A man became the protagonist of an extensive legal dispute after losing his motorcycle in a robbery that occurred in the town of Ramos Mejía. As stated in the sentence to which he agreed Infobae, The case involves the claim of compensation for breach of an insurance contractafter an accident that left the victim without his means of transportation.
On the night of January 12, 2023, the insured left his Yamaha FZ25 motorcycle, model 2020, properly parked and insured. The vehicle was protected with a handlebar lock and alarm, and the driver only stepped aside to look for his son on a nearby soccer field. When he returned, minutes later, he discovered that the vehicle had been stolen by unknown persons.
After making the police report and, the following day, the administrative complaint to the insurer, the plaintiff stated that, From that day on, he began to suffer “a real hell” with the companywhich never responded or managed the payment of the compensation provided for in the policy.
The insurance contract, valid until March of that year, covered theft or total theft of the vehicle. Despite the complaint and the deregistration of the vehicle from the Automotive Property Registry, the company continued to collect the insurance premium by credit card until July. This point was part of the claim, along with the request for the return of those additional payments.
During the judicial process, the insurance company’s defense recognized the existence of the contract, the validity of the policy and the nature of the incident. However, he argued that the owner of the motorcycle never presented all the documentation required to manage the collection of compensation. The company maintained that it notified the insured of the need to complete certain procedures, and stated that the lack of these steps made payment impossible.
The judge in the case, in charge of the Civil and Commercial Court No. 10 of La Matanza, analyzed the documentation provided by both parties, including the accounting expertise that proved the existence of the insurance and the report of the theft in a timely manner. The ruling highlighted that there was no controversy regarding the criminal act or the validity of the coverage.
According to the resolution, the insurer had the legal obligation to rule on its client’s claim within a period of thirty days, as required by current regulations. By not doing so, The company’s silence was interpreted as a tacit acceptance of the origin of the incident.in line with what is established by the Insurance Law.
The ruling also stressed that the automobile insurance contract constitutes a consumer relationship, so the rules of the Consumer Protection Law and the Civil and Commercial Code are applicable. According to the judicial text, legal protection is aimed at protecting the consumer as a vulnerable party and demanding clear, truthful and timely information from the company.
The judge evaluated the different items claimed. Regarding the value of the vehicle, the resolution established that The market price of a motorcycle with similar characteristics on the date of the ruling must be taken as a basis.and not the historical amount set in the policy, due to the inflationary process and the delay in insurance payment. A value of 5,800,000 pesos was determined as the main compensation.
The claim for the fees improperly collected after the theft of the vehicle was dismissed, since sufficient evidence was not presented to prove the debits executed by the company in the months after the theft. The ruling emphasized the importance of the burden of proof and the need to provide supporting documentation.
Regarding the non-pecuniary damage, the judge considered that the anguish and inconvenience suffered by the plaintiff were evident due to the very nature of the event and the prolongation of the conflict, for which he established compensation of 1,000,000 pesos, estimating that the non-property damage occurred. in re ipsathat is, it arose from the facts themselves.
Regarding the deprivation of use of the vehicle, it was recognized that the loss of the motorcycle implied specific property damage, since the victim had to look for transportation alternatives. For this concept, a sum of 500,000 pesos was granted.
The court also allowed the application of punitive damages, a concept provided for in the Consumer Protection Law to sanction careless or disinterested behavior on the part of suppliers. He considered that the attitude of the defendant, who did not provide information or solutions to the clientwarranted the imposition of a civil fine of 1,500,000 pesos.
The ruling declared the unconstitutionality of article 7 of law 23,928, which prohibits the updating of monetary obligations, following the doctrine of the Supreme Court of the province of Buenos Aires. He ordered that the sum to be paid be updated according to the consumer price index (CPI) from the date of the ruling and until the moment of actual payment.
In addition, it established an interest of 6% per year on the updated amount and determined that the insurer’s default began to be computed on February 13, 2023, that is, thirty days after the incident was reported. The defendant must make the payment within ten days from when the insured certifies compliance with the requirements of the contract and regulations.
The ruling also imposed the costs (expenses) of the process on the insurer, as the losing party, and deferred the regulation of professional fees for the settlement stage of the sentence, in line with local legislation.
The judicial resolution ordered the payment of a total of 7,300,000 pesos, a sum that includes the concepts of compensation for the theft of the vehicle, moral damage and deprivation of use, plus the fine for punitive damage, interest and monetary update.
