Post by account_disabled on Feb 24, 2024 18:31:13 GMT -10
Therefore, the Court does not agree with what was stated in the lower court ruling that the actual damage caused to the injured party was not determined before her death, since it is clear that the information provided by the doctor to whom the insurer entrusted the monitoring of the injured party, as well as another expert report issued at the request of the plaintiff, the conclusions of both doctors are coincident. Likewise, there is also evidence of the existence of the mandatory reasoned offer, as well as partial payments on account of the compensation recognized as owed by the insurance entity.
To finalize the confirmation of the active legitimation of the heirs , the Court has also recalled that Law 35/2015, of September 22, regulates in article 43 et seq., the specific Fax Lists case in which the heirs receive in such condition , and not in the condition of injured parties, the compensation that corresponds to the victim when he or she has not died as a result of the accident and the death has occurred before the compensation has been established , precisely because "the legislator considers that the right to claiming such compensation, even if it is not quantified, has already entered the victim's assets ,” the magistrates state.
In the ruling, the Chamber has pointed out that in this case the compensation was established before the death of the injured person through the motivated offer made by the insurer. Well, the reasoned offer carried out “was not for purely administrative purposes, or for prior negotiations between the parties, but for the purposes of settling the consequences of the incident with the compensation offered, making payments on account, which is why it binds the insurance company with respect to the injured party and, upon death, with respect to their heirs .”