On 14 January 2022, the Supreme Court, composed of seven judges, issued a resolution favourable to victims regarding the scope of liability under a motor third-party liability insurance contract (MTPL) for damage caused by the use of multi-purpose vehicles. This resolution is important for victims of accidents involving excavators, bulldozers, agricultural machinery, etc., as it will enable them to pursue claims against insurance companies more effectively.
On 18 August 2020, the Financial Ombudsman filed a motion with the Supreme Court (ref. No. III CZP 7/22) to adopt a resolution aimed at resolving divergences existing in case-law with respect to the scope of liability under a compulsory motor third-party liability insurance contract for damage caused by the use of multi-purpose vehicles (excavators, bulldozers or agricultural tractors with attached agricultural equipment, etc.).
The Financial Ombudsman’s intervention was related to the divergence, noticed by his experts, in the interpretation by national courts of the concept of ‘use of a vehicle’ and, consequently, also the divergence in the interpretation of the scope of liability under a motor third-party liability insurance contract in the case of damage caused by the operation of multi-purpose vehicles.
On 14 January 2022, the Supreme Court issued the following resolution:
Liability of an insurance company arising from a compulsory motor third-party liability insurance contract covers damage caused as a result of operation of equipment installed in the vehicle, also when, at the moment when the damage was caused, the vehicle did not perform its motor function (Article 34 of the Act of 22 May 2003 on compulsory insurance, the Insurance Guarantee Fund and the Polish Motor Insurers’ Bureau – consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2021, item 854 in connection with Article 436 of the Civil Code).
According to the operative part of the resolution, the Supreme Court has shared the position presented by the Financial Ombudsman with regard to the scope of the insurance company’s guarantee liability resulting from compulsory MTPL insurance, related to the use of multi-purpose vehicles.
Initially, the interpretation of the use of a vehicle arising from the case-law of the Polish courts was very broad. This concept was understood as the use of vehicles regardless of the function they performed at the time of the accident, i.e. whether they were used as a means of transport or as a work tool. The decisive factor involved was the operation of the engine, which was undoubtedly a favourable interpretation for the victims who were injured or killed in incidents at the interface between the vehicle’s transport and working functions.
Subsequently, a trend towards a narrower definition of the term ‘use of vehicles’ could be observed. This approach started to become apparent after the CJEU ruling C – 514/16. The line of case-law unfavourable to victims was also presented by the Supreme Court in its judgements of 8 September 2019 (IV CSK 292/18) and 10 October 2019 (I PK 137/18). These rulings point to the need to distinguish between the function that the vehicle concerned was performing at the time of the damage, i.e. that of a transport or work tool.
The resolution of the divergence noted by the Ombudsman was particularly important in view of the fact that very serious personal injuries (death and permanent disability) often occur with this type of multi-purpose vehicles, including slow-moving vehicles used
on farms.
A perfect example illustrating the scale of the problem and the misfortune which often befalls people working hard on farms is an incident which occurred during field work. In this case, the accident occurred while working in the field with a tractor to which a straw baling machine was connected, driven by the tractor’s engine through a shaft connecting the machine to the tractor. After completing the straw pressing and baling work, the father instructed his son to check that the straw baler was working properly. At the same time, he did not immobilise the tractor, which was in constant motion.
When the victim was on the wheel of the baler, trying to pull out a screwdriver that had fallen into it, the rotating rollers caught his arm, which was pulled through the baler, crushing the entire limb including the axillary vessels. This incident resulted in an injury to the upper limb resulting in amputation.
In this case, the insurer refused to accept liability under the compulsory motor third-party liability insurance taken out. However, the adjudicating court, in accordance with the prevailing line of case-law at the date of adjudication, allowed the claim. In the justification, the court stated that the agricultural tractor connected to the straw baler (in which the engine was still running) constituted a mechanical means of communication within the meaning of Article 436(1) of the Civil Code and a motor vehicle within the meaning of the Act of 22 May 2003 on compulsory insurance, the Insurance Guarantee Fund and the Polish Motor Insurers’ Bureau (the CIA).
Similar unfortunate incidents, such as the one described above, are often referred to the Financial Ombudsman by victims. Unfortunately, the existing divergences in the line of case-law
in terms of the concept of ‘use of a vehicle’, make it difficult for the Financial Ombudsman to provide the expected assistance to victims. Hence, in order to stop this unfavourable jurisprudential trend for victims of accidents involving multi-purpose vehicles, by preparing a motion to the Supreme Court, the Financial Ombudsman aimed to shape a uniform line of case-law emphasising a broader view of the concept of ‘use of a vehicle’ (definitely more favourable for the victims).
The Financial Ombudsman pointed out that the interpretation of ‘use of a vehicle’ in the CJEU ruling of 28 November 2017 (C – 514/16) does not require that Polish courts have to depart from the previous line of case-law in view of this judgement. Indeed, EU law does not preclude the recognition that the use of a vehicle within the meaning of Article 34 of the CIA also covers the use of a vehicle as a work tool. On the contrary, it should be stated that the regulations of Directive 2009/103/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability are only of a minimum nature and therefore going beyond the minimum standards set out in the Insurance Directive should be considered acceptable and even desirable.
