Legislator Case Law & Legislation
DE FR IT EN
Analyze in Legislator
VSL sodba II Cp 350/99 ECLI:SI:VSLJ:2000:II.CP.350.99 AI generated

Insurance policy terms regarding alcohol exclusion are not vague and must be interpreted under Article 100 of the Insurance Act.

Case Number VSL sodba II Cp 350/99
Court / Authority
Jurisdiction Slovenia (SI)
Decision Date
Outcome Dismissed
Open official source Machine-readable Markdown (.md)

Legislator summary

AI generated

The appellate court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal, upholding the first-instance judgment that rejected the claim for indemnity and awarded costs to the insurer. The plaintiff argued that the insurer's general terms were unclear regarding alcohol influence and that electronic testing results did not meet the threshold for exclusion. The court ruled that the policy clauses were not vague and must be interpreted strictly against the insurer under Article 100 of the Insurance Act, thereby confirming the insurer's right to deny liability.

Legislator headnote

AI generated

Article 100 of the Insurance Act; Article 164 of the Road Traffic Safety Act: General terms excluding liability due to alcohol must be clear; if not, they are interpreted against the insurer, but here they were found not vague, so the exclusion stands.

Keywords

AI generated
insurance policy interpretation alcohol exclusion clause Article 100 Insurance Act vague terms doctrine road traffic safety law indemnity claim rejection strict interpretation against insurer

Cited Legislation

AI generated
Article 100 of the Insurance Act
Article 164 of the Road Traffic Safety Act
Article 354 of the Act on Civil Procedure
AI generated
VSL Sodba II Cp 519/2018
Contract partially allowed: Damages interest start date corrected to first claim filing under good faith principle.
VSC sodba Cp 1006/2010
Appeal dismissed; assignee can assert debtor's bankruptcy objections against assignor regarding debt extinguishment.
VSL sodba I Cp 1560/2016
Court partially allows appeal on damages calculation for property damage, rejecting claim for expert report costs due to lack of evidence.
VSL Sodba II Cp 1389/2020
Appeal dismissed; joint liability requires agreement or law, not presumption, in construction contract dispute.
VSK sodba in sklep Cpg 25/2014
Appeal partially allowed: lost profit claim remitted for new trial; damages claim upheld.

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

Pritožba se zavrne kot neutemeljena in se potrdi sodba sodišča prve stopnje.

[JEDRO]

Določila v splošnih pogojih tožene stranke za nezgodno zavarovanje oseb, o domnevi dokazane vzročne zveze med nezgodo in delovanjem alkohola na zavarovanca, ki izključuje obveznosti zavarovalnice, niso nejasna, zato jih je treba razlagati z uporabo čl. 100 ZOR.

[OBRAZLOŽITEV]

Sodišče prve stopnje je razsodilo, da se zavrne tožbeni zahtevek tožnika, da mu mora tožena stranka plačati tolarsko protivrednost 7.080 DEM z zakonitimi zamudnimi obrestmi in mu povrniti pravdne stroške. V posledici take odločitve je tožniku naložilo, da povrne toženi stranki njene pravdne stroške v znesku 97.614,00 SIT. Zoper to sodbo se je pritožil tožnik iz vseh pritožbenih razlogov po 1. odstavku 354. člena Zakona o pravdnem postopku - v nadaljevanju ZPP/77. Navaja, da v času prometne nezgode ni bil pod vplivom alkohola v smislu 2. odstavka 164. člena takrat veljavnega Zakona o temeljih varnosti cestnega prometa. Elektronski alkotest je pokazal manj kot 0,5 g/kg alkohola v organizmu, zato se ni bil dolžan podvreči krvni analizi. V njegovem primeru ni podana situacija iz 8. točke 1. odstavka 9. člena splošnih pogojev tožene stranke, zato mu je tožena stranka dolžna izplačati zahtevano odškodnino.