Document Type : Original Research Paper

Authors

• A.R. Alavi Dehkordi ¹
• M. Shahbazinia ¹
• M. Izanloo ²

¹ Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law, Tarbiat Modares University, Tehran, Iran

² Department of Private Law, Faculty of Law and Political Science, University of Tehran, Iran

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In this article, an attempt has been made to analyze the views of judges and legal writers on the functions of the principle of subrogation in insurance and the views of proponents and opponents.
METHODS: The present study is a comparative study that was compiled using the library method and referring to legal texts and related sources, especially judicial opinions.
FINDINGS: The insurance contract as a credit nature and insurance as an industry are based on the principles that together, form the insurance institution and directs it to its intended purpose. Article 30 of the Insurance Law refers to the principle of subrogation, which is one of the practical principles governing compensation insurance. That is to say, if a risk occurs under the insurance coverage as a result of personal harm and if the risk occurs, the insurer must compensate for the damage according to the insurance contract. Subsequently, the insurer will have the right to refer to the cause of the loss in order to recover the amounts paid by the insurer. The principle of the insurer's subrogation is a function of the principle of compensation. This means that the insurer does not benefit from the occurrence of the loss and the loser is not unnecessarily absolved of the responsibility that is the direct result of his/her act or omission of the harmful act, and of course the insurer should not make a bonanza profit. The result of this triangle of right for the insurer will be accompanied by a fall in the premium due to the loss factor that all of which have led to the principle of subrogation in insurance. The deputy is the only principle whose existence has been criticized in insurance, and in other words, not only its "principle" as a necessity, but also its basis as an advantage has been questioned.
CONCLUSION: The regulation of the three legal relationships among the people involved in insurance- the insurer, the insuree and the Cause of loss- is found in the principle of subrogation and its necessity for the insurance industry is inevitable. It should not be considered unnecessary to be removed. Instead, costs should be reduced by modifying and simplifying how to get to the deputy including the provision of administrative and non-judicial subrogation instead of judicial formalities which preserve its benefits and finally, the subrogation functions were achieved. It is expedient to have a subrogation in insurance to the extent that this right can be negligently interpreted as a "principle". Although the title of the principle for subrogation differs from what is discussed in other insurance principles, but opponents - whether in the position of a principle or in the position of right- is a replacement. It is basically not subrogation in this contract. If a comprehensive set of rules for succession in order to facilitate the recovery of funds from the perpetrators of the accident is prepared and approved, such as banning car traffic before paying damages or an extraordinary review of insurance replacement cases and the issuance of collateral without possible damages it can reduce the problems in reclaiming damages.

Keywords

• Deputy
• Insurance Contract
• Insurer
• Policyholder
• Principle of Subrogation

Main Subjects

• Comparative studies in the field of insurance