خسارت‌های مالی قابل جبران توسط بیمه‌گر شخص ثالث و قیود حاکم بر آن در قانون بیمه اجباری مصوب 1395

هدف: پژوهش حاضر تلاش دارد تا مصادیق خسارت ‌های مالی ناشی از حوادث رانندگی را بررسی کرده و قیود و شرایط حاکم بر جبران آن ها را که طبق قانون بیمه اجباری مصوب 1395 در صورت وجود بیمه ‌نامه معتبر شخص ثالث برعهده بیمه‌ گر قرار می گیرد، نقد و تحلیل نموده تا در نهایت پیشنهاداتی جهت اصلاح قانون مزبور یا توجه به آن ها در آیین ‌نامه ‌های مربوط ارائه نماید.روش‌شناسی: روش مورد استفاده در این پژوهش، توصیفی تحلیلی با استفاده از ابزار کتابخانه‌ ای می باشد.یافته‌ ها: خسارت‌های مالی در صورتی تحت پوشش بیمه ‌نامه شخص ثالث قرار می گیرد که مال حادثه‌دیده متعلق به شخص ثالث بوده و خارج از وسیله نقلیه مسبب حادثه قرار داشته باشد. وانگهی گرچه در عمل، شرکت ‌های بیمه، اُفت قیمت خودرو را تحت شمول تعهدات خود تلقی نمی کنند. لیکن اُفت قیمت خودرو که در نتیجه حادثه رانندگی حاصل می شود، یکی از خسارات مسلمی است که ممکن است به وسیله نقلیه ثالث وارد شود و در نتیجه، تحت پوشش بیمه‌نامه شخص ثالث قرار گرفته و قابل مطالبه از بیمه‌ گر است. به‌علاوه خسارت متناظر، خسارتی است که میزان آن، متناظر با خسارت وارده به گران ترین خودروی متعارف محاسبه خواهد شد نه به تناسب و نسبت ‌گیری از خودروی متعارف. قانونگذار در پیش بینی نهاد خسارت متناظر، از نظریه ‌های مرسوم پیرامون فلسفه و هدف مسوولیت مدنی و اصل جبران کامل خسارت فاصله گرفته و تلاش کرده است تا بر مبنای عدالت توزیعی و نیز ملاحظات اخلاقی و اقتصادی و ملاحظات مربوط به سیاست‌گذاری اجتماعی، اثر مسوولیت مدنی را به نفع قشر ضعیف تر جامعه به لحاظ اقتصادی، تعدیل نماید.نتیجه ‌گیری: عدم شفافیت قانون بیمه اجباری مصوب 1395 در مورد برخی مصادیق خسارت‌های مالی وارده بر شخص ثالث و قیود و شرایط حاکم بر جبران آن ها، سبب ظهور تردیدها و ابهام ‌هایی شده که ‌موجد اختلاف دیدگاه و تضارب آرا است. لذا دخالت قانونگذار و اصلاح قانون ضروری می ‌نماید. 

Compensable Damages to Property by Third Party Insurer and the Restrictions Governing it under Compulsory Insurance Act 2016

Objective: The present study attempts to examine the instances of damages to property caused by traffic accidents and the restrictions and conditions governing their reimbursement, which under Compulsory Insurance Act 2016, an insurer will compensate if there is a valid third party insurance and ultimately make suggestions to amend  relevant laws.Methodology: The method used in this study is descriptiveanalytical using library tools. In this article, first, the issue is examined according to Compulsory Insurance Act 2016 and then the opinions of lawyers on the issue are discussed and finally, along with the analysis and review of opinions in the Iranian legal system, suggestions for amending Compulsory Insurance Act 2016 are presented.Findings: Unconditional definition of damages to property in paragraph b of article 1 of Compulsory Insurance Act 2016 includes damages to third party property (whether object or benefit or right). Of course, damages to property are covered by third party insurance if the property belongs to a third party and is located outside the vehicle causing the accident. According to paragraph 1 of Article 17 of Compulsory Insurance Act 2016, damages to the cargo of the vehicle that caused the accident, whether it belonged to the driver who caused the accident or a third party, were excluded from third party insurance. Moreover, if the damages resulting from the deprivation of benefits (loss of use) can be claimed according to the general rules of civil liability, there is no reason not to claim such damages from the insurer under Compulsory Insurance Act 2016. As a result, the reference of article 39 of Compulsory Insurance Act 2016 only to vehicle, is related to the prevailing case because the property and objects under the ownership or legal possession of third parties that are damaged may not be his only car, as paragraph b of Article 1 of Compulsory Insurance Act 2016, in the definition of damages to property, it refers to &third party property&, which unconditional definition includes any property. Also benefiting from paragraph b of article 1 of Compulsory Insurance Act 2016 and the concept contrary to paragraph “a” of article 17 of that law and the provision of article 2 of Law on Immediate Investigation of Damages Caused by Motor Accidents, approved 1966, the loss of market value of a car (price reduction) that results from a car accident is one of the obvious damages that may be suffered by a third party and is therefore covered by third party insurance and can be claimed on the insurer, because in note 3 of article 8 of Compulsory Insurance Act 2016, financial compensation is the responsibility of the insurer or the tortfeasor of the accident. If the price reduction is not considered as damages to property and is not considered compensable by the insurer, the tortfeasor of the accident should not be responsible. In addition, the corresponding damage is the damage that will be calculated corresponding to the damage done to the most expensive conventional car, not to the proportion of the conventional car. In predicting the institution of the corresponding damage, the legislator has departed from the conventional theories about the philosophy and purpose of civil liability and the principle of complete compensation and has attempted to work on the basis of distributive justice as well as ethical and economic considerations and social policy considerations to moderate effect of civil liability for the benefit of the weaker part of society economically. The last part of note 3 of article 8 states a provision that implies the provision of a special system of financial compensation for traffic accidents. Because the corresponding damage to the most expensive conventional car is applicable not only in the presence of third party insurance but also is applied in favor of the tortfeasor of the accident when the car of the tortfeasor of the accident does not have valid third party insurance. A ruling that has no precedent in the Iranian legal system and its justification is impossible in the traditional framework of civil liability and according to traditional principles and rules, especially the noharm rule. Given that the institution of the corresponding damage is exceptional and irregular, it seems that the application of the specific rule of the corresponding damage is applicable only on the assumption that the subject of the third party’s property damages was his vehicle. In cases where damages to property have been incurred on property other than his vehicle, all damages to property, as the case may be, are reimbursed by the insurer of the vehicle causing the accident (up to the limit of the financial obligations of the insurance policy) or by the person responsible for the accident.Conclusion: The lack of transparency of Compulsory Insurance Act 2016 on some instances of damages to property caused to third parties such as cargo belonging to the occupant of the vehicle, deduction of car price (price reduction) of the damaged property and deprivation of the third party from gaining benefits of the property and the conditions governing their compensation such as the limit of financial obligations contained in the insurance policy and the corresponding damage, have caused doubts and ambiguities which have caused disagreement and conflict of opinions that requires the legislator to intervene to reform the law in this regard. Accordingly, in order to prevent any disagreement and conflict of opinions, it is proposed: 1) Possibility of compensating the price reduction of the vehicle, deprivation of benefits of the damaged property, compensation for damage to the cargo of the occupant of the vehicle should be explicitly foreseen to provide full compensation, which was one of the most important goals of Compulsory Insurance Act 2016. 2) The legislator shall explicitly limit the application of special rule of corresponding damage to the third party vehicle.JEL Classification: K11, K13, K15.