Insurer ordered to compensate drunk driver's parents

The Supreme Court has rejected an appeal by MAPFRE which alleges that the personal accident policy held by the driver, who died in a crash in 2002 when he was four times over the legal alcohol limit, is not valid where death or bodily injury are the direct result of the insured's own actions.

Back in 2008, the couurt of first instance in Negreira (A Coruña province) in the north-western region of Galicia, upheld the parents' claim and ordered MAPFRE to pay up.

But MAPFRE's appeal in 2010 to the provincial court of A Coruña was accepted.

Article 19 of the Law of Insurance Contracts in Spain states that an insurer is obliged to pay a claim for death or injury where the policy is in force and paid up 'except in the event of misrepresentation, deliberate act or non-disclosure' which is material to the claim.

The Supreme Court says this was not the case since there is 'no evidence' that the crash was the 'deliberate act' of the deceased.

And since 2010, subsequent case law has invalidated any pretence at declining a motor insurance claim for own or third party damage, death or bodily injury on the grounds that the policyholder was under the influence of alcohol whilst driving.

In addition to paying the full amount of the claim to the parents, MAPFRE has been ordered to pay interest for delay in settlement, as stated by Article 20 of the Law of Insurance Contracts, dating back to the day of reporting the claim in 2002.

The court found there was 'no just cause' for continuing to repudiate the claim, and as a Supreme Court appeal verdict, the decision of the judge is final with no further recourse to higher courts available to the insurer.