Highway Code

The owner who entrusts the vehicle to others should check whether they insure it

Fines for lack of insurance also possible from traffic light cameras, but only for those who run red lights

by Maurizio Hazan

18 November 2024

Aggiungi Il Sole 24 Ore
ai preferiti su Google

3' min read

Key points

New in order
Black box
Single table of macro-injuries claims
Mandatory motor insurance coverage
Duty in private areas

3' min read

The forthcoming changes to the Highway Code (Cds) also affect compulsory third-party motor liability insurance. And they are set to be followed by others, contained in the Ddl Concorrenza (Competition Act), now before Parliament.

New developments

In the Code there is the extension of the obligation to monopkins, the 'double' liability of the owner if the vehicle is not insured, and the delegation to the government to modify the regime of vehicles with foreign number plates circulating for a long time in Italy, also providing that they be covered by an insurance contract appropriate to Italian regulations and compensation. In the Ddl Concorrenza there are rules to encourage the portability of the black box, which has been debated for more than 10 years.

So, still a 'patchy' legislation, far from the idea of a general and coordinated reform of motor liability insurance that has been called for by many, after various individual and often incomplete amendments, mainly due to the lack of the envisaged implementing decrees.

Black box

An example of this is the black box, to the installation of which the Insurance Code (Cap) has been linking since 2017 (Articles 132-ter and 145-bis) not insignificant tariff (discounts) and evidential (in the event of a claim) consequences. Effects that to date have not seen the light of day, in the absence of the implementing Dm that should have specified the technical characteristics of the device.

And yet the widespread use of black boxes in the contractual practice of the market today leads the legislator to regulate their use, providing for the right of insured parties to uninstall them freely and free of charge, at the expiry of the contract, and to dispose of the data recorded by them (mileage and type of journeys) for use with a possible new company. An obvious patch, which does not cover the implementation 'hole' left by Cap.

Single table of macro-injuries claims

A hole that becomes a chasm when one speaks of the single national table provided for, since 2005, by Article 138 of the Cap on the pecuniary assessment criteria for serious non-asset damage from physical injury in the event of a road accident. A table of which there is talk of a possible forthcoming publication, which indeed cannot be postponed any longer.

Car insurance coverage obligation

Article 193 of the Cds expands the possibilities of checking the traffic light cameras (for those who have run red lights) and requires the owner to check that even when the vehicle is 'in any capacity, in the legitimate possession of another natural person or legal entity' it is covered. This last provision is highly questionable: the owner - in itself obliged to pay the fines jointly and severally with the driver (Article 196 of the Civil Code, unless he proves that the circulation took place against his will) - is naturally obliged in his own right to insure it, as the direct bearer of the insurance interest.

It is not clear, therefore, how this new verification obligation can lead to appreciable 'deterrent' effects, which are not already safeguarded today by the insurance obligation imposed ex lege directly on the owner. Unless one wants to include among the persons who have "in any capacity whatsoever the lawful availability of the vehicle" also leasing lessees, usufructuaries and purchasers with a retention of title agreement, i.e. those who are obliged in their own right to take out insurance instead of the owner.

If this were the case, for example, leasing companies would have to check compliance on the part of the lessee, but it is not clear what the penalties would be in the event of failure to do so or otherwise unsuccessful verification.

Moreover, it is unclear whether, in the event of a default, the Guarantee Fund that has indemnified the vehicle may have rights of recovery not only against the third party liable, but also against the owner of the vehicle who failed to ensure that the (different) obligor fulfilled its insurance obligation.

Mandatory in private areas

Complicating the picture then is the fact that the objective perimeter of the insurance obligation is still uncertain, as of today, due to some lingering and severe interpretative doubts on the application of Legislative Decree 184/2023, especially for vehicles circulating exclusively in restricted private areas, especially if not registered.