Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSRS Sklep III DoR 128/2018-9 ECLI:SI:VSRS:2019:III.DOR.128.2018.9 AI generated

Appeal allowed regarding insurance liability exceeding joint solid debt when victim sued both parties.

Case Number VSRS Sklep III DoR 128/2018-9
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Partially Allowed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The Supreme Court of Slovenia permitted the appeal against the second-instance judgment regarding insurance liability. The insured was sued jointly with the victim, represented by a lawyer, and the court ordered payment exceeding the solidary debt amount. The court allowed the review because the question of whether the insurer must pay more than the solidary debt constitutes a matter of law suitable for final review.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Zakon o pravdnem postopku, 367.a odst. 1: An appeal is admissible if the question concerns the interpretation of law or the application of a legal provision, specifically whether an insurer is liable to pay an amount exceeding the solidary debt when the victim sues both the insured and the tortfeasor.

Keywords

AI generated
insurance liability solidary debt joint tortfeasors legal appeal supreme court review

Cited Legislation

AI generated
367.a odst. 1 Zakona o pravdnem postopku
324. odst. 7 Zakona o pravdnem postopku
AI generated
VSC sodba Cp 594/2014
Court dismisses appeal as insurance subrogation claim for vehicle damage is time-barred after three years.
VSM Sodba in sklep I Cp 61/2025
Appeal dismissed; co-owner's refusal to share property use does not constitute unjust enrichment without formal demand. Co-owners may exercise rights jointly or separately, but actual use disproportionate to shares benefits one and harms others. Mere non-use without requesting permission does not justify unjust enrichment claims. Court upheld first-instance judgment against co-owner. Appeal dismissed; co-owner's refusal to share property use does not constitute unjust enrichment without formal demand. Co-owners may exercise rights jointly or separately, but actual use disproportionate to shares benefits one and harms others. Mere non-use without requesting permission does not justify unjust enrichment claims. Court upheld first-instance judgment against co-owner.
VSL sklep II Cpg 1042/2016
Appeal allowed; court quashes first instance judgment for overly strict evidentiary requirements and lack of reasoning.
VSRS Sklep III DoR 119/2016
Supreme Court allows review regarding whether Article 32 of CMR suspends limitation against insurer.
VSL sklep I Cpg 294/2016
Appeal dismissed; transitional provisions of new law do not apply to costs for cases started before ZOPNI-A. Court upheld first instance judgment on costs. Transitional provisions of new law do not apply to costs for cases started before ZOPNI-A. Court upheld first instance judgment on costs.

Need to analyze how this precedent applies to your matter?

Cross-reference this judgment against statutes, commentaries, and subsequent citing case law inside Legislator AI.

Open in Legislator →

Full text

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja, ali je zavarovalnica iz zavarovanja odgovornosti svojemu zavarovancu, če je oškodovanec kot navadna sospornika tožil oba in je zavarovanca zastopal odvetnik, dolžna povrniti znesek nad zneskom, na katerega sta bila solidarno obsojena oba?

[JEDRO]

Revizija se dopusti glede vprašanja, ali je zavarovalnica iz zavarovanja odgovornosti svojemu zavarovancu, če je oškodovanec kot navadna sospornika tožil oba in je zavarovanca zastopal odvetnik, dolžna povrniti znesek nad zneskom, na katerega sta bila solidarno obsojena oba.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

1. Sodišče prve stopnje je toženki naložilo plačilo zneska 9.539,74 EUR z zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi od 12. 1. 2016 (I. točka izreka) ter povrnitev 1.314,96 EUR tožničinih stroškov postopka z morebitnimi zakonskimi zamudnimi obrestmi (II. točka izreka).

2. Sodišče druge stopnje je pritožbo toženke zavrnilo in potrdilo sodbo sodišča prve stopnje (I. točka izreka) ter odločilo, da toženka sama nosi svoje stroške pritožbenega postopka (II. točka izreka).

3. Zoper sodbo sodišča druge stopnje toženka vlaga predlog za dopustitev revizije.

4. Revizijsko sodišče ugotavlja, da so izpolnjeni pogoji za dopustitev revizije iz prvega odstavka 367.a člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku glede vprašanja, kot je opredeljeno v izreku sklepa. Revizijo je zato glede njega dopustilo.

5. Vrhovno sodišče je odločitev sprejelo soglasno (sedmi odstavek 324. člena ZPP).