les conclusions de l'assureur, intervenant…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an insurer voluntarily intervening in criminal proceedings may not allege its insured's gross fault (alcohol intoxication) there with a view to later recourse: its submissions on that point were struck out and it was refused the floor. However, where its intervention runs parallel to the insured's interests, it may appeal alone against the injured party claiming as civil party and raise every defence open to the accused on civil liability or the extent of the loss. The summary does not state the outcome on the merits.","k":"Insurer's intervention in criminal proceedings — limits","law":"No provision cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-01-05","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1988:JUG.19880105.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Lorsqu'après une déclaration de sinistre en temps utile, l'assureur donne, par son comportement , l'apparence qu'il le prend en considération et qu'il gère le règlement , la durée de cette exécution volontaire de ses…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that where, after a timely claim notification, the insurer's conduct gives the impression that it is considering the claim and handling its settlement, the time spent on negotiations, discussions or even routine handling of the file cannot cause the limitation period to expire. The insurer's taking the claim into consideration suspends the limitation period, in line with good faith.","k":"Limitation period — suspension while the insurer handles the claim","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1988-01-04","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1988:ARR.19880104.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that by agreeing to an amicable medical examination the victim does not waive rights as fundamental as reservations for possible deterioration and an assessment of the invalidity rate that takes account of his occupation. Without a special mandate, a legal-expenses ('defence and recourse') insurer may not settle on the insured's behalf; an insurance professional cannot be unaware of this and cannot rely on apparent authority by claiming the victim's representative exceeded his mandate.","k":"Legal-expenses insurer — authority to settle, amicable expert examination","law":"Agency (special mandate, apparent authority); amicable expert examination","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-12-23","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1987:ARR.19871223.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Voor het vaststellen van de schade ingevolge inkomstenverlies worden volgende componenten weerhouden: splitsing van de schade, belastbaar inkomen als basisloon, aftrek van 27,5% voor eigen onderhoudskosten, rentevoet…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"To assess the loss of income caused by a spouse's death, the court used: splitting of the loss, taxable income as base wage, a 27.5% deduction for the victim's own upkeep, a 5% interest rate and the Levie capitalisation coefficient. The loss of household economic value is the value of the services the victim provided to the family. According to the keywords, capitals set up by the workplace-accident insurer for the widow and children were deducted; details and outcome are not in the summary.","k":"Death damages — deduction of the workplace-accident insurer's capitals","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":5,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-12-16","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1987:ARR.19871216.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Wanneer een benadeelde of zijn gesubrogeerde verzekeraar met toepassing van art. 6 W.A.M. een rechtstreekse vordering instelt tegen de verzekeraar van de bestuurder die het ongeval heeft veroorzaakt, is de driejarige…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a direct action brought under article 6 of the Act of 1 July 1956 by the injured party or its subrogated insurer against the insurer of the driver who caused the accident is subject to the three-year limitation period of article 10(1). A claim against the liable third party does not interrupt it, but the motor insurer may waive it; here a waiver was inferred from a partial payment and the sending of a document appointing an expert. The summary does not say whether the claimant was the injured party or a subrogated insurer.","k":"Motor liability — limitation of the direct action and waiver","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, arts. 6 and 10(1)","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-12-16","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1987:ARR.19871216.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Zelfs wanneer het verkeersongeval het gevolg is van een misdrijf wordt de verjaring van de vordering, ingesteld door de benadeelde tegen de verzekeraar van de verantwoordelijke, geregeld door artikel 10 van de Wet van 1…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, even where the accident results from an offence, limitation of the injured party's claim against the liable party's insurer is governed by article 10 of the Act of 1 July 1956, not article 26 of the preliminary title of the Code of Criminal Procedure: the claim is time-barred three years after the event causing the damage. Negotiations mean exchanges that give the injured party the impression that the insurer is considering a settlement. The insurer's reply that the file had been passed to a lawyer created that impression and temporarily kept the injured party from suing. The summary does not expressly state the final outcome.","k":"Motor liability — limitation of the direct action, concept of negotiations","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 10; preliminary title of the Code of Criminal Procedure (17.4.1878), art. 26","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-12-15","rol":"2644","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1987:ARR.19871215.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Il n'y a pas lieu de réduire le taux d'incapacité permanente de travail pour le seul motif que l'assureur a fourni une prothèse mieux adaptée mais coûteuse. Ce faisant, l'assureur a simplement satisfait à l'obligation…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the permanent incapacity rate is not to be reduced merely because the insurer supplied a better-adapted but costly prosthesis; in doing so it only met its duty to provide medically necessary appliances. Competitiveness on the general labour market is assessed by comparison with other workers; a job offered by the employer out of goodwill, owing to long service, is irrelevant to the loss to be compensated.","k":"Workplace accident — prosthesis and permanent incapacity rate","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-12-10","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1987:ARR.19871210.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'assureur-loi dispose, contre le tiers responsable, d'une action séparée et indépendante qui ne peut être paralysée par la victime aux droits de laquelle il est subrogé. C'est ainsi qu'il peut demander un complément…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Liège Court of Appeal held that the workplace-accident insurer has a separate, independent action against the liable third party which the victim, to whose rights it is subrogated, cannot block: it may seek a further medical expert examination even if the victim objects. Losses from temporary and permanent incapacity are the same loss under sections 46 and 47. The ban on cumulating ordinary-law and workplace-accident compensation is a matter of public policy; gross-salary calculation requires equivalent deductions.","k":"Workplace accident — insurer's independent action against the liable third party","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, s. 46 §2 and 47","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-12-10","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1987:ARR.19871210.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Met betrekking tot de materiële schade inkomstenverlies wordt een splitsing gemaakt tussen de inkomsten als zelfstandige en de inkomsten uit werkzaamheden in dienstverband. Het verlies aan inkomsten als privé-practicus…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"For the widow's loss of income, the court distinguished the deceased doctor's self-employed income from his salaried income; the loss of private-practice income was capitalised to age 70 on net income, 40% personal maintenance and a 5.5% rate. For his employment with the public social welfare centre (OCMW), which acted as workplace-accident insurer, the capital set up by that insurer must be compared with ordinary-law damages to see whether the latter exceed it. Non-pecuniary loss was set at BEF 250,000 for the widow and BEF 100,000 per child living at home.","k":"Fatal accident — ordinary-law damages and workplace-accident capital","law":"The summary cites no legal basis","w":5,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-12-08","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1987:ARR.19871208.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"La nullité prévue par l'article 9 de la loi du 11 juin 1874 sur les assurances terrestres en cas de réticence ou fausse déclaration, même sans mauvaise foi, ne sera prononcée que lorsque celles-ci diminuent l'opinion du…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Annulment under article 9 of the Act of 11 June 1874, even without bad faith, is available only where the non-disclosure or false statement altered the insurer's view of the risk so that it would not have contracted, or not on the same terms. That was not so where a motor liability policyholder failed to mention a one-month driving ban imposed ten years earlier for hit-and-run, as the insurer produced no evidence that it raises the premium in comparable cases. Annulment was refused.","k":"Motor liability — undisclosed old driving ban, conditions for annulment","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-12-08","rol":"86/25.599","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1987:ARR.19871208.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'assureur-loi a l'obligation d'avertir la mutuelle dans les 15 jours de la réception de la déclaration d'accident de travail. Selon l'article 63 alinéa 2 al.2 de la Loi du 10 avril 1971, la notification par…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court noted that the workplace-accident insurer must notify the health-insurance fund within 15 days of receiving the accident report. Under article 63 of the 1971 Act, the insurer's notification to the fund is valid even if made outside the time limits of articles 2 and 8 of the Royal Decree of 31.12.1963. The summary does not identify the parties or the concrete outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — insurer's notice to the health-insurance fund","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63 §2; Act of 9.8.1963, art. 45; RD of 31.12.1963, arts. 2, 8","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-11-25","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1987:ARR.19871125.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Een professionele verzekeraar vermag niet op overtuigende wijze voor te houden, bij het uitschrijven van een vergoedingskwijting met uitdrukkelijke vermelding van betaling bij wijze van minnelijke schikking en zonder…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a professional insurer cannot convincingly argue that, when it issued a receipt expressly stating that payment was made by way of amicable settlement and without prejudicial admission, it did not really intend to end all further disputes between the parties definitively and completely. The settlement is final even if the insured is later found not liable for the harmful consequences of the accident; the insurer's argument was rejected.","k":"Motor liability — finality of an amicable settlement","law":"Model contract, art. 18 (Juportal note)","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-11-25","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1987:ARR.19871125.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the \"declaration of mortgage or pledge claim\" issued by the insurer to its insured's creditor is not a separate insurance contract but a unilateral and limited undertaking by the insurer. Article 10 of the Mortgage Act gives the mortgage creditor no more rights against the insurer than the debtor has: where the debtor does not rebuild and receives a reduced indemnity under the policy, the creditor cannot claim the indemnity due on rebuilding. Nor was the insurer liable for VAT, as no rebuilding took place.","k":"Fire insurance — mortgage creditor's rights, no rebuilding","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 6; Mortgage Act of 16.12.1851, art. 10","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-11-25","rol":"18207;29302","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1987:JUG.19871125.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Dégâts causés au bien voisin par dégradation du roofing du toit. Responsabilité aquilienne engagée sur base de l'article 1384, al. 1. L'article 544 Code Civil est étranger à la cause. Assurance couvrant expressément la…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Deterioration of the roof covering caused water damage to the neighbouring property. The court found the insured liable in tort under article 1384(1) of the former Civil Code, article 544 being irrelevant. Since the policy expressly covered the insured's tort liability, the insurer had to pay even though the deterioration resulted from the insured's negligence.","k":"Liability insurance — damage to neighbour from a deteriorated roof","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1384(1) and art. 544","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-11-20","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1987:JUG.19871120.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"N'est pas consécutive de \"pourparlers\" entre assureur et personne lésée, au sens de l'article 10 de la loi du 1er juillet 1956, la lettre par laquelle l'assureur fait savoir à la personne lésée qu'il est très surpris…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer had written to the injured party that it was very surprised to be contacted for the first time two years after the accident and that, with all reservations, it would like to know the claims. The court held that this letter did not amount to 'negotiations' within the meaning of article 10 of the Act of 1 July 1956: it belonged to a preliminary stage, with no negotiation, discussion or exchange of views. The limitation period was therefore not interrupted by it.","k":"Motor liability — interruption of limitation, notion of negotiations","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 10","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-11-20","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1987:JUG.19871120.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"La notion de \"pourparlers\" doit être entendue dans un sens large . Elle inclut une négociation , une discussion , des échanges de nature à laisser entendre à la personne lésée que l'assureur envisage un règlement du…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that 'negotiations' under article 10 of the Act of 1 July 1956 must be read broadly, covering negotiations, discussions and exchanges suggesting to the injured party that the insurer is considering settlement or has not finally rejected the claim. However, the insurer's letter asking, with all reservations, to know the claimants' demands was not a positive act suggesting it would accept the loss; it did not interrupt the limitation period.","k":"Motor liability — letter with reservations and interruption of limitation","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 10","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-11-20","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1987:JUG.19871120.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le détenteur d'un véhicule automobile est la personne qui, sans être le propriétaire ni nécessairement le conducteur du véhicule assuré, dispose matériellement de celui-ci. Doit être considéré comme détenteur du…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court defined the keeper of a vehicle as the person who, without being its owner or necessarily its driver, has physical control of it. A father who regularly drove the vehicle insured by his daughter was its keeper. In an accident occurring while the daughter was driving and the father was a passenger, he was therefore excluded from the policy's cover.","k":"Motor liability — father as keeper of the vehicle excluded from cover","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-11-18","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1987:ARR.19871118.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Vermits het niet bewezen is dat de blijvende arbeidsongeschiktheid een effectieve weerslag heeft gehad op de concurrentiële positie van het slachtoffer op de arbeidsmarkt, dient een bedrag van 225.000 F voor de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Since it was not proven that the 9% permanent incapacity had actually affected the competitive position of the victim, an unskilled worker, on the labour market, the court rejected capitalisation and set the material loss on an equitable basis at BEF 225,000. The workplace-accident insurer, subrogated to the victim's rights, may claim payment only up to that amount.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's subrogation — material loss","law":"The summary cites no legal basis","w":5,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-11-17","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1987:ARR.19871117.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'article 25.9 de la police type renvoie implicitement à l'article 16 de la loi du 11 juin 1874 sur les assurances. La faute grave visée par cette disposition légale suppose que l'assuré ait été conscient que son…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that article 25.9 of the model policy implicitly refers to article 16 of the Act of 11 June 1874. Gross fault requires that the insured was, or should have been, aware that his conduct increased the insured risk beyond what the contract foresaw, so that it is equivalent to intentional fault. For the insurer's recourse to succeed, the gross fault must also have been a necessary condition of the accident. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for gross fault: awareness and causation","law":"Model policy, art. 25.9; Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-11-17","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1987:ARR.19871117.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Where the criminal court imposed, for drunk driving, a penalty separate from that for the offence of negligent injury, the erga omnes authority of the criminal judgment obliges the civil court to treat drunkenness as unrelated to the damage; separate penalties for traffic offences and drunkenness do not by themselves have that effect. This distinction governs the insurer's recourse action. In addition, an own-damage policy clause worded like article 25.6 of the model contract is construed narrowly and covers only persons who do not meet the legal conditions for driving. The summary does not state the outcome.","k":"Motor liability — drunkenness, effect of the criminal judgment and driver clause","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382; model contract, art. 25.6","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-11-16","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1987:ARR.19871116.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Il ne peut se déduire de l'article 3, 3° de l'arrêté royal du 15 juillet 1963 (portant assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en vue de l'obtention d'un permis de port d'armes de chasse ou d'une licence de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that article 3, 3° of the Royal Decree of 15 July 1963, on compulsory liability insurance for a hunting-weapon permit or hunting licence, does not give the injured party a direct action against the insurer of the liable hunter. The injured party's claim against the insurer was held inadmissible.","k":"Hunting liability insurance — injured party's direct action","law":"RD 15.7.1963, art. 3, 3°","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-11-13","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1987:ARR.19871113.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that article 20, 9° of the Mortgage Act allows the injured party to claim, out of the sum the insurer owes the insured, payment of its own claim within the limits of the insured's liability and the policy. An injured party whose claim was admitted in the insured's bankruptcy may sue the bankrupt's business liability insurer, which may still dispute its insured's liability. Cover limited to articles 1382–1386 applied because the fault breached the general duty of care: the insurer had to pay for the demolition of part of a building the insured had not been asked to demolish.","k":"Business liability — bankrupt insured, injured party's claim against the insurer","law":"Mortgage Act of 16.12.1851, art. 20, 9°; former Civil Code, arts 1382–1386","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-11-13","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1987:ARR.19871113.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"La victime trouve dans l'article 20, 9° de la loi du 16 décembre 1851 le droit de poursuivre à charge de l'assureur sur la somme qu'il doit à l'assuré responsable, le paiement de sa propre créance contre celui-ci dans…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that article 20, 9° of the Act of 16 December 1851 allows the injured party to claim, out of the sum the insurer owes the liable insured, payment of its own claim within the limits of the insured's liability and the policy. The insurer keeps the right to dispute its insured's liability under ordinary rules. Since the fault was a breach of the general duty of care rather than of a contractual obligation, the tort liability cover had to apply.","k":"Liability insurance — injured party's lien and tort cover","law":"Act of 16.12.1851, art. 20, 9°","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-11-13","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAANT:1987:JUG.19871113.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"In een agentencontract werd gestipuleerd dat de overdracht van de portefeuille onderworpen is aan het akkoord van de verzekeraar. Dit akkoord werd ook als opschortende voorwaarde ingebracht in de overeenkomst tot…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The agency contract made any transfer of the insurance portfolio subject to the insurer's consent, and that consent was also a condition precedent in the transfer agreement. When the insurer refused, the seller relied on the condition. The court held that this was no breach of contract by the seller, and that the insurer committed neither abuse of rights nor third-party complicity in a breach, since its refusal was justified both by the agency contract and by general principles of law.","k":"Agency — transfer of an insurance portfolio and insurer's consent","law":"Agency contract; condition precedent; abuse of rights","w":279,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-11-12","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1987:ARR.19871112.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Il peut arriver que de bonne foi, l'assureur puisse considérer, dans certaines circonstances, l'absence de réponse comme une réponse négative. C'est ce qui explique l'identité de sort réservée à la réticence et à la…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court accepted that in certain circumstances an insurer may in good faith treat a blank answer on the proposal form as a negative answer. This explains why non-disclosure and false statements are treated alike on proposal forms. The summary does not state the outcome.","k":"Duty of disclosure — meaning of an unanswered question","law":"Non-disclosure and false statements on the proposal form (pre-1992 regime)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-11-10","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1987:ARR.19871110.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"L'assureur ne peut avoir une attitude agressive à l'égard de son assuré. Il pourra cependant intervenir volontairement devant la juridiction répressive contre la personne lésée qui s'est constituée partie civile si son…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the insurer may not take a hostile stance towards its insured, but may voluntarily intervene in criminal proceedings against the injured party acting as civil party where its intervention runs parallel to the insured's interests. Here, the insurer's intervention seeking an apportionment of liability based on the victim's acceptance of risk was held admissible. The outcome on the merits is not stated.","k":"Motor liability — insurer's voluntary intervention in criminal proceedings","law":"Act of 1.7.1956 (motor liability), art. 9(4)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-10-13","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1987:ARR.19871013.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Le terme \"alentours\" dont les parties se sont servies pour indiquer les conditions dans lesquelles l'assureur doit couvrir le sinistre implique une idée d'approximation dans l'espace qui exclut la contiguïté et la…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The term \"surroundings\" (alentours) used by the parties to define the conditions of cover implies an approximate area, not mere adjacency or immediate proximity. Where the parties agree on a given wind speed as the threshold for cover, the insured must prove that it cannot be ruled out that the wind reached that speed. The summary does not state the outcome.","k":"Storm insurance — proof of wind speed","law":"Policy conditions (storm cover)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-10-12","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILUX:1987:JUG.19871012.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le recours reconnu à l'assureur contre l'assuré, sur la base de l'article 25, 6. du contrat-type d'assurance obligatoire en matière de véhicules automoteurs, lorsque, au moment du sinistre le véhicule est conduit par…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the insurer's recourse against the insured under article 25, 6. of the model contract, where the vehicle is driven by someone not meeting the legal requirements to drive, exists without the insurer having to prove a causal link between the breach and the loss. To rebut the presumption of article 1384(2) of the Civil Code, the parents could not merely say that their son behaved normally and was a career soldier; they should have checked that he held a document entitling him to drive.","k":"Motor liability — unlicensed minor driver, recourse and parental liability","law":"Model contract, art. 25, 6.; former Civil Code, art. 1384(2)","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Luxembourg","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-10-09","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1987:ARR.19871009.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La réclamation d'une partie civile, propriétaire d'un véhicule volé dont le conducteur a causé un accident, est irrecevable contre le Fonds commun de garantie automobile.","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The owner of a stolen vehicle whose driver had caused an accident brought a claim as civil party against the motor Guarantee Fund. The court declared the claim inadmissible, holding that the owner of the vehicle that caused the damage has no right against the Fund.","k":"Guarantee Fund — claim by the owner of a stolen vehicle","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-10-08","rol":"2432","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1987:ARR.19871008.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The policy said that if the car is found only the damage is paid, and that the insurer pays within 30 days of the theft. The court read the clauses together: the period allows a search and spares the insured uncertainty about funds for a replacement. After 30 days the insurer must pay the car's value even if it is later found; an insured who has not yet bought another car may choose the payment or take back the old car with repairs paid by the insurer. The judgment was upheld.","k":"Car theft insurance — 30-day payment period","law":"Joint interpretation of policy clauses; Judicial Code (grounds on appeal)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-10-06","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1987:ARR.19871006.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Il n'est pas exigé de l'assuré, qui a souscrit un contrat d'assurance individuelle contre les accidents, qu'il démontre avec certitude la réalité de l'accident dont il se prévaut pour bénéficier de la garantie: il lui…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an insured under a personal accident policy need not prove with certainty that the accident happened: it is enough to show that the facts alleged are plausible. This applies especially to a self-employed garage owner who was alone in his workshop at the time. The insurer may refuse cover only if there are serious reasons to doubt the insured's sincerity.","k":"Personal accident insurance — proof of the accident","law":"Proof in accident insurance (plausibility); legal writing (R.P.D.B.)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-10-05","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1987:ARR.19871005.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Viole l'article 25.6 des conditions générales de la police-type R.C. automobile le vélomotoriste âgé de moins de dix-huit ans qui prend un passager. Le non-respect de l'article 8.2.3. du code de la route constitue la…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an under-18 moped rider carrying a passenger breaches article 25.6 of the general conditions of the model policy, and that breaching article 8.2.3 of the Highway Code is the contractual fault justifying recourse. That article covers objectively observable situations, not necessarily lasting ones, and requires no causal link between the fault and the loss. Parents held civilly liable by the criminal court for their minor child cannot dispute this in the insurer's recourse action.","k":"Motor liability — under-18 moped rider carrying a passenger, recourse","law":"Model policy, general conditions, art. 25.6; RD 1.12.1975 (Highway Code), art. 8.2.3","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-09-30","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1987:ARR.19870930.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En vertu des articles 33 et 34 du contrat type, le défaut de notification à l'assureur de la cession du véhicule désigné et de son remplacement immédiat, n'entraîne la suspension du contrat qu'à l'expiration du délai de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Under articles 33 and 34 of the model contract, failure to notify the insurer that the insured vehicle was sold and immediately replaced suspends the contract only once eight days have elapsed. As the accident occurred within that period, the insurer could not plead lack of cover against third parties: cover was due.","k":"Motor liability — vehicle replacement, eight-day period","law":"Model contract, art. 33–34; Cass. 13.4.1973; Cass. 18.10.1965","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-09-15","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1987:ARR.19870915.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Aux termes de l'article 25.6 de la police type, les parties au contrat d'assurance conviennent de considérer le fait concret de conduire le véhicule désigné dans la police sans être titulaire d'un permis de conduire…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Under article 25.6 of the model policy, driving the insured vehicle without a licence is a contractual fault that automatically deprives the driver of cover and justifies recourse by the insurer that compensated the third party. It is irrelevant that the proposal was signed when the policyholder was 18 years and 15 days old: an insurer may cover a vehicle without authorising the policyholder to drive it. No waiver of recourse follows from the insurer having defended the policyholder in the criminal proceedings.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for driving without a licence","law":"Model contract, art. 25.6","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-09-15","rol":"86/3092","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EALIM:1987:JUG.19870915.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"De verbintenis tot verkoop van het genomen voertuig voor de onderschrijving van de polis, aangegaan door de verzekeringnemer, berooft hem niet van het voordeel van de verzekering en de polis onderschreven in die…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the policyholder's undertaking to sell the vehicle before taking out the policy did not deprive him of cover, and that not reporting the sale, whose transfer had been deferred, was neither non-disclosure nor misrepresentation. A final criminal judgment acquitting a defendant of theft and convicting him of receiving prevents the insurer from denying the theft; the thief need not be identified. Towing, storage and appraisal costs incurred through the insurer's default must be reimbursed; absent an express clause and formal notice, default interest is not due.","k":"Theft insurance — cover, disclosure and costs","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg Limburg","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-09-11","rol":"171941","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1987:JUG.19870911.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Désignation d'un expert automobile par l'assureur du préjudicié en vertu de la convention RDR (règlement direct - regeling) et de la convention d'expertise entre assureurs. Accord de principe de l'assureur du tiers…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The injured party's insurer had appointed a motor expert under the inter-insurer RDR (direct settlement) agreement and the related expert-appraisal agreement, and the liable third party's insurer had agreed in principle to settle under RDR. When the assessment of the loss and the repairability of the vehicle became disputed, the injured party brought a direct action. The court held that the RDR agreement and the appraisal agreement cannot be relied on against an injured party bringing a direct action; the outcome of the damages claim is not stated in the summary.","k":"Motor liability — RDR agreement not binding on the injured party","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-09-11","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1987:JUG.19870911.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"Le point de départ de l'action de l'assuré contre son assureur défense en justice qui refuse de prendre en charge les honoraires de l'avocat que le premier a choisi pour assurer la défense de ses intérêts dans un litige…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The legal expenses insurer refused to pay the fees of the lawyer chosen by the insured for a dispute it considered not covered. The court held that the limitation period for the insured's action against the insurer starts on the date the lawyer's fee note is sent to the insured. The outcome of the claim is not stated in the summary.","k":"Legal expenses insurance — start of the limitation period for lawyer's fees","law":"Insurance Act 1874, art. 32 (listed as '18-06-1874' on Juportal)","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-09-07","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EABRL:1987:JUG.19870907.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Bij het sluiten van het contract, heeft de verzekeringnemer verklaard gedurende de laatste 5 jaar aan geen enkele ziekte te hebben geleden. Dit blijkt niet de juiste weergave van de werkelijkheid te zijn. Op basis van…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"When the contract was concluded, the policyholder declared that he had suffered no illness in the previous five years, which proved untrue. The court held that this concealment allowed the contractual exclusion to be applied and that the contract was moreover void under article 9 of the Act of 11 June 1874.","k":"Health insurance — concealed illness, nullity of the contract","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9","w":279,"c":"Nederlandstalige rechtbank eerste aanleg Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-09-07","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1987:JUG.19870907.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Lors de la souscription du contrat, le preneur déclare n'avoir souffert d'aucune maladie durant les 5 dernières années, ce qui n'est pas la réalité. Vu cette réticence, le bénéfice du contrat est contractuellement exclu…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"When taking out the policy, the policyholder stated that he had suffered no illness in the previous five years, which was untrue. The court held that, because of this misrepresentation, the benefit of the contract was excluded under its terms and that the contract was moreover void under article 9 of the Act of 11 June 1874.","k":"Health insurance — concealment of illness at subscription","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-08-13","rol":"85/71162","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILUX:1987:JUG.19870813.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Manque au prescrit de l'article 1134 et 3 du Code civil et commet un abus de droit l'assureur \"revenus garantis\" qui, après avoir cru à tort pouvoir interrompre l'indemnisation de son assuré, victime d'un sinistre,…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Having wrongly believed it could stop paying benefits, the income-protection insurer terminated the policy for non-payment of premiums that fell due afterwards. The court held that it breached the good-faith rule of article 1134(3) of the Civil Code and abused its rights, as it had not pursued the amicable expert assessment requested by the insured diligently and had itself caused the insured's inability to pay. The insurer was ordered to restore the insured to the position he would have had without the termination and to compensate the loss caused by the late payment.","k":"Income-protection insurance — abusive termination","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1134(3)","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Luxembourg","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-06-29","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1987:ARR.19870629.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En vertu des articles 24 et 25.1 du contrat type, la compagnie d'assurance a un droit de recours contre le preneur d'assurance en cas d'infraction de l'assuré à ses obligations et lorsqu'en vertu de la loi, elle est…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Under articles 24 and 25.1 of the model contract, the insurer has recourse against the policyholder where it remains liable to injured parties, in particular for misrepresentation at inception. The two actions differ: recourse requires payment of compensation owed to injured parties, whereas annulment under article 9 of the 1874 Act requires proof that the misrepresentation reduced the insurer's view of the risk. The case concerned undisclosed driving bans; the summary does not state the outcome.","k":"Motor liability — misrepresentation: insurer's recourse vs. annulment","law":"Model contract, art. 24 and 25.1; Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-06-26","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1987:JUG.19870626.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Police vol \"bagages au premier risque\" prévoyant l'entrée en vigueur \"après paiement préalable de la prime\". L'assuré n'a jamais payé spontanément la prime; celle-ci l'a été par le courtier après sinistre. Si la remise…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The baggage theft policy made cover conditional on prior payment of the premium, which the broker paid after the loss. The court held that handing over the policy before payment was neither a waiver nor a receipt, but that the insurer's conduct after learning of the loss (presenting itself to third parties as the baggage insurer, asking the broker to collect the premium and accepting payment) barred it from relying on non-payment. No fault was found against the broker.","k":"Baggage insurance — premium paid after the loss, broker's liability","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-06-24","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1987:ARR.19870624.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Le fait de laisser son véhicule quelques instants sur la voie publique, les portières non fermées, muni de sa clef de contact, constitue une négligence. Toutefois, la fréquence du fait et sa notoriété sont telles que…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court accepted that leaving a car on the public road for a few moments with the doors unlocked and the ignition key inside is negligent. However, this is so common and well known that the insurer must have taken it into account when assessing the risk; there was therefore no gross fault by the insured under article 16 of the Act of 11 June 1874.","k":"Theft insurance — car left with the ignition key inside","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-06-22","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1987:ARR.19870622.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Il appartient à l'assuré de donner à l'assureur une connaissance exacte des éléments du risque qu'il veut faire couvrir, et non à l'assureur d'en opérer la vérification. Il incombe à l'assureur de prouver qu'à défaut de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that it is for the insured to give the insurer accurate knowledge of the risk, not for the insurer to verify it. It is, however, for the insurer to prove that without the misrepresentation (here, a conviction for involuntary manslaughter and drink-driving and a driving ban) it would not have contracted, or not on the same terms. The concrete outcome is not stated.","k":"Motor liability — misrepresentation and burden of proof","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-06-11","rol":"85/2224","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1987:ARR.19870611.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Accident de roulage survenu en France et dont la responsabilité incombe au conducteur du véhicule sans implication d'un tiers. Refus par l'assureur de la couverture du conjoint sur base du contrat souscrit excluant…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The accident occurred in France and was caused by the driver alone; the insurer refused to cover the driver's spouse, relying on a policy exclusion. The court held that under the Act of 4 July 1972 implementing the directive of 24 April 1972, cover is topped up to the compulsory minimum of the Member State where the accident occurs, and the French Act of 7 January 1981 does not allow the spouse to be excluded. By issuing the green card the Belgian insurer undertook to compensate everyone entitled under French rules.","k":"Motor liability — exclusion of the spouse in an accident in France","law":"Act of 4.7.1972; Directive 72/166/EEC, art. 3; Hague Convention of 4.5.1971","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-06-11","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1987:ARR.19870611.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Under the Hague Convention of 4 May 1971, the liability of a Belgian driver whose Belgian-registered car caused an accident in France towards his wife, a passenger, is governed by the law of the State of registration, which also decides whether a direct action exists. The extent of cover follows the law of the place of the accident: under French law, for accidents after 1 July 1982, the driver's family members count as third parties, so the insurer had to cover the wife as a third party. A green card provides cover within its limits even if the national policy has been terminated or suspended.","k":"Motor liability — applicable law and direct action for an accident abroad","law":"Hague Convention of 4.5.1971; Act of 1.7.1956, art. 3(2) and 28 (as amended 4.7.1972); RD 24.6.1973, art. 3","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-05-22","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILUX:1987:JUG.19870522.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Si la disposition de l'article 33 du contract type R.C. automobile, aux termes de laquelle la garantie du contrat demeure acquise au preneur d'assurance à la condition qu'il informe dans les huit jours l'assureur de la…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Under article 33 of the motor model contract, cover remains available to the policyholder if he informs the insurer within eight days that the designated vehicle has been transferred. The court accepted that the rule may extend to an undisputed and unequivocal decommissioning of the vehicle, but it cannot apply if the insurer was not informed within those eight days. The summary does not expressly state the concrete outcome.","k":"Motor liability — transfer of the vehicle, eight-day notice","law":"Motor model contract, art. 33","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Luxembourg","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-05-20","rol":"169676","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTLIE:1987:JUG.19870520.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Lorsque l'absence de notification de l'assureur-loi à la mutualité est due à un cas de force majeure, l'action de la mutualité tendant à récuperer le montant des indemnités qu'elle a payées, ne peut pas être déclarée…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that where the workplace-accident insurer's failure to notify the health-insurance fund was due to force majeure, the fund's claim to recover the benefits it had paid cannot succeed. Although the fund's claim under article 63 was dismissed, the costs were charged to the workplace-accident insurer under article 68 of the Act of 10 April 1971.","k":"Workplace accident — force majeure in notifying the health fund","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 63 §2 and 68","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-05-13","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1987:ARR.19870513.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Is gegrond de vordering van de verzekering die steunt, overeenkomstig artikel 16 van de verzekeringswet van 11 juni 1874, op de grove schuld van de verzekerde, om het ongeval en de eruit voortvloeiende schade te hebben…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court upheld the insurer's recourse claim based on the insured's gross fault (article 16 of the Act of 11 June 1874), the insured having caused the accident while driving with 1.5 g of alcohol per litre of blood. Where the criminal court imposed separate penalties for traffic offences and for drink-driving without ruling on the damage and its cause, the civil court may find that both distinct faults necessarily and directly caused the damage.","k":"Motor liability — drink-driving, recourse for gross fault","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-05-12","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRW:1987:JUG.19870512.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En mettant à la disposition d'un courtier d'assurance des cartes internationales d'assurance automobile revêtues du cachet de la société d'assurance, celle-ci donne mandat à son intermédiaire pour réaliser les…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that by placing international motor insurance cards (green cards) bearing its stamp at a broker's disposal, the insurer gives the broker a mandate to carry out the operations this implies, in particular concluding an insurance contract. The summary does not state the outcome of the case.","k":"Motor liability — green cards and the broker's mandate","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Brabant Wallon","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-05-08","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1987:ARR.19870508.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Lorsque dans un train, des voyageurs quittent leur compartiment où se trouvent leurs bagages, pour fumer et se dégourdir dans le couloir, il n'y a pas lieu à indemnisation par l'assureur du chef de vol desdits bagages,…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the insurer did not have to pay for the theft of luggage belonging to passengers who had left their train compartment to smoke in the corridor. The policy excluded theft of unattended items unless they were in a locked vehicle or room; that exception covers places the public cannot enter once locked, which is not the case for passenger railway carriages.","k":"Travel insurance — theft of unattended luggage on a train","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-05-06","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1987:ARR.19870506.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En ce qui concerne les garagistes, il est d'usage de les couvrir pour tout véhicule quelconque s'il est muni d'une plaque \"essai\", \"marchand\" ou \"garagiste\", dont les numéros sont mentionnés dans le contrat d'assurance.","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court noted that it is customary to cover garage owners for any vehicle bearing a 'test', 'trade' or 'garage' plate whose number appears in the policy. The dispute concerned whether testing and moving a vehicle on a garage plate was covered. The Juportal summary does not expressly state the outcome.","k":"Motor liability — cover for vehicles on trade plates","law":"Act of 1.7.1956 (motor liability); legal writing (Rép. prat. dr. belge)","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-05-04","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1987:ARR.19870504.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"L'aggravation du risque n'entraîne la suspension ou la déchéance de la police d'assurance que si l'aggravation est substantielle, importante et durable. La transformation d'un salon-lavoir en salon automatique…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A customer of a launderette was injured by a defective spin dryer. The court held that aggravation of risk leads to suspension or forfeiture of the policy only if it is substantial, significant and lasting. Converting the launderette to self-service, which the insurer had been duly told about and which remained under some supervision, was neither gross fault nor a recklessness knowingly increasing the risk; the insurer's recourse claim was dismissed.","k":"Aggravation of risk — launderette converted to self-service","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16 and 31; Cass. 22.2.1940","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-04-17","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1987:ARR.19870417.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Wanneer een verzekerde de motor van zijn verzekerd voertuig overplaatst in een ander voertuig, weze het dan van een identiek model en merk, wijzigt hij het verzekerd risico. Hij moet deze verandering aan zijn…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an insured who moves the engine of the insured vehicle into another vehicle, even one of the same make and model, changes the insured risk. The insured must notify the insurer and comply with article 34 of the model policy; the similarity of the vehicles does not release him from that duty. The summary does not expressly state how the case was decided.","k":"Motor liability — engine moved to another vehicle, change of risk","law":"Model policy, art. 34","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-04-15","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1987:ARR.19870415.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"De enkele verandering van de nummerplaat van het voertuig ontstaat de verzekeraar niet van zijn uitkeringsverplichting, nu niet noch wordt voorgehouden dat het verzekerd risico hierdoor zou gewijzigd zijn; de in de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that merely changing the vehicle's number plate does not release the insurer from its duty to pay, since it was not argued that the insured risk had changed as a result. The change of risk referred to in the general conditions concerns replacement of the vehicle (article 6 of the model conditions for compulsory motor liability insurance). The insurer remained liable.","k":"Motor liability — change of number plate is not a change of risk","law":"Motor liability model contract, art. 6","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-04-15","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1987:ARR.19870415.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'employeur du conducteur du camion commet une faute personnelle en relation causale avec l'accident lorsqu'il met en circulation un camion dont les freins sont déficients. Il est donc bien l'assuré, auteur du sinistre,…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the employer of the lorry driver committed a personal fault causally linked to the accident by putting into circulation a lorry with defective brakes. Having carried out the maintenance itself, the employer was the insured who caused the loss, against whom the insurer could bring its recourse claim under article 25, 9° of the model contract. The insurer's recourse for gross fault was allowed.","k":"Motor liability — defective brakes, recourse against the insured employer","law":"Model contract, art. 25, 9°","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel d'Anvers","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-04-08","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1987:ARR.19870408.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"La clause d'un contrat d'assurance contre le vol de véhicules conclu par un garagiste, aux termes de laquelle les garanties sont subsidiaires à celles de tout autre contrat couvrant les mêmes risques et s'appliquent…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The subsidiarity clause in a garage owner's vehicle-theft policy refers to the garage owner's other policies covering the same risk, not to the theft victim's own contracts; it only prevents two insurers covering the same policyholder. The court held that a garage owner who left a customer's car unlocked with the ignition key inside near the garage did not commit gross fault under article 16 of the Act of 11 June 1874: the insurer knows such cars are moved frequently and are not always locked.","k":"Theft insurance — garage owner's gross fault, subsidiary cover","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-03-31","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1987:ARR.19870331.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Although the policy paying a daily incapacity allowance provided for medical arbitration, the appointed doctor acted as an expert without objection from the parties, so the court found a tacit waiver of the arbitration clause; the insurer's grounds of nullity and forfeiture were not medical disputes anyway. On the merits, failing to disclose alcoholism is a misrepresentation that voids the insurance, even if the insured honestly believed he was cured and even if the alcoholism was unrelated to the incapacity claimed.","k":"Disability insurance — arbitration clause and misrepresentation","law":"Act of 11.6.1874 (misrepresentation); arbitration clause","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-03-25","rol":"85/541","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1987:ARR.19870325.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"La transaction est un contrat synallagmatique par lequel les parties terminent ou préviennent par des concessions réciproques un litige né ou à naître. Sommes volontairement payées avant que la responsabilité d'un…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Payments had been made voluntarily before liability for the road accident was finally established, and the alleged tortfeasor was later acquitted. The court held that recovery of the undue payment would be barred only if a settlement had been concluded before the acquittal; the conditions for a settlement were not met, so the sums had to be repaid. The first-instance judgment was reversed. The summary does not say whether the payer was an insurer.","k":"Road accident — recovery of payments made before liability was established","law":"Former Civil Code (settlement, recovery of undue payment)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-03-25","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1987:ARR.19870325.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Ne peut être assimilé au cas de cession de véhicule et ne tombe dès lors point sous l'application de l'article 33 du contrat type d'assurance en matière de véhicules automoteurs, le cas où l'immobilisation du véhicule…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that unless it is established beyond dispute that the vehicle named in the policy was taken off the road, the situation cannot be treated as a transfer of the vehicle and article 33 of the motor liability model contract does not apply. The judgment also stresses that article 4 of the model policy, on use of a third party's vehicle, must not be confused with article 33. The concrete outcome is not stated.","k":"Motor liability — transfer of vehicle and taking it off the road","law":"Motor liability model contract, art. 4 and 33; Cass. 12.12.1984","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-03-24","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1987:ARR.19870324.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Le mot \"pourparlers\" signifie une négociation, une discussion, des échanges de nature à laisser entendre à la personne lésée que l'assureur envisage un règlement du sinistre. Lorsque l'assureur, en réponse à une demande…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court defined 'negotiations' as discussions or exchanges that lead the injured party to understand that the insurer is considering settling the claim. Where the insurer, replying to a compensation claim, suggests it may pay depending on the outcome of the criminal proceedings, negotiations have begun and the three-year limitation period under article 10 of the Act of 1 July 1956 is interrupted. The concrete outcome is not stated.","k":"Motor liability — negotiations interrupting the limitation period","law":"Act of 1.7.1956 (motor liability), art. 10","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-03-24","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1987:ARR.19870324.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Il n'y a pas interruption de la prescription, résultant ,aux termes de l'article 10 de la loi du 1er juillet 1956 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs, de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that there are no negotiations interrupting limitation under article 10 of the Act of 1 July 1956 where, despite an exchange of letters, the insurer never suggested that it was considering compensating the injured party. The note links this notion to the Benelux Court of Justice ruling of 9 July 1981. The concrete outcome is not stated.","k":"Motor liability — correspondence that is not negotiation","law":"Act of 1.7.1956 (motor liability), art. 10; Benelux Court of Justice, 9.7.1981","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-03-24","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1987:JUG.19870324.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Doit être considéré comme non couvert par le contrat d'assurance, le véhicule assuré comme cyclomoteur, mais qui a été modifié de façon à pouvoir atteindre 85 km à l'heure, alors qu'aux termes de l'article 2.16 de…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a vehicle insured as a moped but modified to reach 85 km/h was not covered by the insurance contract, since article 2.16 of the Royal Decree of 1 December 1975 defines a moped as a vehicle that cannot by construction exceed 40 km/h on level ground. The rider was held liable for only half of the accident because of the victim's own faults: no helmet, accepting a rider too young to carry a passenger who had been drinking, and sitting on the fuel tank.","k":"Motor liability — modified moped, outside the cover","law":"Royal Decree of 1.12.1975 (Highway Code), art. 2.16","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-03-12","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1987:ARR.19870312.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En matière d'assurance R.C. automobile, l'assuré qui change de véhicule doit le signaler à son assureur dans les huit jours du changement. S'il omet cette déclaration, le nouveau véhicule n'est pas couvert.","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, in motor liability insurance, an insured who changes vehicle must notify the insurer within eight days of the change. Without that notice the new vehicle is not covered. The Juportal summary does not state how the dispute itself was resolved.","k":"Motor liability — undeclared change of vehicle","law":"Act of 1.7.1956 (motor liability), art. 12","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-03-10","rol":"4003;15864","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1987:JUG.19870310.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Lorsque les primes ont été payées avec l'argent de la communauté et que l'assuré et le bénéficiaire pourraient faire valoir des droits égaux sur le capital, à l'échéance, le contrat d'assurance sur la vie mixte par…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A mixed life insurance contract paying the capital to the insured if alive at maturity or, on earlier death, to the spouse, with premiums paid from community funds, is not a gift. The court noted that the consideration lies in the contract itself and that, since the Act of 14 July 1976 has both spouses manage the community, they saw the policy as joint savings in performance of their duty of mutual support rather than as a reciprocal gift. The insurer does not appear as a party.","k":"Mixed life insurance — whether it is a gift","law":"Act of 14.7.1976 (matrimonial property)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-03-09","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1987:ARR.19870309.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsqu'une juridiction pénale prononce deux peines distinctes pour sanctionner une infraction au Code de la Route et une infraction d'intoxication alcoolique, il n'est pas interdit au juge civil de considérer chacune de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"In the insurer's recourse action, the court accepted that where the criminal court imposed two separate penalties, for a traffic offence and for drink-driving, without deciding which caused the accident, the civil court may treat each as a cause of the accident and the damage. The summary does not state the concrete outcome of the recourse.","k":"Motor liability — insurer's recourse, drink-driving and causation","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-03-04","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1987:ARR.19870304.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La force probante de la carte verte est relative. Carte internationale, elle fait preuve, à l'étranger, de l'existence d'un contrat d'assurance en cours. En Belgique, la valeur de la carte verte n'est pas réglementée…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The green card has only relative evidential value: abroad it proves that a policy is in force; in Belgium its value is not regulated by statute and holding it merely creates a presumption of cover, which the insurer may rebut. Third parties cannot rely on a non-existent contract: a direct action against the motor liability insurer requires a valid contract covering the risk between the insurer and the liable insured. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Motor liability — evidential value of the green card and direct action","law":"Motor liability direct action; green card","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-03-03","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIHAI:1987:JUG.19870303.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"L'expertise médicale en matière d'accidents du travail à laquelle comparaît, sans réserve, l'assureur de droit commun du tiers responsable révèle l'existence de pourparlers entre cet assureur et la victime. Il y a, dès…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The responsible third party's liability insurer took part without reservation in the medical expert examination in the workplace-accident proceedings, which showed that it was negotiating with the victim. The court held that the limitation period for the victim's claim was therefore interrupted. An amicable compensation offer made by the insurer after the three-year period had expired was treated as expressing its intention not to rely on limitation.","k":"Direct action — interruption of limitation and waiver","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-03-03","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIHAI:1987:JUG.19870303.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"L'expertise médicale en matière d'accidents du travail à laquelle comparaît, sans réserve, l'assureur de droit commun du tiers responsable révèle l'existence de pourparlers entre cet assureur et la victime. Il y a, dès…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The responsible third party's liability insurer took part without reservation in the medical expert examination in the workplace-accident proceedings, which showed that it was negotiating with the victim. The court held that the limitation period for the victim's claim was therefore interrupted. An amicable compensation offer made by the insurer after the three-year period had expired was treated as expressing its intention not to rely on limitation.","k":"Direct action — interruption of limitation and waiver","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 10","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-02-27","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAOVL:1987:JUG.19870227.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Artikel 25, 6., van de modelvoorwaarden voor de verplichte der burgerlijke aansprakelijkheid inzake motorrijtuigen, dat de regresvordering van de verzekeraar mogelijk maakt, wanneer het motorrijtuig op het ogenblik van…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that article 25(6) of the model conditions for compulsory motor liability insurance, which gives the insurer recourse where the vehicle is driven by a person who does not meet the Belgian legal requirements to drive it, does not require a causal link between that incapacity and the accident. The recourse is a sanction that also applies to a driver who is legally unqualified (no valid licence) though able to drive in fact.","k":"Motor liability — unlicensed driver, recourse without causation","law":"Motor liability model conditions, art. 25(6)","w":280,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-02-27","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1987:JUG.19870227.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Ni le prévenu ni son civilement responsable ne sont responsables de l'accident causé par le malaise du prévenu, dû à une maladie (epilepsie) qui n'avait, jusque-là, pu être diagnostiquée. Le Fonds commun de garantie…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that neither the defendant driver nor the person civilly liable for him was responsible for an accident caused by a seizure due to previously undiagnosed epilepsy. The Guarantee Fund need not compensate damage caused by vehicles of a legal person that used the insurance exemption in article 14 of the Act of 1 July 1956. Insuring losses above 300,000 francs with an insurer did not show that the legal person had waived that exemption.","k":"Guarantee Fund — vehicles of a legal person exempt from insurance","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 14","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-02-26","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1987:JUG.19870226.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'article 25, 6 du contrat type aux termes duquel la compagnie d'assurance peut exercer un recours contre le preneur d'assurance, notamment dans le cas de conduite d'un véhicule par une personne n'ayant pas atteint…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that article 25, 6 of the model contract, which allows the insurer to claim recourse against the policyholder when the vehicle is driven by a person below the minimum age, does not require proof of a fault causally linked to the accident. The clause applies where a rider under 18 occasionally carries a passenger on a moped; the insurer's recourse was upheld.","k":"Motor liability — under-age driver, recourse without causation","law":"Motor liability model contract, art. 25, 6; Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-02-18","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1987:ARR.19870218.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"La clause du contrat d'assurance au terme de laquelle la garantie est suspendue en cas de non-paiement de la prime n'est pas une clause pénale. Le mécanisme de l'article 12 de la police type s'apparente plutôt à celui…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a clause suspending cover when the premium is not paid is not a penalty clause. The mechanism of article 12 of the model policy is closer to the exceptio non adimpleti contractus (defence of non-performance). Since the premium had been only partly paid, the insurer's recourse action was held well founded.","k":"Unpaid premium — suspension of cover","law":"Model policy, art. 12","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-02-17","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EABRL:1987:JUG.19870217.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Het artikel 30-5 van de algemene voorwaarden van de modelpolis machtigt de verzekeraar om het kontrakt op te zeggen na elke aangifte van schadegeval, ongeacht of de verzekeraar al dan niet tot uitbetaling gehouden is.…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that article 30-5 of the general conditions of the model policy allows the insurer to terminate the contract after any claim notification, whether or not it is liable to pay. Such termination validly ends the contract and is enforceable against the victim of a later accident for which the insured would be liable. The insurer was therefore not bound to provide cover.","k":"Motor liability — termination after a claim, enforceability against the victim","law":"Motor liability model policy, art. 30-5","w":280,"c":"Nederlandstalige rechtbank eerste aanleg Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-02-17","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1987:JUG.19870217.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'article 30-5 des conditions générales de la police type autorise l'assureur à résilier le contrat après chaque déclaration de sinistre, sans distinguer selon que l'assureur est tenu ou non à des décaissements. Une…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that article 30-5 of the general conditions of the model policy allows the insurer to terminate the contract after every notified claim, whether or not it has had to pay out. Such termination, which applies a validly agreed clause, can be relied on against the victim of a later accident for which the insured may be liable. According to the note, an appeal to the Court of Cassation was lodged but no brief was filed.","k":"Motor liability — termination after a claim, effect against the injured party","law":"Model motor policy, general conditions, art. 30-5","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-02-13","rol":"89/3060","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1987:ARR.19870213.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Constitue un comportement gravement fautif, qui autorise l'assureur en responsabilité professionnelle à refuser, conformément au contrat d'assurance, sa couverture et sa garantie à l'assuré, le fait pour un notaire de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a notary committed gross fault by confusing legal incapacity (interdiction) with the appointment of a judicial adviser (articles 489 and 513 of the Civil Code) and their legal effects, and by persisting in this error for years despite being warned, when a simple check would have avoided it. The professional liability insurer was therefore entitled, under the policy, to refuse cover to its insured.","k":"Professional liability insurance — notary's gross fault","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 489 and 513; policy exclusion for gross fault","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-02-08","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1987:ARR.19870208.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Afin d'examiner si un usager de la route a atteint \"l'âge légalement requis\", le calcul de l'âge doit se faire dans le cours du jour de l'anniversaire d'heure à heure et non de jour en jour. La règle \"dies a quo non…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Whether a road user has reached \"the legally required age\" is computed, on the birthday itself, hour by hour rather than day by day; the rule \"dies a quo non computatur\", which governs civil majority, applies to determining age in all matters. The parents' family liability insurer therefore had to cover the risk created by their child, who drove a motor vehicle without their knowledge on his birthday but before the hour of his birth.","k":"Family liability insurance — computing the \"legally required age\"","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-02-04","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1987:ARR.19870204.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Lorsqu'un contrat d'assurance collective contre l'incapacité de travail prévoit le paiement d'une rente en cas d'incapacité de vol définitive à la suite d'un accident, d'une maladie ou d'une altération naturelle et…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The group policy provided an annuity for permanent unfitness to fly resulting from an accident, illness or premature deterioration of health, without defining \"accident\". The court held that a flight attendant made unfit to fly by the catastrophic, unexpected and abnormal consequences of cosmetic surgery was covered, without any need to inquire into the reason for the operation.","k":"Group disability insurance — cosmetic surgery as an \"accident\"","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-02-03","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAANT:1987:JUG.19870203.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Wanneer een persoon, die geldig verzekerd is voor een welbepaald voertuig, een ongeval veroorzaakt met een ander voertuig waarop hij de nummerplaten van het eerste voertuig aangebracht heeft, zonder de verzekeraar ervan…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A person validly insured for a specific vehicle caused an accident with another vehicle onto which he had moved the first vehicle's plates, without telling the insurer that it replaced the first. The court held that either two vehicles had been put on the road or the second had replaced the first without notice to the insurer; in neither case was the insurer bound to provide cover. The green card issued by the broker for the second vehicle on the day of the accident did not, on the facts, create a presumption that it was insured.","k":"Motor liability — plates moved to another vehicle, no cover","law":"Motor liability model policy (vehicle replacement); green card","w":280,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-01-26","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1987:ARR.19870126.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Est licite la clause du contrat d'assurance stipulant la déchéance du droit à la garantie, par application de l'article 24 du contrat, pour manquement par l'assuré à son obligation de n'utiliser un véhicule soumis à la…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court upheld as lawful the clause under article 24 of the model contract providing for forfeiture of cover where the insured uses a vehicle subject to roadworthiness testing without a valid certificate, regardless of any causal link between the breach and the damage or any gross fault in the driving itself. The concrete outcome is not stated.","k":"Motor liability — forfeiture for driving without a roadworthiness certificate","law":"Motor liability model contract, art. 24; Cass. 21.1.1972 and 23.6.1972","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-01-16","rol":"86/12","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARBRL:1987:JUG.19870116.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Het wettelijk vermoeden voorzien bij artikel 9 van de wet van 10 april 1971 volgens hetwelk de kwetsuur verondersteld wordt haar oorsprong te vinden in een ongeval, geldt slechts wanneer de kwetsuren die worden…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the article 9 presumption that an injury originates in an accident applies only if the injury occurs at the same time as the sudden event or immediately after it. An aggravation that arises during the revision period but is consolidated after it expires cannot be split up or shifted to the Occupational Accidents Fund; it remains the workplace-accident insurer's burden.","k":"Workplace accident — art. 9 presumption and aggravation during the revision period","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 9","w":-1,"c":"Nederlandstalige arbeidsrechtbank Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-01-16","rol":"85/12329","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTBRL:1987:JUG.19870116.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La présomption légale, prévue par l'article 9 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 et selon laquelle la lésion est présumée trouver son origine dans un accident, ne joue que si les lésions invoquées sont apparues simultanément à…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that the presumption in article 9 of the Act of 10 April 1971 applies only if the injuries appeared at the same time as the sudden event or immediately after it. Compensation for a single worsening that appeared during the revision period but stabilised after it expired cannot be split: the workplace-accident insurer cannot suddenly be relieved at the expense of the Occupational Accidents Fund, and the worsening remained its responsibility.","k":"Workplace accident — art. 9 presumption and worsening during the revision period","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 9","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-01-15","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1987:ARR.19870115.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En matière de vol d'usage, ce n'est pas l'usage illégitime, mais seulement l'usage frauduleux qui est réprimé. L'ouvrier non détenteur d'un permis de conduire qui, sans autorisation de son patron, prend le volant d'un…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A worker without a driving licence drove a lorry, without his employer's permission, to fetch materials the business needed from a supplier. The court held that only fraudulent use, not merely unauthorised use, amounts to joyriding (vol d'usage), so the worker had not committed it. The owner's motor liability insurer must bear the damage caused and cannot rely on the exclusion for persons who took control of the vehicle by theft or violence.","k":"Motor liability — unauthorised use by an employee, theft exclusion","law":"Act of 1.7.1956 (motor liability); theft or violence exclusion","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-01-14","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIHAI:1987:JUG.19870114.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"La négligence et le comportement désinvolte de l'assuré qui laisse son véhicule ouvert,les clés sur le tableau de bord, n'ont pas pu contribuer à accroître un risque qui entrait entièrement dans les prévisions de…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insured left the car unlocked with the keys on the dashboard and it was stolen. The court held that this careless and casual behaviour could not have increased a risk that fell entirely within the insurer's expectations and which it had agreed, from signature, to cover almost unconditionally. The insured had not committed gross fault.","k":"Comprehensive theft cover — keys left in the car, gross fault?","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-01-08","rol":"21.791/W","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARLEU:1987:JUG.19870108.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"De Arbeidsongevallenwet raakt de openbare orde. Bijgevolg kan het bewijs van de verschillende elementen die deel uitmaken van een arbeidsongeval niet voortvloeien uit een bekentenis - gerechtelijke of…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that, because the Workplace Accidents Act is a matter of public policy, the elements of an accident cannot be proved by an admission or by implicit acceptance inferred from payments the workplace-accident insurer made for some time. The victim's unilateral statement alone is not enough either, but a set of precise and consistent presumptions, of which it is one link, can prove the accident. The concrete outcome is not stated.","k":"Workplace accident — proof of the accident and the insurer's payments","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 9","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidsrechtbank Leuven","m":"summary"},{"d":"1987-01-07","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1987:ARR.19870107.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the insurer has no duty to verify the risk description and that any misrepresentation reducing its perception of the risk renders the contract void. Limitation for the recourse action runs from the payment. However, an insurer that, after learning of the misrepresentation, continues to perform the contract without even adjusting the premium loses the right to claim nullity, even if it had reserved its rights. A broker's simple error in completing the questionnaire does not give rise to tort liability towards the insurer.","k":"Misrepresentation — continued performance waives nullity","law":"Act of 11.6.1874 (duty of disclosure, nullity); no article given","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-12-18","rol":"18.447","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:1986:ARR.19861218.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Door een niet-verzekerde werkgever met terugwerkende kracht over zes jaar ambtshalve aan te sluiten, treedt het Fonds voor Arbeidsongevallen op, buiten zijn wettelijke opdracht als waarborgfonds, als verzekeraar. Als…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"By affiliating an uninsured employer of its own motion with retroactive effect over six years, the Workplace Accidents Fund acts as an insurer, outside its statutory role as guarantee fund. The court held that in that capacity the Fund must compensate the earlier workplace accident and cannot recover its outlay from the uninsured employer.","k":"Workplace Accidents Fund — retroactive compulsory affiliation of an uninsured employer","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 50","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-12-18","rol":"19.707","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTHAI:1986:JUG.19861218.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"La loi du 7 juillet 1978 a établi la priorité de l'indemnisation-loi sur l'indemnisation de droit commun et a introduit un nouveau régime de coexistence des deux techniques de réparation. L'apparition du forfait sur la…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that the Act of 7 July 1978 gave workplace-accident compensation priority over ordinary tort compensation, which now plays only a complementary role for the victim. The labour court may hear third-party (guarantee) claims brought in disputes within its jurisdiction, and a third party's intervention extends its jurisdiction to that party. A provisional award of one franc granted to the workplace-accident insurer by the ordinary court does not prevent it from claiming its loss from the liable party's liability insurer before the labour court.","k":"Workplace accident — insurer's recourse against the liable third party's liability insurer","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 46 §1, 46 §2 and 47","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-12-17","rol":"12851","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1986:JUG.19861217.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court first held admissible an appeal against an order reopening the hearing of its own motion, since article 776 of the Judicial Code is strictly construed. On the merits, the insured held both vehicle damage cover and legal expenses cover (CAS) with the same insurer, and the dispute concerned the insured's alleged gross fault. The lawyer's fees were not covered by the CAS policy, and the insurer committed no contractual fault by disagreeing with the insured on whether there was gross fault.","k":"Legal expenses (CAS) — lawyer's fees in a dispute with the insurer","law":"Judicial Code, art. 776","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-12-11","rol":"89/3060","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1986:ARR.19861211.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Exécute le contrat d'assurance de bonne foi l'assureur, qui a régulièrement mis l'assuré en demeure de payer la prime et se prévaut de la suspension de la garantie de plein droit par la seule expiration du délai de 14…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer had duly served notice on the insured to pay the premium and relied on the automatic suspension of cover once the 14-day contractual period expired. The court held that the insurer performed the contract in good faith: the insured could not have misunderstood the warning, since reading the model contract in his possession sufficed to see that cover would be suspended.","k":"Motor liability — unpaid premium and suspension of cover","law":"Model contract (article not stated); good-faith performance","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-12-03","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1986:ARR.19861203.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Le mode d'établissement des primes des contrats d'assurances-loi est régi par des dispositions impératives qui imposent que ces primes, comme les indemnités, allocations annuelles et capitaux constitutifs des rentes que…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that premiums for workplace-accident insurance are governed by mandatory rules requiring them to be index-linked, like the benefits, allowances and annuity capital paid to victims. Where the policy caps the wages used to calculate premiums at BEF 300,000, that cap is therefore automatically linked to the base index of 1 January 1972, even without an express clause.","k":"Workplace-accident insurance — indexation of premiums","law":"Act of 10.4.1971 (mandatory premium rules); no article given","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-11-25","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1986:ARR.19861125.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"De rechtsvordering van de verzekeraar B.A. motorrijtuigen, tot terugbetaling van uitgekeerde vergoedingen, verjaart, overeenkomstig artikel 32 Verzekeringswet, drie jaar te rekenen van de gebeurtenis die ertoe…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a motor liability insurer's claim for reimbursement of indemnities paid is time-barred, under article 32 of the Act of 11 June 1874, three years after the event giving rise to it. Under article 25 of the model contract, the insurer has recourse against the policyholder who failed to report a change in an essential element of the risk, in particular a driving ban imposed on him. The summary does not state how the case was finally decided.","k":"Motor liability — limitation of the insurer's recourse claim","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 32; model contract, art. 25","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-11-20","rol":"83/1412","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1986:ARR.19861120.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Le représentant de commerce soutient que l'assureur-loi doit indemniser en versant pour chaque mois la différence entre 127.247 francs et le montant réellement perçu, alors que celui-ci est donc fortement conditionné…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A sales agent with seasonal commission income claimed that the workplace-accident insurer should pay each month the difference between 127,247 francs and what he actually earned. The court accepted the insurer's approach of calculating over all periods of partial temporary incapacity based on annual commissions, since the agent did not earn that sum every month and commissions fell due differently from fixed pay. Article 23 guarantees pay, no more and no less.","k":"Workplace accident — compensation of a commission-paid sales agent","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 23, 42","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-11-12","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1986:JUG.19861112.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"N'est pas opposable à la personne lésée, en vertu de l'article 11 de la loi du 1er juillet 1956 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs, la sanction de faculté…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the recourse available to the insurer against its insured, for breach of the contractual duty to notify during the contract any change in the essential features of the risk that aggravates it, cannot be raised against the injured party under article 11 of the Act of 1 July 1956. The breach only operates through recourse between insurer and insured. The summary does not state how the parties' claims were finally decided.","k":"Motor liability — undeclared aggravation of risk, not enforceable against the injured party","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 11","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-11-04","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1986:ARR.19861104.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Hoewel de strafrechter afzonderlijke straffen heeft uitgesproken wegens onopzettelijke slagen en verwondingen en wegens het besturen van een voertuig in staat van strafbare alcoholintoxicatie, kan de burgerlijke rechter…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The criminal court had imposed separate penalties for unintentional injury and for drunk driving. The court held that the civil judge may find a causal link between intoxication and the accident where the operative part and the reasoning of the criminal judgment conflict. For gross fault under article 16 of the 1874 Act, the insurer must prove an intentional loss or a fault equivalent to intent which the insured knew or should have known increased the risk. The outcome of the recourse is not stated.","k":"Motor liability — gross fault and effect of the criminal judgment","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-10-21","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1986:ARR.19861021.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"La clause du contrat d'assurance abrégeant le délai légal de prescription de l'action de l'assuré contre son assureur est licite. Dans le silence de la convention, les seules causes d'interruption du délai de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held lawful a policy clause shortening the statutory limitation period for the insured's claim against the insurer. Absent contractual provision, only the grounds of interruption in article 2244 of the former Civil Code apply; the court may not, under the guise of interpretation, read into the contract what it does not say. The summary does not state whether the claim was time-barred.","k":"Limitation — contractually shortened period and interruption","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 2244","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-10-16","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1986:ARR.19861016.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Het bestaan van een groene kaart schept een vermoeden van een verzekering, doch het tegenbewijs is toegelaten. Wanneer een einde komt aan de verzekering van een bepaald voertuig door overdracht van de verzekering op een…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a green card creates a presumption that insurance exists, but evidence to the contrary is admissible. Where the insurance of a vehicle ends because it is transferred to another vehicle, the insurer has no further obligations for the replaced vehicle; once cover has ended, the insured must return the green card to the insurer without delay under article 11 of the model policy. The summary does not expressly state how the case was decided.","k":"Motor liability — green card presumption and vehicle replacement","law":"Model policy, art. 11; Cass. 5.2.1986 (Juportal note)","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-10-14","rol":"89/2780","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1986:ARR.19861014.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Lorsque le paiement des indemnités à la victime d'un accident a été effectué par l'assureur antérieurement à la décision condamnant l'assuré et établissant sa responsabilité, la prescription de trois ans prévue par…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that where the insurer paid the victim before the judgment establishing the insured's liability, the three-year limitation period of article 32 of the Act of 11 June 1874 for recovering those sums from the insured runs only once that judgment becomes final. If the excess passengers were in the front seat, breach of article 66.1 of the RD of 14 March 1968 relieves the insurer of proving contractual fault and causation; if they were in the back, the insurer must prove that the contractual maximum was exceeded and that this caused the accident. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Motor liability — limitation of recourse and excess passengers","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 32; Act of 1.7.1956, art. 3(2); RD 14.3.1968, art. 66.1","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-10-09","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILUX:1986:JUG.19861009.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Aux termes de l'article 16, alinéa 4, de l'arrêté royal du 16 décembre 1981 portant mise en vigueur et exécution des articles 49 et 50 de la loi du 9 juillet 1975, relative au contrôle des entreprises d'assurances,…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Under article 16(4) of the Royal Decree of 16 December 1981, where an injured party is entitled to benefits under a property or liability policy, the motor Guarantee Fund pays only to the extent the loss exceeds those benefits. The insurers' civil-party claims against the Fund were therefore held inadmissible.","k":"Guarantee Fund — insurers' claims against the Fund","law":"RD of 16.12.1981, art. 16(4)","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Luxembourg","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-10-07","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1986:ARR.19861007.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsque le juge pénal, tout en prononçant des peines distinctes, d'une part, du chef d'infraction au règlement général sur la police du roulage, d'autre part, du chef de conduite d'un véhicule en état d'intoxication…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that where the criminal court imposed separate penalties for a traffic offence and for drink-driving without ruling on the cause of third parties' loss, the civil court may treat any one or each of the offences found proven as the cause of that loss. The rule was laid down in the context of the insurer's recourse; the summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for drunkenness, causation and criminal judgment","law":"Res judicata of criminal judgments; insurer's recourse (no article given)","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-10-01","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1986:JUG.19861001.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le conducteur d'un véhicule est non seulement toute personne qui imprime une direction au véhicule et tient le volant mais aussi celle qui met le véhicule en mouvement même par erreur. Un enfant de cinq ans resté seul…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A driver is not only the person who holds the wheel and steers, but also anyone who sets the vehicle in motion, even by mistake. A five-year-old left alone in his parents' parked car who released the handbrake was therefore the driver. The court allowed the motor liability insurer's recourse against the parents under article 25.6 of the model policy.","k":"Motor liability — child releasing the handbrake is the driver","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1384, para. 2; model policy, art. 25.6","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-10-01","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1986:JUG.19861001.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"La clause des polices d'assurances par laquelle l'assureur se réserve le droit de se faire payer la prime nonobstant la suspension de la garantie n'a pas de finalité réparatrice et ne constitue pas une clause pénale.…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A clause reserving the insurer's right to premiums despite suspension of cover has no compensatory purpose: it is not a penalty clause, a defence of non-performance, a periodic penalty or a void private penalty, unless it runs on excessively. The judge must review how the insurer uses it; there is abuse of right where the chosen course brings an advantage disproportionate to the harm caused to the other party. The concrete outcome is not clear.","k":"Premium despite suspension — nature of clause, abuse of right","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-09-30","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1986:ARR.19860930.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Een verzekeringscontract blijft geschorst tot op het ogenblik dat de verzekerde aan al zijn verplichtingen tegenover de verzekeringsmaatschappij heeft voldaan. Aangezien de schorsing in elk geval blijft bestaan, is geen…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the insurance contract remains suspended until the insured has met all its obligations towards the insurer. Since the suspension continues in any event, no fresh formal notice is needed for later premiums falling due, but good faith requires the insured to be kept regularly informed of its position. The summary does not state how the case was finally decided.","k":"Business interruption after fire — suspension of cover","law":"The summary cites no legal basis","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-09-17","rol":"1253","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1986:ARR.19860917.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Lorsque le contrat d'assurances stipule que les parties se réservent la faculté de le résilier annuellement moyennant préavis de 3 mois, pareil préavis, expédié plus de 3 mois avant l'échéance annuelle, est valable même…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The policy allowed either party to terminate annually on three months' notice. The court held that a notice sent more than three months before the annual renewal date is valid even if it reaches the insurer less than three months before that date: the date of sending is decisive.","k":"Termination of the policy — date of sending the notice","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-09-08","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1986:ARR.19860908.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'action de la victime d'un accident du travail à l'encontre de l'assureur-loi se prescrit par 3 ans, la prescription pouvant être interrompue ou suspendue de la manière ordinaire, c'est-à-dire selon les règles des…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The victim's action against the workplace-accident insurer is time-barred after 3 years; the limitation period may be interrupted or suspended under articles 2242 et seq. of the Civil Code. The court held that correspondence between doctors or an examination under reservation does not interrupt it. A summons to an examination without reservation was not interruptive either, since the examination was merely for information, without any intention by the insurer to acknowledge a debt.","k":"Workplace accident — limitation, medical examination not interruptive","law":"Act of 10.4.1971; former Civil Code, art. 2242","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-09-08","rol":"74/347","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1986:ARR.19860908.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Les critiques émises par l'une ou l'autre partie postérieurement au dépôt des conclusions de l'expert n'énervent en rien la confiance qui lui est due dès que ces critiques ne révèlent aucune insuffisance ou…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that criticisms raised after a thorough and complete expert report, revealing no gap or contradiction, do not undermine the confidence due to the expert. Since the Act is a matter of public policy, the insurer's payment of temporary benefits beyond the consolidation date finally retained is not an admission of a greater right of the victim. An appeal lodged more than two years after the judgment, without serious medical criticism, was held to be reckless and vexatious.","k":"Workplace accident — expert report, payment not an admission","law":"Act of 10.4.1971","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-09-04","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAWVL:1986:JUG.19860904.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"De door artikel 5 van het Koninklijk Besluit van 5 januari 1957, op straffe van verval van recht, bepaalde termijn van één jaar te rekenen vanaf de dag van het geval, binnen dewelke het ongeval aan het Gemeenschappelijk…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the one-year period from the accident, laid down on pain of forfeiture by article 5 of the Royal Decree of 5 January 1957, within which the injured party must report the accident to the Guarantee Fund, may be extended for force majeure where the injured party was unable to comply. The summary does not say whether the period was extended in this case or how the claim ended.","k":"Guarantee Fund — one-year notice period and force majeure","law":"Royal Decree of 5.1.1957, art. 5","w":280,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg West-Vlaanderen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-08-05","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EABRL:1986:JUG.19860805.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"De verzekeraar kan de sanctie van nietigheid wegens verwijging of valse verklaring, bepaald in artikel 9 van de wet van 11 juni 1874 op de verzekeringen, niet inroepen wanneer het verzwegen of onjuist aangegeven feit…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that the insurer cannot rely on nullity for concealment or misrepresentation under article 9 of the Act of 11 June 1874 where it knew of the concealed or misstated fact or cannot excuse its ignorance of it. Article 12 of that Act, which bars a second insurance against the same risks for the same person where the full value is already covered, applies only to indemnity (property) insurance, not to fixed-sum personal insurance. The concrete outcome is not expressly stated in the summary.","k":"Personal accident and health insurance — concealment, cumulation of policies","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, arts. 9 and 12","w":279,"c":"Nederlandstalige rechtbank eerste aanleg Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-08-05","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1986:JUG.19860805.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"L'assureur ne peut invoquer la sanction de nullité du chef de réticence ou de fausse déclaration , prévue par l'article 9 de la loi du 11 juin 1874 sur les assurances en général, s'il a connu le fait passé sous silence…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the insurer cannot rely on nullity for non-disclosure or misrepresentation under article 9 of the Act of 11 June 1874 if it knew the omitted or misstated fact or could not be excused for not knowing it. Article 12, which bars a second insurance of property already insured for its full value, applies only to indemnity insurance of property, not to fixed-benefit personal insurance. The summary does not state how these rules were applied to the facts.","k":"Accident and sickness insurance — non-disclosure, cumulative insurance","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, arts. 9 and 12","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-06-30","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1986:ARR.19860630.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Wanneer in de verzekeringsovereenkomst bepaald werd dat enkel de erin aangeduide personen met de bedoelde auto zullen rijden en dat het verhaal van de verzekeraar nochtant tot 5.000 F beperkt wordt in geval van…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The contract provided that only the named persons would drive the car, but limited the insurer's recourse to BEF 5,000 for an exceptional deviation not notified in advance through oversight and in good faith. The court held that the insurer bears the burden of proving bad faith. The concrete outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Motor liability — non-designated driver, limited recourse","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-06-23","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1986:ARR.19860623.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Le juge ne peut, sans méconnaître la force obligatoire d'une convention d'assurance, refuser de donner effet à la clause stipulant la déchéance, dans le chef de l'assuré, de son droit à la garantie du risque, s'il ne…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a judge cannot, without disregarding the binding force of the contract, refuse to apply a clause providing for forfeiture of cover where the insured fails to notify the insurer of the loss within the agreed time. According to the Court of Cassation ruling cited in the note, forfeiture does not require that the breach caused the insurer any harm. The concrete outcome is not stated.","k":"Motor liability — forfeiture for late notification of a claim","law":"Cass. 8.5.1971 (Pas. 1971, I, 819)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-06-23","rol":"85/71162","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1986:ARR.19860623.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Une clause abréviative du délai de prescription pour les réclamations de l'assuré contre l'assureur est licite. Elle doit être interprétée restrictivement et, dans le doute, conte l'assureur qui l'a stipulée. Lorsque…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court accepted that a clause shortening the limitation period for the insured's claims against the insurer is lawful, but it must be construed narrowly and, in case of doubt, against the insurer that drafted it. Where cover is limited to permanent incapacity, time runs only from the day the insured learns that his condition has stabilised with a lasting permanent incapacity. An accident victim cannot be expected to foresee within 30 days that a permanent incapacity will remain.","k":"Accident insurance — shortened limitation clause and starting point","law":"RD 12.3.1976, art. 21; shortened limitation clause","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-06-23","rol":"86/12923","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTLIE:1986:JUG.19860623.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Est manifestement téméraire l'action dirigée par une Mutuelle contre un assureur-loi en récupération de débours exposés pour un accident survenu à domicile, mais que la victime avait tenté de faire passer pour un…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The health-insurance fund sought reimbursement from the workplace-accident insurer of payments made for an accident at home that the victim had tried to pass off as a workplace accident. The court held the claim manifestly reckless, since the fund had for nearly two years had enough information to dissuade it, while the victim's trade union and the Workplace Accidents Fund had given up. The insurer's counterclaim succeeded and it was awarded 25,000 F as nominal damages.","k":"Workplace accident — health fund's reckless claim against the insurer","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 68","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-06-19","rol":"83/9934","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1986:ARR.19860619.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'assureur - loi a versé les indemnités légales à la victime sur base d'une incapacité de 100 % - alors que l'expert judiciaire n'a plus admis qu'une I.P.P. de 10 % à partir du 23 août 1978 - jusqu'au 15 mars 1982. Il…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer had paid on the basis of 100% incapacity, whereas the expert accepted only 10% permanent incapacity from 23.8.1978. The court allowed recovery without proof of error and rejected the 3-year limitation period, which runs only from the final court decision. However, the insurer must deduct the benefits the health-insurance fund would otherwise have paid and cannot claim default interest from a victim acting in good faith.","k":"Workplace accident — insurer's claim for overpaid benefits","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 60bis, 63","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-06-13","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1986:ARR.19860613.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"De tussenkomende partij is gerechtigd alle omstandigheden ter appreciatie van de strafrechter aan te voeren die haar aansprakelijkheid kunnen beïnvloeden of beperken. Een buitenvervolgingstelling door de raadkamer en…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the defendant's insurer, intervening in the criminal proceedings, may put before the criminal judge all circumstances capable of affecting or limiting its liability. A decision of the pre-trial chamber not to prosecute, or even a decision that has become final as regards the defendant, cannot be relied on against the insurer to reject its defence. The summary does not state how the case was finally decided.","k":"Motor liability — insurer's intervention in criminal proceedings","law":"The summary cites no legal basis","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-06-12","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1986:JUG.19860612.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Lorsqu'il ressort des éléments de la cause que l'assureur et l'assuré ont entendu, en cas de vol du véhicule assuré, adopter la formule d'indemnisation la plus complète, cette analyse de la volonté des parties implique…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court found that insurer and insured had intended to adopt the most comprehensive indemnity formula in case of theft of the vehicle. It followed that the term “VAT”, reimbursable on replacement, covered all taxes on acquiring the vehicle, including the additional 8% luxury tax payable on certain vehicles. That tax was held to be covered.","k":"Vehicle theft — luxury tax included in the indemnity","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 20, para. 2","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-06-10","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1986:ARR.19860610.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Dès lors que l'assureur a accepté de couvrir le risque en sachant que l'installation d'alarme a été placée par l'assuré et est entretenue par son personnel, il est mal fondé de reprocher à ce système des imperfections…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Having accepted the risk knowing that the alarm had been installed by the insured and was maintained by its staff, the insurer could not rely on defects it knew of; it bore the burden of proving the system was not working at the time of the loss. By refusing payment when the insured had to replace the stolen goods, the insurer aggravated the loss. The indemnity was revalued to reflect currency depreciation.","k":"Fire and theft insurance — alarm system and revaluation of the indemnity","law":"Good-faith performance of contracts (no article cited)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-06-09","rol":"86/8391","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1986:ARR.19860609.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Le courtier en assurances qui adresse à l'assureur une proposition de modification de police en se trompant sur la situation du risque, au sujet de laquelle il a cependant été exactement informé par l'assuré, est…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A broker who sent the insurer an incorrect policy amendment proposal about the risk, although the insured had informed the broker accurately, was held liable for the loss the insured suffered when the insurer refused to pay after the loss occurred. The court also found the insured at fault for not noticing the broker's error and set the insured's share of liability at 1/10 in this case.","k":"Broker liability — incorrect policy amendment proposal","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-05-28","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1986:ARR.19860528.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En vertu de l'article 20 de l'arrêté royal du 16 décembre 1981 relatif au contrôle des entreprises d'assurances, sauf cas de force majeure, les personnes lésées ne peuvent agir contre le Fonds commun de garantie…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that under article 20 of the Royal Decree of 16.12.1981, save in case of force majeure, injured parties may claim against the Guarantee Fund for bodily injury only if the police were notified of the accident within thirty days. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Guarantee Fund — reporting to the police within thirty days","law":"RD 16.12.1981, art. 20","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-05-27","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EABRL:1986:JUG.19860527.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Artikel 16 van de Wet van 11 juni 1874 op de verzekeringen in het algemeen, luidens het welk de door een zware fout van de verzekerde veroorzaakte schade niet door de verzekeraar ten laste moet worden genomen,…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that article 16 of the Act of 11 June 1874, under which the insurer does not bear loss caused by the insured's gross fault, requires gross fault personal to the insured. Where the policyholder's employee commits gross fault, the insurer is not released from paying the contractual indemnity if the insured in no way took part in that fault. The summary does not expressly state the concrete outcome.","k":"Gross fault — insured's personal fault versus employee's fault","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16","w":280,"c":"Nederlandstalige rechtbank eerste aanleg Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-05-27","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1986:JUG.19860527.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'article 16 de la loi du 11 juin 1874 sur les assurances en général , aux termes duquel le dommage causé par la faute grave de l'assuré n'est pas à la charge de l'assureur, suppose la faute grave personnelle de…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that article 16 of the Act of 11 June 1874, under which loss caused by the insured's gross fault is not borne by the insurer, requires gross fault personal to the insured. The gross fault of the policyholder's employee does not release the insurer from paying the contractual indemnities where the insured took no part in that fault.","k":"Insurance — employee's gross fault, insured's personal fault","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16; Cass. 12.1.1967 (cited in the note)","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-05-26","rol":"84/1293","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1986:JUG.19860526.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsqu'une compagnie d'assurance manifeste à son assuré son intention de poursuivre contre lui une action récursoire, cette compagnie ne peut plus prétendre agir en qualité de mandataire de son assuré dans ses rapports…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an insurer which tells its insured it intends to bring a recourse action against him can no longer claim to act as his agent in dealings with third parties. The power to settle on the insured's behalf, although provided for in the policy, lapses because of the conflict of interest. The concrete outcome of the dispute is not stated in the summary.","k":"Intended recourse — end of the insurer's mandate to settle","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-05-15","rol":"85/324","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:1986:ARR.19860515.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"1. De verzekeraar inzake arbeidsongevallen bezit de nodige hoedanigheid en een belang om de verzekeraar van de verantwoordelijke derde in gedwongen tussenkomst te dagvaarden ten einde de uit te spreken beslissing binnen…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer has standing and an interest to join the liable third party's insurer so that the forthcoming decision is declared binding on it, with a view to the recourse under article 47 of the Act of 10 April 1971. Since that recourse is limited both to what the insurer paid for loss of earnings or set aside as capital for annuities and to what the victim could have claimed under general law, and statutory benefits depend on the degree of incapacity, the insurer has an interest in having that degree fixed in the presence of the third party's insurer.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer — judgment declared binding on the liable third party's insurer","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47; Judicial Code, art. 17","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-05-06","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1986:ARR.19860506.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"L'appel interjeté par le seul assureur du prévenu fait disparaître à son égard l'autorité de la chose jugée qui s'attache à la décision du premier juge. Le fait que l'assuré n'interjette pas appel ne peut nuire à…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an appeal lodged by the defendant's insurer alone removes, as regards the insurer, the res judicata effect of the first-instance decision; the insured's failure to appeal cannot prejudice the insurer. The insurer may organise its defence independently and appeal a decision ordering the insured to compensate the civil parties. A criminal conviction for unintentional injury establishes the defendant's fault and causation as against everyone. The outcome on the merits is not stated.","k":"Motor liability — appeal by the insurer alone and res judicata","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-04-30","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1986:ARR.19860430.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Le locataire principal - ou l'assureur subrogé dans ses droits - ne peut se prévaloir de l'article 38 de la loi du 11 juin 1874 à l'encontre de l'assureur-incendie de la responsabilité locative d'un sous-locataire. Il…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the head tenant, or the insurer subrogated to its rights, cannot rely on article 38 of the Act of 11.6.1874 against the fire insurer covering a sub-tenant's tenant liability. The same applies to the head tenant's insurer that paid the owner and claims subrogation to the owner's rights: there is no direct action against that insurer.","k":"Tenant's liability — claim against the sub-tenant's fire insurer","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 38","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-04-11","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EABRL:1986:JUG.19860411.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Wanneer ten gevolge van een verkeersongeval, de verzekeraar van de aansprakelijke persoon door het slachtoffer een dokument laat ondertekenen dat het detail van de schadevergoeding geeft, een clausule voorziet krachtens…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"After a road accident, the liable party's insurer had the victim sign a document detailing the compensation and containing a clause waiving all future compensation. As the trial judge found that the parties had made mutual concessions, the court treated the agreement as a settlement (transaction) and declared the victim's civil-party claim inadmissible. The wording of the contract itself ruled out any reliance on mistake.","k":"Motor liability — settlement with the victim, waiver","law":"Settlement (transaction); mistake","w":280,"c":"Nederlandstalige rechtbank eerste aanleg Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-04-11","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1986:JUG.19860411.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Lorsque le contrat d'assurance prévoit, pour le cas de destruction de voiture, une indemnisation par application d'un pourcentage à la valeur catalogue d'un véhicule neuf de type identique à celui du véhicule désigné,…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The contract provided that, if the car was destroyed, compensation would be a percentage of the catalogue value of a new vehicle of identical type. The court held that this clause did not apply to a car bought in 1982 and no longer built at the time of the March 1984 accident, since the 1984 model differed in weight, wheelbase and shape and required fresh type approval: it was not of identical type. The summary does not say how the indemnity was set.","k":"Vehicle damage insurance — total loss, catalogue value and 'identical type'","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-04-11","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1986:JUG.19860411.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsqu'à la suite d'un accident de la circulation, l'assureur du responsable fait signer par la victime un document donnant le détail de l'indemnité, prévoit une clause en vertu de laquelle cette victime renonce à toute…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"After a road accident, the liable driver's insurer had the victim sign a document detailing the compensation and waiving any further claim. Finding mutual concessions, the court held that the agreement was a settlement, and the victim's claim as civil party in the criminal proceedings was held inadmissible. The very wording of the contract ruled out reliance on mistake.","k":"Motor liability — settlement between victim and insurer","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-04-02","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EABRL:1986:JUG.19860402.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Een substantiële wijziging aan het verzekerd voertuig met het oog op het bekomen van een groter vermogen, kan een essentiële wijziging van het in het verzekeringskontrakt geïndividualiseerd voertuig meebrengen, zodat…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court noted that a substantial modification of the insured vehicle to increase its power may change the vehicle identified in the contract so fundamentally that the very subject-matter of the contract disappears. It stressed, however, that it matters whether this calls into question the existence of the compulsory insurance contract or is a defence covered by article 11 of the Act of 1 July 1956. The outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Motor liability — substantial modification of the vehicle (power increase)","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 11","w":280,"c":"Nederlandstalige rechtbank eerste aanleg Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-04-02","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1986:JUG.19860402.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Une modification substantielle du véhicule assuré en vue d'obtenir une plus grande puissance, peut entraîner une modification essentielle du véhicule individualisé dans le contrat d'assurance de telle manière que…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court noted that a substantial modification of the insured vehicle to increase its power may change the vehicle identified in the contract so much that the subject matter of the contract disappears. Whether this affects the existence of the compulsory insurance or is a defence under article 11 of the Act of 1 July 1956 turns on the interpretation of article 11 of the Benelux Convention and was referred to the Benelux Court. The merits were not decided.","k":"Motor liability — vehicle modification, referral to the Benelux Court","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 11; Benelux Convention, art. 11","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-03-24","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1986:ARR.19860324.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le juge pénal qui, à l'occasion d'un accident de roulage, réprime par des peines distinctes d'une part une infraction au code de la route et d'autre part le fait d'avoir, en état d'intoxication alcoolique, conduit un…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The criminal court had imposed separate penalties for a traffic offence and for drink-driving, without ruling on the third party's loss or its cause. The court held that the criminal court had therefore not decided that intoxication played no causal role. In the recourse action brought by the insurer that compensated the victim against the driver, the civil court may, without breaching res judicata, find that both offences caused the loss and allow the recourse.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for drink-driving and effect of the criminal judgment","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16; res judicata of criminal judgments","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-03-12","rol":"89/2780","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1986:ARR.19860312.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"De wet van 1 juli 1956 heeft stilzwijgend in een afwijking voorzien van het gebiendende voorschrijft van artikel 16 van de wet van 11 juni 1874. Artikel 25/9 van de modelpolis dat de verzekeraar een recht op verhaal…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court accepted that the Act of 1 July 1956 implicitly derogated from the mandatory rule in article 16 of the 1874 Act. Article 25/9 of the model policy, which gives the insurer a right of recourse where the insured caused the accident intentionally, does not breach that public-policy provision. The concrete outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Motor liability — validity of recourse for an intentional accident","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 11; Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16; model policy, art. 25/9","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-02-26","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1986:ARR.19860226.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Il incombe à l'assureur de prouver: 1. l'ingestion avant le sinistre d'une quantité d'alcool suffisante pour influencer le comportement du conducteur; 2. la conscience chez celui-ci, au moment où il conduit ou prend le…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, to exercise recourse for gross fault under article 16 of the Act of 11 June 1874, the insurer must prove that the driver drank enough alcohol before the accident to affect his behaviour, that he was aware when driving that the risk was aggravated, and that the alcohol caused the accident. The undisputed fact that the driver was under the influence does not by itself establish that awareness.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for drink-driving, proof of gross fault","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-02-19","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1986:ARR.19860219.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"C., verzekerde bij verzekeraar G., had zijn motorfiets geleend aan de minderjarige zoon van V. De minderjarige veroorzaakte een ongeval waarbij C. gewond werd. Vader V. was voor zijn eigen auto verzekerd bij dezelfde…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A motorcycle owner lent the bike to a minor, who caused an accident injuring the owner. The policy of the minor's father also covered the child. The court held that the health-insurance fund, subrogated to the victim's rights, may claim its benefits from that insurer; neither the motorcycle policy clause excluding the owner from compensation nor the fact that both were insured with the same insurer bars the claim.","k":"Motor liability — health-insurance fund's claim against the driver's insurer","law":"Act of 9.8.1963 (health insurance), art. 70(2)","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-02-13","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIHAI:1986:JUG.19860213.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'assureur R.C. automobile doit couvrir la responsabilité civile du chef des dommages causés par le véhicule automoteur. Le dommage causé par le véhicule assuré est le dommage causé par la faute du conducteur de ce…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The driver had moved off forgetting to remove the pump nozzle from the fuel tank, damaging the pump. The court held that damage caused by the insured vehicle includes damage caused by the driver's fault even if it is not a driving fault in the strict sense, so the loss must be borne by the motor liability insurer rather than the family liability insurer. The summary does not identify the parties.","k":"Motor or family liability cover — damaged fuel pump","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-02-13","rol":"85/71162","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILUX:1986:ARR.19860213.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le critère déterminant est \" la description du véhicule à assurer\" dont le numéro de plaque n'est qu'un élément d'identification, la situation d'assurance ne dépendant pas d'un manquement à une disposition légale…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the decisive criterion for the subject of the policy is \"the description of the vehicle to be insured\", the number plate being only a means of identification; whether the vehicle is insured does not depend on a breach of registration rules. The summary gives neither the parties nor the concrete outcome.","k":"Motor liability — description of the insured vehicle and number plate","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Luxembourg","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-02-06","rol":"139018","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1986:JUG.19860206.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"1. Réticences de l'assuré : clause dite \" d'incontestabilité mettant à charge de l'assureur la preuve d'une fraude dans le chef de l'assuré. Dérogation à l'article 9 de la loi du 11 juin 1874 et preuve de l'intention…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an incontestability clause, placing on the insurer the burden of proving fraud by the insured in case of non-disclosure, departs from article 9 of the Act of 11 June 1874: the insurer must prove fraudulent intent. As to the certificate from the last treating doctor required by the contract, given medical confidentiality, a certificate stating \"natural death\" allows the insurer to check that the death does not fall under an exclusion and is sufficient.","k":"Life insurance — incontestability clause, death certificate","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-02-03","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1986:ARR.19860203.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"En vertu de l'article 22 de la loi du 11 juin 1874, l'assureur peut exercer son recours subrogatoire contre les tiers, du chef de ce dommage, c'est-à-dire contre tout débiteur quelconque de l'assuré. Il peut exercer le…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, under article 22 of the Act of 11 June 1874, the insurer may exercise its subrogated recourse against anyone who, in whatever capacity, became the insured's debtor as a result of the loss, whether the claim is in tort or contract. The insurer is subrogated to the tenant-policyholder's rights against the landlord obliged to repair a broken shop window, whatever caused the damage.","k":"Insurer's subrogation — recourse against a non-liable debtor","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 22","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-01-28","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1986:JUG.19860128.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La faute grave qui, aux termes de l'article 16 de la loi du 11 juin 1874, exonère l'assureur de sa charge du dommage est une faute \"assimilable\" à un acte intentionnel. Ne commet pas une telle faute, l'assuré qui, ayant…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Gross fault that releases the insurer under article 16 of the Act of 11 June 1874 is fault comparable to an intentional act. An insured who removed the key from his moped but failed to engage the anti-theft lock did not commit such fault; the insurer could not rely on gross fault to deny cover.","k":"Theft insurance — steering lock not engaged is not gross fault","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-01-21","rol":"87/7144","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1986:JUG.19860121.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsqu'il n'est pas démontré que l'intoxication alcoolique de l'assuré est telle qu'elle sort des prévisions de l'assureur et des habitudes de nos concitoyens, elle ne peut justifier l'action récursoire. Il faut, au…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the insured's level of alcohol cannot justify recourse unless it is shown to exceed what the insurer could foresee and ordinary social habits. The insurer must also prove that the insured was aware that his condition objectively aggravated the risk. Without that proof, the insurer's recourse was not justified.","k":"Motor liability — alcohol and conditions for recourse","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-01-16","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1986:ARR.19860116.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Est privé du droit à garantie du contrat d'assurance l'assuré, c'est-à-dire le preneur d'assurance, qui a fait lors de la souscription du contrat, une fausse déclaration ou réticence de nature à diminuer l'opinion du…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a policyholder who, when the contract was made, gave false information or withheld facts that reduced the insurer's view of the risk, such that the insurer would not have contracted on the same terms, loses cover. The broker's fault in advising does not change the relationship between insurer and insured. Broker and insured are jointly liable (in solidum) to the insurer that terminated the policy for misrepresentation; their shares depend on the seriousness of their respective faults.","k":"Motor liability — misrepresentation and broker's fault","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9 (misrepresentation)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-01-16","rol":"89/2780","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1986:ARR.19860116.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"En cas de déclaration fausse ou de réticence lors de la souscription d'un contrat d'assurance, la déchéance de garantie ne peut, en vertu de l'article 9 de la loi du 11 juin 1874, atteindre que le preneur d'assurance,…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Vehicle own-damage, theft and fire insurance. The court held that, under article 9 of the Act of 11 June 1874, loss of cover for misrepresentation at the time of contracting can only affect the policyholder, that is the person who contracts with the insurer. The broker's advisory fault may make the broker liable but does not alter the relationship between insurer and insured. The concrete outcome is not stated.","k":"Motor own-damage cover — misrepresentation: who loses cover","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-01-13","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1986:ARR.19860113.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'action récursoire de l'assureur-loi contre le responsable d'un accident ou contre son assureur ne peut dépasser le montant des dommages et intérêts que la victime aurait pu obtenir du chef du même dommage suivant le…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the workplace-accident insurer's recourse against the liable party or its insurer cannot exceed what the victim could have obtained under ordinary law. A receipt issued by the liable party's insurer, though worded as a full and final settlement, is a mere receipt where that insurer simply reimbursed the workplace-accident insurer's outlays without dispute; payments are applied to the oldest debts. Permanent loss is assessed on net income, with a capitalisation factor consistent with the salary date used. The dispute concerns a subrogated insurer's recourse.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — ceiling and effect of the receipt","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-01-13","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1986:ARR.19860113.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'action récursoire de l'assureur-loi contre le responsable d'un accident ou contre son assureur ne peut dépasser le montant des dommages et intérêts que la victime aurait pu obtenir du chef du même dommage suivant le…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the workplace-accident insurer's recourse against the liable party or its insurer cannot exceed what the victim could have obtained under ordinary law. A receipt issued by the liable party's insurer, though worded as a full and final settlement, is a mere receipt where that insurer simply reimbursed the workplace-accident insurer's outlays without dispute; payments are applied to the oldest debts. Permanent loss is assessed on net income, with a capitalisation factor consistent with the salary date used. The dispute concerns a subrogated insurer's recourse. The summary is identical to ARR.19860113.1.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — ceiling and effect of the receipt","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1986-01-10","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAANT:1986:JUG.19860110.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"En raison de l'usage de polices signées d'avance, l'agent d'assurances doit être considéré comme le mandataire de l'assureur. En utilisant des polices signées d'avance, l'assureur a fait naître auprès de l'assuré la…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Because pre-signed policy forms were used, the insurance agent was treated as the insurer's agent (mandataire). According to the court, by using policies signed in advance the insurer created a legitimate expectation on the insured's part that the insurance existed. The summary's keywords also refer to the formation of the contract and a contrary contractual clause.","k":"Formation of the contract — pre-signed policy, agent as the insurer's agent","law":"Agency and legitimate expectation (insurance agent)","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance d'Anvers","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-12-18","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1985:ARR.19851218.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"An arbitration clause in a contract whose existence and validity are disputed cannot apply. Limitation is interrupted by signing the submission agreement, by the notice under art. 1683 Judicial Code, or by a summons to appoint an arbitrator, and the effect lasts while the proceedings remain pending. With multiple policies on the same risk, a forfeiture clause for taking out other policies must be invoked within the three-year period; the insured's own claim does not interrupt it. The outcome is not stated.","k":"Arbitration clause, interruption of limitation and double insurance","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 32; Judicial Code, art. 1683","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-12-12","rol":"21771","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRW:1985:JUG.19851212.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Déclaration tardive de sinistre. - Absence d'incidence sur les obligations de l'assureur. - Non pertinence. - Exécution de bonne foi des conventions.","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"According to the Juportal summary, the court found that the late notice of the loss had no bearing on the insurer's obligations and that the argument was therefore irrelevant, relying on the principle that contracts must be performed in good faith. The summary does not state the outcome of the case.","k":"Late notice of loss — effect on the insurer's obligations","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1134, paras. 1 and 3","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Brabant Wallon","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-12-02","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1985:ARR.19851202.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"De zware fout, waarop overeenkomstig artikel 25.9 van de verzekeringspolis het verhaal van de verzekeraar op de verzekerde berust, is de fout die met een opzettelijke fout gelijk te stellen is, meer bepaald die het…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court defined the gross fault on which the insurer's recourse against the insured rests under article 25.9 of the policy as a fault equivalent to intentional fault: it increases the risk to the point of making it exceptional or abnormal (objective element), and the insured knew or should have known of that increase (subjective element). How this applied to the drunkenness at issue is not stated in the summary.","k":"Motor liability — gross fault for recourse (drunkenness)","law":"Policy, art. 25.9; Cass. 19.1.1973","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-11-27","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1985:JUG.19851127.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'acquittement de l'assuré du chef de conduite en état d'ivresse et d'intoxication alcoolique, même s'il résulte d'une violation du secret professionnel par le médecin requis par les verbalisants, lie le juge civil…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"In the insurer's recourse action based on drunkenness, the court held that the insured's acquittal of drink-driving binds the civil judge, even if the acquittal stemmed from a breach of professional secrecy by the doctor called by the police. Gross fault is fault comparable to an intentional act, where the insured was or should have been aware that it aggravated the insured risk.","k":"Recourse — binding effect of acquittal for drunkenness","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-11-26","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1985:ARR.19851126.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Une quittance subrogatoire postérieure à l'assignation à la requête des assureurs et qui, au surplus, n'indique pas l'identité du bénéficiaire du paiement, ne prouve pas la subrogation légale de l'assureur ni dès lors…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A subrogation receipt issued after the insurers had brought proceedings, which moreover did not identify the payee, does not prove the insurer's statutory subrogation, nor therefore its interest in bringing the action.","k":"Subrogation — receipt issued after the writ of summons","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-11-20","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1985:ARR.19851120.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La responsabilité de l'Etat pour le dommage, causé à un tiers par un de ses organes, ne supprime en rien la responsabilité personnelle de l'organe qui reste tenu à l'indemnisation du préjudice qu'il a causé à un tiers,…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The State's liability for harm caused to a third party by one of its agents does not remove the agent's personal liability; the agent must compensate the loss caused, even to the State. The Act of 1.7.1956 (art. 11(2)) allows the insurer recourse against an insured who drives in breach of statutory or regulatory prohibitions, treated as serious fault. The summary does not detail the concrete outcome.","k":"Motor liability — state vehicle exempt from insurance, driver's liability","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 11(2)","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-11-20","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1985:ARR.19851120.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"En engageant des frais frustratoires pour obtenir en justice un montant dérisoirement supérieur aux offres transactionnelles formulées par l'assureur du tiers responsable également assureur défense en justice de la…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The liability insurer of the responsible third party was also the victim's legal expenses insurer. By incurring needless legal costs to obtain an amount only marginally above that insurer's settlement offers, the victim did not show \"legitimate\" and \"normal\" expenses recoverable under the legal expenses policy.","k":"Legal expenses insurance — legitimate and normal costs","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-11-19","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1985:ARR.19851119.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, where the criminal court did not rule on the damage and its cause, the civil court may, without breaching res judicata, attribute the damage to the separate faults found by the criminal court (unintentional injury, drink-driving). To exercise its recourse, the insurer must prove a gross fault of the insured comparable to an intentional act and a causal link between that fault and the damage. The concrete outcome is not stated.","k":"Motor liability — gross fault as ground for recourse","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16 (1875 per Juportal); motor liability model contract, art. 25","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-11-18","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAWVL:1985:JUG.19851118.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Wanneer in het levensverzekeringscontract gestipuleerd wordt dat \"bewuste of onbewuste zelfmoord uitgesloten is tijdens de eerste twee jaren na de ingangsdatum of de uitgiftedatum van het contract\" dan is dit artikel…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a clause excluding \"conscious or unconscious suicide\" during the first two years of the contract applies strictly against the beneficiaries. Article 41 of the 1874 Act, which allows proof that the suicide was involuntary, is not a matter of public policy and may be departed from; with this wording the parties excluded every suicide. The insurer need only establish that the suicide occurred in the first two years, whatever its nature or circumstances.","k":"Life insurance — suicide exclusion in the first two years","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 41, para. 4","w":279,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg West-Vlaanderen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-11-05","rol":"89/2780","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1985:ARR.19851105.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"La demande qui tend à une condamnation qui révèle l'existence d'une infraction est soumise à la prescription de l'action publique relative à cette infraction. L'action de l'assureur-loi contre le tiers responsable est…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a claim seeking an order that reveals the existence of an offence is subject to the limitation period of the criminal action for that offence. The workplace-accident insurer's action against the liable third party is based on subrogation and is not independent of the victim's own action; in workplace-accident matters subrogation is complete, follows the general law and gives the insurer no autonomous action. The outcome is not stated.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's subrogation — limitation period","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-11-04","rol":"13.036","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1985:ARR.19851104.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"In a dispute over the degree of permanent incapacity of a victim who had meanwhile received benefits from a health-insurance fund, the court held that once aware of the fund's involvement, the workplace-accident insurer must take it into account before making any payment, since the fund can invoke its subrogation under article 70(2) of the Act of 9 August 1963 against the insurer. The Juportal summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — health-insurance fund subrogation and later payments","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63; Act of 9.8.1963, art. 70(2)","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-11-04","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1985:JUG.19851104.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'assureur du responsable d'un accident a droit, dans son recours contre son assuré, au remboursement de l'intégralité de la somme, dont son compte a été débité, vis-à-vis de l'assureur de la partie lésée, à la caisse…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The injured party had been compensated by its own insurer under the RDR agreement, and the liable party's insurer's account at the clearing fund was debited accordingly. The court held that the liable party's insurer may recover from its insured the full amount debited. The monthly flat-rate settlement between insurers based on average repair costs is res inter alios acta as regards the recourse against the insured.","k":"Motor liability — recourse amount and RDR agreement","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-10-07","rol":"1253","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1985:ARR.19851007.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"De niet-betaling van de premie heeft ten vroegste 15 dagen na een aangetekend schrijven waarin de vervaldag in herinnering wordt gebracht en de gevolgen van niet-betaling worden meegedeeld, de reductie van het kapitaal…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court of appeal held that policy terms providing for reduction of the capital where the premium remains unpaid at least 15 days after a registered letter recalling the due date and its consequences comply with article 38(1) of the Royal Decree of 17 June 1931, which sets a minimum of 8 days. Reinstatement is impossible after the policyholder's death; the beneficiary's good faith is irrelevant. The deterioration in health that led to death, occurring after the due date and the reminder, was not force majeure.","k":"Life insurance — unpaid premium, reduction of the capital","law":"Royal Decree of 17.6.1931, art. 38(1)","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-09-18","rol":"26158","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1985:ARR.19850918.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Est victime d'un accident sur le chemin du travail et non d'un accident du travail, le travailleur blessé alors qu'il a pris place, pour se rendre au travail, dans un véhicule appartenant à son employeur et conduit par…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"An employee injured on the way to work in the employer's vehicle driven by a colleague suffers a commuting accident, not an accident at work, as long as work has not started and he is not yet under the employer's authority. The workplace-accident insurer that compensated the victim may therefore claim its payments back from the employer's motor liability insurer, the driver being a third party under the Act.","k":"Workplace accident — commuting accident and recourse against the motor insurer","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 8","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-09-11","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1985:ARR.19850911.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'avertissement envoyé par l'assureur à son assuré , après délivrance d'une carte verte valable depuis l'échéance de la prime non payée, et postérieurement à un sinistre dont la déclaration a été acceptée sans réserve,…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer had issued a green card valid beyond the due date of the unpaid premium, accepted the claim notification without reservation, and only then sent a warning. The court held that the warning did not make clear to a layperson that it deprived the green card of effect. Under the duty of good faith, the insurer, as a professional, should have warned the insured more explicitly that cover for this accident could be lost if the premium was paid late. By appealing without telling the insured, it also breached its duty to look after the insured's legitimate interests.","k":"Motor liability — suspension for unpaid premium and good faith","law":"Good-faith performance of contracts; suspension for unpaid premium (no article given)","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-09-06","rol":"157976","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1985:JUG.19850906.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Contrat d'assurance couvrant le risque du décès encouru par l'assuré à l'occasion de la pratique du vol à voile. Accident survenu avec un delta-plane. Pratiquer le delta-plane, c'est faire du vol à voile. Risque couvert…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The contract covered the insured's risk of death while gliding; the accident occurred while hang-gliding. The court held that hang-gliding is a form of gliding and that the risk was covered by the contract.","k":"Death insurance — hang-gliding accident as gliding","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-09-05","rol":"6646","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTLIE:1985:JUG.19850905.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Est non recevable devant le Tribunal du travail, la demande en intervention de l'assureur-loi dirigée contre l'auteur responsable de l'accident ou son assureur de responsabilité civile, en remboursement des indemnités…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held inadmissible before the labour court the workplace-accident insurer's third-party claim against the person liable for the accident, or that person's liability insurer, for reimbursement of benefits paid to the victim. By contrast, such a claim is admissible where it only seeks a declaration that the labour court's judgment appointing an expert or awarding workplace-accident benefits is binding on the liable party or its insurer.","k":"Workplace accident — insurer's recourse against the liable third party in the labour court","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-06-28","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1985:ARR.19850628.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"L'exhibitionniste auquel les médecins qui le soignaient ont déclaré qu'il ne souffrait que d'un trouble accidentel du comportement social et qui ne déclare pas ce trouble lors de la souscription d'une assurance-vie ne…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"An insured whose doctors had told him he suffered only from an occasional social-behaviour disorder did not commit culpable misrepresentation by not disclosing it when taking out life insurance. As the disorder does not generally lead to suicidal tendencies, the non-disclosure did not alter the insurer's view of the risk, so the insurer could not refuse cover on that basis. 'Unconscious suicide' does not require total insanity; it is enough that the person could not control their acts at the time of the fatal act.","k":"Life insurance — misrepresentation and unconscious suicide","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-06-25","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1985:ARR.19850625.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"After a second policy unlawfully taken out by the policyholder was withdrawn, the parties revived the first policy: the second was terminated on 22.6.1982 with no time stated, and the first resumed on 23.6.1982 at midnight. Finding that the aim was to avoid any gap in cover, the court held that the first insurer must cover the accident of 22.6.1982. The transfer clause of the insurers' trade association agreement was a stipulation for the benefit of third parties that policyholders and injured parties may invoke.","k":"Motor liability — transfer of cover between two insurers","law":"No statutory provision cited; U.P.E.A. agreement, art. 2","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-06-24","rol":"86/245","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1985:JUG.19850624.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La loi du 1er juillet 1956 qui contraint l'assureur du véhicule à réparer les dommages soufferts par les passagers n'a pas modifié les principes de la responsabilité, ni les règles de la preuve. La responsabilité d'un…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Act of 1 July 1956, which requires the vehicle's insurer to compensate passengers, did not change the principles of liability or the rules of evidence. Liability for an accident can be attributed only to a person proven to have personally committed a fault. The judgment was noted as not final; its concrete outcome is not clear.","k":"Motor liability — passenger losses, proof of fault","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-05-28","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1985:ARR.19850528.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Wanneer de tot vergoeding gehouden verzekeraar, in een geval van totaal verlies, de schijn heeft verwekt voor de verkoop van het wrak in te staan door een opkoper te zoeken en met hem te onderhandelen, en wanneer…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"In a total loss, the insurer liable to pay had given the impression that it would handle the sale of the wreck by finding and negotiating with a buyer; meanwhile the wreck became worthless. The court held that the replacement value of the destroyed vehicle, assessed at the time of the accident, must therefore not be reduced by any amount.","k":"Vehicle total loss — insurer handling the sale of the wreck","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-05-21","rol":"89/2780","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1985:JUG.19850521.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Ni la loi du 11 juin 1874, ni celle du 1er juillet 1956 n'ont institué une subrogation de l'assureur aux droits des tiers lésés. L'événement qui donne ouverture à l'action récursoire est la déclaration ( amiable ou…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Neither the Act of 11 June 1874 nor that of 1 July 1956 subrogates the insurer to the rights of injured third parties. The recourse action arises from the final (amicable or judicial) finding attributing the intentional or wrongful act; a claim to recover undue payments is time-barred from each payment. Under article 25/8 of the model contract, recourse lies only against the insured who caused the loss. The concrete outcome is not clear.","k":"Insurer's recourse — subrogation, limitation, against whom","law":"Act of 11.6.1874; Act of 1.7.1956, art. 30; model contract, art. 25/8","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-04-18","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1985:ARR.19850418.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Lorsqu'une clause d'un contrat d'assurance contre les accidents corporels prévoit la résiliation de plein droit du contrat le jour où l'assuré aura atteint l'âge de 65 ans, la prorogation d'année en année du contrat…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Although the policy provided for automatic termination on the day the insured turned 65, its renewal from year to year after that age excluded the clause. Non-payment of the premium did not cause forfeiture of the right to compensation, since the policy made forfeiture conditional on a formal notice by registered letter left unanswered for 15 days.","k":"Personal accident insurance — termination at age 65 and premium","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-04-18","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1985:ARR.19850418.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"La mention figurant sur une quittance provisionnelle aux termes de laquelle l'assureur du tiers responsable s'engage au paiement d'une provision à valoir sur \"l'entièreté du préjudice subi\" ne peut s'interpréter que…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The liability insurer of the responsible third party had undertaken, on an interim receipt, to pay an advance against \"the entire loss suffered\". The court read this as the insurer's intention to compensate the victim in full. The insurer therefore could not later rely on the victim's failure to wear a seat belt to reduce its payment.","k":"Liability insurer — interim receipt and seat-belt defence","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-03-20","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1985:JUG.19850320.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Un Centre Public d'Aide Sociale n'est pas recevable à réclamer au Fonds Commun de Garantie Automobile, le remboursement des débours consentis en faveur de la victime d'un accident d'automobile pour le motif qu'il…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held inadmissible a claim by a public social welfare centre (CPAS) seeking reimbursement from the Guarantee Fund of sums it paid for a road-accident victim. The CPAS acts under a statutory duty and suffers no loss of its own in tort; moreover, the CPAS legislation does not name the Fund as a target of recourse, unlike the sickness and invalidity insurance legislation, which expressly gives that right to health-insurance funds.","k":"Guarantee Fund — recourse by a public social welfare centre (CPAS)","law":"Act of 9.8.1963 on compulsory sickness and invalidity insurance, art. 1","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-03-15","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1985:JUG.19850315.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"A défaut de stipulation expresse chargeant l'assureur ou l'expert de procéder à la vente de l'épave du véhicule sinistré, le rôle de ceux-ci se limite respectivement au règlement du sinistre et à l'évaluation des…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, absent an express clause instructing the insurer or the expert to sell the wreck, the insurer's role is limited to settling the claim and the expert's to assessing the damage. Valuing the wreck through a favourable offer from a prospective buyer serves only to determine the indemnity ultimately owed to the victim, taking account of the vehicle's pre-loss value. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Vehicle damage insurance — total loss, wreck value","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-03-12","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1985:ARR.19850312.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Doit être considéré comme n'ayant conservé aucune capacité de gain, le travailleur manuel atteint d'une incapacité permanente de 60% , dont il est constaté qu'il n'est plus capable concrètement , de trouver un emploi…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a manual worker with 60% permanent incapacity who could not in practice find suitable work had no remaining earning capacity. Ruling after pension age, it applied no capitalisation but awarded the income lost up to that date, calculated on net salary. Besides the benefits paid by the workplace-accident insurer, the capital value of the workplace-accident annuity was not deducted: that would be premature, as the rule against double recovery can be raised in the subrogated insurer's recourse. The summary does not say whether an insurer was a party.","k":"Personal injury — workplace-accident benefits and ordinary-law damages","law":"Act of 10.4.1971 (no double recovery, subrogation); no article given in the summary","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-03-04","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1985:ARR.19850304.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that pain and suffering (pretium doloris), though part of the non-pecuniary loss linked to temporary incapacity, may be compensated separately, but in principle not for the period after consolidation. By refusing without valid reason the BEF 500,000 interim receipt sent by the liable third party's insurer, the victim lost the right to complain of delayed compensation, and hence compensatory interest, from the date of sending and up to the amount offered. The overall outcome is not stated.","k":"Pain and suffering — refusal of an interim settlement receipt","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-03-04","rol":"1253","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1985:ARR.19850304.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Une compagnie d'assurances a décidé d'indemniser des tiers lésés à la suite d'un accident parce qu'elle se croyait débitrice en lieu et place du conducteur du véhicule qu'elle assurait et du civilement responsable de ce…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The motor liability insurer had paid the injured third parties against unconditional receipts, with full knowledge of the circumstances and after forming its own view on liability. Its insured was later acquitted and the third party held liable. The court held that these payments, made with the intention of settling the matter definitively, had a valid cause and were not undue, so the insurer could not recover them.","k":"Motor liability — recovery of payments after the insured's acquittal","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 30; recovery of undue payment","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-02-21","rol":"86/8391","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1985:ARR.19850221.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Est fondée l'action dirigée par l'assureur contre le courtier d'assurances pour manquement à son obligation contractuelle de renvoyer à l'assureur, sous peine d'en devoir le montant à ce dernier, les quittances impayées…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The broker had breached its contractual duty to return unpaid premium receipts to the insurer within 75 days of the due date, failing which it owed the amount itself. The court upheld the insurer's claim: the insurer has a legitimate interest in learning promptly of non-payment so it can suspend cover. The insurer need not first sue the insured; the broker may seek recourse against the insured.","k":"Insurer's claim against the broker — unpaid premium receipts","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-02-19","rol":"112664","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:1985:ARR.19850219.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"In the Workplace Accidents Fund's action for contributions and accessories against an employer who had failed to insure, the court held that such an employer is not a protected beneficiary within article 1017(2) of the Judicial Code and that the Fund does not act here as the institution applying social legislation or as an insurer within article 68 of the Act of 10 April 1971. The general rule of article 1017(1) applies: the defaulting employer, as the losing party, pays the costs.","k":"Workplace Accidents Fund — contributions from an uninsured employer, costs","law":"Judicial Code, arts. 1017, 580–582; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 68","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-02-07","rol":"112664","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:1985:ARR.19850207.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A claim for compensation by an unemployed person placed in work, following an accident, seeks a benefit under unemployment rules and therefore falls within the labour courts' jurisdiction (Judicial Code, art. 580, 3°). However, the victim has no direct action against the insurer with which the National Employment Office had voluntarily taken out ordinary insurance to cover its obligations, as that insurer was not subrogated to them by the policy or by law. The claim against the insurer was held inadmissible.","k":"Unemployed person placed in work — direct claim against the employment office's insurer","law":"Judicial Code, art. 580, 3°; RD 20.12.1963, art. 165; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 1","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-02-05","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1985:ARR.19850205.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Een garagehouder heeft, na herstelling van de auto van een klant, bij een proefrit met het voertuig een ongeval veroorzaakt. In de verzekeringspolis van de eigenaar is bedongen dat de verzekering niet van toepassing is…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A garage owner caused an accident while test-driving a customer's car after repair. The court held that the clause in the owner's policy excluding garage keepers for accidents in the course of their business breached the mandatory article 3 of the Act of 1 July 1956, and that the garage owner was an insured at the time. The insurer therefore cannot recover from him, by subrogation under article 22 of the 1874 Act, what it paid the owner; the cover also extends to his contractual liability.","k":"Motor liability — clause excluding the garage owner and subrogation","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 3; Act of 11.6.1874, art. 22","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-01-17","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1985:JUG.19850117.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le droit propre créé au profit de la personne lésée par l'article 6 de la loi du 1er juillet 1956, suppose l'existence, non pas de n'importe quel contrat d'assurance, mais d'un contrat d'assurance couvrant le risque…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The injured party's own right of action under article 6 of the Act of 1 July 1956 requires a policy covering the risk in dispute, not just any policy. A vehicle with a larger engine capacity than that stated in the policy was not covered. The employer was not liable either: the employee caused the accident at a weekend, outside working hours and unrelated to his duties.","k":"Motor liability — uncovered vehicle, injured party's own right","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 6 and 30; former Civil Code, art. 1384","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-01-15","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1985:ARR.19850115.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsque le juge pénal a prononcé des peines distinctes du chef de n'être pas resté maître de sa vitesse d'une part et d'avoir conduit un véhicule en état d'intoxication alcoolique d'autre part, mais ne s'est pas…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Where the criminal court imposed separate penalties for failing to control speed and for drink-driving without ruling on the cause of the accident, the civil court may treat intoxication as one of its causes. The insured should have been aware of being unfit to drive and of the aggravation of the insured risk. The summary does not state the concrete outcome on cover.","k":"Motor liability — drunkenness, criminal judgment and causation","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-01-09","rol":"37187","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1985:ARR.19850109.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'article 15, alinéa 1er, alinéas 2 et 3 de la loi du 1 juillet 1956 concernant l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs ayant été abrogé par l'article 24, alinéa 1er de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, after the relevant paragraphs of article 15 of the 1956 motor insurance Act were repealed by article 24 of the Royal Decree of 16.12.1981, health-insurance funds lost their own right to recover their benefits from the Guarantee Fund under article 49 of the Act of 9.7.1975. According to the Juportal note, article 66 of the Act of 1.8.1985 restored that right from 9.6.1985.","k":"Guarantee Fund — health-insurance fund's own right of recovery","law":"RD 16.12.1981, art. 24; Act of 9.7.1975, art. 49; Act of 9.8.1963, art. 70; Act of 1.7.1956, art. 15","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1985-01-02","rol":"85/1705","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTHAI:1985:JUG.19850102.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Constitue l'événement soudain provoqué par une force extérieure, l'atteinte au genou survenue à un travailleur qui, en se hissant derrière le volant d'un chariot élévateur, exécute ainsi un mouvement pivotant. Pour que…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The worker injured his knee while pulling himself up behind the wheel of a forklift truck with a pivoting movement. The court held that this was a sudden event caused by an external force. For a pre-existing condition to release the workplace-accident insurer from its duty to compensate, it must be the complete and sole cause of the injury.","k":"Workplace accident — sudden event and pre-existing condition","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 7(1)","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-12-26","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1984:JUG.19841226.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Pour que la garantie d'assurance prévue à l'article 33, alinéa 3, du contrat-type d'assurance puisse jouer, il faut que la date, à laquelle le véhicule désigné au contrat a été cédé, vendu ou mis hors circulation, qui…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, for the cover under article 33(3) of the model contract to apply, the date on which the designated vehicle was transferred, sold or taken off the road, which starts the eight-day period for notifying the change, must be known. The civil party bears the burden of proving that the insured vehicle was transferred within the eight days before the car involved in the accident was acquired. The summary does not clearly state whether that proof was made.","k":"Motor liability — eight-day period for replacement vehicle, burden of proof","law":"Model contract, art. 33(3) (date not stated in the summary)","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-12-12","rol":"122783","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:1984:ARR.19841212.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Het rechtstreeks verhaal van het ziekenfonds op de arbeidsongevallenverzekeraar ingevolge artikel 63, alinéa 2, van de arbeidsongevallenwet vervalt wanneer het verzuim van de aldaar bedoelde verklaring aan overmacht te…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The health-insurance fund's direct recourse against the workplace-accident insurer under article 63(2) of the Act of 10 April 1971 lapses where the failure to make the notification was due to force majeure. The court found force majeure because the accident declaration sent to the insurer did not name the fund, the victim was questioned and warned within the time limit and stated that he had informed the fund himself; the fund's claim was dismissed.","k":"Workplace accident — health fund's direct recourse and force majeure","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63 §2","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-12-06","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1984:ARR.19841206.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"Wanneer in een polis van aansprakelijkheidsverzekering ook een beding van rechtsbijstandverzekering opgenomen is en de verzekeraar te kort schiet in de uitvoering van zijn verplichting om rechtsbijstand te verlenen, met…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A liability policy included legal expenses cover; because the insurer failed to provide the legal assistance owed, the insured could not pursue a claim against the Guarantee Fund in which he had a 100% chance of success. The court held that the insurer must compensate that loss; the insured may claim all litigation costs, including the expert report and his lawyer, the latter forming part of the damage caused by the breach.","k":"Legal expenses insurance — insurer's failure to perform","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-12-06","rol":"17.764","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTHAI:1984:JUG.19841206.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that there is no commuting accident where the journey is interrupted for a relatively long time by simple shopping that is not an essential need of daily life. It also held that the victim's valid interruption of the limitation period by registered letter to the workplace-accident insurer benefits the subrogated health-insurance fund, so the fund's subsidiary claim against its member for repayment of undue benefits was without object. How these two points relate to the final outcome is unclear from the summary.","k":"Commuting accident — shopping stop; subrogation of the health-insurance fund","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 8; Act of 9.8.1963, art. 70 §2","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-12-03","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1984:ARR.19841203.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"L'intervention volontaire devant la juridiction répressive est recevable si l'intervenant peut justifier d'un intérêt personnel et particulier. L'assureur automobile qui est intervenu au premier degré peut interjeter…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that voluntary intervention before a criminal court is admissible where the intervener shows a personal and specific interest. A motor insurer that intervened at first instance and was held jointly liable with the defendant may appeal to establish that the defendant was in fact not insured and to be released from the case; a party may also appeal a judgment that followed its own submissions in order to correct its own error. The outcome on the merits is not stated.","k":"Motor liability — insurer's voluntary intervention and appeal","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-11-26","rol":"87/268","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1984:ARR.19841126.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"De in de plaats gestelde verzekeraar arbeidsongevallen mag, voor zover de getroffene zonder subrogatie tegen de aansprakelijke derde gerechtigd zou zijn, van deze niet enkel de rechtstreeks aan de getroffene uitbetaalde…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court of appeal held that the subrogated workplace-accident insurer may claim from the liable third party, to the extent the victim would have been entitled without subrogation, not only the net temporary-incapacity benefits paid directly to the victim but also the personal social-security contributions and withholding tax deducted.","k":"Workplace accident — scope of the subrogated insurer's recourse","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-11-16","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1984:ARR.19841116.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"La prolongation ou le report d'une police d'assurance peuvent se prouver par présomptions et, notamment, par l'exécution de la police par l'assureur à l'occasion d'un sinistre précédent.","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the extension or carry-over of an insurance policy may be proved by presumptions, in particular by the insurer having performed the policy on a previous claim. The Juportal summary does not state how the dispute itself was resolved.","k":"Extension of the policy — proof by presumptions","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-11-07","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1984:ARR.19841107.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsqu'un prévenu est acquitté du chef de défaut d'assurance et que le ministère public n'interjette pas appel, cet acquittement devient définitif erga omnes. Toutefois, lorsque l'assureur du prévenu interjette appel,…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Where a defendant is acquitted of driving without insurance and the prosecution does not appeal, the acquittal becomes final as against everyone. The court held, however, that if the defendant's insurer appeals, the devolutive effect of the appeal means the acquittal is no longer final as regards that insurer, to the extent it harms the insurer's interests. The outcome on the merits is not stated.","k":"Uninsured driving — acquittal and the insurer's appeal","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-11-05","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1984:JUG.19841105.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Le point de départ du délai de prescription de trois ans du recours de l'assureur est le paiement fait par l'assureur après qu'il a été établi qu'il est tenu d'indemniser la victime.","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the three-year limitation period for the insurer's recourse starts when the insurer pays, after it has been established that it must compensate the victim. How this applied in the case (whether the action was time-barred) is not stated in the summary.","k":"Insurer's recourse — start of the limitation period","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-10-23","rol":"829310","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1984:ARR.19841023.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"Where the employer is uninsured, the health-insurance fund that paid incapacity benefits is subrogated to its member against the Workplace Accidents Fund up to the amounts it paid. The court held that the fund may claim only the sums actually paid out, not the statutory interest owed to the victim under article 42 of the 1971 Act, which it did not pay.","k":"Workplace accident — health-insurance fund's subrogation against the Fund, interest","law":"Act of 9.8.1963, art. 70 §2; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 42; Judicial Code, arts. 1017, 1022","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-10-17","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1984:ARR.19841017.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"La fausse déclaration du preneur d'assurance sur l'existence d'assurance et sa réticence quant à l'existence de deux sinistres antérieurs, en ne répondant pas à la question figurant dans la proposition d'assurance…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The policyholder had misstated the existence of previous insurance and, by leaving unanswered the proposal question on accidents in the last four years, concealed two earlier claims. The court held that this misrepresentation and non-disclosure rendered the motor liability and occupants policy void.","k":"Motor liability — concealment of prior claims","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-10-08","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1984:ARR.19841008.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The judgment concerns, in a dispute about forfeiture for late notification of a claim, whether and on what grievance an appeal lies against a purely preparatory judgment. Juportal only lists keywords; the court's conclusion cannot be derived from the summary.","k":"Late notification and forfeiture — appeal against a preparatory judgment","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-10-08","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1984:JUG.19841008.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"La suspension des garanties décrétée par l'assureur à la suite du non-paiement de la prime ne joue que pour l'avenir. Elle permet uniquement à l'assureur de différer l'exécution de ses propres obligations jusqu'au…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A suspension of cover declared by the insurer for non-payment of premium operates only for the future. It merely allows the insurer to defer performing its own obligations until the insured performs his. The concrete outcome of the dispute is not stated in the summary.","k":"Unpaid premium — suspension operates only for the future","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-10-05","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIHAI:1984:JUG.19841005.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En prononçant deux peines distinctes du chef d'infraction de roulage d'une part et d'ivresse et d'alcoolémie d'autre part, le juge répressif a nécessairement et certainement jugé que le fait qualifié par la prévention…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The criminal court had imposed two separate penalties, one for the traffic offence and one for drunkenness and drink-driving. The court inferred that it had necessarily and definitively held that the alcohol and drunkenness had no causal link with the damage attributable to the defendant. The insurer's recourse claim was therefore unfounded under both article 20, para. 9, and article 25, para. 10, of the model policy.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for drunkenness, effect of criminal judgment","law":"Model policy, art. 20 para. 9 and art. 25 para. 10","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-09-21","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1984:JUG.19840921.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"L'attribution bénéficiaire d'un contrat d'assurance s'analyse comme une stipulation pour autrui. Une telle stipulation peut être révoquée par le preneur d'assurance tant qu'elle n'a pas été acceptée par le tiers…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that designating a beneficiary under an insurance contract is a stipulation for the benefit of a third party, which the policyholder may revoke as long as the beneficiary has not accepted it. The summary gives no information on the parties or the concrete outcome.","k":"Life insurance — revocation of beneficiary designation","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-09-11","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1984:JUG.19840911.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"De la clause du contrat d'assurance subordonnant le paiement de l'indemnité par l'assureur à la présentation de la facture détaillée du réparateur, il y a lieu de déduire que sans présentation de cette facture, et donc…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The policy made payment of the indemnity conditional on presenting the repairer's detailed invoice. The court inferred that without that invoice, and a fortiori without any repair of the vehicle, no indemnity was due.","k":"Vehicle damage insurance — payment conditional on repair invoice","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-09-07","rol":"75/4437","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTBRL:1984:JUG.19840907.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La correspondance échangée entre les médecins, les demandes de renseignements de la mutuelle et du syndicat, la confirmation par l'assureur-loi à ces organismes de sa décision de consolider sans incapacité permanente,…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that correspondence between doctors, requests for information from the health-insurance fund and the trade union, and the workplace-accident insurer's confirmation to those bodies of its decision to consolidate without permanent incapacity do not interrupt the limitation period of article 69 of the Act of 10 April 1971. The summary does not state the final outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — correspondence that does not interrupt the limitation period","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 69","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-06-28","rol":"82/9468","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1984:ARR.19840628.23","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The judgment concerns the limits of the workplace-accident insurer's recourse action (private sector). Juportal only lists keywords; neither the reasoning nor the outcome can be derived from the summary.","k":"Workplace accident — limits of the workplace-accident insurer's recourse","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-06-28","rol":"79/41354","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1984:ARR.19840628.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Pour déterminer la mesure exacte de la subrogation de l'assureur-loi, il convient d'évaluer, selon les normes de droit commun, le montant des indemnités revenant à la victime ou à ses ayants droit. Il ne saurait dès…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"To measure the workplace-accident insurer's subrogation, the compensation due to the victim or dependants must be assessed under ordinary tort law. The capped statutory basic pay cannot be used: under the principle that each scheme's valuation rules do not interfere with the other's, only ordinary-law methods apply. Interest runs as compensatory interest from each payment until the judgment, then as default interest.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — extent of subrogation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971 (recourse)","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-06-05","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1984:ARR.19840605.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La faute grave justifiant l'action récursoire de l'assureur implique non seulement l'aggravation du risque, mais également, dans le chef de l'assuré, la conscience que sa faute entraînait cette aggravation. En cas de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the gross fault justifying the insurer's recourse requires not only an aggravation of the risk but also the insured's awareness that the fault caused that aggravation. Where there is doubt about that awareness, the recourse must be dismissed. The Juportal summary does not state how the recourse itself was decided.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for gross fault","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-06-04","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EABRL:1984:JUG.19840604.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"Wanneer volgens de polis een rechtsbijstandverzekeraar zich ertoe verbonden heeft om, na schadegeval, de gerechtelijke belangen van de verzekerde waar te nemen en de kosten ervan te dragen, bestaat die waarneming van…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Where, under the policy, a legal expenses insurer has undertaken after a claim to look after the insured's legal interests and bear the costs, and the insured has not chosen a lawyer, that undertaking is performed by the insurer appointing a lawyer as mandataire ad litem and paying the lawyer's fees and costs. The court held that informing the insured of the outcome of the proceedings is one of that lawyer's contractual obligations. The summary does not say against whom the claim was brought or how it ended.","k":"Legal expenses insurance — appointed lawyer's duty to inform","law":"Legal expenses policy; mandate ad litem","w":279,"c":"Nederlandstalige rechtbank eerste aanleg Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-05-30","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1984:ARR.19840530.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Si, aux termes de l'article 33 du contrat-type de la police d'assurance responsabilité automobile, le preneur d'assurance doit déclarer à la compagnie la cession de son véhicule dans le délai huit de jours, la…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that article 33 of the model contract imposes two conditions: notifying the insurer of the transfer within eight days and replacing the vehicle within the same period. An accident occurring before the eight days expired does not by itself oblige the insurer to cover the replacement vehicle. As the insurer had not been notified, the replacement vehicle was not insured.","k":"Motor liability — transfer of vehicle and replacement vehicle","law":"Model contract, art. 33","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-05-17","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1984:ARR.19840517.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Een verzekeringsmaatschappij is gerechtigd, na de faillietverklaring van haar gefailleerde makelaar, de op de ontvangen premies vervallen commissies in te houden, tot aanzuivering van haar schuldvordering in bedoeld…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court of appeal held that an insurance company may, after its broker's bankruptcy, retain the commissions due on premiums collected to offset its claim in the bankruptcy. Set-off remains possible despite one debtor's bankruptcy where the reciprocal obligations arise from the same legal cause, here the same contract, and are so inseparably linked that they continue to be performed despite the bankruptcy.","k":"Broker's bankruptcy — set-off of commissions","law":"Commercial Code (Bankruptcy Act of 18.4.1851), art. 444","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-05-07","rol":"189.373","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EALIM:1984:JUG.19840507.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Artikel 47 van de Arbeidsongevallenwet, gewijzigd door de wet van 07 juli 1978 bepaalt dat de rechtsvordering kan worden ingesteld op dezelfde wijze als de getroffene of zijn rechthebbenden, en dat de subrogatie…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Limburg Court of First Instance held that the workplace-accident insurer's action under article 47 of the Act of 10.4.1971 is in substance an action in its own right, limited however to the rights the victim could have asserted under ordinary law. A settlement between the employer and the victim cannot be raised against the insurer; subrogation is not lost where the liable third party and the victim settle or the victim waives the claim.","k":"Workplace accident — insurer's recourse, employer-victim settlement","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47 (as amended by the Act of 7.7.1978)","w":279,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg Limburg","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-04-30","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAWVL:1984:JUG.19840430.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Maakt zich schuldig aan de grove schuld voorzien bij artikel 16 van de wet op de verzekeringen in het algemeen de autobestuurder, die door de correctionele rechtbank tot een enkele straf veroordeeld werd wegens…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a driver convicted by the criminal court of unintentional injury and alcohol intoxication (single penalty), whose blood alcohol was 2.88 g/l after time correction, with bloodshot eyes and a strong smell of alcohol, committed gross fault within article 16 of the 1874 Act. The collision occurred on a straight, lit road with a hundred metres of visibility, with a vehicle that was itself lit. The insurer's recourse was held well founded.","k":"Motor liability — 2.88 g/l blood alcohol, gross fault and recourse","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16","w":280,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg West-Vlaanderen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-04-24","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1984:JUG.19840424.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"1. Les clauses qui autorisent l'assureur à suspendre sa garantie tout en conservant le droit aux primes échues postérieurement à la suspension de garantie sont licites. 2. Ces clauses ne constituent pas des clauses…","court":"first","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"Clauses allowing the insurer to suspend cover while keeping its right to premiums falling due afterwards are lawful; they are not penalty clauses but a form of the defence of non-performance. However, an insurer that keeps applying them without seeking termination, when it should have realised the insured's default was irreversible, breaches good faith. The court terminated the contract for fault on both sides, with effect from the date the insurer should have sought termination.","k":"Unpaid premium — suspension clause and abuse","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1134, para. 3; RD of 12.3.1976, art. 21","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-03-30","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1984:ARR.19840330.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Le courtier d'assurances qui remplit et signe une proposition d'assurance en dégâts matériels pour une voiture automobile, en omettant d'y mentionner la résiliation d'un contrat d'assurance antérieur par un autre…","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"A broker who filled in and signed a motor own-damage proposal without mentioning that a previous insurer had cancelled a policy after an accident was held at fault towards the client, since this non-disclosure left the client with a voidable policy. The court assessed the loss as the slim lost chance of finding an insurer for that risk, set at 15% of the uninsured loss.","k":"Insurance broker — non-disclosure in the proposal form","law":"Judicial Code, art. 774(2)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-03-26","rol":"23820R","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1984:ARR.19840326.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'action récursoire prévue à l'article 47 de la loi sur les accidents du travail est limitée d'une part au montant que l'assureur-loi a payé à la victime en tant que dommage matériel en raison d'une perte de…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the recourse action under article 47 of the Act of 10 April 1971 is limited in two ways: first, to what the workplace-accident insurer paid the victim for material loss of earnings or set aside as capital for annuities; second, to what the victim could claim from the liable third party under ordinary law for the same loss.","k":"Workplace accident — limits of the insurer's recourse against the liable party","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-03-06","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIHAI:1984:JUG.19840306.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En l'absence de concessions réciproques, la renonciation à tous recours contre l'assurance du tiers responsable peut être tenue non comme une transaction, mais comme un engagement unilatéral dont la nature est celle de…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, absent mutual concessions, a waiver of all claims against the responsible third party's insurer is not a settlement but a unilateral undertaking in the nature of a release of debt. Such a release need not stem from generosity and may aim at ending the dispute quickly. As a way of extinguishing obligations, it discharges the beneficiary, once accepted, from all obligations towards the creditor.","k":"Waiver of claims against the insurer — release of debt","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-02-20","rol":"12.991","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1984:ARR.19840220.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Under article 70 of the Act, limitation for workplace-accident benefits is interrupted by any action seeking those benefits, even one based on general law, and the interruption also benefits the subrogated national union of health-insurance funds. Furthermore, under article 55, the employer's failure to declare the victim's pay to the workplace-accident insurer cannot be raised by the insurer as a forfeiture clause.","k":"Workplace accident — interrupted limitation and undeclared pay","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 55 and 70","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-02-10","rol":"3772","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1984:ARR.19840210.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Juportal publishes no summary for this judgment, only keywords. According to them, it concerns the Workplace Accidents Fund (FAT) recovering benefits from the employer and the interest due on that claim. The outcome cannot be determined from the available material.","k":"Workplace accident — Fund's recovery from the employer, interest","law":"Act of 10.4.1971","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-02-06","rol":"46541","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1984:ARR.19840206.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Doit être considéré comme ayant reconnu le droit aux indemnités d'accident du travail, l'assureur-loi qui a payé les indemnités d'incapacité temporaire, qui a correspondu avec la victime sans contester son droit et lui…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A workplace-accident insurer that paid temporary-incapacity benefits, corresponded with the victim without disputing the claim, promised to keep the victim informed of the general-law proceedings, joined those proceedings as civil party against the person responsible and had a medical examination carried out, is deemed to have acknowledged the right to compensation. The court held that the victim's action, brought less than three years after the insurer's first letter invoking limitation, was not time-barred.","k":"Workplace accident — acknowledgment of the right and limitation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 70","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-02-03","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EABRL:1984:JUG.19840203.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Het beginsel van de bona fide uitvoering der overeenkomsten verplicht de onbetaalde verzekeraar die zijn waarborg wil schorsen, krachtens het artikel 12.3 van de modelpolis-autoverzekering, duidelijk zijn inzichten uit…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the principle of good-faith performance of contracts requires an unpaid insurer wishing to suspend cover under article 12.3 of the motor model policy to state its intentions clearly in the prior warning that provision requires. Here, a warning given in vague terms was held to be contrary to good-faith performance.","k":"Motor liability — unpaid premium, warning of suspension of cover","law":"Motor liability model policy, art. 12.3; former Civil Code, arts. 1134(3) and 1135","w":280,"c":"Nederlandstalige rechtbank eerste aanleg Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-02-03","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1984:JUG.19840203.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le principe de l'exécution de bonne foi des conventions impose à l'assureur impayé qui entend suspendre sa garantie, en application de l'article 12.3 de la police type d'assurance automobile, d'exprimer clairement ses…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the principle of good-faith performance of contracts requires an unpaid insurer wishing to suspend cover under article 12.3 of the model motor policy to state its intentions clearly in the prior warning. A warning in vague terms breaches that principle and does not allow suspension.","k":"Motor liability — suspension of cover for unpaid premium","law":"Former Civil Code, arts. 1134(3) and 1135; model motor policy, art. 12.3","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-01-31","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1984:ARR.19840131.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsqu'une police d'assurance de responsabilité civile automobile confère à l'assurance un recours contre l'assuré en remboursement de ses débours qu'il s'est rendu coupable de délit de fuite, il ne peut être fait droit…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Where a motor liability policy gives the insurer recourse against an insured who left the scene of the accident, the court held that the recourse can succeed only if the insurer proves a causal link between that offence and its payments. The summary does not state how the recourse was decided in this case.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for hit-and-run and causation","law":"No provision cited in the summary (policy recourse clause)","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-01-30","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1984:ARR.19840130.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"In een polis tot dekking van aansprakelijkheid is in een zelfde artikel bepaald enerzijds dat alleen de verzekeraar het recht heeft om met de schadelijder te onderhandelen en om in naam van de verzekerde de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A single article of a liability policy gave the insurer the sole right to negotiate with the injured party and conduct the proceedings, and barred the insured from ever joining the insurer as guarantor. The court held that the clause must be read as a whole: the ban applies where the insurer accepts cover and conducts the case, not where it declares the loss uncovered and refuses to conduct the defence. The final outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Liability insurance — ban on joining the insurer as guarantor","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1385","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-01-23","rol":"85/71162","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1984:ARR.19840123.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Le dommage subi par les proches de la victime d'un accident, considérée comme partiellement responsable et décédée à la suite de celui-ci, ne trouve sa source que dans les liens de famille et d'affection qui les…","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The victim, partly at fault, died in the accident and the other driver at fault was never identified. The court held that the relatives' loss stems from their family and emotional ties with the deceased, so the deceased's own fault can be raised against them. The Guarantee Fund cannot be held liable in solidum for the whole loss; it compensates the relatives only up to the unknown driver's share of liability.","k":"Guarantee Fund — relatives of a deceased victim, shared liability","law":"Act of 1.7.1956 (Guarantee Fund); no article given in the summary","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1984-01-04","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1984:ARR.19840104.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Wanneer de verzekeraar van een vervoerder de ontvangstgerechtigde vergoed heeft voor schade aan de vervoerde goederen en hij luidens de verzekeringsovereenkomst geen regresvordering kan instellen tegen de hulppersonen…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court of appeal held that where a carrier's insurer has compensated the consignee for damage to the goods and, under the insurance contract, may not bring recourse against the carrier's auxiliaries, a nominee arrangement under which the insurer pursues such recourse against an auxiliary in the consignee's name is unlawful.","k":"Transport insurance — disguised recourse through a nominee","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-12-21","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAANT:1983:ARR.19831221.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Wanneer een autovoertuig gestolen wordt na de opzegging van een bestaande verzekeringscontract en voor het sluiten van een nieuw verzekeringscontract tegen diefstal, kan de niet-dekking van de diefstal door verzekering…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The car was stolen after the existing policy had been terminated and before a new theft policy was concluded. The court held that the lack of cover could not be blamed on the broker, who had only one working day to carry out his brokerage instruction and with whom it had not been agreed that cover must start on the next working day; the broker's liability was rejected.","k":"Insurance broker — theft between two policies, no fault","law":"No article given (broker's professional liability)","w":279,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-12-19","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1983:ARR.19831219.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Lorsque, dans un jugement d'acquittement, le juge répressif a relevé une faute d'un tiers, les considérations relatives à la responsabilité de ce tiers ne constituent pas la chose jugée à son égard ni à l'égard de son…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The criminal court had acquitted the defendant because the fault of an unidentified driver created an unforeseeable obstacle. The court held that the findings on that third party's fault are not res judicata against the Guarantee Fund. In the injured party's claim against the Fund, the civil court freely assesses whether the unknown driver was at fault. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Guarantee Fund — res judicata effect of an acquittal","law":"Res judicata of criminal judgments; Guarantee Fund (Act of 1.7.1956)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-12-09","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1983:ARR.19831209.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Commet une réticence l'assurée qui omet d'indiquer à son assureur l'habitude qu'elle a d'emporter toujours ses bijoux avec elle pour les avoir sous sa main, et justifiant ainsi qu'elle avait emporté ses bijoux alors…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the insured committed misrepresentation (réticence) by failing to tell her insurer of her habit of always carrying her jewellery with her, a habit that explained why she had taken it on a day trip to Luxembourg, where it was stolen in a tavern.","k":"Theft insurance — non-disclosure of habit of carrying jewellery","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-12-08","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1983:JUG.19831208.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Lorsque, d'une part, à une police d'assurance sont annexées deux pages de conditions spéciales dont le premier article stipule la faculté de résiliation annuelle et le troisième la faculté de résiliation seulement après…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The special conditions attached to the policy provided both for annual termination and for termination only after ten years; the wording excluding annual termination was in very small print, linked by an asterisk to a box higher up. Given this unclear and ambiguous presentation, the court held the insured's annual termination valid, in the insurer's action for unpaid premiums.","k":"Ambiguous termination clause — annual termination valid","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-11-30","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1983:ARR.19831130.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"L'assureur, qui a adhéré aux conventions R.D.R. entre assureurs pour l'expertise et la fixation des dégâts matériels subis par les véhicules par suite d'accidents du roulage, et qui fait procéder à l'expertise des…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an insurer party to the RDR agreements that has a vehicle's damage assessed must, if it appears at the outset that the damage will probably exceed 50,000 francs (now 110,000 F), notify the other insurer so it can appoint its own expert. Failing that, the report does not bind the other insurer, and the first insurer must prove the reality of the loss it paid to its insured under ordinary rules of evidence.","k":"RDR agreements — whether the expert report binds the other insurer","law":"RDR inter-insurer agreements","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-11-08","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1983:JUG.19831108.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"Dans l'exécution de l'assurance C.A.S., l'assureur a l'obligation de défendre les droits de l'assuré. En cas de contrariété d'intérêts entre l'assureur et l'assuré, l'assureur doit renoncer à imposer à l'assuré le choix…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Under legal-defence (C.A.S.) cover, the insurer must defend the insured's rights. Where their interests conflict, the principle of good-faith performance requires the insurer to refrain from imposing its choice of medical adviser or lawyer. The insurer remained bound to pay the fees of the lawyer freely chosen by the insured.","k":"Legal expenses — free choice of lawyer, conflict of interest","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-11-07","rol":"87/7144","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1983:ARR.19831107.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"De clausule, naar luid waarvan de bemiddelaar de schuldenaar wordt van de verzekeraar van zodra de onbetaalde kwitanties niet dertig dagen na de vervaldag worden teruggezonden, is een strafbeding lastens de bemiddelaar…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court of appeal characterised as a penalty clause against the intermediary the term making it the insurer's debtor whenever unpaid receipts were not returned within thirty days of the due date, as a sanction for breaching the duty to return receipts unpaid at maturity. The dispute is between the insurer and an independent intermediary; the summary does not state the practical consequence of this characterisation.","k":"Intermediary — unpaid receipts and penalty clause","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-11-03","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1983:ARR.19831103.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Lorsque le juge répressif a sanctionné de peines distinctes d'une part une infraction au Code de la route et d'autre part le fait d'avoir conduit un véhicule en état d'intoxication alcoolique, sans s'être prononcé sur…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The criminal court had imposed separate penalties for a traffic offence and for drink-driving, without ruling on the third party's damage or causation. The court held that the civil judge hearing the insurer's recourse action may, without breaching the res judicata of the criminal judgment, find that both offences caused the damage and uphold the action. Gross negligence not covered under article 16 of the Act of 11 June 1874 is fault comparable to intentional fault, aggravating the risk beyond the contract's contemplation, of which the insured was or should have been aware. The summary does not expressly state the concrete outcome.","k":"Motor liability recourse — drunkenness, separate penalties and gross negligence","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-10-06","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1983:ARR.19831006.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the victim's medical adviser agreeing to the permanent incapacity rate proposed by the workplace-accident insurer does not bind the victim, since the rate requires approval by the labour court. Receipt of bad-weather unemployment benefit during temporary incapacity does not release the insurer from its obligations under article 23 of the 1971 Act, despite the rule against cumulation.","k":"Workplace accident — adviser's agreement and bad-weather unemployment benefit","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 23–24","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-10-06","rol":"5277","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1983:ARR.19831006.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Le législateur de 1971 en l'article 23 a rompu avec un passé d'allocations temporaires forfaitaires. Il a voulu dorénavant indemniser le préjudice réellement subi, ni plus ni moins. Les allocations de chômage ont été…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that article 23 of the 1971 Act aims to compensate the loss actually suffered rather than to pay flat-rate allowances, and that unemployment benefit is replacement income. The workplace-accident insurer therefore owes only the difference between pre-accident pay and the unemployment benefit received. Article 35, which excludes such benefit from pay, concerns only the calculation of basic pay and cannot defeat this outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — temporary incapacity and unemployment benefit","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 23 and 35; Act of 12.4.1965","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-10-05","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1983:JUG.19831005.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A credit insurer that cannot prove an assignment of the claim enforceable against the debtor is subrogated to the creditor's rights only up to the sums it actually paid out, plus statutory interest from its formal notice to the debtor. The court added that withdrawing an action against one joint debtor matters only if it entails waiving joint liability and the corresponding share of the debt.","k":"Credit insurance — extent of subrogation and interest","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-10-04","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EABRL:1983:JUG.19831004.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Als de verzekeringnemer, na de verzekeraar te hebben verwittigd van het vervangen van zijn voertuig door een ander, toch zijn oud voertuig blijft gebruiken tot het nieuwe wordt geleverd en het oude zelf wordt…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"After notifying the insurer that his vehicle would be replaced, the policyholder kept using the old one until the new one was delivered and the old one taken back. The court held that he had not driven two vehicles at the same time, had not aggravated the insured risk and had not breached the contract. Notifying the insurer a few days before the new vehicle came into use did not breach the contractual duty to notify within eight days of a transfer or replacement.","k":"Motor liability — notified vehicle replacement, no aggravation of risk","law":"Motor liability model policy (transfer and replacement of vehicle); contract interpretation","w":280,"c":"Nederlandstalige rechtbank eerste aanleg Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-10-04","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1983:JUG.19831004.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Si, après avoir informé l'assureur du remplacement de sa voiture par une autre, le preneur d'assurance a continué à faire usage de son ancien véhicule jusqu'au moment de la livraison du nouveau véhicule et de la reprise…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a policyholder who, after telling the insurer that the car would be replaced, kept using the old car until the new one was delivered and the old one taken back, had not driven two vehicles at once, had not aggravated the risk and had not breached the contract. Notice given a few days before the new vehicle entered service does not breach the contractual duty to inform the insurer within eight days of the transfer or replacement.","k":"Motor liability — notice of vehicle replacement, aggravation of risk","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-09-20","rol":"89/3060","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIHAI:1983:JUG.19830920.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Les termes de la convention intervenue entre la victime d'un accident et l'assureur de l'auteur responsable ne permettent pas d'en limiter la portée au dommage connu et prévisible au moment de sa signature lorsque…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"In a settlement with the liability insurer, the victim had waived any action against the insurer and its insured for loss \"known and unknown, present and future, foreseen and unforeseen\". The court held that the waiver extends to later aggravations, even those scientifically unforeseeable when it was signed. The victim, having declared that the agreement was a final \"aleatory contract\", could not rely on substantial error.","k":"Settlement — later worsening of the injury","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-09-16","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIHAI:1983:JUG.19830916.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La transaction suppose des sacrifices réciproques qui n'existent pas dans le chef d'une compagnie d'assurances qui paie des sommes ne dépassant certainement pas le dommage réellement subi par la partie civile, alors que…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that there are no mutual concessions where the defendant's insurer, liability being undisputed, pays sums not exceeding the actual loss; the indemnity receipt \"without prejudicial admission\" is therefore not a settlement. Moreover, the insurer's direct approach to the victim on the basis of its medical adviser's report, without informing the victim's own insurer handling the claim, was disloyal and amounted to fraud vitiating the victim's consent.","k":"Indemnity receipt — no settlement, insurer's fraud","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-09-15","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1983:ARR.19830915.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsque le juge pénal a prononcé deux peines distinctes, d'une part, du chef de blessures involontaires par défaut de prévoyance ou de précaution et, d'autre part, du chef d'alcoolémie au volant, l'état d'intoxication…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that where the criminal court imposed two separate penalties for unintentional injury and for drink-driving, the intoxication must, by virtue of the criminal judgment's res judicata, be treated as not having caused the accident, since article 65 of the Criminal Code would have required a single penalty had the second offence been part of the negligence. The civil court hearing the insurer's recourse against the insured cannot then establish causation from the criminal file.","k":"Motor liability recourse — separate penalties, causation of alcohol","law":"Criminal Code, art. 65","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-09-09","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAOVL:1983:JUG.19830909.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Overeenkomstig artikel 9 van de wet van 1 juli 1956, is het burgerlijk vonnis, dat gewezen werd in een geding waarin de verzekeraar geen partij was en de leiding van de procedure niet op zich heeft genomen, hem niet…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, under article 9 of the Act of 1 July 1956, a civil judgment given in proceedings to which the insurer was not a party and which it did not conduct cannot be enforced against it or declared binding on it. Although res judicata is relative, the judgment nonetheless has evidential value towards third parties, subject to the remedies the law gives them, in particular third-party opposition (Judicial Code, art. 1122 ff.). The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Motor liability — enforceability against the insurer of a judgment against the insured","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 9; Judicial Code, art. 1122","w":280,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-09-07","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAANT:1983:JUG.19830907.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Het ontbreken van de voorgeschreven melding van de letter L. op de achterzijde van het door de houder van een leervergunning gestuurde voertuig en het overschrijden door deze laatste van de voor de houder van een…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The absence of the mandatory \"L\" sign on a motorcycle ridden by a learner, and riding at about 60 km/h instead of the 40 km/h limit for learners, were held not to amount to gross fault capable of grounding the insurer's recourse, since that speed did not consciously and excessively aggravate the insured risk. The court also held that the limitation period for the insurer's recourse runs not from the accident but from the insurer's payment once its duty to pay is established. The final outcome of the recourse claim is not stated in the summary.","k":"Motor liability — learner driver, gross fault and limitation of recourse","law":"Act of 11.6.1874 (gross fault, aggravation of risk)","w":280,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-06-30","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAANT:1983:JUG.19830630.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Art. 2 alinéa 1 van de wet van 1 juli 1956 bepaalt de voorwaarden waaronder een voertuig in het verkeer op de openbare weg en op gelijkgestelde terreinen wordt toegelaten. Eens geldig verzekerd, is dekking verschuldigd…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court noted that article 2(1) of the Act of 1 July 1956 sets the conditions for a vehicle to be used on public roads and equivalent areas, but that once validly insured, cover is owed for any damage caused to third parties unless the policy excludes it. As no exclusion in the policy mentioned damage on private land, the motor liability insurer was held bound to pay for an accident that occurred on private property.","k":"Motor liability — accident on private land, cover","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 2(1)","w":280,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-06-30","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EABRL:1983:JUG.19830630.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Het recht op toekenning van de verzekeringsvergoeding bestaat in het patrimonium van de begunstigde die door het enkele feit van het beding een rechtstreeks, onmiddellijk en privaat recht bekomt tegen de promettent.…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that the right to the insured sum forms part of the estate of the beneficiary, who by the mere effect of the stipulation acquires a direct, immediate and personal right against the insurer (promisor). If the beneficiary dies first, that right passes to the beneficiary's heirs unless the policy provides for a strictly personal attribution or excludes those heirs; according to the keywords, the benefit was owed to the beneficiary's heirs. The summary does not say who opposed the claim (the insurer or other claimants).","k":"Life insurance — beneficiary dying first, right passing to heirs","law":"Stipulation for a third party (beneficiary's own right)","w":279,"c":"Nederlandstalige rechtbank eerste aanleg Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-06-27","rol":"37187","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1983:ARR.19830627.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Pour interrompre la prescription prévue à l'article 69 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail, la reconnaissance faite par l'assureur-loi ne doit pas nécessairement viser l'indemnité faisant l'objet de…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A letter in which the workplace-accident insurer acknowledges, without reservation, that an event on a given date was a workplace accident implicitly but necessarily acknowledges the victim's right to statutory compensation and interrupts limitation under article 69. It need not refer to the specific benefit claimed. An incorrect accident date in the writ does not affect the writ's interruptive effect.","k":"Workplace accident — limitation interrupted by insurer's acknowledgment","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 69","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-06-22","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1983:ARR.19830622.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'assureur R.C. automobile ne couvre pas le vol d'usage au sens de l'art. 461 al. 2 du Code pénal dans le cas où une concubine prend les clefs du véhicule de son ami pendant son sommeil, pour faire une course, et que…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A person without a driving licence, whom the owner did not normally allow to drive, took the car keys while the owner was asleep to run an errand. The court held that this was joyriding (vol d'usage) within article 461(2) of the Criminal Code and was not covered by the motor liability insurer.","k":"Motor liability — joyriding not covered","law":"Criminal Code, art. 461(2); Act of 1.7.1956","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-06-14","rol":"14595","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1983:ARR.19830614.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Une loi de responsabilité ne rétroagit pas. Le recours de l'assureur-loi se limite à la valeur en droit commun du même préjudice, forfaitairement réparé par lui.","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a liability statute has no retroactive effect and that the workplace-accident insurer's recourse is limited to the ordinary-law value of the same loss it compensated on a flat-rate basis. The dispute concerns the subrogated insurer's recourse against the liable third party; the summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — limits of the insurer's recourse","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-06-06","rol":"85/1705","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1983:ARR.19830606.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'assureur-loi n'est pas recevable à appeler l'auteur responsable de l'accident en garantie devant le tribunal aussi longtemps qu'il n'a pas été légalement subrogé dans les droits de la victime par un payement effectif,…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the workplace-accident insurer may not join the person liable for the accident by way of a third-party (indemnity) claim until it is legally subrogated to the victim's rights through actual payment. It may, however, join that person for a declaration of common judgment.","k":"Workplace accident — insurer's recourse before payment","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-06-03","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1983:ARR.19830603.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"La couverture d'une marchandise vendue CIF Leixoès (Portugal) aux conditions des Institute Cargo Clauses All Risks, y compris la \"transit clause\", prend fin lors du déchargement à Leixoès lorsque l'assuré a reconnu…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that cover for goods sold CIF Leixões under the Institute Cargo Clauses All Risks, including the transit clause, ended on discharge, since the insured had acknowledged taking custody and its forwarding agent had taken possession and found them in good order; the lack of a bill of lading or customs clearance when fire broke out on the quay was irrelevant. Sending an expert to limit the loss was a protective step, not a commitment to pay. The average surveyor's report binds an insured who did not object at once.","k":"Marine cargo insurance — cover ending on the quay","law":"Institute Cargo Clauses (All Risks)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-06-01","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1983:ARR.19830601.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The garage operator's public liability policy covered damage to third parties during movements of customers' vehicles on the premises only on a subsidiary basis. The court held that article 12 of the Act of 11 June 1874 did not apply and that the motor insurer had to bear the loss. Damage caused by a vehicle insured under the 1956 Act falls within the policy even where the accident occurs in a place where insurance is not compulsory.","k":"Overlapping cover — motor liability and garage operator's liability","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 12; Act of 1.7.1956, art. 30","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-05-24","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1983:JUG.19830524.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Si, lors de la seconde expertise, le réparateur et l'expert de l'assureur de l'intimé ont évalué le coût des réparations, mais que l'appelante ne rapporte pas la preuve que cet expert avait reçu mandat, par procuration…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The appellant relied on the inter-insurer “double valuation” agreement. The court held that agreement inapplicable, as it was not proved that the insurer's expert had an express mandate to settle the amount of the loss if the vehicle was not repaired. In the absence of a settlement, the injured party was entitled to full compensation.","k":"Vehicle damage — double valuation agreement, no mandate","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-05-06","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1983:JUG.19830506.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En énonçant que diverses préventions, dont l'une relative à l'intoxication alcoolique (art. 34, 1er du Code de la route) se confondent et en les sanctionnant d'une seule et même peine, le juge pénal a définitivement,…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that by merging several offences, including alcohol intoxication, and imposing a single penalty, the criminal court necessarily found a causal link between the intoxication and the accident. For the insurer's recourse it suffices that the gross fault is equivalent to an intentional act, the insured having or being bound to have been aware of aggravating the risk. Driving at night with lights off and 2.37 g/l of alcohol, and pulling away at a red light before it turned green, was such a fault; the recourse was allowed.","k":"Motor liability — recourse against drunk driver, gross fault","law":"Coordinated Acts of 16.3.1968 on road traffic policing, art. 34(1)","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-05-05","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAANT:1983:JUG.19830505.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"De vordering van de verzekeraar tot vervallenverklaring van de verzekering, op grond van de artikelen 24 en 25.1 van de modelpolis die uitdrukkelijk verwijzen naar artikel 9 van de wet van 11 juni 1874, wegens het…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer sought a declaration that cover was forfeited under articles 24 and 25.1 of the model policy, which refer to article 9 of the Act of 11 June 1874, because the policyholder had concealed a prior conviction for driving a lorry while drunk. The court found that the insurer had not proved it would have declined the same terms had it known of the concealment; the evidence pointed the other way. The insurer's claim was dismissed as unfounded.","k":"Motor liability — concealed prior conviction, loss of cover","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9; motor liability model policy, arts. 24 and 25.1","w":279,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-04-20","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1983:ARR.19830420.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Si l'assureur de la R.C. Automobile ne doit pas être appelé en intervention forcée par les parties civiles au procès répressif \"in limine litis\", il faut cependant, pour que cet appel en intervention soit recevable,…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that civil claimants need not join the motor liability insurer at the very start of criminal proceedings, but joinder is admissible only while the insurer can still contest both the principle and extent of its insured's liability. That is no longer the case once a final judgment has established the insured's criminal liability. The insurer may also raise against the injured party a suspension of the policy that occurred before the loss, subject, once article 13 of the 1956 Act is in force, to the formalities and notice period it lays down.","k":"Motor liability — late joinder of the insurer in criminal proceedings","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 13","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-04-18","rol":"73/3084","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1983:ARR.19830418.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"La mutualité a droit au remboursement, par l'assureur-loi, des prestations qu'elle a payées à son assuré social sous la réserve que la somme réclamée ne soit pas supérieure à celle due en vertu de la loi sur les…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Liège Labour Court of Appeal held that the health-insurance fund may recover from the workplace-accident insurer the benefits it paid to its member, provided the amount claimed does not exceed what is owed under the Workplace Accidents Act. The comparison is made on the total amount of compensation, not on the method of calculation, which may differ between the two schemes. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — health-insurance fund's subrogation against the insurer","law":"Act of 9.8.1963, art. 70 §2","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-04-01","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1983:ARR.19830401.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La perte de salaire pour le passé doit être calculée sur base du salaire annuel que la victime aurait promérité pour chacune des années écoulées, sous déduction des interventions de l'assureur-loi, la différence étant…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Past loss of earnings was calculated on the annual salary the victim would have earned each year, less the workplace-accident insurer's payments, with the difference indexed to the date of judgment; future economic loss was compensated by an indexed annuity. The housekeeping value of a woman living alone with three children was set at BEF 12,000 a month, non-pecuniary loss at BEF 1,000 per day in hospital and BEF 750 per day at home, and future non-pecuniary loss for 100% permanent disability at BEF 2,500,000. Home care by third parties was compensated by an indexed annuity, less the workplace-accident annuity; the defendant or his insurer may check whether living conditions have changed.","k":"Personal injury — total disability and deduction of workplace-accident benefits","law":"Compensation under general law (restitution in kind principle); deduction of workplace-accident benefits","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-03-29","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIHAI:1983:JUG.19830329.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"La clause du contrat d'assurance, aux termes de laquelle la valeur assurée du véhicule est une valeur convenue, c'est-à-dire une valeur \"calculée sur la base de la valeur catalogue au moment de l'événement, augmentée de…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The policy defined the vehicle's insured value as an agreed value based on the catalogue value at the time of the event, plus VAT to the extent the insured could not recover it. The court held that, absent any further wording, the clause only makes sense if VAT is calculated on the catalogue value. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Motor own-damage cover — catalogue value and VAT clause","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-03-10","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAANT:1983:JUG.19830310.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Is nietig de verzekeringsovereenkomst inzake burgerlijke aansprakelijkheid autobestuurder, in 1977 gesloten om in 1980 in werking te treden, waarin vermeld werd, bij de premie: \"geen\", en waarin het basisbedrag voor de…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held void a motor liability policy concluded in 1977 to take effect in 1980 that stated 'none' for the premium and did not set the basis for the planned indexation and adjustments, because the policyholder's obligation was undetermined. The premium of the previous policy cannot then be used. The summary does not say at whose request or to whose benefit the policy was declared void.","k":"Motor liability — nullity of a policy with no determined premium","law":"No article given (undetermined object)","w":280,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-03-03","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1983:ARR.19830303.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Dans un contrat, assurant à l'assuré une rente annuelle en garantie des invalidités survenues par suite des accidents de travail ou sur le chemin du travail, ne constitue point une insuffisance dans la description de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The policy guaranteed the insured an annual income for disability resulting from workplace or commuting accidents. The insured had described himself as a sales representative working only on the commercial side, with no manual work and away from machinery, whereas he occasionally delivered light items, carried out repairs and ran machines for demonstrations. The court held that this was not an inadequate description capable of changing the insurer's assessment of the risk, and thus not misrepresentation.","k":"Income protection insurance — description of occupation and misrepresentation","law":"Duty of disclosure, misrepresentation (1874 Act regime)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-02-15","rol":"74/347","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1983:ARR.19830215.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Nonobstant le choix de la victime, d'une indemnisation suivant le droit commun, l'assureur A.T. reste tenu des soins médicaux, pharmaceutiques et hospitaliers, nécessités par l'accident jusqu'à l'expiration du délai de…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The accident predated the Act of 10 April 1971, and the victim had opted for ordinary-law compensation against a third party who was fully liable. The court held that, despite this choice, the workplace-accident insurer remains liable for the medical, pharmaceutical and hospital costs required by the accident until the revision period expires.","k":"Workplace accident — medical costs despite opting for ordinary-law compensation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 28 (as supplemented by Act of 24.12.1976, art. 37) and art. 46","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-01-26","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1983:ARR.19830126.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La victime d'un accident sur le chemin du travail est recevable dans son action contre un préposé du même empoyeur. Il en va de même de l'assureur loi de l'employeur de la victime. Cette action doit cependant être…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held admissible the claims of a commuting-accident victim, and of the workplace-accident insurer, against a co-worker employed by the same employer, but unfounded absent gross fault or habitual minor fault. The victim may sue the employer, who does not benefit from the employee's limited liability; the workplace-accident insurer cannot sue its own insured. The driver's motor liability insurer must compensate the victims and the workplace-accident insurer and cannot rely on the driver's lack of a duty to compensate.","k":"Commuting accident — claims against co-worker, employer and motor insurer","law":"Act of 10.4.1971","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-01-26","rol":"75/41","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1983:ARR.19830126.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Wanneer werknemers die op de weg naar of van hun werk vervoerd werden in een auto, bestuurd door een andere werknemers van hun werkgever, verwondingen hebben opgelopen bij een verkeersongeval dat door de bestuurder van…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Employees injured on the way to work in a car driven by a co-worker, and the workplace-accident insurer that compensated them, may sue the driver under general law, but such claims fail absent proof of fraud, gross negligence or habitual minor fault. The workplace-accident insurer cannot claim against the employer, who is its own insured. The court held that the victims have their own direct action against the vehicle's motor liability insurer even though their claim against the driver fails, and that the workplace-accident insurer's claim against that insurer is admissible.","k":"Commuting accident — co-worker driver, direct action against the motor liability insurer","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46; Act of 1.7.1956 (motor liability)","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-01-26","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILUX:1983:JUG.19830126.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le caractère supplétif de l'extension de garantie prévue à l'article 4, 1° du contrat type n'a été stipulé que pour trancher un problème de double assurance. Ce problème ne se pose pas dès lors qu'est violée la clause…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the subsidiary nature of the cover extension in article 4, 1° of the model contract was laid down only to resolve double insurance. That problem does not arise where the exclusive-driver clause of the policy covering the occasionally driven vehicle was breached, so the extension applies. The summary does not identify the parties or say whom the outcome favoured.","k":"Motor liability — cover extension to an occasionally driven vehicle","law":"Model contract, art. 4, 1°","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Luxembourg","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-01-19","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1983:ARR.19830119.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Le courtier, assureur-conseil, est responsable d'avoir, par lui-même ou par un préposé dont il répond, négligé d'attirer l'attention de l'assuré sur ses obligations en cours de contrat, de remplir toutes les formalités…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The case, under a family liability policy, concerned the deadline for notifying the loss, limitation and forfeiture of cover. The court held the broker, acting as insurance adviser, liable for having, personally or through an employee for whom he was responsible, failed to draw the insured's attention to his obligations during the contract, to complete the necessary formalities usefully and effectively, and to ensure that cover was arranged as quickly and securely as possible.","k":"Broker liability — negligence under a family liability policy","law":"Broker liability (fault, negligence)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-01-18","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1983:JUG.19830118.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"La suspension de garantie est subordonnée au respect des exigences de bonne foi régissant l'exécution des contrats. L'assureur est responsable du choix du courtier qu'il a agrée, avec qui il est en rapport constant et…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that suspension of cover is subject to the requirement of good faith in performing contracts. The insurer was held responsible for its choice of the broker it had approved, with whom it was in constant contact and to whom it had given documents capable of creating a misleading appearance; it could not rely on the suspension against the insured contrary to good faith.","k":"Unpaid premium — suspension of cover and broker","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-01-18","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1983:JUG.19830118.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"La suspension de la garantie d'assurance, qu'elle soit assimilée à une exception d'inexécution ou analysée en une sanction spécifique du contrat d'assurance, est subordonnée au respect des exigences de bonne foi…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Suspension of cover, whether seen as a defence of non-performance or as a sanction specific to insurance, is subject to good faith. An insured may believe that a broker authorised to issue the insurance certificate on the insurer's behalf is also mandated to collect the first premium for it. Payment of the premium to the broker in those circumstances meant the conditions for suspending cover were not met.","k":"Motor liability — first premium paid to the broker","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-01-10","rol":"5277","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1983:ARR.19830110.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Le travailleur victime d'un accident doit prouver l'événement soudain. On ne peut retenir comme accident du travail un événement qui aurait pu se révéler en tout autre lieu et (ou) en tout autre temps même si l'on ne…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The victim must prove a sudden event; an event that could have occurred at any other place or time, even outside work, is not a workplace accident. The workplace-accident insurer may prove that the injury results from a pathological process, even by factual presumptions or very high likelihood. A heart attack resulting from a pathological process was not accepted as a workplace accident.","k":"Workplace accident — heart attack from a pathological process","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 9","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-01-10","rol":"5277","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1983:ARR.19830110.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Le travailleur victime d'un accident doit prouver l'événement soudain. On ne peut retenir comme accident du travail un événement qui aurait pu se révéler en tout autre lieu et (ou) en tout autre temps même si l'on ne…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The victim must prove a sudden event; an event that could have occurred at any other place or time, even outside work, is not a workplace accident. The workplace-accident insurer may prove that the injury results from a pathological process, even by factual presumptions or very high likelihood. A heart attack resulting from a pathological process was not accepted as a workplace accident.","k":"Workplace accident — heart attack from a pathological process","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 9","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1983-01-06","rol":"75/41","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1983:ARR.19830106.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"C'est à tort que l'employeur affirme que la prolongation de l'incapacité temporaire totale de travail décidée par l'assureur-loi ne s'impose pas à lui, alors qu'il a choisi cet assureur et lui a donné, sur le plan…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The employer argued that the workplace-accident insurer's decision to extend total temporary incapacity was not binding on it. The court rejected this: the employer chose the insurer and gave it full authority to assess the medical consequences of the accident; if it disagreed, it should have sought an examination by other doctors. The worker is covered by the insurer's decision and cannot be blamed for complying with it. No insurer–insured dispute is involved.","k":"Workplace accident — insurer's incapacity decision binding on employer","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 49","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-12-13","rol":"1724","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1982:ARR.19821213.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'article 55 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 vise la suspension de la garantie ou déchéance sanctionnant l'assuré fautif, et non la suspension du contrat décidée de commun accord étant donné la disparition du risque…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Article 55 of the Act of 10 April 1971 concerns suspension of cover or forfeiture penalising a defaulting insured, not a suspension agreed by both parties because the risk disappeared. Article 58, 3°, which makes the Workplace Accidents Fund pay when the insurer defaults, covers only an insolvent insurer, not one disputing its liability. Membership of a mutual insurance fund is distinct from the insurance contract, so the employer's continued membership at the time of the accident does not by itself make the fund liable. The Juportal summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — agreed suspension of cover, mutual fund","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 55, 58, 3° and 101","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-12-07","rol":"85/71162","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1982:JUG.19821207.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Une perte passagère de conscience, causée par une affection cardiaque soudaine ne rentre pas dans l'état de déséquilibre mental visé par l'article 1386 bis du Code civil. Si l'article 50, alinéa 1, 2ème de la loi du 9…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A temporary loss of consciousness caused by a sudden heart condition does not fall within the mental imbalance covered by article 1386bis of the Civil Code. Article 50 of the Act of 9 July 1975 obliges the Guarantee Fund to pay only for bodily injury; extension to property damage depends on limits the King never set. Victims must bring an appropriate action over that inaction; the concrete outcome is not clear from the summary.","k":"Guarantee Fund — loss of consciousness, property damage","law":"Act of 9.7.1975, art. 50 §1, 5°; former Civil Code, art. 1386bis","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-12-03","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1982:ARR.19821203.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'arrêté royal du 4 décembre 1978 modifiant l'article 70 alinéa 2 de la loi du 9 août 1963 n'a d'effet que sur les situations donnant lieu à intervention de l'assureur maladie-invalidité qui sont nées postérieurement à…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the Royal Decree of 4 December 1978 amending article 70(2) of the Act of 9 August 1963 applies only to situations giving rise to payment by the sickness-and-disability insurer that arose after its entry into force on 14 December 1978. The decree keeps the recourse subrogatory but reverses, in the insurer's favour, the rule of article 1252 of the Civil Code and article 22 of the 1874 Insurance Act.","k":"Sickness-and-disability insurer's recourse — subrogation","law":"Act of 9.8.1963, art. 70(2); RD 4.12.1978; former Civil Code, art. 1252; Act of 11.6.1874, art. 22","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-12-02","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1982:ARR.19821202.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"En taisant, lors de la conclusion d'un contrat de responsabilité civile automobile, son état de cardiaque et en se donnant pour \"pensionné\" au lieu d'\"invalide\", l'assuré se rend coupable de réticence ou fausse…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"By concealing a heart condition when taking out a motor liability policy and describing himself as 'retired' instead of 'disabled', the insured was found guilty of misrepresentation. The court held the contract void under article 9 of the Act of 11 June 1874. The lack of a causal link with the loss was irrelevant, since the misrepresentation vitiated the contract from the outset and prevented it from having effect between the parties.","k":"Motor liability — concealed heart condition, nullity of the contract","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-11-24","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1982:ARR.19821124.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"L'assureur ne peut s'opposer au transfert d'un portefeuille d'assurances à un intermédiaire d'assurance que pour des motifs justifiés. Tel serait le cas d'un transfert à un intermédiaire d'assurance incompétent, ou de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an insurer may object to the transfer of an insurance portfolio to an intermediary only on justified grounds, such as the transferee being incompetent, of poor reputation, or unable to ensure the portfolio's normal development. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Insurance intermediary — insurer's objection to portfolio transfer","law":"No statutory basis given in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-11-15","rol":"85/1705","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1982:ARR.19821115.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Un appel contre un jugement qui a fixé de commun accord entre la victime et l'assureur-loi, le taux et la durée des incapacités de travail, ainsi que la rente revenant à la victime, n'est pas susceptible d'appel, même…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The disability rate and duration and the annuity had been fixed by a consent judgment between the victim and the workplace-accident insurer. The court held the victim's appeal inadmissible, even though the victim alleged an error of assessment by the expert: only an action for revision remains available.","k":"Workplace accident — appeal against a consent judgment","law":"Judicial Code, art. 1043","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-11-08","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1982:ARR.19821108.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Les pourparlers, au sens de l'alinéa 3 de l'article 10 de la loi du 1er juillet 1956, s'entendent de discussions ou négociations dont l'assuré peut déduire que l'assureur ne rejette pas définitivement et entièrement sa…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that negotiations within article 10(3) of the Act of 1 July 1956 are discussions from which the insured can infer that the insurer does not finally and entirely reject the claim. A plain refusal to pay does not amount to negotiations. The summary does not expressly state the concrete effect on the limitation period in this case.","k":"Motor liability — negotiations interrupting the limitation period","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 10(3)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-10-27","rol":"C-68/92;C-69/92","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1982:ARR.19821027.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Lorsque l'assureur-loi et l'assureur du tiers responsable ont convenu, dans le but d'éviter des litiges quant à la détermination du mode de calcul des rémunérations servant de base au recours de l'assureur-loi,…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer and the liable third party's insurer had agreed on a flat 10% reduction to avoid disputes over the pay figures underlying the recourse, without stating which amount it applied to. The court held that the reduction applies not to the sums actually paid out by the workplace-accident insurer but to the amount owed under ordinary tort law by the liable party's insurer.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — flat 10% reduction between insurers","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-10-27","rol":"21863","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1982:ARR.19821027.20","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Lorsque l'assureur-loi et l'assureur du tiers responsable ont convenu, dans le but d'eviter des litiges quant à la détermination du mode de calcul des rémunérations servant de base au recours de l'assureur-loi,…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer and the liable third party's insurer had agreed on a flat 10% reduction to avoid disputes over the pay figures underlying the recourse, without stating which amount it applied to. The court held that the reduction applies not to the sums actually paid out by the workplace-accident insurer but to the amount owed under ordinary tort law by the liable party's insurer.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — flat 10% reduction between insurers","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-10-18","rol":"1724","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1982:ARR.19821018.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'article 55 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 selon lequel \"aucune clause de déchéance ne peut être opposée par l'assureur agréé aux créanciers d'indemnités\" n'est pas applicable dans l'hypothèse d'une suspension…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Article 55 of the Act of 10 April 1971 bars an approved insurer from raising a forfeiture clause against those entitled to benefits. The court held that this rule does not apply where the contract between the employer and the workplace-accident insurer had been suspended by agreement before the accident: the suspension can be raised against the victim.","k":"Workplace accident — contractually suspended policy and ban on forfeiture defences","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 55","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-10-11","rol":"7496","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1982:ARR.19821011.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"La citation tend à voir condamner l'assureur-loi aux indemnités d'accidents de travail. L'action en garantie de l'assureur-loi tend à voir condamnés l'assureur droit-commun, dans les limites du droit commun, à garantir…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The victim had sued the workplace-accident insurer for statutory benefits, and that insurer joined the third party's liability insurer to indemnify it within the limits of general law. The liability insurer argued that the labour tribunal lacked jurisdiction over the indemnity claim (art. 576 Judicial Code). The court held that the labour tribunal had jurisdiction under article 564 of the Judicial Code, as the court hearing the main claim may also hear the third-party claim.","k":"Workplace accident — jurisdiction over indemnity claim against the liability insurer","law":"Judicial Code, art. 564 and 579; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-10-08","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1982:ARR.19821008.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le passager qui saisit brusquement le volant du véhicule dans lequel il a pris place, le fait dévier et provoque un accident ne peut être considéré comme un conducteur. S'agissant des conséquences d'une faute d'une…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a passenger who suddenly grabs the steering wheel of the vehicle in which he is travelling, makes it swerve and causes an accident cannot be regarded as the driver. As the damage results from the fault of a person carried, it must be compensated by the motor liability insurer.","k":"Motor liability — passenger grabbing the wheel is not the driver","law":"Act of 1.7.1956 (motor liability)","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-09-17","rol":"14684","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1982:ARR.19820917.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'assureur-loi a intérêt à rendre commun à l'auteur responsable de l'accident, le jugement rendu par le tribunal du travail déterminant le taux et la durée des incapacités de travail pour faire constater…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court accepted that the workplace-accident insurer has an interest in having the labour tribunal's judgment fixing the degree and duration of incapacity declared binding on the person responsible for the accident, so that the facts underlying its subrogation claim, the accident itself and the victim's injuries are established in proceedings involving that third party.","k":"Workplace accident — judgment declared binding on the liable third party","law":"Judicial Code, art. 812","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-09-13","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAANT:1982:JUG.19820913.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Juportal has no summary for this judgment, only keywords. They indicate that it concerns the formation of an insurance contract as a multi-party agreement and the consent of all parties involved. The facts and the outcome cannot be determined from the available information.","k":"Insurance contract — formation of a multi-party contract and consent","law":"No article given (keywords: formation of contract, consent)","w":279,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-09-07","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1982:JUG.19820907.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le législateur a étendu les obligations du Fonds Commun de Garantie Automobile aux cas fortuits. Depuis 1975, le pouvoir exécutif s'est abstenu d'user du pouvoir règlementaire que la loi a accordé , laissant ainsi les…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court noted that the legislature had extended the obligations of the motor Guarantee Fund to fortuitous events, but that since 1975 the executive had failed to use its regulatory power, leaving victims of property damage caused by fortuitous events without recourse. Such inaction may give rise to liability under articles 1382 and 1383 of the Civil Code if damage results. The concrete outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Guarantee Fund — fortuitous event, property damage gap","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382 and 1383","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-09-06","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1982:JUG.19820906.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Pour que l'ivresse constitue une faute grave, il faut que le conducteur ait eu ou dû avoir conscience qu'en agissant comme il l'a fait , il aggravait le risque garanti. Aggrave objectivement et consciemment le risque…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"For drunkenness to amount to gross fault, the driver must have been, or ought to have been, aware that his conduct aggravated the insured risk. In the insurer's recourse action, the court held that a driver who had been drinking alcohol for almost four hours objectively and knowingly aggravated the insured risk.","k":"Motor liability — drunkenness, gross fault and recourse","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-06-28","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1982:JUG.19820628.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Dès lors qu'aucun élément ne permet d'accréditer la thèse d'une pression morale ou financière, l'accusation portée contre une compagnie d'assurances d'avoir extorqué par dol la signature de la victime au bas d'un…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The victim argued that the insurer had obtained her signature on a settlement agreement by fraud and that her consent was vitiated by mistake. The court found no evidence of moral or financial pressure and held that the agreement had been signed in full knowledge, both medically and as to the meaning of the text. The settlement was upheld as valid.","k":"Settlement with the insurer — alleged fraud and mistake","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-06-08","rol":"24.235","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAANT:1982:JUG.19820608.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Het slachtoffer van een arbeidsongeval blijft gehouden de sociale-zekerheidsbijdragen te betalen op de vergoedingen ( Wet A.O., art. 43 ). Deze verplichting wordt ten laste gelegd van de verzekeraar A.O. ( K.B. 21…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A workplace-accident victim remains liable for social security contributions on the benefits (art. 43), an obligation placed on the workplace-accident insurer by the Royal Decree of 21.12.1971, art. 32. Subrogated by payment to the victim's rights, the insurer may exercise its recourse against the liable third party and its insurer for the full amount, social deductions included. Whether the victim loses social benefits, as with temporary incapacity of under two months, is no concern of the third party.","k":"Workplace accident — social security contributions in the insurer's recourse","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 43 and 46; Royal Decree of 21.12.1971, art. 32","w":-1,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-06-08","rol":"87/7144","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1982:JUG.19820608.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La remise à l'assuré par une entreprise d'assurance, à titre de couverture provisoire, d'une carte verte, pendant le temps estimé nécessaire par elle pour étudier et calculer le risque soumis par l'assuré, en vue de la…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that issuing a green card as provisional cover, for the time the insurer needs to assess the risk, obliges the insurer to cover the insured for that period; such provisional cover is a contract separate from the final policy. In addition, article 18 of the Employment Contracts Act, under which an employee's gross fault defeats the employee's immunity, also applies to road accidents causing loss to third parties outside the business.","k":"Motor liability — provisional cover by green card","law":"Act of 3.7.1978 on employment contracts, art. 18","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-06-02","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EABRL:1982:JUG.19820602.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Inzake aansprakelijkheidsverzekeringen vormt de klacht van de benadeelde derde die aan de verzekerde die de schade heeft veroorzaakt gericht is, het schadegeval dat de verzekerde binnen een bepaalde termijn moet…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"In liability insurance for accountants and tax advisers, the injured third party's complaint to the insured who caused the loss is the event the insured must report within a set period. The court held that where the policy unconditionally requires written notice within that period on pain of forfeiture, there is no need to examine whether the delay harmed the insurer. The insurer was entitled, at any stage, to object that it had been prevented from taking part from the outset and settling amicably, having been joined only after the court expert's first findings and assessment of the insured's share of fault.","k":"Professional liability insurance — late notice, forfeiture","law":"Policy notice clause on pain of forfeiture (pre-LCAT period)","w":279,"c":"Nederlandstalige rechtbank eerste aanleg Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-06-02","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1982:JUG.19820602.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Dans les assurances de responsabilité , le sinistre que l'assuré a l'obligation de déclarer dans un certain délai, sous peine de déchéance, consiste dans la réclamation du tiers lésé, adressée à l'assuré, auteur du…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"In a case on the liability insurance of accountants and tax advisers, the court held that the loss to be notified is the injured third party's claim against the insured. Where the policy unconditionally requires written notice within a set period on pain of forfeiture, there is no need to ask whether the delay harmed the insurer. The insurer could rightly complain that it had been prevented from intervening from the outset and settling, having been brought in only after the court expert's preliminary findings.","k":"Professional liability insurance — late notice of claim, forfeiture","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-05-24","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1982:JUG.19820524.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Il incombe à l'assuré de donner à l'assureur une connaissance exacte des éléments du risque qu'il entend faire couvrir et ce, sans que l'assureur ait à opérer la vérification de ses déclarations. La fausse déclaration…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"In this decision on article 25/1 of the compulsory motor liability model contract, the court held that the insured must give the insurer an accurate picture of the elements of the risk to be covered, without the insurer having to verify those statements. The insured's misrepresentation necessarily affects the insurer's assessment of the risk. The concrete outcome is not expressly stated in the summary.","k":"Motor liability — misrepresentation and art. 25/1 of the model contract","law":"Model contract, art. 25/1","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-05-12","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1982:ARR.19820512.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Si l'assureur responsabilité civile automobile, intervenu volontairement devant le juge répressif, décide d'interjeter appel, il doit en avertir l'assuré en temps utile, même si, antérieurement , il a informé celui-ci…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a motor liability insurer that intervened in criminal proceedings and decides to appeal must inform the insured in good time, even if it had already announced recourse for gross fault and the insured had retained personal counsel. The notice must instruct the insured to follow the appeal and warn of the consequences of refusing. A telephone notice passed between law offices may prove impossible to establish if disputed. The final outcome is not stated.","k":"Motor liability — duty to notify the insured of an appeal","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-05-06","rol":"80/7590","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1982:ARR.19820506.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Juportal gives keywords only: the workplace-accident insurer's subrogation claim against the liable third party, its conditions, and lack of jurisdiction of the labour courts. According to these keywords, the labour courts were held to lack jurisdiction over that claim; no further details are given.","k":"Workplace accident — jurisdiction over the insurer's subrogation claim","law":"Act of 10.4.1971 (subrogation)","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-04-01","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1982:ARR.19820401.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Le souscripteur fait une fausse déclaration lorsqu'il donne une réponse inexacte relative à son âge dans un questionnaire clair et précis qui a pour but de permettre au futur assuré de décrire de manière adéquate le…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an incorrect answer about age in a clear and precise questionnaire is a misrepresentation, sanctioned even where the form was completed on the applicant's behalf by an agent (a broker, or even the insurer's agent acting for the applicant). The insurer need not verify the risk or the statements. The action for nullity arises from the policy and is time-barred three years after the misstatement is discovered. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Duty of disclosure — misstatement of age","law":"Act of 11.6.1874 (duty of disclosure, limitation)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-03-30","rol":"20201","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:1982:ARR.19820330.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Wanneer de getroffene van een arbeidsongeval, zonder de wetsverzekeraar te verwittigen, zijn toestemming heeft gegeven om door zijn eigen specialist een chirurgische ingreep te laten uitvoeren waarvan op voorhand…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The victim had agreed, without informing the workplace-accident insurer, to surgery performed by his own specialist which was known in advance to be of no use. The court held that the operation and related care were not made necessary by the accident, that the conditions of article 28 of the Act of 10 April 1971 were not met and that the insurer did not have to bear the costs.","k":"Workplace accident — useless surgery without notifying the insurer","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 28","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-03-23","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1982:ARR.19820323.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Wanneer een strafrechtelijke veroordeling tegenstrijdig voorkomt doordat het oorzakelijk verband tussen dronkenschap, alcoholintoxicatie en het ongeval uitsluit voor de gevangenisstraf en de boete en wel aanvaardt voor…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court of appeal held that where a criminal judgment is contradictory, excluding a causal link between drunkenness, alcohol intoxication and the accident for the prison sentence and fine but accepting it for the driving ban, the civil court may freely assess that causal link when ruling on the insurer's recourse. The summary does not give the outcome of the recourse.","k":"Motor recourse — contradictory criminal judgment and causation of drunkenness","law":"Cass. 27.1.1978 (cited in the publication note)","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-03-09","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:1982:ARR.19820309.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'envoi d'une lettre recommandée avec accusé de réception prévue par l'article 70 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 sur les accidents du travail ne constitue pas une exigence absolue pour la validité de l'interruption de la…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt provided for in article 70 of the Act of 10 April 1971 is not an absolute requirement for a valid interruption of the limitation period. Where the workplace-accident insurer admits having received an ordinary letter, the interruption is effective and the victim's claim is not time-barred.","k":"Workplace accident — interrupting limitation by ordinary letter","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 70","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail d'Anvers","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-02-26","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAOVL:1982:JUG.19820226.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Het behoort aan de verzekeraar/B.A. van de ongevalsverwerkker de stoffelijke schade vast te stellen door de tegenpartij geleden en niet aan de omnium-verzekeraar om in dat verband initiatief te nemen.","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The East Flanders Court of First Instance held that it is for the motor liability insurer of the party who caused the accident to have the other party's material damage assessed, not for that party's comprehensive (omnium) insurer to take the initiative. The keywords refer to the waiting period (loss of use); the summary does not state the concrete outcome or the compensation.","k":"Motor liability — assessing damage, role of the comprehensive insurer","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg Oost-Vlaanderen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-02-16","rol":"72/403","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIHAI:1982:JUG.19820216.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Si l'organisme assureur disposait à partir du jour o l'indemnisation de son affilié avait eu lieu, d'une action en répétition d'indu contre celui-ci, soumise à la prescription de l'article 106 alinéa 1er, 5° et 6°, soit…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the health-insurance fund's ability to recover undue payments from its member (two-year limitation period) does not exclude its subrogated action against the responsible party or its liability insurer. Payment to the victim by the responsible party and its insurer under a judgment does not allow them to resist that action, and the fund need not prove the payment was void or without cause: the insurer not only paid, it was bound to pay.","k":"Health-insurance fund subrogation — liability insurer's double-payment defence","law":"Act of 9.8.1963, art. 70 §2 and art. 106 §1, 5°–6°; Cass. 19.2.1975","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-02-15","rol":"4614","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1982:ARR.19820215.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"La demande en intervention volontaire formée devant le tribunal du travail dans le procès entre la victime de l'accident de travail et l'assureur-loi par l'organisme assureur, subrogé dans les droits de cette victime en…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The health-insurance fund, subrogated to the victim's rights, intervened voluntarily after an expert had been appointed in the case between the victim and the workplace-accident insurer. The court held the intervention admissible. It upheld the fund's claim to the extent that the benefits paid by the insurer on the basis of 30% permanent disability fell short of those paid by the fund, the victim having been recognised as more than 66% disabled after 6.2.1977.","k":"Workplace accident — health fund's voluntary intervention","law":"Act of 9.8.1963, arts. 56 §2 and 70","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-02-04","rol":"7496","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1982:ARR.19820204.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'assureur A.M.I. peut agir directement contre l'assureur loi en fonction de l'art. 70alinéa 2 de la loi du 9.8.1963 mais il ne peut jamais mettre en valeur que les droits de son assuré, à savoir des droits à réparation…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that the health-insurance fund may sue the workplace-accident insurer directly under article 70(2) of the Act of 9.8.1963, but can only assert its member's rights under the Act of 10.4.1971. Under article 68 of that Act the insurer bears the costs of every action based on it, except reckless and vexatious ones; as the fund's action was not of that kind, the costs were awarded against the insurer.","k":"Workplace accident — costs of the health-insurance fund's claim","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 68; Act of 9.8.1963, art. 70(2)","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-02-03","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1982:ARR.19820203.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Il y a suspension de garantie lorsque l'assuré n'a pas obtempéré à l'avertissement qui lui est notifié par l'assureur d'avoir à payer la prime dans un délai de quatorze jours et ce à l'expiration de ce délai. Il est…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The policyholder failed to comply with the insurer's notice to pay the premium within fourteen days, so cover was suspended when that period expired. The court held it irrelevant that the insurer remains liable to third parties for a further period under article 11(1) of the Act of 1 July 1956. The recourse claim of the insurer, which had compensated the third party for a loss occurring after the fourteen days, was upheld.","k":"Motor liability — suspension after premium reminder and insurer's recourse","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 11(1)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-01-19","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1982:ARR.19820119.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Lorsque le courtier reçoit de son client une déclaration de sinistre incomplète, il doit, s'il lui demande des précisions, souligner l'urgence particulière de la réponse. Il engage sa responsabilité si l'assureur n'est…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a broker who receives an incomplete loss notification from a client must, when asking for further details, stress that the reply is particularly urgent; the broker is liable if the insurer is not informed of the loss within the contractual time limits. Where the insurer rightly invokes forfeiture for failure to notify, the insured cannot be blamed for not suing the insurer within the limitation period, since the failure to notify had already extinguished the insured's rights against the insurer.","k":"Broker liability — loss notification not passed on","law":"Broker's contractual liability; contractual notification period and forfeiture","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-01-08","rol":"81/63","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1982:ARR.19820108.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that a claim for a declaration of common judgment is merely a protective measure preventing the intervener from later relying on the relative effect of the judgment; it seeks neither an order nor enforcement. Expert findings under ordinary law and under the Workplace Accidents Act may differ, even with the same expert, because the briefs differ. The workplace-accident insurer may sue the liable party in the victim's place, but only up to what it has paid; joining the liability insurer lets it verify that amount.","k":"Workplace accident — common judgment and limits of subrogation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47; Judicial Code, arts. 15, 23 and 962","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1982-01-06","rol":"3772","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIHAI:1982:JUG.19820106.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La convention conclue entre l'assureur de l'auteur de l'accident et la victime, confiant à des médecins experts le soin de déterminer l'importance du dommage et sa réparation, l'assureur acceptant au demeurant l'entière…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The liability insurer of the person who caused the accident, accepting full liability, had agreed with the victim to let medical experts assess the loss. The court held that this agreement is a sui generis contract governed by the general law of obligations, neither a settlement nor an arbitration agreement. The insurer's mistake in lightly waiving apportionment of liability on its insured's word alone was inexcusable and could not lead to annulment.","k":"Amicable medical expert agreement — the insurer's mistake","law":"Judicial Code, art. 962","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-12-21","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PINAM:1981:JUG.19811221.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Aux termes d'un contrat d'assurance communément appelé \"plaque marchand\", tout véhicule muni d'une plaque d'immatriculation déterminée et ne dépassant pas une cylinddrée convenue bénéficie de l'assurance. Cependant un…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Under a so-called trade-plate policy, any vehicle bearing the specified plate and not exceeding the agreed engine capacity is insured; a vehicle bearing that plate but exceeding the agreed capacity is not. The summary identifies neither the parties nor the type of proceedings, nor whom this finding of no cover favoured.","k":"Motor liability — trade-plate policy and engine capacity","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Namur","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-12-08","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1981:ARR.19811208.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Ce n'est pas parce qu'un conducteur a atteint un taux d'alcoolémie, dépassant le maximum légal et que le lien de causalité entre l'intoxication alcoolique et l'accident a été constaté erga omnes par la juridiction…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a blood alcohol level above the legal limit, even where the criminal court has found a causal link between intoxication and the accident with effect erga omnes, does not necessarily mean that the driver committed gross negligence justifying the insurer's recourse. The summary does not expressly state the outcome of the recourse claim.","k":"Motor liability recourse — illegal blood alcohol and gross negligence","law":"Act of 1.7.1956 (motor liability); insurer's recourse, gross negligence","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-12-07","rol":"85/71162","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1981:ARR.19811207.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Les frais faits par l'assuré aux fins de prévenir un péril imminent pour la personne ou la propriété d'autrui, conformément à l'obligation imposée par l'article 17 de la loi du 11 juin 1874 sur les assurances en général…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that costs incurred by the insured to avert an imminent danger to the person or property of others, in line with the duty under article 17 of the Act of 11 June 1874, must be borne by the insurer. The defect in the thing, here the defective inadequacy of a television aerial's guy wires, could be proven by presumptions.","k":"Costs of preventing the loss — borne by the insurer","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 17","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-11-27","rol":"20215","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIHAI:1981:JUG.19811127.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Se prévalant des dispositions de l'article 70, Ÿ 2 de la loi du 9 août 1963, l'Union nationale des fédérations mutualistes neutres réclamait à l'assureur responsabilité civile du tiers responsable de l'accident…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The health-insurance fund claimed from the responsible third party's liability insurer BEF 16,545 in funeral allowances paid to its deceased member's widow; the insurer argued it had already settled with the widow. The court held that the fund is subrogated by law and that a settlement made without its consent cannot be relied on against it, even if the victim did not disclose the earlier payment. The subrogation is limited to the funeral-cost claim under the general law.","k":"Health-insurance fund subrogation — liability insurer's settlement not binding","law":"Act of 9.8.1963, art. 70 §2","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-11-19","rol":"81/8725","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1981:ARR.19811119.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Dans le secteur public, la loi du 3 juillet 1967 ne permet pas à la victime de citer le seul assureur-loi. Et les conditions de l'action oblique de l'art. 1166 du C. Civil ne sont pas réunies. La loi du 10/4/1971, au vu…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that in the public sector the Act of 3 July 1967 does not allow the victim to sue the workplace-accident insurer alone: under its article 4 the Act of 10 April 1971 applies there only where the 1967 Act expressly refers to it, and the victim must sue the employing authority (art. 16 and RD of 13.7.1970). The conditions for an oblique action under article 1166 of the former Civil Code were not met either, since a claim against the insurer requires the insured debtor to be sued at the same time.","k":"Public-sector workplace accident — no claim against the insurer alone","law":"Act of 3.7.1967, art. 16; RD 13.7.1970; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 4; former Civil Code, art. 1166","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-11-19","rol":"49357","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1981:JUG.19811119.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le protocole d'expertise médicale amiable conclu entre l'assureur de l'auteur de l'accident et la victime, afin de fixer le taux et la durée des incapacités, et cela sous réserve des responsabilités, est un contrat sui…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court characterised the amicable medical expert protocol agreed between the liable party's insurer and the victim, to fix the degree and duration of incapacity without prejudice to liability, as a sui generis contract not subject to the rules on arbitration agreements or settlements. On pain of nullity, the medical experts must carry it out respecting the victim's rights and may not file final conclusions without the investigations they themselves consider essential; if unable to do so, they had to record that in a report. According to the keywords, the agreement was held void.","k":"Amicable medical expert protocol — victim's rights and nullity","law":"Judicial Code, art. 978","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-11-17","rol":"85/71162","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1981:ARR.19811117.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"L'assureur qui indemnise la victime d'un accident parce qu'il considère que son assuré est responsable peut, lorsque le juge répressif constate ultérieurement que l'assuré n'est pas responsable , répéter le montant…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"An insurer that had compensated the victim on the view that its insured was liable sought repayment after the criminal court found the insured not liable. The court upheld the claim for repayment, since it did not appear that the parties had intended the payment to settle their rights definitively.","k":"Insurer reclaiming payment — insured acquitted","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-11-09","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1981:ARR.19811109.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Peut être considérée comme couverte par l'assureur la responsabilité civile d'un assuré, qui a fait usage d'un vélomoteur, dont le juge de fond constate que les transformations au véhicule, tout en permettant de porter…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The liability of an insured who rode a moped modified to raise its top speed from 40 to 48 km/h was held to be covered by the insurer. The trial court found that the vehicle kept its original cylinder and that the changes neither altered an essential feature of the risk nor aggravated it, so the vehicle could not be treated as uninsured.","k":"Motor liability — modified moped, change in risk","law":"Act of 1.7.1956 (motor liability); aggravation of risk","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-11-05","rol":"75/328","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTLIE:1981:JUG.19811105.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Est prescrite, l'action en réparation d'un accident du travail introduite plus de trois ans après la notification du refus d'intervention émanant de l'assureur-loi, même s'il y a eu postérieurement réouverture du…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held time-barred a workplace-accident compensation claim brought more than three years after the workplace-accident insurer notified its refusal to pay. The later reopening of the medical file did not fall within the situations covered by article 70 of the Act of 10 April 1971 or article 2244 of the Civil Code, and therefore did not interrupt the limitation period.","k":"Workplace accident — limitation period after the insurer's refusal","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 69 and 70; former Civil Code, art. 2244","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-11-02","rol":"89/2780","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1981:JUG.19811102.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsque le juge pénal a condamné l'assuré à supporter seul les frais de prise et d'analyse sanguines, il a nécessairement jugé que l'infraction d'intoxication alcoolique était intimement liée à l'infraction de blessures…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a criminal judge who ordered the insured alone to bear the costs of the blood sample and analysis necessarily found that the alcohol intoxication offence was closely linked to the offence of unintentional injury. An average blood alcohol level of 2.28 grams is an aggravation of risk that justifies the insurer's recourse action against the insured.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for 2.28 g blood alcohol and aggravated risk","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-10-30","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1981:ARR.19811030.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"In geval van blijvende ongeschiktheid van 20 % van een chauffeur van een parastatale instelling, die 49 jaar oud is en die zijn werk halftijds heeft hervat, maar zonder verlies van bedrijfsinkomen noch in het verleden…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court of appeal awarded BEF 600,000 (BEF 30,000 per point), material and moral loss combined, for the extra effort of a 49-year-old driver of a public-sector body with 20% permanent incapacity who had returned to work half-time without past or future loss of income. The BEF 300,000 share corresponding to material loss was allocated to the workplace-accident insurer.","k":"Permanent incapacity — damages and the workplace-accident insurer's share","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":5,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-10-07","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1981:ARR.19811007.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The policy required the loss to be notified within eight days on pain of forfeiture. The court held that mere expiry of the period allowed the insurer to rely on forfeiture without proving any prejudice, the clause being neither contrary to public policy nor to a mandatory rule. A victim suing the insurer under article 20(9) of the 1851 Mortgage Act is bound by the limits of the policy, so the forfeiture could also be raised against the victim.","k":"Late notice of loss — unconditional forfeiture enforceable against the victim","law":"Mortgage Act of 16.12.1851, art. 20(9)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-09-10","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1981:JUG.19810910.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"En exigeant de l'assuré défaillant le paiement de la totalité des primes venues à échéance pendant la suspension de la police, l'assureur cherche à obtenir un bénéfice plus important que si le contrat avait été…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that by demanding from the defaulting insured all premiums that fell due while the policy was suspended, the insurer was seeking a greater gain than if the contract had been properly performed. The insurer's claim was therefore rejected.","k":"Suspended cover — full premiums for the suspension period not recoverable","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-09-03","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1981:ARR.19810903.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"En matière d'accident du travail ou sur le chemin du travail, le tiers responsable qui rembourse avec retard à l'assureur-loi, le capital représentatif de la rente due à la victime, doit des intérêts compensatoires en…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, for a workplace or commuting accident, a liable third party who is late in reimbursing the workplace-accident insurer for the capital value of the victim's annuity owes compensatory interest for the delay, even if the insurer is authorised to pay its own annuities.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — compensatory interest","law":"Act of 10.4.1971","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-07-10","rol":"14792","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTBRL:1981:JUG.19810710.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Tant du point de vue de l'esprit de la loi du 10 avril 1971 que de la logique élémentaire et de léquité, il est exclu de faire couvrir par l'assureur-loi un accident survenu par hasard dans l'heure après avoir mis fin…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The accident happened within an hour after work ended, on a trip made purely for personal convenience, beyond the victim's residence. The court held that this trip, unrelated to the essential needs of daily life, was not part of the journey to and from work, so the accident was not covered by the workplace-accident insurer; the claim was dismissed.","k":"Commuting accident — detour for purely personal reasons","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 8","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-07-04","rol":"14.982","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1981:ARR.19810704.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"L'approvisionnement des usines de montage s'effectue auprès de la maison-mère selon deux procèdures répondant à deux besoins spécifiques. La première (K.D.) est la méthode de livraison normale et la moins onéreuse mais…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer sought to limit compensation for a stock of car parts destroyed by fire to the cheaper, long-lead-time tariff. Based on the accounts, the court found that the faster tariff actually reduced the loss, and that the sum insured and monthly declarations reflected it; compensation was calculated on that tariff. Mitigation costs fall on the fire insurer even if they also benefit the business-interruption insurer.","k":"Fire insurance — stock valuation and mitigation","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 17","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-06-25","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1981:ARR.19810625.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Ne constitue pas un véhicule de remplacement au sens de l'article 33, alinéa 3, du contrat-type d'assurance, la motocyclette acquise par l'assuré, tout en donnant mandat à un tiers de trouver acquéreur pour sa…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a motorcycle bought by the insured while the insured motorcycle had been neither sold nor transferred, a third party merely being instructed to find a buyer, is not a replacement vehicle within article 33(3) of the model contract. Moving the number plate to the new vehicle does not permanently withdraw the old one from traffic, as the policyholder who still owns it can refit the plate; nor is this a taking out of use equivalent to a transfer. The summary does not state the concrete effect on cover.","k":"Motor liability — replacement vehicle and transfer of the number plate","law":"Model contract, art. 33(3) (1956 Act regime)","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-06-24","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1981:ARR.19810624.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"En cas d'action récursoire intentée par un assureur à l'égard de son assuré, le point de départ de la souscription triennale (loi du 11 juin 1974,art.32) se situe , non à la date où la convention de transaction est…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that for the insurer's recourse action against its insured, the three-year limitation period runs not from the settlement concluded between the insurer and the injured party before the judgment, but from the date on which the judgment against the insured became final. The summary does not say whether the recourse claim ultimately succeeded.","k":"Insurer's recourse against the insured — start of the limitation period","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 32 (the summary reads '1974')","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-06-23","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1981:ARR.19810623.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Twee bestuurders, rijdend met een snelheid van 110 km per uur, haalden elkaar herhaaldelijk in over een afstand van 15 km. Bij het zwenken in een bocht veroorzaakte een bestuurder een zwaar ongeval. Het ging hier niet…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Two young drivers travelling at 110 km/h repeatedly overtook each other over 15 km; one caused a serious accident when swerving in a bend. The court held that this was not a speed, regularity or skill race or contest within article 25, 7° of the policy but a pointless game, and that swerving too abruptly at high speed is not gross fault within article 25, 9°: the insurer's recourse under those clauses failed.","k":"Motor liability — insurer's recourse: racing and gross fault","law":"Policy, art. 25, 7° and 9°","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-06-18","rol":"80567","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:1981:ARR.19810618.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"De vordering door het ziekenfonds, krachtens de wettelijke subrogatie in de rechten van diens verzekerde ten belope van de gedane uitgaven inzake ziekte en invaliditeit, is niet gegrond op een schadevergoeding…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The health-insurance fund's claim, based on its statutory subrogation up to the benefits it paid, does not seek compensation for damage caused by a tort, so the fund cannot claim compensatory interest. However, under article 70 §2 of the Act of 9 August 1963 it is subrogated, from and to the extent of its payments, to all the victim's rights against the workplace-accident insurer. The court therefore awarded it statutory interest under article 42 of the Act of 10 April 1971 from the dates of payment.","k":"Health-insurance fund subrogation — interest owed by the workplace-accident insurer","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 42; Act of 9.8.1963, art. 70 §2","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-06-18","rol":"89/2780","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1981:ARR.19810618.14","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'obligation d'assurance résultant de la loi du 1er juillet 1956 concerne les véhicules mis en circulation sur un chantier, car il s'agit en l'espèce d'un terrain non public, mais ouvert à un certain nombre de personnes…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that compulsory insurance under the Act of 1 July 1956 applies to vehicles moving on a building site, a non-public area open to a number of authorised persons (art. 2). Whatever the traffic conditions, a loss occurring during transport through a driving error, caused directly by the vehicle and not by the goods carried, must be borne by the motor insurer rather than the business liability insurer.","k":"Accident on a building site — motor insurer or business liability insurer","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 2","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-05-27","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRW:1981:ORD.19810527.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"L'assureur est fondé à se prévaloir de la clause du contrat d'assurance, aux termes de laquelle , en cas de décès, les héritiers ne peuvent refuser l'autopsie que la compagnie d'assurance jugerait utile de faire…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the insurer was entitled to rely on the clause under which, in the event of death, the heirs may not refuse an autopsy the insurer considers useful. Since the insurer bears the burden of proving that the accident was due to force majeure, the autopsy was its only means of preserving that evidence.","k":"Fatal accident insurance — autopsy clause","law":"No legal basis mentioned in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Brabant Wallon","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-05-22","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1981:ARR.19810522.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'assureur R.C. automobile qui est intervenu volontairement dans la procédure en première instance peut interjeter appel du jugement en limitant son recours aux seules dispositions civiles. Les parties civiles intimées…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a motor liability insurer that voluntarily intervened at first instance may appeal on the civil provisions only, and that the civil parties as respondents may cross-appeal. The insured, having not appealed, cannot cross-appeal following the insurer's appeal, nor intervene voluntarily at the appeal stage.","k":"Motor liability insurer — appeal in criminal proceedings","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-05-21","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1981:JUG.19810521.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"La clause pénale n'est licite que si elle tend réellement et essentiellement à la réparation du dommage résultant de l'inexécution de l'obligation. Si, dans le contrat d'assurance ordinaire, la suspension de la garantie…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that a penalty clause is lawful only if it genuinely and essentially aims to compensate the loss caused by non-performance. While suspension of cover suspends the risk entirely in ordinary insurance, this is not so in motor insurance, where the insurer remains liable to third parties and its recourse often fails because the insured is insolvent. An insurer that sues for the premiums without unreasonable delay therefore gains no more from the suspension clause than from normal performance; the clause was held valid.","k":"Motor liability — premiums during suspension and validity of the penalty clause","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-05-15","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1981:JUG.19810515.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"La compétence territoriale en matière d'action en révocation d'une donation indirecte réalisée par assurance-vie n'est pas déterminée par l'article 627, 3° et 4°, du code judiciaire, mais par l'article 624 du même code,…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that territorial jurisdiction over an action to revoke an indirect gift made through life insurance is governed by article 624 of the Judicial Code, not article 627(3) and (4), as this is not a succession dispute. The gift equals the premiums paid, not the capital; between spouses there is no gift unless the premiums were manifestly excessive given the insured's means (art. 43, Act of 11 June 1874). A will depriving the wife of all inheritance rights does not revoke life policies in her favour, as the capital never formed part of the policyholder's estate.","k":"Life insurance — indirect gift between spouses and revocation","law":"Judicial Code, arts 624 and 627(3)-(4); Act of 11.6.1874, art. 43","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-04-13","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1981:JUG.19810413.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"En affirmant qu'il existe une relation causale entre la prévention de coups et blessures invonlontaires et l'accident , le juge pénal n'a pas voulu affirmer que cette relation causale existait uniquement au regard de…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"In the insurer's recourse action, the court held that the 1967 conviction imposing separate penalties for unintentional injury and for drunkenness did not create res judicata on the causal link between drunkenness and the accident. By finding a causal link between the injury offence and the accident, the criminal court did not exclude such a link for drunkenness. The final outcome of the recourse is not stated in the summary.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for drunkenness, res judicata of criminal judgment","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-03-31","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1981:ARR.19810331.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Op de verzekeraar rust de bewijslast van zijn bewering dat het gebruik van het voertuig voor beroepsdoeleinden verzwegen werd en dat, indien hij die omstandigheid gekend had, hij de overeenkomst niet zou hebben gesloten…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court of appeal held that the insurer bears the burden of proving that the business use of the vehicle was concealed and that, had it known of it, it would not have concluded the contract or not on the same terms. The case concerns the insurer's recourse against the insured; the summary does not say whether that proof was made or how the recourse ended.","k":"Motor liability — concealed business use, burden of proof","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-03-31","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1981:JUG.19810331.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La situation d'assurance ne dépend pas d'un manquement à une disposition légale relative à l'immatriculation, mais de l'existence du contrat d'assurance. La disparition du risque met fin au contrat d'assurance.","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that whether insurance exists depends on the existence of the insurance contract, not on a breach of a statutory rule on vehicle registration. Destruction of the insured vehicle removes the risk and ends the contract; failure to return the number plate to the registration office makes no difference. The summary does not clearly state the concrete outcome for the parties.","k":"Motor liability — destroyed vehicle, disappearance of the risk","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-03-30","rol":"89/2780","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1981:JUG.19810330.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'art. 25,3, du contrat type, qui stipule que le preneur d'assurance qui roule avec un véhicule soumis au contrôle technique sans être muni d'un certificat de visite valable se trouve en dehors des conditions…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that article 25(3) of the model contract, under which a policyholder driving a vehicle subject to inspection without a valid roadworthiness certificate falls outside the conditions for policy cover, applies even where the breach of the inspection rules has no causal link with the accident. The insurer's recourse against the insured was upheld on that basis.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for missing roadworthiness certificate, causation","law":"Model contract, art. 25(3)","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-03-27","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1981:ARR.19810327.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsque le véhicule assuré a été cédé en vue de sa démolition et n'a pas été remplacé immédiatement par un autre véhicule, le contrat d'assurance est suspendu au jour de la cession. A défaut d'un accord entre assureur…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that where the insured vehicle was handed over for scrapping and not immediately replaced, the policy was suspended from the day of the transfer. As insurer and insured had not agreed to reinstate the policy, the vehicle the insured later acquired was not covered, and this lack of cover could be raised against third parties.","k":"Motor liability — vehicle scrapped, suspension of the policy","law":"Act of 1.7.1956 (motor liability); no article given in the summary","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-03-25","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1981:ARR.19810325.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Une demande d'immatriculation du véhicule revêtue du sceau de l'assureur auprès duquel une assurance a été contractée, ne constitue pas une preuve de l'existence du contrat d'assurance au profit de l'assureur ou à…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a vehicle registration request bearing the insurer's stamp does not prove the existence of the insurance contract in the insurer's favour or as regards the person requesting registration. As regards third parties, however, the request signed by the insurer marks the start of cover. The summary does not state the concrete outcome of the case.","k":"Motor liability — evidential value of the stamped registration request","law":"Act of 1.7.1956 (motor liability)","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-03-25","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIHAI:1981:JUG.19810325.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"L'action de l'assureur est fondée , lorsqu'en violation des articles 25,1.,2., et 9, du contrat type d'assurance, le preneur d'assurance a fait une réticence ou une fausse déclaration lors de la conclusion du contrat en…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held the insurer's claim well founded where, contrary to article 25, 1°, 2° and 9° of the model contract, the policyholder concealed or misstated the driver's deficient condition when the contract was concluded, or failed to notify that change in the risk when it arose later, even if it did not influence the occurrence of the loss. By contrast, recourse under article 16 of the 1874 Act requires a causal link between the intentional or gross fault and the loss.","k":"Motor liability — non-disclosure of the driver's condition, recourse","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16; model contract, art. 25, 1°, 2° and 9°","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-03-24","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1981:ARR.19810324.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsque le juge répressif prononce des peines distinctes du chef de lésions invonlontaires et du chef d'ivresse au volant et ordonne réparation du dommage en raison du lien de causalité entre celui-ci et la faute du…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that where the criminal court imposes separate penalties for unintentional injury and for drunk driving, it cannot be inferred that it necessarily ruled out a causal link between intoxication and the accident. The civil court hearing the insurer's recourse is therefore not bound on that point. The final outcome of the recourse is not stated in the summary.","k":"Motor liability recourse — intoxication, res judicata of criminal judgment","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-03-13","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1981:ARR.19810313.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Si un fonctionnaire, agissant en cette qualité, a fautivement causé dommage à des tiers, l'Etat, qui a indemnisé ceux-ci, n'est pas légalement subrogé dans leurs droits contre son organe. Partant, la condamnation…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the State, having compensated third parties harmed by an official's fault in the course of duty, is not subrogated by law to their rights against that official. The judgment against the official on the victims' civil claim therefore does not give the State the title required to bring the action under article 20, 9° of the Mortgage Act against the official's liability insurer.","k":"Claim against liability insurer — no subrogation of the State","law":"Mortgage Act of 16.12.1851, art. 20, 9°","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-02-26","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1981:ARR.19810226.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Une procédure d'exécution contre l'assureur de responsabilité civile, fondée sur le privilège de la personne lésée, suppose que la victime ait un titre contre l'assuré. Un appel en intervention et déclaration de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that enforcement against the liability insurer based on the injured party's privilege over the insurance proceeds requires an enforceable title against the insured. Joining the insurer to the proceedings and having the judgment declared common to it does not produce such a title, so enforcement against the insurer lacked a basis.","k":"Liability insurance — injured party's privilege and enforcement","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-02-13","rol":"8237","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1981:JUG.19810213.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Etant établi que l'assureur a été avisé en temps utile du remplacement du véhicule assuré pour un autre, il ne peut refuser de couvrir le dommage provoqué par ce véhicule de remplacement dès lors qu'il n'a pas résilié…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court found it established that the insurer had been told in time that the insured vehicle had been replaced. Since the insurer had not terminated the contract as the policy provided, it could not refuse to cover the damage caused by the replacement vehicle and had to indemnify it.","k":"Motor liability — replacement vehicle notified in time","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-02-09","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1981:JUG.19810209.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"La victime conserve, sans paiement de cotisation, le droit aux prestations de la sécurité sociale. L'assureur-loi ne peut donc réclamer que le montant du salaire net augmenté des retenues fiscales.","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"In the workplace-accident insurer's recourse against the person who caused the accident, the court noted that the victim keeps entitlement to social security benefits without paying contributions. The insurer can therefore claim only the net wage plus tax deductions. The dispute concerns the subrogated insurer's recourse against the liable third party.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — extent of subrogation","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-01-20","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1981:ARR.19810120.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Maakt een zware fout uit vanwege de verzekerde, het besturen van zijn voertuig na verschillende herbergen bezocht en verschillende glazen zwaar bier gedronken te hebben, zodat hij, zonder dronken te zijn, niet meer de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court of appeal held that the insured committed gross fault by driving after visiting several pubs and drinking several glasses of strong beer, so that, without being drunk, he was no longer fit to drive, failed to take a bend on a very well-lit road and kept driving recklessly despite a passenger urging him to slow down. The insurer's recourse for reimbursement of the compensation paid to third parties was upheld.","k":"Motor liability — drinking and reckless driving, gross fault and recourse","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-01-19","rol":"80/7590","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1981:ARR.19810119.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Le droit de subrogation reconnu par la loi à une mutualité, qui lui permet d'agir contre l'assureur-loi en récupération des indemnités qu'elle a payées à une victime d'un accident du travail, ne lui confère pas le droit…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the health-insurance fund's statutory subrogation, allowing it to sue the workplace-accident insurer to recover benefits paid, does not entitle it to exercise its member's own claim. Where an earlier final judgment held, even wrongly, that the victim had no right to benefits under the 1971 Act for a period of temporary partial incapacity, the fund has no subrogation claim for the sickness benefits or medical costs it paid for that period; the same defence can be raised against it.","k":"Workplace accident — health-insurance fund subrogation and res judicata","law":"Act of 9.8.1963, art. 70(2); Act of 10.4.1971","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1981-01-15","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAWVL:1981:JUG.19810115.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Het begrip \"zware fout\" veronderstelt dat de verzekerde er zich van bewust was of moest zijn dat zijn gedraging het verzekerde risico buiten de vooruitzichten van het verzekeringscontract verzwaarde. Dit is het geval,…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that gross fault presupposes that the insured knew or should have known that his conduct increased the insured risk beyond what the contract contemplated. That was so for a driver who set off on an outing with a friend at 8 a.m., had an accident at 11.30 after drinking an undetermined number of beers in several pubs, and afterwards showed clear signs of drinking. According to the keywords, the case concerns the insurer's recourse.","k":"Motor liability — drink and gross fault, insurer's recourse","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg West-Vlaanderen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1980-12-22","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1980:ARR.19801222.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Une convention d'assurance \"vacances ou voyages d'affaires\", qui garantit l'assuré \"pendant la période-vacances ou voyages d'affaires- prévue aux conditions particulières du contrat, mais au plus tôt à partir du moment…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a 'holiday or business trip' policy covering the insured from leaving the usual residence until returning to it does not cover an accident occurring within the contractual period but after the insured had returned home, while on the way to visit a relative.","k":"Holiday insurance — time limit of cover","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1980-12-18","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1980:ARR.19801218.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Wanneer de strafrechter zich ertoe beperkt afzonderlijke straffen uit te spreken wegens de telastleggingen van a) het sturen van een voertuig in staat van dronkenschap en b) inbreuk op het wegverkeersreglement, beslist…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The criminal court had imposed separate penalties for drunk driving and for a traffic offence. The court held that separate penalties mean the acts are distinct, not that drunkenness did not cause the accident; the criminal judgment therefore does not bar the insurer's recourse against the convicted driver. The outcome of the recourse is not stated in the summary.","k":"Motor liability — recourse for drunkenness and effect of the criminal judgment","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1980-12-18","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1980:JUG.19801218.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"On ne peut assimiler au cas d'un véhicule cédé, prévu au contrat d'assurance , le cas de remplacement d'un véhicule considéré par son propriétaire comme devenu inutilisable, car l'assureur n'a pas la garantie que les…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that replacing a vehicle its owner regards as unusable cannot be treated like the transfer of a vehicle provided for in the policy. The insurer has no assurance that both vehicles will not be driven under a single policy, and exceptions are to be construed strictly. According to the keywords, the situation was treated as one of no insurance.","k":"Motor liability — replacing an unusable vehicle is not a transfer","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1980-11-12","rol":"18707","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1980:ARR.19801112.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Sous l'empire de l'article 70 alinéa 2 de la loi du 9 août 1963, l'organisme assureur qui avait payé à la victime d'un accident, dont un tiers était partiellement responsable, les prestations auxquelles elle avait droit…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Mons Court of Appeal held that, under article 70(2) of the Act of 9 August 1963, a health-insurance fund that paid benefits after an accident partly caused by a third party could only claim from that party an amount proportional to its share of liability. Royal Decree no. 19 of 4 December 1978, allowing full recovery even in case of partial liability, amends rather than interprets the law; having no retroactive effect, it did not apply where the accident and benefits preceded its publication in the Moniteur.","k":"Health-insurance fund's subrogation — partial liability and temporal application","law":"Act of 9 August 1963, art. 70 §2; Royal Decree no. 19 of 4.12.1978","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1980-10-29","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1980:JUG.19801029.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"I. L'envoi par la compagnie d'assurance de quittances d'indemnisation constitue une offre de transaction qui, en l'absence de fixation de délai, implique toujours un délai moral d'acceptation au profit de son…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the insurer's sending of settlement receipts is an offer of compromise which, absent a fixed deadline, carries a reasonable acceptance period depending on the nature of the matter, usage and circumstances. The victim, who under the policy had to sue for payment within three years of the accident and had rejected the offer of 23 December 1969 as insufficient by letter of 16 April 1970, cannot argue that the offer was still open when accepted in the writ of summons of 30 March 1979.","k":"Accident insurance — time to accept a settlement offer and three-year limit","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1980-10-16","rol":"80/11","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:1980:ARR.19801016.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Wanneer de verzekeraar-arbeidsongevallen niet in de mogelijkheid was binnen de veertien dagen de mutualiteit van getroffene te verwittigen en het redelijke werd gedaan om deze kennisgeving tijdig te laten geschieden, is…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Where the workplace-accident insurer that refuses to recognise the accident could not notify the victim's health-insurance fund within fourteen days and did what was reasonable to do so in time, the fund cannot recover from the insurer the incapacity benefits it paid. Here the insurer had twice asked the victim for the fund's address and the victim failed to provide it; the fund's claim for reimbursement was dismissed.","k":"Workplace accident — notifying the health-insurance fund when the insurer refuses the claim","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63 §2","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1980-10-07","rol":"89/2780","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1980:ARR.19801007.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'assurance prévue par la loi du 11 juin 1874 sur les assurances en général et par la loi du 1er juillet 1956 relative à l'assurance obligatoire de la responsabilité civile en matière de véhicules automoteurs n'est pas…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that insurance under the Act of 11 June 1874 and the compulsory motor liability Act of 1 July 1956 does not apply to damage caused by intentionally striking someone with a car. The direct action under article 6 of the 1956 Act is admissible in case of gross negligence but excludes intentional wrongdoing (dol); a contract covering liability for intentional wrongdoing would be unlawful.","k":"Motor liability — intentional assault with a car, direct action","law":"Act of 11.6.1874; Act of 1.7.1956, art. 6","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1980-09-24","rol":"85/71162","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1980:ARR.19800924.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the presence of undeclared goods in premises insured as a simple dwelling was misrepresentation (réticence), even in good faith, such that the insurer would not have contracted on the same terms, and rendered the contract void. It also held that an arbitration clause has no effect where the contract's existence is disputed and cannot bind third parties, and that the limitation period for the claim is suspended during negotiations.","k":"Fire insurance — undeclared goods, nullity","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1980-09-22","rol":"14792","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1980:ARR.19800922.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Dès lors qu'il apparaît qu'un accident accepté par l'assureur comme accident du travail sur la déclaration de la victime, et indemnisé, est en réalité un accident (sportif) de vie privée, la prétendue victime doit…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"An accident accepted and compensated by the workplace-accident insurer on the basis of the victim's report turned out to be a private (sports) accident. The court held that the alleged victim must repay the insurer all sums received as benefits, upholding the Nivelles Labour Tribunal (Wavre division) judgment of 27 June 1979.","k":"Workplace accident — false report, repayment of benefits","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 69(2)","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1980-06-19","rol":"12500","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTLIE:1980:JUG.19800619.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Aucune disposition de la loi du 10 avril 1971 ne confère à l'organisme assureur A.M.I. une action subrogatoire contre l'assureur-loi; le fondement de l'action de cet organisme est l'article 70, alinéa 2 de la loi du 9…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that the Act of 10 April 1971 gives the health-insurance fund no subrogation claim against the workplace-accident insurer; the fund's claim rests on article 70(2) of the Act of 9 August 1963. Where the fund intervenes voluntarily to recover from the insurer what it paid to the insured, only article 1017(1) of the Judicial Code applies; as this claim is separate from the victim's, the costs do not include the expert's fees. The summary does not state the outcome on the merits.","k":"Workplace accident — no subrogation claim for the health fund, costs","law":"Act of 9.8.1963, art. 70 §2; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63; Judicial Code, art. 1017","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1980-06-12","rol":"11376","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTLIE:1980:JUG.19800612.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that no provision of the Act of 10 April 1971 gives the health-insurance fund a subrogation claim against the workplace-accident insurer; the fund's claim rests on article 70 §2 of the Act of 9 August 1963. Where the fund intervenes voluntarily to recover from the insurer what it paid to the insured, only article 1017(1) of the Judicial Code applies: since this claim is separate from the victim's, the costs do not include the expert's fees. The summary does not state the outcome on the merits.","k":"Workplace accident — health fund's claim against the insurer and costs","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63; Act of 9.8.1963, art. 70 §2; Judicial Code, art. 1017(1)–(2)","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1980-06-10","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAANT:1980:JUG.19800610.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Het Gemeenschappelijk Motorwaarborgfonds kan niet gehouden zijn tot vergoeding in geval van geïdentificeerde voertuigen, indien het onmogelijk is de aansprakelijkheid van de bestuurders van die voertuigen vast te…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the Guarantee Fund cannot be required to compensate where the vehicles involved are identified, even if it is impossible to establish which of their drivers was liable; the claim against the Fund was dismissed.","k":"Motor liability — Guarantee Fund and identified vehicles","law":"No article given (motor liability, Guarantee Fund)","w":280,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1980-05-28","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1980:JUG.19800528.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Le choix de racheter ou de réduire le contrat d'assurance-vie est un droit étroitement attaché à la personne, avec pour conséquence qu'en cas de faillite, même le curateur ne pourrait demander le rachat du contrat…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the choice to surrender or reduce a life insurance contract is a strictly personal right, so that in bankruptcy even the trustee cannot request surrender. An endorsement of the contract in favour of the mortgage lender may, however, provide for automatic surrender if the proceeds of selling the security are insufficient to pay the lender in full. The parties and the concrete outcome are not clear from the summary.","k":"Life insurance — surrender right and endorsement to a mortgage lender","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1980-04-29","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1980:ARR.19800429.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsque, d'une part, le juge répressif prononce des peines distinctes pour lésions involontaires et pour ivresse et que, d'autre part il considère que les circonstances de l'accident, jointes à d'autres constatations,…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Hearing the case on referral from the Court of Cassation's judgment of 3 March 1977, the Mons Court of Appeal held that a criminal judgment imposing separate penalties for unintentional injury and drunkenness had no res judicata effect on the civil claim, because its reasoning was contradictory. The civil judge decides whether the insurer has proved the gross fault underlying its recourse, and may find that the driver did not realise his state abnormally increased the risk and that it remained insurable. The outcome is not expressly stated.","k":"Motor liability — drunkenness, effect of the criminal judgment and gross fault","law":"Cass. 3.3.1977; Cass. 27.1.1978 (record note)","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1980-04-24","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1980:ARR.19800424.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsqu'un véhicule ayant son stationnement habituel en France, provoque un accident en Belgique, la personne lésée peut assigner en Belgique à la fois le Bureau Belge des Assureurs Automobiles et l'entreprise…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The Mons Court of Appeal held that where a vehicle normally based in France causes an accident in Belgium, the injured party may sue in Belgium both the Belgian Motor Insurers' Bureau (BBAA) and the insurer covering the liability of the person who caused the accident.","k":"Motor liability — foreign vehicle, Belgian Motor Insurers' Bureau and foreign insurer","law":"Direct action; BBAA (no article cited in the summary)","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1980-04-17","rol":"49357","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:1980:ARR.19800417.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Behalve de gewone wijzen van verjaringsstuiting, kan in arbeidsongevallenzaken de driejarige verjaring gestuit worden door een aangetekende brief met ontvangstbewijs. Een gewone brief is niet voldoende, zelfs indien de…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"In workplace-accident matters, the three-year limitation period may be interrupted, besides the ordinary means, by registered letter with acknowledgment of receipt; an ordinary letter is not enough. The fact that the insurer replied by ordinary letter makes no difference, since that reply contained neither an acknowledgment nor an undertaking. Reversing the first-instance court, the labour court of appeal held that limitation had not been interrupted.","k":"Workplace accident — interrupting limitation by ordinary letter","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 70","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1980-04-14","rol":"8631","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1980:ARR.19800414.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Le médecin-conseil de l'assureur n'est pas tenu à déclencher la procédure prévue à l'article 23, al. 1er de la loi sur les accidents du travail.","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the workplace-accident insurer's medical adviser is not required to trigger the return-to-work procedure of article 23(1) of the Workplace Accidents Act where partial incapacity is found. The appeal in cassation against the judgment was withdrawn. The Juportal summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — return-to-work procedure and insurer's doctor","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 23(1); Cass. 30.3.1981 (withdrawal)","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1980-04-02","rol":"6107","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1980:ARR.19800402.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"De wetsverzekeraar heeft recht op de terugvordering van het kapitaal dat de jaarlijkse renten voorstelt in de mate van de vergoeding waarop het slachtoffer gemeenrechtelijk kan aanspraak maken.","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court of appeal held that the workplace-accident insurer may recover from the liable third party the capital representing the annual annuities only up to the compensation the victim could claim under ordinary law. Ordinary-law damages and the statutory annuity, though calculated on different bases, make good the same loss.","k":"Workplace accident — limit of the insurer's recourse against the third party","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1980-03-06","rol":"76/189","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:1980:ARR.19800306.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Artikel 14 van de wet van 3 juli 1967 betreffende de schadevergoeding voor arbeidsongevallen, voor ongevallen op de weg naar en van het werk en voor beroepsziekten in de overheidssector, regelt uitsluitend de…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A municipal employee sued directly the insurer with which the municipality had covered its workplace-accident liabilities. The Labour Court of Appeal held that article 14 of the Act of 3 July 1967 only governs the civil liability claims the victim retains, and that under article 26 of the Royal Decree of 13 July 1970 the municipality owes the benefits and annuities; it may insure that burden but remains the debtor, and no provision gives the victim a direct action against the insurer.","k":"Public-sector workplace accident — no direct action against the employer's insurer","law":"Act of 3.7.1967, art. 14 and 16; RD of 13.7.1970, art. 26 §1 and 27","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1980-03-06","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1980:ARR.19800306.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Le paiement du dommage par l'assureur est la condition formulée par l'article 22 de la loi du 11 juin 1874, pour qu'il puisse bénéficier de la subrogation légale. La subrogation par convention, telle qu'elle est prévue…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that payment of the loss by the insurer is the condition for statutory subrogation under article 22 of the Act of 11 June 1874, and that contractual subrogation under article 1250, 1° of the Civil Code must be granted at the same time as payment or before it. The final outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Insurer's subrogation — payment requirement","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 22; former Civil Code, art. 1250, 1°","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1980-02-18","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTHAI:1980:JUG.19800218.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that the insurance jurisdiction rules of the Brussels Convention of 27 September 1968 are mandatory. Where the injured party may bring a direct action, the insurer may, under articles 7 and 8(3), be sued in the courts of the State where it has a branch or agency, for disputes arising from its operations; this widens the option the injured party already has under article 5(5). The ruling concerns jurisdiction only.","k":"Direct action — jurisdiction under the Brussels Convention","law":"Brussels Convention of 27.9.1968, arts. 5(5), 7 and 8(3); Act of 13.1.1971, art. 30","w":279,"c":"Tribunal du travail du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1980-02-06","rol":"752","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTLIE:1980:JUG.19800206.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Lorsqu'une modification intervient dans le pourcentage d'incapacité attribué à la victime d'un accident du travail, l'assureur-loi doit aviser l'organisme assureur A.M.I. dans les trois jours suivant la modification…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that when the incapacity percentage attributed to the victim changes, the workplace-accident insurer must notify the health-insurance fund within three days to safeguard the victim's rights under both schemes, and the victim must also be informed. Failing notice, the insurer must reimburse the fund for what it paid to the victim without being due. The summary states the rule without expressly recording an order against the insurer in this case.","k":"Workplace accident — notifying the health fund of a change in incapacity rate","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1980-01-29","rol":"6107","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1980:ARR.19800129.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The odd jobs that a technically trained son living at home carried out in the family house saved his parents expenses; the court assessed the loss of that help at BEF 25,000. The workplace-accident insurer, subrogated to the parents' rights, may recover its benefits up to everything the parents could have claimed under general law.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's subrogation — non-occupational loss","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 46 and 47","w":5,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1980-01-25","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1980:JUG.19800125.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Si l'assureur de la victime a délégué son propre expert pour procéder à l'expertise du véhicule immobilisé, il s'agit comme mandataire de l'assureur du prévenu, en vertu de la convention R.D.R. qui est étrangère aux…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Where the victim's insurer sent its own expert to appraise the immobilised vehicle, it acted as agent of the defendant's insurer under the RDR agreement, to which the insured persons are strangers. The court therefore held that the civil party (injured party) must be fully compensated for the loss caused by the vehicle being off the road for 32 days pending the appraisal.","k":"Motor liability — RDR agreement cannot be raised against the victim","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1980-01-23","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1980:ARR.19800123.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"L'article 4 alinéa 1er de la loi du 1er juillet 1956 se borne à limiter le champ des exclusions autorisées du bénéfice de l'indemnité d'assurance. L'interprétation de la clause du contrat (article 7-2°) peut donc…","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that article 4 of the Act of 1 July 1956 merely limits permitted exclusions, so article 7-2° of the policy may be read more favourably to injured parties than the Benelux Court's reading: the spouse is excluded only if living with and supported by the insured. The Benelux provisions do not affect earlier contracts or the spouse's vested right to compensation. The husband is liable for the wife's own direct loss, not for loss she suffers by ricochet.","k":"Motor liability — exclusion of the spouse","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 4 §1, 2°; Benelux Convention of 24.5.1966, art. 4; Act of 19.2.1968","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1980-01-22","rol":"5196","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1980:ARR.19800122.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Het is algemeen bekend dat een minderjarige arbeider _ het gaat hier om een mecanicien van 17 jaar _ zijn ouders een deel van zijn loon afgeeft, indien hij bij hen inwoont, en dit tot zijn legerdienst. Deze bijdrage kan…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer that compensated the parents of a 17-year-old mechanic killed at work brought recourse against the liable third party. The court treated it as common knowledge that a young worker living with his parents hands them part of his wage until military service, and assessed that contribution at BEF 250,000 (BEF 400,000 at first instance). That amount sets the limit of the insurer's rights against the liable third party.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — contribution of a deceased young worker","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47","w":5,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1980-01-22","rol":"752","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1980:ARR.19800122.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"Het is algemeen bekend dat een minderjarige arbeider _ het gaat hier om een mecanicien van 17 jaar _ zijn ouders een deel van zijn loon afgeeft, indien hij bij hen inwoont, en dit tot zijn legerdienst. Deze bijdrage kan…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer that compensated the parents of a 17-year-old mechanic killed at work brought recourse against the liable third party. The court treated it as common knowledge that a young worker living with his parents hands them part of his wage until military service, and assessed that contribution at BEF 250,000 (BEF 400,000 at first instance). That amount sets the limit of the insurer's rights against the liable third party.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — contribution of a deceased young worker","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47","w":5,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1980-01-17","rol":"12500","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1980:ARR.19800117.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Lorsque l'opposition notifiée en la cause le 21 mai 1979 à l'assureur-loi, notifiée de surcroît avec l'assistance d'un avocat, n'est pas recevable puisqu'elle vise un arrêt réputé contradictoire sur base de l'article…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court declared inadmissible an opposition lodged against a judgment deemed to be given after hearing both parties under article 751 of the Judicial Code, which the workplace-accident insurer had already served on the opposing party. As the opposition was manifestly reckless and vexatious, the insurer, which normally bears the costs, obtained an order that the opposing party pay the costs.","k":"Workplace accident — vexatious opposition and costs","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 68; Judicial Code, art. 751","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-12-31","rol":"8237","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1979:ARR.19791231.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that the insurer's statutory subrogation requires prior payment, which distinguishes it from contractual subrogation, generally effected by the contract or at settlement. It also held that article 41 CMR renders void any direct or indirect transfer of the benefit of cargo insurance, and that the carrier, bound by an obligation of result (art. 17 CMR), escapes liability only in the listed cases (tyre burst). The final outcome is not stated in the summary.","k":"Insurer's subrogation — prior payment, CMR","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 22; CMR, art. 17 and 41; Act of 4.9.1962","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-12-20","rol":"66280;66285","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTHAI:1979:JUG.19791220.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La rémunération devant servir de base au calcul des indemnités d'accident du travail est la rémunération à laquelle le travailleur a droit pour l'année qui a précédé l'accident. Ce principe est d'ordre public. D'autre…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The employer had declared to its insurer a lower wage than the one actually due. The court stated that the base pay is the wage the worker was entitled to for the year before the accident, a rule of public policy. No forfeiture clause can be raised against those entitled to benefits: even if the employer's fault leads to forfeiture, the insurer must pay the statutory benefits to the victim or the dependants, but may seek recourse against the employer; a waiver of that recourse is not presumed.","k":"Workplace accident — under-declared wages and forfeiture","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 55; Act of 11.6.1874","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-12-20","rol":"74/181","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTHAI:1979:JUG.19791220.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La rémunération devant servir de base au calcul des indemnités d'accident du travail est la rémunération à laquelle le travailleur a droit pour l'année qui a précédé l'accident. Ce principe est d'ordre public. D'autre…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The employer had declared to its insurer a lower wage than the one actually due. The court stated that the base pay is the wage the worker was entitled to for the year before the accident, a rule of public policy. No forfeiture clause can be raised against those entitled to benefits: even if the employer's fault leads to forfeiture, the insurer must pay the statutory benefits to the victim or the dependants, but may seek recourse against the employer; a waiver of that recourse is not presumed.","k":"Workplace accident — forfeiture not enforceable against victims","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 55","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-12-05","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1979:ARR.19791205.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Ingevolge de wet van 25 juni 1964 wort het bedrieglijk wegnemen van andermans goed voor een kortstondig gebruik met de strafbare gedraging van diefstal gelijkgesteld, zodat het in principe onder de door art. 36, 4. van…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court of appeal treated as theft, for compulsory-insurance purposes, the use of the car by the owner's son who, without his sleeping parents' knowledge and against his father's express prohibition, took the spare keys from his mother's clothing: fraudulent taking for temporary use is enough. Under article 3 of the Act of 1 July 1956, the motor liability insurer was not bound to compensate the civil parties, who rightly turned to the Guarantee Fund, which had intervened voluntarily.","k":"Motor liability — joyriding by owner's son, Guarantee Fund","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 3; Act of 8.4.1965, art. 36(4); Act of 25.6.1964; Criminal Code, art. 461(2); Cass. 19.11.1973; Cass. 4.11.1974","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-11-28","rol":"49357","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:1979:ARR.19791128.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Bij bewezen veinzerij, moet de veinzer vanzelfsprekend de te onrechte ontvangen vergoedingen teruggeven. Nochtans behoudt hij het recht op de met zijn ware onbekwaamheid overeenstemmende vergoedingen, maar hij moet aan…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The Labour Court of Appeal held that a victim proven to be malingering must repay the benefits unduly received. He keeps the right to benefits matching his real incapacity, but must reimburse the deceived workplace-accident insurer's costs, including the expert's fees.","k":"Workplace accident — malingering, repayment and costs","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 72","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-11-20","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1979:ARR.19791120.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Wanneer de strafrechter afzonderlijke straffen heeft uitgesproken wegens alcoholintoxicatie en wegens verkeersinbreuk en de schade geen noodzakelijk deel uitmaakt van de betichtingen, en wanneer het strafvonnis geen…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court of appeal held that where the criminal court imposed separate penalties for alcohol intoxication and a traffic offence, the damage was not a necessary element of the charges, and the criminal judgment gave no reasons on causation between the offences and the damage, the civil court may freely decide on that causal link without disregarding res judicata. The case concerns the insurer's recourse for gross fault; the summary does not give the outcome.","k":"Motor recourse — res judicata of criminal judgment and causation","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-11-08","rol":"75/328","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:1979:ARR.19791108.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"De vergissing in casu een vergissing in de berekening van de jaarlijkse vergoeding _ in een akkoord voor blijvende ongeschiktheid, trouwens in de homologatieakte hernomen, kan door een vonnis rechtgezet worden op…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"An error in calculating the annual allowance in a permanent-incapacity settlement, also reproduced in the ratification decision, may be corrected by judgment at the workplace-accident insurer's request. Reversing the first-instance ruling, the labour court of appeal granted the insurer's request for correction.","k":"Workplace accident — correcting an error in a ratified settlement","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 65","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-11-07","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1979:ARR.19791107.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"En vertu de l'article 3 de la loi du 1er juillet 1956, sont exclus de la couverture de la responsabilité civile ceux qui se sont rendus maîtres du véhicule par vol. Toutefois, lorsque le propriétaire du véhicule assuré…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The Mons Court of Appeal noted that under article 3 of the Act of 1 July 1956 those who take control of a vehicle by theft are excluded from cover. However, where the owner of the insured vehicle negligently facilitated the theft, the owner's insurer must cover the damages awarded against the owner in favour of the injured parties. The owner's own liability was held to be covered.","k":"Motor liability — stolen vehicle and owner's negligence","law":"Act of 1 July 1956, art. 3","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-10-19","rol":"49357","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1979:JUG.19791019.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Lorsque les examens médicaux nécessaires n'ont pas été faits, l'assureur-loi, qui les prescrit tant pour fixer les séquelles éventuelles de l'accident pour la victime que pour déterminer les traitements éventuels que…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a workplace-accident insurer which orders the necessary medical examinations, both to establish any after-effects of the accident and to determine the treatment the victim will need, may recover their cost from the liable third party. The insurer's recourse for its medical expert's fees was allowed.","k":"Workplace accident — insurer's recourse, medical examination costs","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-09-14","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1979:ARR.19790914.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Si une modification de la police négociée entre l'assuré et l'assureur entraîne une diminution ou la disparition de la prime, le producteur d'assurance conserve son droit aux commissions jusqu'à la date d'expiration du…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that where a policy change agreed between insured and insurer reduces or removes the premium, the insurance intermediary keeps its right to commission until the originally agreed expiry date. This applies even if termination went through another broker and the insured company was absorbed, since the absorbing company, as universal successor, remained bound by the absorbed company's contracts.","k":"Insurance intermediary — commission after policy change","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-09-12","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1979:ARR.19790912.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"De onderschrijver van een levensverzekeringspolis is gerechtigd eenzijdig een einde aan het contract te stellen. Het recht op afkoop van een levensverzekeringspolis is onderworpen aan het akkoord van alle aanvaardende…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court of appeal held that the policyholder of a life policy may terminate the contract unilaterally, but the right of surrender requires the consent of all accepting beneficiaries, whether for value or gratuitous. Life insurance taken out to secure a loan and provide for the spouses is not a gift between spouses revocable under article 1096 of the Civil Code. The summary does not identify the parties or the outcome.","k":"Life insurance — surrender right and beneficiaries' consent","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1096","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-06-27","rol":"49357","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTBRW:1979:JUG.19790627.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Dès lors qu'il apparaît qu'un accident accepté par l'assureur comme accident du travail sur la déclaration de la victime, et indemnisé, est en réalité un accident (sportif) de vie privée, la prétendue victime doit…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer had accepted and paid, on the victim's declaration, an accident as a workplace accident; it turned out to be a sports accident in private life. The court ordered the alleged victim to repay the insurer the sums received as benefits. According to the note, the judgment was upheld by the Brussels Labour Court of Appeal on 22 September 1980.","k":"Workplace accident — false declaration, repayment of benefits","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 69(2)","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail du Brabant Wallon","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-06-21","rol":"76/74691;76/74709","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1979:ARR.19790621.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Une réticence ou une fausse déclaration, même sans mauvaise foi, dans les déclarations de l'assuré lors de son affiliation rendent l'assurance nulle si elles diminuent l'opinion du risque ou en changent le sujet, de…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Concealment or misrepresentation by the insured at affiliation, even in good faith, voids the insurance if it reduces the insurer's assessment of the risk so that it would not have contracted on the same terms. Since concealment is 'a deliberate omission of something one ought to say', the court required proof that the person concerned must have been aware of the duty to provide the information in question. The Juportal summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Misrepresentation — awareness of the duty to disclose","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 9","w":279,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-06-07","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1979:JUG.19790607.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Lorsque l'assureur a mis l'assuré en demeure de régler la prime dans un délai de 14 jours, la garantie est suspendue, de plein droit, en cas de non-paiement dans ce délai à l'égard de l'assuré à partir de la date…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that where the insurer gave the insured formal notice to pay the premium within 14 days and payment was not made, cover is suspended automatically as against the insured from the premium due date. The insurer may claim from the insured not only the unpaid premium but also reimbursement of what it paid to a third party for an accident during the suspension.","k":"Unpaid premium — accident during suspension and insurer's claims","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-05-14","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1979:JUG.19790514.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Dans le cas de suspension de la garantie de l'assurance pour non-paiement des primes, l'assureur n'est pas fondé de réclamer l'arriéré des primes pour la période de la suspension en tant que celui-ci comprend, en dehors…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that where cover is suspended for non-payment, the insurer cannot claim the premium arrears for the suspension period insofar as they include, besides operating costs and profit, the part meant to cover the risk of loss. Since the suspension removed the risk, the insurer would otherwise gain more than under normal performance of the contract. A penalty clause is justified only insofar as it fixes the loss caused by non-performance; the insurer's claim was held unfounded.","k":"Suspended cover — premiums for the suspension period not recoverable","law":"No legal basis cited in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-05-08","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1979:JUG.19790508.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La clause du contrat d'assurance \"R.C.exploitation\" précisant que cette assurance ne sortira ses effets qu'après épuisement des garanties résultant d'une autre assurance, même postérieure, couvrant les mêmes risques, et…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a business liability policy clause providing that it applies only once the cover of another insurance for the same risks, even taken out later, is exhausted, notably for accidents during road tests of serviced or repaired vehicles, makes that cover subsidiary and prevents overlap with motor liability insurance. Since the contract is not governed by the mandatory provisions of the Act of 1 July 1956, the clause can be raised against third parties, including the injured party and those subrogated to its rights. The parties and the concrete outcome are not clear from the summary.","k":"Subsidiary business liability cover — vehicle road test","law":"Act of 1.7.1956","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-04-23","rol":"76/189","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1979:ARR.19790423.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Eiseres is de arbeidsongevallenverzekeraar van de werkgever van Zulma M., die door de fout van verweerder O. om het leven kwam bij een ongeval op de weg naar het werk. Op grond van haar wettelijk subrogatierecht vordert…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer of an employee killed in a commuting accident brought a subrogated claim against the liable third party and his motor liability insurer. The court recalled the double limit on subrogation (benefits actually paid, and what the dependants could claim under general law) and excluded the loss of the victim's economic value as a homemaker, a non-occupational loss that may be cumulated with statutory benefits. As her wage was wholly spent on her own needs, the dependants lost no income: only the undisputed BEF 22,787 was awarded and the BEF 359,162 claim was dismissed.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's subrogation — homemaker's economic value","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46; Act of 7.7.1978","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-04-03","rol":"70/71","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1979:ARR.19790403.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Juportal has no summary for this judgment, only keywords: liability for a defective thing, injury sustained while voluntarily rescuing a victim, workplace accident, agency without authority (gestion d'affaires), the victim's workplace-accident insurer and compensation of the volunteer rescuer. The outcome and the prevailing party cannot be determined from these keywords.","k":"Volunteer rescuer — workplace-accident insurer and agency without authority","law":"Former Civil Code (defective thing, agency without authority)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-04-02","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1979:ARR.19790402.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"De overspoeling van een autovoertuig op het strand door het zeewater tijdens een poging om weg te rijden met de op een aanhangwagen geladen boot is geen overstroming in de zin van buitengewone natuurramp. De uitsluiting…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A car submerged by seawater on the beach while trying to drive off with a boat on its trailer is not a flood in the sense of an extraordinary natural disaster; the exclusion in article 8 of the general conditions (flood, earthquake, volcanic eruption) concerns such disasters. 'Collision with an obstacle' covers any external contact between the vehicle and a foreign element. The insured was careless but not grossly at fault, so under article 16 of the Act of 11 June 1874 the loss falls on the insurer.","k":"Motor own-damage — seawater on the beach, flood exclusion and collision","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16; general conditions, art. 8","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-03-14","rol":"20.608","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTLIE:1979:JUG.19790314.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Une petite commune utilisait avant la fusion des communes, un travailleur qui fut accidenté en 1974 et était couverte par la police d'assurance conclue par elle à concurrence d'une certaine limite. L'étendue de la…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Before the municipal mergers, a small municipality insured a worker, injured in 1974, under a policy capped at a certain amount; the scope of cover was not changed after the merger. The new municipality joined the insurer in a guarantee claim for the difference owed to the worker. The court held that an insurer that contracted for a defined risk cannot be required to cover a wider, unforeseen risk: the new municipality, which took over the rights and obligations of the merged entity, is its own insurer for that difference. Costs were split between the municipality and the insurer.","k":"Public-sector workplace accident — policy cover limit after a municipal merger","law":"Act of 3.7.1967, art. 1; RD 13.7.1970, art. 27; Act of 10.4.1971","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-03-13","rol":"75/328","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARGNT:1979:JUG.19790313.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"De vergissing in casu een vergissing in de berekening van de jaarlijkse vergoeding _ in een akkoord voor blijvende ongeschiktheid, trouwens in de homologatie-akte hernomen, kan niet door een vonnis rechtgezet worden op…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an error in calculating the annual allowance in a permanent-incapacity settlement, carried over into the ratification deed, cannot be corrected by judgment at the workplace-accident insurer's request. The insurer's claim was dismissed. According to the Juportal note, this judgment was set aside on appeal by the Ghent labour court of appeal on 8.11.1979.","k":"Workplace accident — calculation error in a ratified settlement","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 65","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidsrechtbank Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-03-06","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EABRL:1979:JUG.19790306.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Zelfs indien zou worden aanvaard dat de burgerlijke partij het bestaan van een mandaat tussen haar en haar hersteller kon betwisten, toch staat het niet minder vast dat door de deskundige van de verzekeraar van de…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Even if the civil party could dispute that her repairer was her agent, by letting the expert of the defendant's insurer be called to the repairer and letting the repairer carry out the joint assessment of her vehicle, she led third parties to believe that the repairer was acting as her agent. The court held that, because of this fault, the civil party was personally bound by what her agent had done, subject to any recourse against him. The summary states neither the insurer's procedural position nor the final award.","k":"Damage assessment — repairer as apparent agent","law":"Apparent agency; joint (contradictory) expert assessment","w":280,"c":"Nederlandstalige rechtbank eerste aanleg Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-03-06","rol":"85/71162","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EABRL:1979:JUG.19790306.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Zelfs indien zou worden aanvaard dat de burgerlijke partij het bestaan van een mandaat tussen haar en haar hersteller kon betwisten, toch staat het niet minder vast dat door de deskundige van de verzekeraar van de…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Even if the civil party could dispute that her repairer was her agent, by letting the expert of the defendant's insurer be called to the repairer and letting the repairer carry out the joint assessment of her vehicle, she led third parties to believe that the repairer was acting as her agent. The court held that, because of this fault, the civil party was personally bound by what her agent had done, subject to any recourse against him. The summary states neither the insurer's procedural position nor the final award.","k":"Damage assessment — repairer as apparent agent","law":"Apparent agency; joint (contradictory) expert assessment","w":280,"c":"Nederlandstalige rechtbank eerste aanleg Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-03-06","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1979:JUG.19790306.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"A supposer même que la partie civile puisse dénier l'existence d'un mandat entre elle et son réparateur, il n'en reste pas moins qu'en faisant convoquer l'expert de l'assureur du prévenu chez son réparateur et en…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, even if the civil party could deny any agency relationship with its repairer, it led third parties to believe the repairer was its agent by having the expert of the defendant's insurer summoned to the garage and letting the repairer conduct the joint inspection. Because of that fault, the civil party is personally bound by the repairer's act (double valuation), subject to recourse against the repairer. The summary does not state the insurer's procedural role or any amounts.","k":"Vehicle damage — repairer as apparent agent","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary (apparent agency doctrine)","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-03-06","rol":"89/3060","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1979:JUG.19790306.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"A supposer même que la partie civile puisse dénier l'existence d'un mandat entre elle et son réparateur, il n'en reste pas moins qu'en faisant convoquer l'expert de l'assureur du prévenu chez son réparateur et en…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, even if the civil party could deny any agency relationship with its repairer, it led third parties to believe the repairer was its agent by having the expert of the defendant's insurer summoned to the garage and letting the repairer conduct the joint inspection. Because of that fault, the civil party is personally bound by the repairer's act (double valuation), subject to recourse against the repairer. The summary does not state the insurer's procedural role or any amounts.","k":"Vehicle damage — repairer as apparent agent","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary (apparent agency doctrine)","w":280,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-03-02","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1979:ARR.19790302.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'obligation légale de constituer le capital en vue de servir la rente équivaut au paiement. Dès lors que, condamné par un jugement définitif à payer les allocations et indemnités légales, l'assureur-loi avait…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Mons Court of Appeal held that the statutory obligation to set aside capital to fund the annuity is equivalent to payment. Since the workplace-accident insurer, ordered by a final judgment to pay the statutory benefits, was bound to constitute that capital, the victim could only claim the part of the general-law capital exceeding the statutory capital, even though she had not yet actually received anything from the insurer when the general-law damages were assessed.","k":"Workplace accident — statutory capital and overlap with general-law damages","law":"Act of 10 April 1971, arts. 46–48","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-02-14","rol":"78/6710","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1979:ARR.19790214.18","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Het art. 70, al. 2 van de wet van 9 augustus 1963, dat een wettelijke subrogatie instelt ten gunste van de verzekeraar ziekteinvaliditeit, legt de verwekker van een ongeval niet de verplichting op om aan deze…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Mons Court of Appeal (record in Dutch) held that article 70(2) of the Act of 9 August 1963 grants the health-insurance fund statutory subrogation, but does not oblige the person who caused the accident to repay benefits paid to the fund's member beyond the period of temporary total incapacity set by the court-appointed expert under general law. The claim for the period beyond that fell outside the limits of subrogation.","k":"Health-insurance fund's subrogation — time limit","law":"Act of 9 August 1963, art. 70(2)","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Bergen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-02-14","rol":"66280;66285","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1979:ARR.19790214.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'article 70, al. 2 de la loi du 9 août 1963, en établissant en faveur de l'assureur maladie-invalidité, une subrogation légale, n'oblige pas l'auteur responsable d'un accident à rembourser à cet assureur les indemnités…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Mons Court of Appeal held that article 70(2) of the Act of 9 August 1963, while granting the health-insurance fund statutory subrogation, does not require the person liable for the accident to repay benefits paid to the fund's member beyond the period of temporary total incapacity determined by the court-appointed expert under general law. The claim for the period beyond that fell outside the limits of subrogation.","k":"Health-insurance fund's subrogation — time limit","law":"Act of 9 August 1963, art. 70 §2","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-02-01","rol":"771450","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1979:ARR.19790201.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'assureur-loi subrogé aux droits de son assuré, ne possède que les droits de la victime vis-à-vis de l'auteur de l'accident. Il ne peut réclamer le précompte professionnel que si les indemnités auraient été taxables…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a subrogated workplace-accident insurer has against the person who caused the accident only the rights of the victim. It may claim withholding tax only if the benefits would have been taxable for the victim, and the value of social contributions only if their non-payment would have harmed the victim.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — scope of subrogation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46–47","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-01-24","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1979:ARR.19790124.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Lorsque la garantie est suspendue en raison du défaut de paiement de la prime, le délai de sa remise en vigueur commence à courir lorsque le paiement est effectué par virement bancaire, à dater de la réception du…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that where cover is suspended for non-payment of the premium and payment is made by bank transfer, the period for reinstatement runs from receipt of the sum by the insurer's bank, not from its entry in the insurer's account. The summary does not say which party this favoured in the case at hand.","k":"Suspended cover — reinstatement after payment by bank transfer","law":"Policy suspension and reinstatement clauses","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-01-19","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1979:ARR.19790119.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"De bestuurder die na alkoholhoudende dranken te hebben gebruikt een alkoholgehalte in het bloed heeft die op gevoelige wijze het wettelijk maximum overschrijdt, begaat voorzeker een strafrechterlijke inbreuk. Het is…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A driver whose blood alcohol (1.73 per mille) clearly exceeds the legal limit commits a criminal offence. But the criminal court's finding, binding on all, of a causal link between the accident and the intoxication does not necessarily mean the driver committed gross fault justifying the insurer's recourse; the fault must also show the objective and subjective elements of gross fault under insurance law. The recourse was held unfounded.","k":"Motor liability recourse — intoxication alone not gross fault","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1979-01-11","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1979:ARR.19790111.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"limitation","q":"Le fait sur lequel est fondée l'action récursoire de l'assureur est constitué non par l'accident, mais bien par les paiements que l'assureur a exécutés en vertu d'une décision judiciaire définitive. Le recours exercé…","court":"appeal","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the event underlying the insurer's recourse action is not the accident but the payments made under a final court decision. The recourse against the heirs of the insured's spouse was nevertheless rejected, because the event giving rise to it (the final decision) postdated the dissolution of the marital community.","k":"Insurer's recourse — starting point, heirs of the spouse","law":"No statutory basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1978-12-20","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1978:ARR.19781220.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"La notification du remplacement du véhicule assuré n'est pas valablement faite à l'assureur lorsqu'elle est adressée au courtier, le contrat stipulant que \"pour être valables, les communications ou notifications…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The Mons Court of Appeal held that notice of the replacement of the insured vehicle sent to the broker was invalid, since article 36 of the model contract requires notices to be sent to the insurer's Belgian head office. Without such notice, the contract is suspended under articles 33 and 34 of the model contract, from the transfer if the vehicle was not replaced at once, or after eight days if it was. The suspension can be invoked against the injured party, the insured's consent to it possibly resulting from the contract itself.","k":"Motor liability — notice to the broker and suspension of cover","law":"Model contract, arts. 33, 34 and 36 (1956 Act regime)","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1978-12-11","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1978:ARR.19781211.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"De zware fout die de regresvordering toelaat vanwege de verzekeraar van de burgerlijke aansprakelijkheid van motorrijtuigen die de schadelijdende derde vergoed heeft tegen zijn verzekerde, is degene die gelijk kan…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The gross fault allowing a motor liability insurer that compensated the injured third party to seek recourse against its insured is fault equivalent to intentional fault, which the insured knew or should have known aggravated the insured risk. For a 1966 car with only 52,197 km at the time of the 1974 accident, the insured need not have been aware of the condition of three tyres that were not fully worn, especially as he used the car little and had probably not yet met conditions, such as wet roads, where they would hamper driving.","k":"Motor liability recourse — worn tyres not gross fault","law":"Model contract, art. 25-9; Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16 (dated '1974' in the summary)","w":280,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1978-11-30","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAWVL:1978:JUG.19781130.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"De plicht tot raadgeving en informatie van de verzekeringsmakelaar blijft bestaan gedurende heel de uitvoering van het contract. Begaat een fout die zijn verantwoordelijkheid verbindt, de makelaar die de verzekerde -…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that an insurance broker's duty to advise and inform continues throughout the performance of the contract. A broker instructed to cover a risk for a set period commits a fault engaging its liability if it fails to tell the insured that the insurer's bankruptcy has left it without any effective cover. The dispute is between broker and insured; the insurer is not a party.","k":"Insurance broker — duty to report the insurer's bankruptcy","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg West-Vlaanderen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1978-11-30","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1978:JUG.19781130.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"La clause selon laquelle les primes échues ou à échoir pendant la suspension de garantie sont dues à l'assureur ne rentre pas dans le cadre fixé par l'article 1152 C.C. mais constitue à titre principal un moyen de…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a clause making premiums falling due during the suspension of cover payable to the insurer is not a penalty clause within article 1152 of the former Civil Code but essentially a means of pressure on the insured. As a contractual penalty payment unrelated to compensating any loss, the clause is void and cannot be applied.","k":"Health insurance — premiums during suspension, clause void","law":"former Civil Code, art. 1152","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1978-11-28","rol":"2644","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:1978:ARR.19781128.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Het slachtoffer dat _ tot staving van medische complaisanceattesten _ zich bedrieglijkerwijze laat vergoeden voor verlengde tijdelijke ongeschiktheid, kan tegen de verzekeraar-wet artikel 23 A.O.W. niet inroepen, daar…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The victim had fraudulently obtained benefits for prolonged temporary incapacity on the strength of sham medical certificates. The Labour Court of Appeal held that he could not rely on article 23 against the workplace-accident insurer, since his own conduct had prevented the insurer from starting the procedure it provides, and that he must repay all benefits unduly received. According to the Juportal note, the Court of Cassation dismissed the appeal on 14.4.1980.","k":"Workplace accident — incapacity prolonged by sham certificates, repayment","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 23; Cass. 14.4.1980","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1978-11-13","rol":"76/189","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1978:ARR.19781113.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"D. wordt op 28 januari 1974 het slachtoffer van een arbeidsongeval. Geïntimeerde betaalt in haar hoedanigheid van arbeidsongevallenverzekeraar 86.443 fr. medische kosten en 196.152 fr. vergoedingen wegens tijdelijke…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer, as subrogee, claimed from the liable third party's insurer BEF 86,443 in medical costs and BEF 196,152 in temporary total incapacity benefits paid to the victim. The court rejected the liability insurer's argument that recovery was limited to net pay: how remuneration is applied does not affect the liable party's duty to compensate, and social contributions deducted from gross pay give the victim social benefits. The summary text is truncated.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's subrogated recourse — gross pay basis","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 22 and 43; RD of 21.12.1971, arts. 31–34","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1978-10-27","rol":"1359","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EALEU:1978:JUG.19781027.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"De verzekeringsinstelling die laattijdig, in dit geval een jaar te laat, terugbetaling van haar uitgaven vordert, is niet gerechtigd tot het vorderen van vergoedende interest. De laattijdigheid van de vordering kan…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that a health-insurance fund claiming reimbursement of its outlays from the liable third party late, here one year late, is not entitled to compensatory interest; the interest claim was partly rejected. The delay may impose an exceptional extra burden on the liable third party, and a subrogated party, like the victim, must mitigate the loss.","k":"Subrogation — late recourse by health-insurance fund, interest","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg Leuven","m":"summary"},{"d":"1978-10-18","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTHAI:1978:JUG.19781018.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Ten einde uit te maken hoever de rechten van het slachtoffer reiken ten aanzien van de voor het ongeval aansprakelijke, behoort met betrekking tot de sociale-zekerheidsinhoudingen te worden vastgesteld dat in de…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The issue was the extent of the victim's rights against the liable party and its insurer. The court found no loss in social-security branches where benefits remain due without contributions, but a loss for pensions and holiday pay, where deductions are calculated on uncapped pay while statutory compensation uses capped pay: if the actual wage exceeds the notional wage, the victim may claim that share of the contributions under general law. The summary does not state the outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — social-security deductions claimed from the liable party","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 46 and 47","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidsrechtbank Henegouwen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1978-10-18","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTHAI:1978:JUG.19781018.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'article 47 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 pose le principe de la subrogation de l'assureur-loi et en définit l'étendue; celle-ci coïncide avec l'importance du capital représentatif de la rente calculée selon les règles…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"After a commuting accident, the workplace-accident insurer brought a subrogation claim against the liable third party's insurer. The court stated that article 47 of the Act of 10 April 1971 sets the extent of subrogation at the capital value of the annuity, calculated under public-policy rules. A settlement between the victim and the liable party's insurer that disregarded this subrogation could not be raised against the workplace-accident insurer.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's subrogation — settlement not binding on it","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1978-10-18","rol":"76/189","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTHAI:1978:JUG.19781018.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Het artikel 47 van de wet van 10 april 1971 poneert het principe van de subrogatie van de wetsverzekeraar en bepaalt er de draagwijdte van; deze valt samen met de omvang van het kapitaal dat de rente vertegenwoordigt,…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer brought a subrogation claim against the liable third party's insurer. The court stated that under article 47 of the Act of 10 April 1971 the extent of subrogation matches the capital value of the annuity calculated under public-policy rules. The settlement between the victim and the third party's insurer, made without regard to the statutory subrogation, was held not binding on the workplace-accident insurer.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's subrogation — settlement made by the victim","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidsrechtbank Henegouwen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1978-10-17","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EABRL:1978:JUG.19781017.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"In de algemene voorwaarden van een groepsverzekering tegen invaliditeit behoort het toe aan de verzeekeraar te bepalen op duidelijke en nauwkeurige manier, welke de personen zijn de contractueel zullen geoordeeld worden…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that, in the general conditions of a group disability policy, it is for the insurer to define clearly and precisely which persons are deemed not to have full working capacity because of an infirmity, so as to delimit the insured risk. Since the insurer had not done so, the principle that contracts must be performed in good faith meant that an employee who worked normally despite having only one eye did not commit misrepresentation by failing to mention the loss of his eye when the contract was concluded.","k":"Group disability insurance — one-eyed employee, no concealment","law":"Interpretation of general conditions; good-faith performance of contracts","w":279,"c":"Nederlandstalige rechtbank eerste aanleg Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1978-10-17","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIBRL:1978:JUG.19781017.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Dans les conditions générales d'une assurance-groupe contre l'invalidité, il appartient à l'assureur de stipuler d'une manière claire et précise quelles personnes seront contractuellement considérées ne pas jouir d'une…","court":"first","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Under the general conditions of a group disability insurance, it is for the insurer to state clearly and precisely which persons are deemed not to have full working capacity because of an infirmity, so as to define the risk covered. Since the insurer had not precisely defined the disability to be declared, good-faith performance of contracts meant that a one-eyed worker who regularly practised his profession did not commit non-disclosure by not declaring the loss of an eye.","k":"Group disability insurance — one-eyed worker, non-disclosure","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1978-06-27","rol":"49357","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARANT:1978:JUG.19780627.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Bij bewezen veinzerij, moet de veinzer vanzelfsprekend de te onrechte ontvangen vergoedingen teruggeven. Nochtans behoudt hij het recht op de met zijn ware onbekwaamheid overeenstemmende vergoedingen, maar hij moet aan…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Where malingering is proven, the claimant must repay the benefits unduly received. The court held that the claimant keeps the right to benefits matching the real degree of incapacity but must reimburse the deceived workplace-accident insurer's costs, including the expert's fees.","k":"Workplace accident — malingering and repayment of undue benefits","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 72","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1978-06-26","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1978:ARR.19780626.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"Lorsqu'une police d'assurance couvrant la responsabilité civile du constructeur exclut de la garantie \"les dommages n'ayant pas un caractère accidentel et qui apparaissent dès lors comme normalement certains dès avant…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The contractor's liability policy excluded non-accidental damage that appeared normally certain before it occurred because of the nature of the works or how they were carried out. The court held that, since the type of foundations chosen was bound to cause the building to sink, the damage was neither fortuitous nor uncertain for the insured, and the insurer did not have to cover it.","k":"Construction liability insurance — exclusion of non-accidental damage","law":"Policy exclusion clause (concept of accident)","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1978-06-21","rol":"74/181","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:1978:ARR.19780621.11","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Het feit dat de verzekeraar de procedure van wedertewerkstelling niet kan instellen omdat de getroffene werkloos werd en derhalve geen werkgever voorhanden is, ontslaat de verzekeraar niet van de verplichtingen de…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer had been unable to start the return-to-work procedure under article 23 because the victim had become unemployed and had no employer. The Labour Court of Appeal held that this does not release the insurer from paying temporary total incapacity benefits, and that the unemployment benefits received by the victim cannot be set off against them.","k":"Workplace accident — temporary incapacity benefits for an unemployed victim","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 23","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1978-06-05","rol":"6203","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARGNT:1978:JUG.19780605.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"De vergoedende intresten die deel uitmaken van de schadevergoeding opgevorderd in uitvoering van het artikel 1382 van het Burgerlijk Wetboek, zijn niet verschuldigd aan het verzekeringsorganisme voor ziekte en…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that compensatory interest forming part of damages claimed under article 1382 of the former Civil Code is not owed to the health-insurance fund: by paying, the fund performs a statutory duty and suffers no loss. By contrast, the victim may claim statutory interest on the benefits owed by the workplace-accident insurer from the date they fall due.","k":"Workplace accident — interest claimed by the health-insurance fund and statutory interest for the victim","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 42; former Civil Code, art. 1382","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidsrechtbank Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1978-03-21","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1978:ARR.19780321.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"De verplichting opgelegd aan een verzekeringsmakelaar om elk onbetaald kwijtschrift binnen de 6 weken van zijn vervaldag terug te sturen, op straf van inschrijving van het bedrag op het debet van zijn rekening, mag niet…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court of appeal held that a broker's obligation to return each unpaid receipt within six weeks of its due date, failing which the amount is debited to its account, cannot be separated from the insurance contracts between the insurer and the actual premium debtors. Where, because of its bankruptcy, the insurer may no longer claim premiums from the insureds, it can neither require the broker to return the receipts nor debit the unpaid premium to the broker's account.","k":"Broker — return of unpaid premium receipts","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1978-03-17","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAWVL:1978:JUG.19780317.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"legal","q":"De omstandigheid dat de rechtsbijstandsverzekeraar zich belast heeft met de verdediging voor de strafrechter van een verzekerde vervolgd uit hoofde van inbreuken op de wegkode en dronken sturen, belet niet diezelfde…","court":"first","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The West Flanders Court of First Instance held that a legal-expenses insurer which took on the criminal defence of its insured, prosecuted for traffic offences and drink-driving, is not prevented from taking recourse for gross fault as the same insured's motor liability insurer. Since it acts in two distinct capacities, there is no conflict of interest between the criminal defence and the recourse; the recourse was held admissible.","k":"Legal expenses and motor liability — recourse by the same insurer","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg West-Vlaanderen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1978-03-15","rol":"6203","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EALEU:1978:JUG.19780315.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Wanneer arbeiders verongelukken terwijl ze vervoerd worden naar de werkplaats in een voertuig dat aan hun werkgever toebehoort, dan zijn ze gerechtigd de gemeenrechtelijke vergoeding te eisen voor de gewone rechtsmacht…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Leuven Court of First Instance held that workers injured while being driven to the site in their employer's vehicle may claim ordinary-law compensation before the ordinary courts, since they were not paid for travel time and were free to choose their means of transport. The claim of the employer's workplace-accident insurer for reimbursement of its outlays from the same employer's motor liability insurer (art. 47 of the Act of 10.4.1971) was also held admissible. The policy covers all authorised drivers. The summary does not state the outcome on the merits.","k":"Workplace accident — employer transport, ordinary-law claim","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46(1) and 47","w":-1,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg Leuven","m":"summary"},{"d":"1978-03-03","rol":"77/32","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1978:ARR.19780303.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Juportal publishes no summary for this judgment, only keywords. According to them, it deals with a procedural issue: joining the liable third party before the labour court, as an intervener and for a declaration of common judgment, in a workplace-accident case. The outcome and the parties' positions cannot be determined from the available material.","k":"Workplace accident — joinder of the liable third party before the labour court","law":"Judicial Code; Act of 10.4.1971","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1978-02-13","rol":"1596","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1978:ARR.19780213.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'assureur-loi qui reçoit une déclaration d'accident insuffisamment remplie, en ce qu'elle ne mentionne pas l'identité de la mutualité de la victime, et qui ne saurait donc aviser cette mutualité dans les deux semaines…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A workplace-accident insurer receiving an accident report that omits the victim's health-insurance fund must make every effort to obtain that information so it can notify the fund of its refusal within two weeks. An insurer that waits two and a half months and merely tells the victim it refuses the claim and to apply to the fund is negligent. Overturning the first-instance ruling, the court held that the sickness-benefit payments remain the insurer's burden.","k":"Workplace accident — late notice of refusal to the health-insurance fund","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63(2)","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1978-01-30","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1978:ARR.19780130.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"home","q":"Een verzekeraar betaalt zonder voorbehoud aan de hypothecaire schuldeiser van en door brand vernield gebouw een gedeelte van de vergoeding bestemd voor het herstel van de schade van de eigenaars van het geteisterde…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court of appeal held that an insurer which, without reservation, paid the mortgage creditor of a building destroyed by fire part of the indemnity intended for the owners, knowing they could then contemplate rebuilding, clearly waived its right to make payment of the indemnity conditional on rebuilding the insured building.","k":"Fire insurance — waiver of the rebuilding clause","law":"No legal basis stated in the summary","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1978-01-10","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1978:ARR.19780110.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Le délai d'un an prescrit par l'article 5, alinéa 2 de l'Arrêté royal du 5 janvier 1957 pour déclarer au Fonds commun de garantie automobile un accident susceptible de donner lieu à son intervention, est un délai…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The Mons Court of Appeal held that the one-year period in article 5(2) of the Royal Decree of 5 January 1957 for notifying the motor Guarantee Fund of an accident that may call for its intervention is a strict time bar, extendable only for force majeure. The fact that the victim was allowed to consult the criminal file only after the prosecutor had dropped the case did not amount to force majeure.","k":"Guarantee Fund — one-year notification period","law":"Royal Decree of 5 January 1957, art. 5(2)","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1978-01-09","rol":"3481","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1978:ARR.19780109.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La loi sur les accidents du travail tend à réparer un dommage bien déterminé soit la perte de salaires _ lors des incapacités temporaires _ soit l'atteinte à la faculté concurrentielle de gain portée à la victime sur le…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that a health-insurance fund which pays the victim when the workplace-accident insurer refuses the claim recovers directly from that insurer. Once judicially held liable, the insurer cannot rely on the fund's benefits already received to pay only the balance, since that matter is legally foreign to it. In practice, the insurer was ordered to pay the statutory benefits less the fund's payments, plus statutory interest on the total net amount of those benefits.","k":"Workplace accident — health-fund benefits already paid and statutory benefits","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 46 §2 and 63 §2","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1977-12-14","rol":"76318","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHANT:1977:ARR.19771214.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Krachtens artikel 49 van de Arbeidsongevallenwet hebben de werkgevers de verplichting, een arbeidsongevallenverzekering bij een privaatrechtelijke verzekeringsinstelling aan te gaan; de uit zulk een overeenkomst…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Labour Court of Appeal held that the employer's duty to take out workplace accident insurance leaves the parties free to define the insured risk and does not require all categories of staff to be insured with the same insurer. A worker not covered by the policy is uninsured: the insurer owes him nothing, and the rule that forfeiture clauses cannot be raised (art. 55) does not widen the scope of the contract. The worker or his dependants must turn to the Workplace Accidents Fund, whose view that signing a policy amounts to covering all staff was rejected.","k":"Workplace accident insurance — staff outside the policy, Fund's liability","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 49, 55 and 58 §3","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1977-11-25","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1977:ARR.19771125.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"Enkel de echtgenote heeft de hoedanigheid van verzekerde in het verzekeringscontract dat de echtgenoot heeft gesloten als wettelijke vertegenwoordiger van zijn vrouw wier goederen hij moet beheren. II. Artikel 33 van de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Only the wife is the insured under a contract concluded by the husband as legal representative of his wife, whose property he manages. Article 33 of the Act of 11 June 1874 expressly requires the intentional act to be committed by the insured personally to release the insurer; an act by an agent or legal representative is not enough. Arson by the policyholder, who is not the insured, therefore does not fall under article 33.","k":"Arson — act of the legal representative","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 33","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1977-06-09","rol":"72/2334;72/2394","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTLIE:1977:JUG.19770609.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Only the keywords of the decision are available on Juportal: private-sector workplace accident, revision claim, the new-element principle, temporary and permanent aggravation during the revision period, arts. 25(1) and 72 of the Act of 10 April 1971. With no summary, the court's ruling in the dispute between the victim and the workplace-accident insurer, and its reasoning, cannot be verified.","k":"Workplace accident — revision claim and new element","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 25(1) and 72","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1977-05-12","rol":"3481","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTBRL:1977:JUG.19770512.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Lorsque l'assureur-loi refuse de prendre un sinistre en charge, et que la victime néglige, malgré deux interpellations, de lui fournir les renseignements nécessaires pour identifier la mutuelle à laquelle elle est…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer had refused the claim, and the victim, despite two requests, failed to identify the health-insurance fund, so the insurer could not notify the fund of its decision. The court held that the fund could not rely, against the insurer, on the expiry of the period in article 63(2) of the Act of 10 April 1971; its recourse based on that period could not succeed.","k":"Workplace accident — health-insurance fund recourse and notice period","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63(2)","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1977-05-05","rol":"74/181","ecli":"ECLI:BE:AHGNT:1977:ARR.19770505.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer's application to join the liable third party and have the judgment declared binding on it, with a view to a possible recourse under article 47 of the Act of 10 April 1971, is purely protective: since no order is sought against the defendant, limitation only arises when the recourse is actually brought. The court found the application admissible, as the insurer has standing and an interest in having the statutory benefits, one of the two limits of its recourse, fixed in the third party's presence. Because the application rests on articles 46 and 47, costs were charged to the insurer (art. 68).","k":"Workplace-accident insurer — joinder of the liable third party for later recourse","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 46, 47 and 68","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1977-04-21","rol":"76/189","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1977:ARR.19770421.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Juportal gives keywords only: a commuting accident that was also a general-law accident; procedure for the workplace-accident insurer's third-party claim for a common judgment and indemnity against the motor liability insurer of the person responsible. The court's ruling is not stated.","k":"Commuting accident — joinder of the motor liability insurer","law":"Judicial Code; Act of 10.4.1971","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1977-03-09","rol":"6975","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTLIE:1977:JUG.19770309.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Only the keywords of the decision are available on Juportal: recovery from the workplace-accident insurer, under the Act of 9 August 1963, of benefits paid by the health-insurance fund; a late claim; limitation under article 2247 of the Civil Code. With no summary, the court's ruling and reasoning cannot be verified.","k":"Workplace accident — limitation of the health fund's claim against the insurer","law":"Act of 9.8.1963; former Civil Code, art. 2247","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1977-02-08","rol":"78/6710","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1977:ARR.19770208.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"En cas de partage de responsabilité, l'organisme assureur en maladie-invalidité ne peut prétendre être subrogé à son assuré, pour la totalité des débours qu'il a effectués, frais médicaux, d'hospitalisation et…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, where liability is shared, the health-insurance fund cannot claim subrogation for the whole of its outlays (medical and hospital costs, primary incapacity benefits). Subrogation cannot give the fund wider rights than the victim could have asserted personally for the loss suffered.","k":"Health-insurance fund subrogation — shared liability","law":"Act of 9.8.1963, art. 70 §2","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1977-01-18","rol":"2209","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1977:ARR.19770118.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Ingeval het wegens het onmiddellijk overlijden van de verzekerde niet mogelijk is geweest een klinisch gedragsonderzoek te doen zoals doorgaans bij de bepaling van het bloedalcoholgehalte gebeurt, wordt de staat van…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the intoxication exclusion was proven by a blood alcohol level of 2.29 g found at death together with the insured's unusual aggression, even though no clinical test could be carried out because death was immediate. By contrast, the fact that the person who struck the fatal blows was granted the excuse of provocation in criminal proceedings did not trigger the exclusion for reckless acts, bets or challenges. The intoxication exclusion was applied.","k":"Personal accident insurance — intoxication and provocation exclusions","law":"Policy exclusion clauses; Criminal Code, art. 411","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1977-01-17","rol":"71/2.595","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1977:ARR.19770117.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Lors qu'il résulte d'une lettre du Ministère du Travail, qui ne constitue pas qu'un simple avis, lequel ne lierait pas les Cours et Tribunaux, qu'une société a comme activité principale, les travaux de construction et…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"Ruling after referral by the Court of Cassation, the court rejected the workplace-accident insurer's claim that the employer was merely a labour-supply firm, since a Ministry of Labour letter and the employer's social-security registration code showed its main activity was construction and civil engineering. Basic remuneration is therefore set by the national joint committee for construction pay scales. Travel expenses, however, are not part of basic remuneration.","k":"Workplace accident — calculating basic remuneration","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 34 and 37; Cass. 30.6.1976","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1977-01-13","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1977:ARR.19770113.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"La clause de reconduction automatique contenue dans un contrat d'assurance à durée déterminée fait naître, au terme de celui-ci, un contrat nouveau, identique au précédent dans ses conditions et ses effets. Il en…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Mons Court of Appeal held that an automatic renewal clause in a fixed-term insurance policy creates, at expiry, a new identical contract bearing the renewal date. Where a first policy is renewed after a second policy covering the same risks for the same person has been concluded, the contract arising from the renewal is void under the order-of-dates rule in article 12 of the Act of 11 June 1874. The summary does not identify the parties or the outcome.","k":"Double insurance — date of an automatically renewed policy","law":"Act of 11 June 1874, art. 12","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1976-12-31","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTBRL:1976:JUG.19761231.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Pour le calcul du salaire de base, il y a lieu de tenir compte des adaptations successives du plafond à l'évolution de l'index, aussi longtemps que les indemnités ne sont pas définitivement fixées. Les manoeuvres…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"For the base pay calculation, the court takes account of successive index-linked adjustments of the ceiling as long as the benefits have not been finally fixed. Tactics aimed at avoiding a rule are lawful unless fraudulent means are used: neither the workplace-accident insurer speeding up the proceedings to avoid a higher ceiling nor the victim delaying them to obtain it commits a fraud on the law. The summary does not state the outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — pay ceiling and procedural tactics","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 39","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1976-12-13","rol":"6646","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1976:ARR.19761213.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Het bewijs van een arbeidsongeval kan geleverd worden door de erkenning van de verzekeraar en namelijk door impliciete erkenning die voortvloeit uit de vrijwillige betaling gedurende een zeker tijdstip (*). Weliswaar…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A workplace accident may be proved by the insurer's acknowledgment, including an implied one resulting from voluntary payments over a period, provided it was made knowingly and does not conflict with public policy. The court found that the workplace-accident insurer acted with full knowledge of the facts and that accepting a fall during performance of the employment contract as a workplace accident, with no alleged fraud, is not contrary to public policy; the material error raised later was rejected. The insurer withdrew a first appeal in cassation; a second appeal was lodged.","k":"Workplace accident — implied acknowledgment by the insurer","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 7; Cass. 26.6.1978 (withdrawal); Cass. 14.5.1979","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidshof van Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1976-11-18","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTHAI:1976:JUG.19761118.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Het begrip gebeurtenis wordt gebruikt voor alles wat in de wereld gebeurt en dat een of ander belang heeft, het feit zijnde voorzien of onvoorzien, gelukkig of ongelukkig. Dit is het geval wanneer een torsie aan een…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court accepted that a twist of a limb causing an injury is an event; a sudden event must not be confused with violence, and it is enough that it occurs within a very short time with no possibility of foreseeing it. It rejected requirements of abnormality and external force, and held that the insurer bears the burden of proving that the meniscus injury suffered while performing the employment contract was due to a cause entirely unrelated to work.","k":"Workplace accident — sudden event and burden of proof","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7 and 9","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidsrechtbank Henegouwen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1976-11-16","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARBRL:1976:JUG.19761116.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Op grond van de tekst zelf van artikel 23 en de interpretatie door het Hof van Cassatie, past het te zeggen dat de wetgever, die zoveel mogelijk de slachtoffers wenste te behouden in het arbeidsbestel, niet toegelaten…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Where a victim on temporary partial incapacity refuses, without valid reason, the return to work repeatedly offered by the employer, the workplace-accident insurer may pay compensation based only on the actual degree of incapacity. Relying on the wording of article 23 of the 1971 Act and the Court of Cassation's case law, the court rejected the argument that the insurer first had to use the occupational physician procedure.","k":"Workplace accident — refusal to resume work without valid reason","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 23","w":-1,"c":"Nederlandstalige arbeidsrechtbank Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1976-11-16","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTBRL:1976:JUG.19761116.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"En se basant sur le texte même de l'article 23 et sur l'interprétation de la Cour de cassation, il convient de dire que le législateur, qui désirait maintenir autant que possible les victimes dans le processus de…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The victim had refused, without valid reason, the return to work repeatedly offered by the employer. Relying on the wording of article 23 of the Act of 10 April 1971 and the Court of Cassation's interpretation, the court held that the insurer did not have to use the occupational physician procedure in order to apply paragraphs 4 and 5 of that article and pay only benefits matching the actual degree of incapacity.","k":"Workplace accident — unjustified refusal of an offer to return to work","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 23","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1976-10-27","rol":"6203","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTBRL:1976:JUG.19761027.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Lorsque la victime a besoin de l'aide d'une tierce personne, mais qu'elle a continué à séjourner dans un établissement hospitalier postérieurement à la consolidation alors que l'assureur-loi prend en charge les frais de…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The victim needed the assistance of another person but remained in hospital after consolidation, with the workplace-accident insurer paying for the stay. The court held that the insurer must be allowed to set off the part of the annuity relating to third-party assistance against those hospital costs.","k":"Workplace accident — third-party assistance allowance and hospital costs","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1976-10-27","rol":"23848/A","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTBRL:1976:JUG.19761027.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Lorsqu'un ouvrier à la suite d'une chute consécutive à un accident privé, est parfois atteint de crises de lombalgies par déplacement vers l'arrière du disque vertébral, il y a lieu de considérer que lorsqu'une crise de…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A worker suffered recurrent lower-back crises after a fall in a private accident. The court held that where a back crisis follows a workplace accident, the workplace-accident insurer must compensate the permanent incapacity resulting from the condition whose progression the accident accelerated, even though the original fall was not a workplace accident.","k":"Workplace accident — aggravation of a pre-existing condition","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 7","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1976-10-25","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1976:ARR.19761025.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"contract","q":"L'exonération de l'assureur pour les risques de guerre suppose un état de guerre comportant une permanence et une généralité d'opérations militaires, et non des faits qui, n'ayant été commis en Belgique…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer's exemption for war risks requires a state of war marked by continuous and widespread military operations. It does not cover acts committed in Belgium only occasionally and accidentally that are linked to a distant war in which Belgium is not involved. The Juportal summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"War-risk exclusion — meaning of a state of war","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 19","w":279,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1976-10-21","rol":"75/535","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARBRL:1976:JUG.19761021.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Zo de verzekeraar weigert het ongeval als arbeidsongeval te erkennen, verwittigt hij binnen de twee weken, die volgen op de ontvangst van de aangifte, de verzekeringsinstelling inzake Z.I.V. waarbij de getroffene is…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that a workplace-accident insurer refusing to recognise an accident must inform the victim's health-insurance fund within two weeks of receiving the accident report. Otherwise, sickness benefits paid from the start of the incapacity until the day of the worker's declaration are charged to the workplace-accident insurer. The case involved third-party opposition and the interest of the national sickness-insurance institute; the summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — notifying the health-insurance fund of a refusal","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63 §2; Act of 9.8.1963, art. 123","w":-1,"c":"Nederlandstalige arbeidsrechtbank Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1976-10-21","rol":"75/478;75/479","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTBRL:1976:JUG.19761021.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Lorsque l'assureur refuse de prendre la cas en charge, il prévient dans les deux semaines qui suivent la réception de la déclaration, l'organisme assureur en matière d'assurance maladie-invalidité auquel la victime est…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that a workplace-accident insurer refusing to accept a claim must notify the victim's health-insurance fund within two weeks of receiving the accident report. If it misses that deadline, the sickness benefits paid from the start of the incapacity up to and including the day of the worker's report are charged to the insurer. The ruling also deals with third-party opposition by INAMI and its interest; the summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — late notice of refusal to the health-insurance fund","law":"Act of 9.8.1963, art. 123; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63 §2","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1976-10-06","rol":"78/123","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1976:ARR.19761006.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Lorsque la victime décède à la suite d'un accident provoqué par son employeur au cours d'un trajet que ce dernier effectuait pour une autre société dont il était le directeur, les ayants droit de la victime sont…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The Mons Court of Appeal held that where a worker dies in an accident caused by the employer while the employer was travelling for another company of which he was director, the victim's dependants may sue the employer's motor liability insurer. The employer's dual role meant he could be treated as a third party.","k":"Workplace accident — claim against the employer's motor liability insurer","law":"Act of 10 April 1971, art. 7","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1976-05-13","rol":"11749","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1976:ARR.19760513.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Lorsqu'un assuré vend un véhicule et le remplace par un véhicule de location qui a été assuré par son propriétaire, l'assureur du véhicule cédé ne peut prétendre que le véhicule pris en location doit être considéré…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Where an insured sells his vehicle and replaces it with a hired vehicle already insured by its owner, the motor liability insurer of the sold vehicle cannot claim that the hired vehicle is a replacement vehicle and that the loyalty clause in articles 33 and 34 of the model contract required the policyholder to insure it with that insurer. The court found the insurer's claim unfounded.","k":"Motor liability — loyalty clause and hired vehicle","law":"Model contract, arts 33–34 (loyalty clause)","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1976-05-04","rol":"6203","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PIHAI:1976:JUG.19760504.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"La subrogation dont peut se prévaloir l'assureur-loi ne donne à celui-ci que le droit de réclamer ce que les subrogeants auraient pu obtenir en droit commun. Pour un jeune ouvrier de 18 ans, habitant avec ses parents et…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that the workplace-accident insurer's subrogation only entitles it to claim what the persons it replaces could have obtained under the general law. For an 18-year-old worker living with his parents and six siblings, the parents were deemed to benefit from 50% of his net wage for three more years. The full funeral and clinic costs had to be reimbursed to them.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's subrogation — parents' loss","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1976-04-14","rol":"75/4119","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1976:ARR.19760414.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Une victime d'accident du travail a eu deux dents brisées. L'assureur-accidents du travail refuse d'intervenir parce que la réparation d'un tel dommage n'est pas prévue par la nomenclature A.M.I. à laquelle la…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The victim had two teeth broken; the workplace-accident insurer refused to pay because the repair was not listed in the health-insurance (AMI) fee schedule. The labour tribunal appointed an expert; on the insurer's appeal, the court upheld that decision: the victim is entitled to full compensation and the schedule's silence cannot be held against them; no intentional fault or excessive negligence was attributable to the victim. According to the summary, this judgment was quashed by the Court of Cassation on 30.6.1976.","k":"Workplace accident — broken teeth, care outside the fee schedule","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 31; RD 30.12.1971, art. 1; Cass. 30.6.1976","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1976-03-04","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1976:ARR.19760304.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"liability","q":"De verzekeringnemer die het Polderbestuur vergoed heeft voor schade aan het wegdek door het heen en weer rijden van zijn vrachtauto's, kan zich niet tegen zijn bedrijfsaansprakelijkheidsverzekeraar keren, omdat luidens…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"A policyholder who compensated a polder authority for road surface damage caused by its lorries driving back and forth cannot recover from its insurers. Not from the business liability insurer, because under the policy professional use of vehicles was an aggravation of risk to be declared in advance, which the policyholder could not prove it had done. Nor from the motor liability insurer, because the damage was the foreseeable result of a voluntary act and therefore uninsurable.","k":"Road surface damage — no cover under business or motor liability","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, arts. 1, 16, 31; RD of 14.3.1968, art. 9; former Civil Code","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1976-02-11","rol":"5196","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1976:ARR.19760211.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"En vertu de l'article 47 de la loi du 10 avril 1971, la réserve mathématique provisoire, c'est-à-dire le capital représentatif de l'allocation annuelle, peut être réclamée par l'assureur-loi au tiers responsable, bien…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, under article 47 of the Act of 10 April 1971, the workplace-accident insurer may claim from the liable third party the provisional actuarial reserve, i.e. the capital value of the annual allowance, even before the revision period has expired. The claim is, however, only well founded up to the victim's material loss as calculated under the general law of liability.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — provisional actuarial reserve","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1975-12-04","rol":"4422","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1975:ARR.19751204.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'assureur marque son accord sur un salaire en vertu d'un P.V. d'accord homologué par le tribunal. Il assigne en annulation pour erreur de droit substantielle sur tel salaire de base. Tel accord peut en effet être…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer sought to annul a court-approved settlement, claiming a fundamental mistake of law about the base salary it had accepted. The court held that such a settlement, a formal contract, can be annulled for mistake, fraud or duress, and that article 1043 of the Judicial Code does not apply since the court acted in non-contentious jurisdiction. However, the insurer failed to prove the mistake; the approving court protects the victim against ignorance of the law and does not prevent a more generous agreement. The claim was rejected.","k":"Workplace accident — annulment of an approved settlement for mistake","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 65; Judicial Code, art. 1043","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1975-12-02","rol":"4422","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARANT:1975:JUG.19751202.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Alle behandelingskosten die het ongeval veroorzaakt vallen ten laste van de wetsverzekeraar. Dit geldt wat de kosten aanbelangt van een chirurgische ingreep van esthetische aard, zelfs indien deze ingreep zonder verband…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"All treatment costs caused by the accident are borne by the workplace-accident insurer. The court held that this includes the cost of cosmetic surgery, even where the operation is unrelated to any incapacity for work or the harm it seeks to repair does not reduce the incapacity at all.","k":"Workplace accident — cosmetic surgery costs","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 28","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1975-11-26","rol":"75/316","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTHAI:1975:JUG.19751126.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the increased allowance for third-party assistance is a single overall rate, to be set at consolidation together with the ordinary allowances, and cannot be fixed later through a revision action where the need already exists. However, finding it inequitable for the workplace-accident insurer to bear both the allowance above 100% and hospital costs during the revision period, it relieved the insurer of the portion above 100% in proportion to the time spent in hospital.","k":"Workplace accident — attendance allowance and hospital costs","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 24(2), 28 and 72","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1975-11-13","rol":"75/328","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1975:ARR.19751113.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Het recht op schadevergoeding wegens schending van de fysische integriteit van een echtgenoot die in gemeenschap van goederen is getrouwd, behoort hem toe. De ongeschiktheidsuitkeringen die door de…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A spouse married under community of property owns the right to compensation for harm to his or her physical integrity; incapacity benefits paid by the health-insurance fund make up for the loss of earning capacity. Because the wife's household work has measurable economic value, one of the conditions for excluding a spouse carried by the husband from his liability cover (art. 4 §1, 2°, Act of 1.7.1956) was not met. The fund's subrogation claim was held admissible and well founded against both the husband and his liability insurer.","k":"Liability insurance — exclusion of the driver's spouse as passenger","law":"Act of 1.7.1956, art. 4 §1, 2°; Act of 9.8.1963, arts 46, 56 and 70; former Civil Code, art. 218","w":279,"c":"Hof van beroep van Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1975-10-17","rol":"241","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1975:ARR.19751017.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Ayant volontairement aggravé les suites d'une lésion _ qui, normalement soignée, aurait pu justifier une I.P.P. de 1% _ jusqu'à abîmer totalement l'index gauche, la victime doit entendre confirmer la décision qui a fixé…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The victim had deliberately aggravated an injury that, if properly treated, would have left a 1% permanent disability, until the left index finger was entirely ruined. The court upheld setting permanent disability at 1% instead of 12% and ended temporary incapacity on the date consolidation would have occurred without the self-harm. The victim was ordered to repay the insurer the sums wrongly obtained through this fraud.","k":"Workplace accident — self-inflicted aggravation and disability rate","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1975-10-16","rol":"22975","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1975:ARR.19751016.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'accidenté est en incapacité temporaire partielle du 24 avril au 24 juillet 1973. Il est remis au travail par le médecin de l'assureur le 24 avril. Il est malade dès le lendemain 25 avril jusqu'au 31 octobre suivant.…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The victim, sent back to work by the insurer's doctor, fell ill the next day; the insurer relied on article 23(3) to refuse statutory benefits. The court rejected reading that provision as covering returns to work decided by the insurer's doctor alone, without the occupational physician, as a social regression contrary to the legislature's intent. Even on that reading, the insurer had to prove there was no loss of pay; the victim earned nothing from 25.4 to 24.7.1973, so the benefits were due.","k":"Workplace accident — return to work ordered by the insurer's doctor","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 23","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1975-10-15","rol":"4422","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1975:ARR.19751015.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"L'assureur-loi de la victime subrogé dans les droits de celle-ci, peut exercer son recours à l'égard du responsable de l'accident ou de son assureur responsabilité civile; Il y a un intérêt évident à ce que les…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer, subrogated to the victim's rights, may seek recourse against the person liable or their liability insurer. To prevent the medical findings being reopened in a later dispute between the two insurers, the court declared the expert examination ordered at the workplace-accident insurer's request binding on, and common to, the liability insurer joined as a forced intervener. A declaration of common judgment entails no order against the intervener.","k":"Workplace accident — expert report binding on liability insurer","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46; Judicial Code, art. 813(2); Cass. 18.11.1966","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1975-09-23","rol":"4422","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1975:ARR.19750923.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Si le chef d'entreprise a souscrit une assurance contre les risques d'accident survenus sur le chemin du travail, c'est à l'assureur qui a payé les indemnités légales qu'il appartient d'exercer l'action de la victime…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that where the employer had insured against commuting accidents, the workplace-accident insurer that paid the statutory benefits exercises the victim's action under article 19, paragraph 3, of the coordinated Acts, by subrogation. The Act of 11 June 1964 lets the victim recover even when the person at fault is a worker or agent of the employer; the subrogated insurer has the same right and, under article 6 of the Act of 1 July 1956, may bring a direct action against the liable third party's insurer.","k":"Commuting accident — workplace-accident insurer's recourse against the co-worker's liability insurer","law":"Coordinated Acts of 28.9.1931, art. 19(3); Act of 1.7.1956, art. 6; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1975-06-30","rol":"752","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1975:ARR.19750630.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Deux principes doivent présider à l'établissement de la solution à apporter au problème du calcul du capital loi dont l'assureur-loi peut réclamer le remboursement au tiers responsable : la détermination de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Mons Court of Appeal held that the statutory capital a workplace-accident insurer may claim from the liable third party is determined under general law, the insurer acting only by subrogation to the victim's rights. The management costs of the capital funding the annuity must be excluded from the insurer's share, otherwise the victim would lose full compensation. The insurer is subrogated up to the capital under article 47, calculated on scale F rather than scale E.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — calculating the statutory capital","law":"Act of 10 April 1971, art. 47","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1975-06-18","rol":"4422","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTLIE:1975:JUG.19750618.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'action de l'assureur-loi tendant à sa propre condamnation au paiement des indemnités légales est recevable. La loi du 10 avril 1971 est d'ordre public. L'action de l'assureur-loi dirigée contre l'employeur assuré \"en…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held admissible the workplace-accident insurer's action seeking its own conviction to pay the statutory benefits, since the Act of 10 April 1971 is a matter of public policy. The insurer's claim against its policyholder, the employer, for a declaration that the judgment is binding on it was held admissible and well founded. The insurer may also bring an ordinary-law recourse against its policyholder; such a claim is an ancillary claim within the meaning of article 13 of the Judicial Code.","k":"Workplace accident — insurer's claim against the employer for a judgment binding on it","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 68; Judicial Code, art. 13","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1975-06-09","rol":"73/22143;73/22525","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBGNT:1975:ARR.19750609.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"De regresvordering van de verzekeraar-wet tegen het ondernemingshoofd is niet wettelijk, zelfs indien het ondernemingshoofd aansprakelijk is voor een ongeval op de weg van het werk. Hetzelfde geldt voor de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer's recourse against the employer is not lawful, even where the employer is liable for a commuting accident; the same applies to recourse against the employer's liability insurer, since one person cannot be both insured and third party towards the same insurer for the same accident. By contrast, the insurer's claim against a co-worker liable for the commuting accident, or against that co-worker's motor liability insurer, is admissible.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse against employer and co-worker","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46","w":-1,"c":"Hof van beroep van Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1975-04-30","rol":"22975","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTMON:1975:ARR.19750430.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Une ouvrière, victime d'un accident du travail à l'âge de 17 12 ans, s'est vue amputer des 23 de la phalange terminale de l'annulaire droit. Toutefois, avant de ce faire et pour tenter de sauver ce doigt, elle s'est…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A young worker who lost part of a finger kept a 6x6 cm scar on her chest from a failed graft attempted to save it. The court held that she may claim from the workplace-accident insurer, which bears medical and surgical costs during the revision period, the cost of surgery to reduce the scar. The scar itself is compensable under the Act only if it affects her earning capacity on the general labour market, which the court did not rule out (employability, motivation to work).","k":"Workplace accident — graft scar and corrective surgery costs","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 24","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1975-04-15","rol":"73/22143;73/22525","ecli":"ECLI:BE:HBANT:1975:ARR.19750415.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Art. 24 van de wet van 10 april 1971 stelt het onderscheid tussen de jaarlijkse vergoeding, aanleiding gevend tot vestiging van de voorlopige wiskundige reserve, en de rente, aanleiding gevend tot vestiging van het…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court of appeal held that article 47 of the Act of 10 April 1971 extended the workplace-accident insurer's recourse against the liable third party to the capital representing the annual allowance, thereby treating its constitution (provisional mathematical reserve) as payment. The absence of actual payment cannot be relied on to refuse reimbursement of that capital; the insurer's claim was admissible.","k":"Workplace accident — insurer's recourse against third party, mathematical reserve","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 24 and 47","w":-1,"c":"Hof van beroep van Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1975-03-25","rol":"241","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CAMON:1975:ARR.19750325.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"L'atteinte à la capacité de travail qui restreint la valeur économique de la victime constitue en soi un préjudice indemnisable au sens de l'article 1382 du Code civil. Le moyen le plus adéquat pour déterminer la perte…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Mons Court of Appeal held that impaired working capacity reducing the victim's economic value is compensable damage under article 1382 of the former Civil Code, best calculated by capitalisation based on the incapacity rate, annual salary and working life. Because this loss is of the same nature as that covered by the workplace-accident insurer, the corresponding award goes to that insurer. Loss of non-occupational activities or of earnings after retirement age is of a different nature, and the victim may recover it on top of the flat-rate benefits.","k":"Workplace accident — loss of economic value and double recovery","law":"Former Civil Code, art. 1382; Act of 10 April 1971","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Mons","m":"summary"},{"d":"1975-03-10","rol":"73/22143;73/22525","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1975:ARR.19750310.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Les alinéas de l'art. 46 1° et 2° prévoient qu'une action en justice peut être intentée par la victime. Indépendamment des dispositions du alinéa 1 l'assureur reste tenu au paiement des indemnités résultant de la loi.…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that article 46 allows the victim to sue the liable third party and that, independently of such action, the workplace-accident insurer remains bound to pay the statutory benefits. A settlement between the victim and the third party's liability insurer cannot be relied on against the workplace-accident insurer. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — victim's settlement with the third party","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46(1)–(2)","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1975-02-28","rol":"752","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTLIE:1975:JUG.19750228.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Dans la décision rendue sur une action en révision, le juge ne peut accorder des réserves pour l'avenir. L'assureur peut, depuis la loi du 1041971, être tenu en vertu de l'article 25 à des indemnités d'incapacité…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that a judgment on a revision claim cannot grant reservations for the future. Since the Act of 10 April 1971, the workplace-accident insurer may be liable under article 25 for temporary incapacity benefits where a temporary aggravation occurs within the revision period. After that period, such benefits, and allowances for aggravated permanent incapacity where the new rate is at least 10%, are paid by the Workplace Accidents Fund (FAT). The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — revision claim, reservations for the future and the Fund's burden","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 25; RD 21.12.1971, art. 7","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1975-01-28","rol":"6442","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARGNT:1975:JUG.19750128.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"De rechtsgrond van de wetgeving inzake arbeidsongevallen is gesteund op een civielrechtelijke overeenkomst waarbij tussen de werkgever en diens wetsverzekeraar een contract tot stand komt dat mits betaling van wettige…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court noted that workplace-accident compensation rests on the contract between the employer and the workplace-accident insurer, whereas the intervention claim concerning the liability of minors' parents is tortious. The two claims were not connected: the action against the insurer was held admissible before the labour court and the intervention claim inadmissible, with the insurer's rights preserved before the competent court. The outcome on the merits is not stated.","k":"Workplace accident — labour court jurisdiction and third-party intervention claim","law":"Judicial Code, arts 579 and 565, 2°","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidsrechtbank Gent","m":"summary"},{"d":"1974-12-10","rol":"4422","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTBRL:1974:JUG.19741210.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Le barème F étant exclusivement applicable aux capitaux payables aux victimes ou aux ayants droit, il n'est pas applicable à une hypothèse pour laquelle il n'a pas été instauré, à savoir le calcul du montant de…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The victim, compensated under ordinary law, claimed the statutory top-up from the workplace-accident insurer. The court held that scale F, which applies only to capital sums payable to victims or their dependants, cannot be used to calculate the amount of the insurer's exemption. Under the legislation then in force, scale E applies where no statutory capital is paid to the victim. The summary gives no amount or outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — scale for calculating the insurer's exemption","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 19 and 46 §2","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1974-12-03","rol":"730","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTBRL:1974:JUG.19741203.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Ni la jurisprudence de la Cour de Cassation, ni la loi du 10 avril 1971 ni la doctrine n'ont supprimé l'exigence de l'existence d'une cause extérieure, élément essentiel de l'accident. Les conséquences de l'évolution de…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court noted that neither Court of Cassation case law, nor the Act of 10 April 1971, nor legal writing has abolished the requirement of an external cause. It need no longer be a force, may combine with an internal cause and may be a normal effort; once the victim proves a sudden event and an injury, the injury is presumed to result from an accident. The workplace-accident insurer must rebut the presumption by proving that the accident was due solely to internal causes. The summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — external cause and burden of proof","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 7, 8 and 9","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1974-12-02","rol":"2130","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTLIE:1974:JUG.19741202.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Si l'assureur a déclaré la victime d'un accident de travail apte à reprendre le travail, sans en avertir l'organisme assureur de l'assurance obligatoire contre la maladie et l'invalidité dans le délai de trois jours, il…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"According to the summary, a workplace-accident insurer that declares the victim fit to return to work without informing the compulsory sickness and invalidity insurer (health-insurance fund) within three days must reimburse the fund for the benefits it paid after the return-to-work date. The summary states the rule in general terms and does not expressly say whether the insurer was ordered to pay in this case.","k":"Workplace accident — failure to notify the health fund of fitness to work","law":"Act of 9.8.1963, art. 70 §2; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 63","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1974-10-29","rol":"84/1293","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1974:ARR.19741029.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"En cas de suspension des effets du contrat d'assurance contre les accidents du travail pour non-paiement de primes, l'assureur reste tenu vis-à-vis des victimes pour le paiement des indemnités ; mais il peut exercer un…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Where the contract is suspended for non-payment of premiums, the workplace-accident insurer remains liable to the victims but may take recourse against the defaulting policyholder. The Liège Court of Appeal held that this recourse covers sums already paid and those to be paid in future to victims of accidents occurring during the suspension, including allowances during the revision period and any final actuarial reserve. The summary notes a contrary ruling of the Dinant commercial court of 3 April 1973.","k":"Workplace-accident insurance — unpaid premiums, scope of recourse against the employer","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 55","w":-1,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1974-10-15","rol":"76/189","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARANT:1974:JUG.19741015.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Een \"overeenkomst\" terzake de vergoeding van de schadelijke gevolgen van een arbeidsongeval is en blijft een overeenkomst, al is voor haar bestaan de plechtige vorm der bekrachtiging door de Vrederechter (oude…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A settlement on compensation for a workplace accident remains a contract even though it requires the formality of court ratification, so it may be challenged for mistake, fraud or duress; mistake is a ground for nullity only if it concerns the essential elements. The court found that the fact that the insurer learned of the criminal file only after ratification did not make a mistake on its part plausible, and did not grant the insurer's application for annulment.","k":"Workplace accident — annulling a ratified settlement for mistake","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 65","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1974-10-15","rol":"241","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARANT:1974:JUG.19741015.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Luidens art. 28, 2° en volgenden van de wet van 1041971 draagt de verzekeraar de kosten van prothesen en orthopedische toestellen waarvan het gebruik als noodzakelijk is erkend. Eerst draagt hij deze kosten…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Under article 28, 2° of the Act of 10 April 1971, the workplace-accident insurer bears the cost of prostheses and orthopaedic devices whose use is recognised as necessary, first directly and later by setting aside capital with the Workplace Accidents Fund. The court held that the Act does not require such devices to reduce the incapacity for work: only the necessity of their use is to be examined (an ocular shell prosthesis and safety glasses). The concrete outcome of the claim is not apparent from the summary.","k":"Workplace accident — costs of prostheses and orthopaedic devices","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 28","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1974-10-11","rol":"70/2121","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTBRL:1974:JUG.19741011.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Lorsque l'assureur-loi refuse d'indemniser des périodes précédées et suivies de périodes d'incapacité temporaire (en l'espèce, totale) aux motifs que la victime a repris son travail et percoit sa rémunération, il y a…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer refused to pay for periods falling between periods of temporary total incapacity, on the ground that the victim had returned to work and received wages. The court appointed a medical expert to determine whether the victim was temporarily incapacitated in his job during those periods and at what rate, since the lack of wage loss could stem from the employer's goodwill or extra effort by the victim. Article 23 of the Act of 10 April 1971 was not examined, as its implementing decree entered into force after the disputed periods.","k":"Workplace accident — temporary incapacity without loss of earnings","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 23","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1974-09-10","rol":"75/5807","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1974:ARR.19740910.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"persons","q":"Lorsqu'en vertu d'une police d'assurance individuelle contre les accidents, le montant dû au bénéficiaire n'est, en cas de litige, productif d'intérêts moratoires qu'à l'expiration d'un délai de quinze jours après le…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The personal accident policy provided that, in the event of a dispute, the sum due to the beneficiary would bear late-payment interest only fifteen days after a final judgment. The court held that this requires a genuine dispute: an insurer that, uneasy about paying a large sum, let itself be sued without contesting what it owed cannot rely on the clause. Where payment is due \"fifteen days after final determination and proof of the total loss\", the date of a presumed loss is irrelevant. The judgment was upheld on the first point.","k":"Personal accident insurance — interpretation of a late-payment interest clause","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 43; interpretation of the policy","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1974-09-04","rol":"6201","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1974:ARR.19740904.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La prescription commence à courir à la date à laquelle le droit à des allocations pour l'incapacité permanente est devenu contentieux par la notification à l'accidenté que la consolidation était acquise sans séquelle…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The limitation period runs from when the right to permanent-incapacity benefits became disputed, i.e. when the victim was notified of consolidation without compensable after-effects. The workplace-accident legislation, which is a matter of public policy, contains no rule allowing a letter from the insurer's medical adviser to interrupt limitation, so such a letter cannot be relied on. The Juportal summary does not state the concrete outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — start and interruption of limitation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 69","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1974-05-16","rol":"241","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1974:ARR.19740516.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La victime d'un accident du travail reconnu et réglé, qui, avertie par l'assureur que la consolidation est acquise sans incapacité permanente, et qui se fait opérer sans marquer à l'assureur son désaccord et sans faire…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"After the workplace-accident insurer notified consolidation without permanent incapacity, the victim had a cyst removed without objecting, stayed silent for three years and sued three days before the limitation period expired. The court held that causation between the cyst and the accident, now impossible to prove, had not been established: the surgery costs and resulting temporary incapacity remain the victim's burden, as at first instance. However, contrary to the first-instance ruling, the claim was not frivolous or vexatious.","k":"Workplace accident — proving causation for later surgery","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 28","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1974-04-19","rol":"1139","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTBRL:1974:JUG.19740419.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Le barème E s'applique au calcul de capitaux constitutifs de rentes et prévoit un chargement de 3,5 % pour couvrir les frais de gestion. Le capital à constituer suivant le barème E n'est dès lors affecté qu'en partie au…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The victim, compensated under ordinary law, claimed the statutory top-up from the workplace-accident insurer. The court noted that scale E includes a 3.5% loading for management costs; the statutory annuity should therefore be converted into capital using scale F, since that capital is not actually set aside, deducted from the ordinary-law capital, and the difference converted into an allowance and then into capital using scale E, as that capital actually funds the annuity. The summary gives no amount or outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — statutory top-up, choice of scale E or F","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 19 and 46 §2","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1974-03-18","rol":"241","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1974:ARR.19740318.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Krachtens art 22 van de Verzekeringswet van 11 juni 1874 en art. 19 van de in 1931 gecoördineerde arbeidsongevallenwetten kan de arbeidsongevallenverzekeraar, bij een ongeval op de weg van of naar het werk, van de…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, after a commuting accident, the workplace-accident insurer that compensated the victim may, under article 22 of the 1874 Act and article 19 of the coordinated 1931 Acts, recover the flat-rate benefits paid from the liable third party, to the extent of the victim's rights against that party. For the same insurer and the same loss, the insured cannot also be a third party, but everyone else, including the employer's other workers, is a third party.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — who is a liable third party","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 22; coordinated Acts of 28.9.1931, art. 19; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46","w":-1,"c":"Hof van beroep van Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1974-02-04","rol":"1139","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTHAI:1974:JUG.19740204.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Dès lors que la victime refuse le taux d'incapacité de travail que propose l'assureur-loi à l'expiration du délai de révision, l'assureur-loi ne saurait être obligé à verser en capital la valeur du tiers de la rente…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"The victim had rejected the incapacity rate proposed by the workplace-accident insurer at the end of the revision period. The court held that the insurer could not be required to pay one third of the annuity as a lump sum on the basis of that rate, as no statutory provision allows it; its only obligation is to pay annual allowances on the rate it proposed (art. 63(4)). The lump-sum request was premature, even on an interim basis.","k":"Workplace accident — rejected incapacity rate and lump-sum request","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 45 and 63 §4","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1974-01-17","rol":"71/1906","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1974:ARR.19740117.13","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"L'obligation de l'assureur de payer les indemnités d'incapacité temporaire totale à cause du fait que la victime par suite de complications causées par une prothèse ne peut plus exercer temporairement sa profession,…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer's duty to pay temporary total incapacity benefits for complications caused by a prosthesis ends when the revision period expires; thereafter it owes only a definitively fixed life annuity. Temporary aggravations after that period, where permanent incapacity is at least 10%, are borne by the Occupational Accidents Fund, even if they appeared and were compensated by the insurer before the period expired. The ruling allocates the burden between the insurer and the Fund.","k":"Workplace accident — temporary aggravation after the revision period","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 25","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1973-12-04","rol":"2124","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARBRL:1973:JUG.19731204.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Het vonnis acteert het akkoord der partijen in herziening betreffende de graad van blijvende arbeidsongeschiktheid die van 8% op 14% wordt gebracht, en beveelt de betaling der vergoedingen en renten op deze basis. Met…","court":"labour","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The court recorded the parties' revision agreement raising the degree of permanent incapacity from 8% to 14% and ordered payment of the benefits and annuities on that basis. It rejected the claimant's request to index the benefits to the consumer price index: no statutory provision requires the workplace-accident insurer to do so, and index-linked supplements are granted of its own motion by the Workplace Accidents Fund (RD of 21.12.1971).","k":"Workplace accident — revision and indexation of annuities","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 39 and 65; RD 21.12.1971, arts. 2, 3 and 6","w":-1,"c":"Nederlandstalige arbeidsrechtbank Brussel","m":"summary"},{"d":"1973-11-26","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARGNT:1973:JUG.19731126.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Il n'y a pas lieu de mettre à charge de la victime d'un accident du travail les frais de procédure parce qu'elle a refusé, de manière non motivée, de laisser homologuer l'accord signé par elle produit par l'assureur. On…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court refused to order the victim to pay the costs after he refused, without giving reasons, to have ratified the settlement he had signed and the workplace-accident insurer had produced. Ratification requires agreement of both parties at that moment, so the victim may still withdraw before the judge. The fact that the expert report confirmed the insurer's doctor does not show bad faith or inexcusable fault by the victim.","k":"Workplace accident — refusal to ratify a settlement and costs","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 68","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail de Gand","m":"summary"},{"d":"1973-11-22","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAANT:1973:JUG.19731122.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"In strijd met art. 19 van de vroegere gecoördineerde wetten dat het verhaalsrecht uitstelde tot het definitief worden van de wiskundige reserve, subrogeert art. 47 van de wet van 10 april 1971 uitdrukkelijk de…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Unlike art. 19 of the former coordinated laws, which postponed recourse until the mathematical reserve became final, art. 47 of the Act of 10.4.1971 expressly subrogates the workplace-accident insurer to the victim's rights not only for sums paid but also for the capital representing the annual allowance, i.e. the provisional mathematical reserve. The insurer's recourse claim against the liable third party for that amount was held admissible.","k":"Workplace accident — insurer's recourse and provisional mathematical reserve","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47; coordinated laws of 28.9.1931, art. 19","w":279,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1973-09-05","rol":"2124","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1973:ARR.19730905.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Les circonstances de fait relatées dans la déclaration lorsqu'elles résultent des constatations personnelles de l'employeur peuvent constituer un véritable aveu extrajudiciaire de leur réalité sous réserve de preuve…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Facts in the accident report based on the employer's own observations may amount to an out-of-court admission, subject to proof to the contrary; if disputed, the admission cannot be relied on against the workplace-accident insurer. For a commuting accident, which occurs outside the employer's supervision, the victim or the dependants must prove that the accident happened, above all its place and time. The concrete outcome is not stated.","k":"Workplace accident — proof of a commuting accident","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 8 and 62","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1973-06-21","rol":"73/128","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTLIE:1973:ARR.19730621.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"La compagnie d'assurances refuse d'indemniser une incapacité partielle de 10 % à dater du 1er janvier 1972, date d'entrée en vigueur de la nouvelle loi et de son article 23, en raison de ce que l'intimé était remis au…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The insurer had refused to compensate a 10% partial incapacity from 1.1.1972, arguing that the victim had returned to work without loss of pay. The court held that article 23 of the Act is a single scheme balancing the parties' interests, from which the insurer cannot detach paragraph 3, and that it cannot use any other return-to-work procedure. If it neither starts that procedure nor offers suitable rehabilitation, it must pay temporary total incapacity benefits until full return to work or consolidation.","k":"Workplace accident — return to work and partial incapacity benefits","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 23","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1973-06-19","rol":"72/2334;72/2394","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1973:ARR.19730619.6","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"Where a third party is wholly or partly liable for a workplace or commuting accident and has compensated the victim with a lump sum, the workplace-accident insurer's share is determined using scale F annexed to the Royal Decree of 21 December 1971; scale E would give the victim sums due to the insurer for managing the capital. The insurer must still set up the annuity capital using scale E. Which party prevailed is not clear from the summary.","k":"Workplace accident — applicable scale where a third party has paid","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 16 and 51; RD 21.12.1971, art. 20","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1973-03-19","rol":"1080","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1973:ARR.19730319.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"Lorsque le tribunal de police, après avoir acquitté une personne prévenue d'une infraction, pour le motif que celle-ci n'est pas établie, s'est en conséquence déclaré incompétent pour connaître de l'action de la partie…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The police court had acquitted the defendant because the offence was not proven and declined jurisdiction over the civil claim; the victim let that decision become final. The court held that the victim could no longer seek damages from the same defendant before the civil court, even though the criminal ruling was reversed on the prosecution's appeal. However, this does not bar the workplace-accident insurer from seeking reimbursement from the liable third party of the benefits it paid to the victim.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — res judicata of the criminal judgment","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 47","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1973-03-15","rol":"1080","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAANT:1973:JUG.19730315.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"De rechtsvordering van de verzekeraar-wet tegen het ondernemingshoofd is niet wettelijk, zelfs indien het ondernemingshoofd aansprakelijk is voor een ongeval op de weg van het werk. Hetzelfde geldt voor de…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the workplace-accident insurer's recourse against the employer is not admissible, even if the employer caused a commuting accident; the same applies to a claim against the employer's liability insurer, since one person cannot, towards the same insurer and for the same loss, be both insured and a third party. By contrast, recourse against a co-worker liable for the commuting accident, or against his motor liability insurer, is admissible. Upheld by the Antwerp Court of Appeal on 17.4.1975.","k":"Workplace accident — insurer's recourse against the employer and a co-worker","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46","w":-1,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1973-02-13","rol":"2124","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARANT:1973:JUG.19730213.12","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"Where the same claim is brought against one person in its dual capacity as employer and insurer, both heads are joined and the labour court has jurisdiction over the whole. Where group insurance forms an integral part of the employment contract and the employer and insurer are the same person, a dispute over payment of the reduced (paid-up) value of the supplementary policy also falls within the labour court's jurisdiction. The court held that this value is remuneration within the meaning of the Act of 12 April 1965 and that the employer owes interest on it by operation of law from the date it became payable.","k":"Group insurance — claim against the employer-insurer, jurisdiction and interest","law":"Judicial Code, arts. 565, 566 and 578; Act of 12.4.1965, arts. 2 and 10","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1973-01-08","rol":"752","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILIE:1973:JUG.19730108.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Malgré l'article 47 de la loi du 10 avril 1971 qui subroge l'assureur-loi dans les droits de la victime, non seulement pour le remboursement des dépenses réellement faites mais encore pour le capital représentatif de…","court":"first","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The workplace-accident insurer, as civil party, claimed from the liable third party not only its outlays but also the capital representing the annual allowance. The court held that, despite the subrogation under article 47 of the Act of 10 April 1971, the claim for that capital cannot be granted before the revision period expires; the provisional mathematical reserve was refused. The dispute concerns the subrogated insurer's recourse against the liable third party.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's recourse — capitalised annual allowance","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts 24 and 47","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1972-11-23","rol":"2733","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CTBRL:1972:ARR.19721123.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Etant donné que la chute est un événement soudain (Bull. Ass. 1972, p. 14), la chute que la victime a faite au lieu du travail après le 1er janvier 1972 et qui a entraîné des lésions, est un accident du travail, lorsque…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"A fall is a sudden event. The court held that the victim's fall at the workplace after 1 January 1972, which caused injuries, was a workplace accident, because the workplace-accident insurer neither proved nor offered the legally permitted rebuttal evidence regarding the link between the sudden event and the injury, or between the accident and the performance of work.","k":"Workplace accident — fall at the workplace","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 9","w":-1,"c":"Cour du travail de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1972-10-17","rol":"4623R","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CALIE:1972:ARR.19721017.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Liège Court of Appeal held that the workplace-accident insurer is subrogated to the victim's rights through a double statutory subrogation: article 22 of the Act of 11 June 1874 subrogates it to its insured, the employer, and article 19 of the 1931 coordinated laws subrogates the employer to the victim. Where a motor vehicle caused the accident, the subrogation extends to the victim's direct action against the liable party's insurer (art. 6 of the Act of 1 July 1956); the workplace-accident insurer's action was held admissible.","k":"Workplace-accident insurer's subrogation — direct action against the motor liability insurer","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 22; coordinated laws of 28.9.1931, art. 19; Act of 1.7.1956, art. 6; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1972-09-26","rol":"241","ecli":"ECLI:BE:ARANT:1972:JUG.19720926.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Vermits de rechthebbenden van een slachtoffer van een arbeidsongeval dat tevens aanleiding geeft tot vergoeding in gemeen recht, beide vergoedingen niet mogen cumuleren, stelt zich in casu een probleem van verrekening…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The beneficiaries of a workplace-accident victim whose accident also gives rise to general-law compensation cannot receive both; the two must be offset, and the beneficiaries must receive at least the compensation under the Workplace Accidents Act. The court held that the calculation starts from the capital value of the unreduced annuity under scale F, from which the general-law capital is deducted. It rejected a calculation that would load onto the beneficiaries the management costs of the annuity body, as they are strangers to the relationship between the workplace-accident insurer and that body.","k":"Workplace-accident annuity — calculation after general-law compensation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46","w":-1,"c":"Arbeidsrechtbank Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1972-06-07","rol":"4623R","ecli":"ECLI:BE:EAANT:1972:JUG.19720607.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Behoudens tergend of roekeloos proces vallen de kosten inzake arbeidsongevallen ten laste van de verzekeraar. Wanneer de verzekeraar aansprakelijk is voor een geringe vergissing in de berekening van het basisloon die…","court":"first","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"Except in vexatious or reckless proceedings, costs in workplace-accident cases are borne by the insurer. The insurer had made a minor error in calculating the base wage; the victim, though expressly agreeing to its correction, refused a voluntary appearance before the justice of the peace and thus forced the insurer to appeal, which was vexatious. As the insurer was also responsible for the error, the court found it fair for each party to bear its own appeal costs.","k":"Workplace accident — appeal costs and vexatious litigation","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 68","w":-1,"c":"Rechtbank eerste aanleg Antwerpen","m":"summary"},{"d":"1972-02-29","rol":"77/11.484","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1972:ARR.19720229.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"duties","q":"Lors de la conclusion d'un contrat d'assurance, la fausse déclaration comme la réticence du preneur entraînent la nullité du contrat (art. 9 de la loi du 11 juin 1874 sur les assurances). Pendant la durée du contrat,…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court recalled that under the 1874 Act misrepresentation or non-disclosure at inception renders the contract void, while an aggravation of risk caused by the insured during the contract ends the insurer's obligations. Where the aggravation is temporary, the insurer is released only if the loss occurs during that period, including under a subscription policy. An insurer relies in vain on non-disclosure and aggravation that postdate the loss; the summary does not state the concrete outcome explicitly.","k":"Non-disclosure and temporary aggravation of risk","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, arts 9 and 31","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1972-02-21","rol":"22975","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTLIE:1972:JUG.19720221.9","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Un assureur ne peut opposer à la victime d'un accident du travail une clause de déchéance convenue entre lui-même et son assuré, l'employeur. Ne reste toutefois pas tenu au paiement des indemnités légales ni des frais…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that the insurer cannot raise against a workplace-accident victim a forfeiture clause agreed with its policyholder, the employer. However, a workplace-accident insurer that proves the policy was terminated in compliance with the time limits and formalities of article 22 of the Royal Decree of 7 December 1931 is no longer liable for statutory benefits or medical costs. The summary does not say whether that proof was made or how the case ended.","k":"Workplace-accident insurance — forfeiture clause and termination of the policy","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 53; RD 21.12.1971, art. 9; RD 7.12.1931, art. 22; Act of 28.9.1931, art. 15 (former provisions)","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1972-02-08","rol":"2733","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTBRL:1972:JUG.19720208.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"C'est la perte de capacité de travail dans la profession exercée par la victime au moment de l'accident qui doit déterminer le taux et la durée de l'incapacité temporaire. Il faut toutefois que la victime soit autorisée…","court":"labour","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that the rate and duration of temporary incapacity depend on the loss of capacity in the occupation held at the time of the accident, provided the workplace-accident insurer has authorised the victim to resume work. The temporary total incapacity benefits paid by the insurer until the return to work therefore remain with the victim, even if the expert sets the end of total incapacity before the return date proposed by the insurer.","k":"Workplace accident — temporary incapacity benefits retained","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 22; coordinated Acts of 28.9.1931, art. 2","w":-1,"c":"Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1972-01-25","rol":"70/130;70/132","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1972:ARR.19720125.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The Juportal summary of this decision is identical to that of the 22.4.1971 decision with the same docket numbers. According to the court, the liability insurer may make compensation conditional on a repair invoice only if the expert report containing that clause was accepted by the injured party or a duly authorised repairer. The repairer's signature falls outside apparent authority, and the insurer must prove authorisation. The concrete outcome is not stated.","k":"Liability insurance — invoice clause and the repairer's apparent authority","law":"Apparent authority; burden of proof","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1971-12-03","rol":"75/43","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTLIE:1971:JUG.19711203.7","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Lorsqu'un traitement approprié est appliqué dans le service médical organisé par l'entreprise et que son efficacité permet la reprise du travail, avec l'accord du médecin de l'organisation syndicale de la victime, la…","court":"labour","out":"sigortaci","src":"juportal","s":"Appropriate treatment given in the company's medical service was effective enough to allow a return to work, with the agreement of the doctor of the victim's trade union. The court held that the victim must bear the aggravating consequences of unsuitable treatment that he continued at his own risk on the advice of another doctor of his choice, and that those consequences are not chargeable to the workplace-accident insurer.","k":"Workplace accident — consequences of unsuitable treatment chosen by the victim","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, arts. 23 and 24","w":281,"c":"Tribunal du travail de Liège","m":"summary"},{"d":"1971-11-09","rol":"255","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTBRL:1971:JUG.19711109.10","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"En application de l'article 19 des lois coordonnées sur les accidents du travail, lorsque la responsabilité d'un accident du travail incombe à un tiers, la victime a droit, après avoir obtenu du tiers réparation du…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court accepted that under article 19 of the coordinated Acts of 28 September 1931, a victim compensated under ordinary law by the liable third party may claim the difference from the workplace-accident insurer, since the victim may never receive less than the statutory flat-rate compensation. The reduced annual allowance is computed by calculating the statutory capital with the scale E coefficient, deducting the ordinary-law capital, and dividing the balance by that coefficient. The summary gives no amount or outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — statutory top-up after compensation by a third party","law":"Coordinated Acts of 28.9.1931, art. 19; Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46","w":281,"c":"Tribunal du travail francophone de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1971-10-21","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1971:ARR.19711021.3","ch":"","res":"","t":"motor","q":"Pour déterminer qui de l'assureur-responsabilité civile véhicules automoteurs ou assureur responsabilité civile exploitation est tenu de réparer le dommage causé par un véhicule-outil ou un engin de chantier, il faut…","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that whether the motor liability insurer or the operational liability insurer must cover damage caused by construction machinery depends on how the machine works. For machines that work while stationary (e.g. a crane truck), motor cover applies to driving faults while moving; for machines whose work involves movement (e.g. a mechanical shovel), the traffic risk ends once they reach the site and only the operational risk remains. The first-instance judgment was upheld.","k":"Motor liability or operational liability — construction machinery","law":"Traffic risk versus operational risk (concept of \"traffic\")","w":280,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1971-04-22","rol":"70/130;70/132","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1971:JUG.19710422.8","ch":"","res":"","t":"damage","q":"","court":"appeal","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court stated that the liability insurer of the person at fault may make compensation conditional on producing a repair invoice only if the expert report containing that clause was accepted by the injured party or by a duly authorised repairer. Such a clause falls outside the repairer's apparent authority, so the insurer relying on it must prove the repairer was authorised. The concrete outcome is not stated.","k":"Liability insurance — payment conditional on an invoice and the repairer's authority","law":"Apparent authority; burden of proof","w":5,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1971-03-31","rol":"730","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTHAI:1971:JUG.19710331.2","ch":"","res":"","t":"work","q":"Le tribunal doit examiner si l'intérêt du bénéficiaire de la rente s'accorde avec la demande de tiers en capital. Si la demande lui paraît justifiée, le tribunal peut néanmoins déterminer des modalités spéciales pour le…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"The court must examine whether a request to receive one third of the annuity as a lump sum is in the beneficiary's interest. Even where it finds the request justified, it may set special terms for payment by the insurer, particularly where the capital is to pay for building work on the beneficiary's property that has not yet been carried out. The summary does not state the outcome.","k":"Workplace accident — payment of one third of the annuity as a lump sum","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 45; coordinated laws of 28.9.1931, art. 5","w":281,"c":"Tribunal du travail du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1971-03-11","rol":"1113","ecli":"ECLI:BE:TTHAI:1971:JUG.19710311.4","ch":"","res":"","t":"subrogation","q":"Une victime d'accident du travail ou du chemin du travail a le droit d'intenter simultanément deux actions : une contre le tiers (droit commun), la seconde contre l'employeur ou l'assureur de celui-ci (loi). Lorsque le…","court":"labour","out":"diger","src":"juportal","s":"A victim may sue the liable third party under general law and the employer or its insurer under the statute at the same time. Where the general-law court, seized first, has appointed an expert, the labour court stays its ruling on statutory compensation but not the appointment of its own expert, because the two bases of compensation differ, even if all parties, including the workplace-accident insurer, attend the general-law expert examination.","k":"Workplace accident — parallel common-law and statutory proceedings","law":"Act of 10.4.1971, art. 46; coordinated laws of 28.9.1931, art. 19","w":281,"c":"Tribunal du travail du Hainaut","m":"summary"},{"d":"1970-11-16","rol":"","ecli":"ECLI:BE:CABRL:1970:ARR.19701116.5","ch":"","res":"","t":"intent","q":"Dans l'exécution d'un contrat d'assurance \" dégâts matériels \" ( omnium automobile ), l'assureur ne peut invoquer l'article 16 de la loi du 11 juin 1874 relatif à la faute lourde de l'assuré, lorsque celui-ci a commis…","court":"appeal","out":"sigortali","src":"juportal","s":"The court held that, under a material-damage (comprehensive) motor policy, the insurer cannot rely on the gross-fault rule in article 16 of the Act of 11 June 1874 where the insured negligently but unintentionally failed to monitor the vehicle's condition and believed it to be in good order. The insured's criminal conviction for driving on worn tyres did not change this.","k":"Comprehensive motor cover — worn tyres and gross fault","law":"Act of 11.6.1874, art. 16","w":279,"c":"Cour d'appel de Bruxelles","m":"summary"},{"d":"1968-01-18","rol":"M.5007","ecli":"ECLI:BE:PILUX:1968:JUG.19680118.1","ch":"","res":"","t":"procedure","q":"","court":"first","out":"kismen","src":"juportal","s":"The court held the arbitration clause of the Antwerp marine policy void and unenforceable against both the insured and the injured party, as the general conditions had not been properly disclosed and the insurer had tried to hide the contract from the third party; the insurers could be sued with the insured before the ordinary court. Under a policy \"for the account of whom it may concern\" the cargo owner may claim the indemnity, but the all-risks clause covers only immediate property losses. Co-insurers without joint liability owe several shares; breach of the duty of assistance and defence gives rise to damages.","k":"Transport insurance — arbitration clause and all-risks cover","law":"Act on jurisdiction, art. 37ter","w":279,"c":"Tribunal de première instance du Luxembourg","m":"summary"}]}