{"id":823,"date":"2024-08-01T22:14:06","date_gmt":"2024-08-01T19:14:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/gazetajuridica.ro\/?p=823"},"modified":"2024-08-14T11:20:12","modified_gmt":"2024-08-14T08:20:12","slug":"judecatoria-horezu-tertul-raspunzator-de-producerea-pagubei-poate-invoca-fata-de-asigurator-apararile-pe-care-le-putea-opune-persoanei-pagubite-privitoare-la-existenta-prejudiciului-a-culpei-a-rasp","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/gazetajuridica.ro\/index.php\/2024\/08\/01\/judecatoria-horezu-tertul-raspunzator-de-producerea-pagubei-poate-invoca-fata-de-asigurator-apararile-pe-care-le-putea-opune-persoanei-pagubite-privitoare-la-existenta-prejudiciului-a-culpei-a-rasp\/","title":{"rendered":"Judec\u0103toria Horezu. Ter\u0163ul r\u0103spunz\u0103tor de producerea pagubei poate invoca fa\u0163\u0103 de asigur\u0103tor ap\u0103r\u0103rile pe care le putea opune persoanei p\u0103gubite privitoare la existen\u0163a prejudiciului, a culpei, a r\u0103spunderii sale, a cuantumul pagubelor cauzate asiguratului"},"content":{"rendered":"<p>\u201d(&#8230;) ter\u0163ul r\u0103spunz\u0103tor de producerea pagubei poate invoca fa\u0163\u0103 de asigur\u0103tor ap\u0103r\u0103rile pe care le putea opune persoanei p\u0103gubite privitoare la existen\u0163a prejudiciului, a culpei, a r\u0103spunderii sale, cuantumul pagubelor cauzate asiguratului, sens \u00een care p\u00e2r\u00e2ta a \u015fi procedat. Chiar dac\u0103 dispozi\u0163iile art. 2210 (1) C.civ. stabilesc o limit\u0103 superioar\u0103, cea a indemniza\u0163iei pl\u0103tite, regresul asiguratorului nu poate fi admis de plano \u00een raport cu aceast\u0103 sum\u0103, exist\u00e2nd de asemenea necesitatea respect\u0103rii principiului acoperirii integrale a prejudiciului, ce poate fi \u00eentr-un cuantum inferior sumei remise de asigurator.<\/p>\n<p>Astfel, prejudiciul concret suferit de c\u0103tre asigurat este de 2373,60 lei, motiv pentru care ac\u0163iunea poate fi admis\u0103 doar \u00een aceast\u0103 limit\u0103, re\u0163in\u00e2nd de asemenea c\u0103 a fost efectuat\u0103 o plat\u0103 total\u0103 de 1800 lei de c\u0103tre p\u00e2r\u00e2t\u0103.<\/p>\n<p>Cererea de acordare a dob\u00e2nzii legale, formulat\u0103 de c\u0103tre reclamant\u0103 este neavenit\u0103 \u00eentruc\u00e2t prin contractul \u00eencheiat \u00eentre asigur\u0103tor \u015fi asigurat a intervenit subrogarea \u00een favoarea asigur\u0103torului a dreptului la plata recuper\u0103rii sumelor remise \u015fi re\u0163in\u00e2nd c\u0103 \u00een contractul ini\u0163ial \u00eencheiat \u00eentre ace\u015ftia nu s-a probat existen\u0163a vreunei clauze penal\u0103 privind penalit\u0103\u0163ile de \u00eent\u00e2rziere, p\u00e2r\u00e2ta este obligat\u0103 doar la plata prejudiciului produs. Cererea de acordare de dob\u00e2nzi penalizatoare formulat\u0103 de creditorul asigur\u0103tor trebuie interpretat\u0103 \u00een favoarea debitorului, \u00een sensul c\u0103 acesta nu s-a obligat la astfel de pl\u0103\u0163i.\u201d<\/p>\n<p style=\"text-align: right;\"><strong><em>(sentin\u021ba civil\u0103 nr. 994\/01.08.2024 a Judec\u0103toriei Horezu &#8211; Sec\u021bia civil\u0103, sursa: <a href=\"https:\/\/www.rejust.ro\/juris\/986g46g52\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">rejust.ro<\/a>)<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>\u201d(&#8230;) ter\u0163ul r\u0103spunz\u0103tor de producerea pagubei poate invoca fa\u0163\u0103 de asigur\u0103tor ap\u0103r\u0103rile pe care le putea opune persoanei p\u0103gubite privitoare la existen\u0163a prejudiciului, a culpei, a r\u0103spunderii sale, cuantumul pagubelor cauzate asiguratului, sens \u00een care p\u00e2r\u00e2ta a \u015fi procedat. Chiar dac\u0103 dispozi\u0163iile art. 2210 (1) C.civ. stabilesc o limit\u0103 superioar\u0103, cea a indemniza\u0163iei pl\u0103tite, regresul [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[18,35],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-823","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-dreptul-asigurarilor","category-jurisprudenta"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/gazetajuridica.ro\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/823","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/gazetajuridica.ro\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/gazetajuridica.ro\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gazetajuridica.ro\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gazetajuridica.ro\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=823"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/gazetajuridica.ro\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/823\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":824,"href":"https:\/\/gazetajuridica.ro\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/823\/revisions\/824"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/gazetajuridica.ro\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=823"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gazetajuridica.ro\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=823"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/gazetajuridica.ro\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=823"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}