The Supreme Court does not consider it "admissible" for an insurer to require a deceased client to claim compliance with the policy

But yes, a widow or children can demand it in the event of death even if they are not policyholders or beneficiaries

MADRID, 22 Abr. (EUROPA PRESS) -

The Supreme Court has agreed with the relatives of a man who died after being run over and has sentenced the insurer to pay 3,000 euros to thus comply with the legal defense insurance that it had contracted. The magistrates have considered that "it is not admissible" the thesis of the company that compliance with the policy was only required by the insured himself, who died in the accident.

The high court has concluded that both the widow and the children can claim "the contracted legal defense coverage" even if they are not the policyholders and that they were not designated as beneficiaries in the policy either.

In this case, the Civil Chamber has studied whether, by virtue of the legal defense coverage included in the compulsory vehicle insurance policy, the insurer had to pay or not the fees of the lawyer hired by the widow to claim compensation from the insurance of the vehicle that caused the accident in which her husband died.

In a sentence, to which Europa Press has had access, it is stated that the deceased had subscribed since 2014 with his insurance company a mandatory insurance policy for his car that included legal defense coverage in the event of an accident as a pedestrian . In August 2015, the man had an accident on the Cartagena-Valencia highway in which he was killed by a vehicle.

In May 2017, the woman and the man's minor children filed a lawsuit against the deceased's insurer to demand that it comply with the provisions of the policy and take charge of the 9,550 euros related to the fees of the lawyer they had hired to claim to the author of the accident compensation for the damage suffered.

As stated in the resolution, the insurer did not pay the expenses and argued, among other issues, that the wife and children of the deceased were not entitled to claim legal defense coverage because said guarantee only covered the policyholder, the insured and the driver and it was not "extensible to the costs of the professionals appointed by their heirs".

The Investigating Court Number 41 of Madrid agreed with the insurer and dismissed the claim of the relatives, understanding that they lacked active legitimacy. Dissatisfied with the decision, the wife and children take the case before the Provincial Court of Madrid, which confirmed the decision of the Court. Ultimately, they have gone to the Supreme.

In 17 pages, the Civil Chamber has answered that in this case it is not disputed that the man was insured or that he suffered an accident as a pedestrian, for which reason it has concluded that consequently the insurer must face the defense costs legal because a clause of the signed policy contemplated it.

In the resolution, for which Judge Ángeles Parra has been a rapporteur, the Supreme Court has determined that the thesis that compliance with the insurance is only required by the insured himself "is not admissible", because this "would free the insurer in an unjustified in cases in which the result of the accident suffered was more serious and caused the death of the insured".

Thus, the court has upheld the appeal and has declared that "the legal defense coverage contracted for the case of accidents that the insured person may suffer as a pedestrian is required in the event of death by his widow and children, without This precludes that they are not the policyholders and that they were not designated as beneficiaries in the policy either".

Regarding the amount claimed by the next of kin -of about 9,550 euros, according to the criteria of the Valencia Bar Association, or secondarily of about 3,000 euros, the maximum amount set in the policy--, the Supreme Court has opted for the amount set in contract. "It is therefore appropriate to order the defendant insurer to pay the sum of 3,000 euros," the magistrates have agreed.