The spontaneous burning of a vehicle parked in a private garage for more than 24 hours falls within the concept of ‘use of vehicles’ for insurance purposes, Advocate General (AG) Bot has recently affirmed.
EU law obliges member states to ensure that civil liability in respect of the use of vehicles normally based in their territory is covered by a compulsory third-party liability insurance and it goes on to prescribe a minimum cover in all EU countries. The insurance must cover compulsorily both damage to property and personal injuries.
The facts of this case were briefly as follows. A vehicle which had not been driven for more than 24 hours and which was parked in the garage of a private dwelling, caught fire and caused damage to the dwelling. The fire originated from the vehicle’s electrical system.
The civil liability relating to the use of the vehicle was covered by insurance taken out with a particular insurance company while the house was insured with another company.
The owner was compensated for the material damage caused to the dwelling by the insurance company with which the house was insured. The latter company then filed legal proceedings against the insurance company with which the vehicle was insured, seeking reimbursement of the compensation paid out.
It was alleged that the accident originated from “the use of a vehicle” and hence was covered by the vehicle’s motor insurance. The final appellate court seized of the case filed a preliminary reference before the CJEU requesting guidance as to the interpretation of the concept of ‘use of vehicles’ in terms of the relevant EU law in question.
AG Bot opined that the definition as to what constitutes ‘use of vehicles’ cannot be left to the discretion of each member state since this term emanates from an EU law. Hence, ensuring a harmonised interpretation across all member states is of the essence. The AG then proceeded to distinguish the facts of this case from those of previous cases dealt with by the CJEU.
According to settled case law, ‘use of a vehicle’ includes situations when damage has been caused by a vehicle situated in a private area intended for parking. However, in all the previous cases, the vehicle causing the damage was either in use or had just been used. In this case, the vehicle was not being used, not even within a short time preceding the accident.
Ensuring a harmonised interpretation across all member states is of the essence
The AG concluded that the circumstances of the case under examination ought to still be considered as ‘use’. He came to this decision based on the fact that EU law does not lay down any limits relating to the origin of the damage caused by a vehicle.
The AG went on to observe that the objective of the CJEU’s past jurisprudence on such matters has always been that of ensuring the protection of victims of accidents caused by vehicles, whenever the latter were used or intended to be used as a means of transport. A case-by-case analysis of when the vehicle was last used would cause legal uncertainty and would run counter to such an established objective, the AG noted.
In his opinion, the AG highlighted the fact that only circumstances in which an accident occurs when the vehicle is or has been used for a purpose other than transport, such as, as a machine for carrying out work or as a weapon, or even as living accommodation, do not fall within the concept of ‘use of vehicles’.
Since, in the case under examination, the fire was spontaneously caused by the vehicle, this was sufficient, to conclude that the vehicle was involved. This type of risk is inherent in the transport function of the vehicle and hence there was no need to seek any specific action or source of damage.
Such an interpretation is necessary in order to ensure that the objective of ensuring that victims of accidents caused by vehicles receive the same treatment irrespective of in which EU member state the accident occurred, the AG emphasised. Hence, the AG concluded that a vehicle, used consistently with its function as a means of transport, could be said to be involved in an accident merely upon finding that it contributed in some way to the actual accident.
The AG’s opinion may now be taken on board or totally discarded by the CJEU in its ruling. However, irrespective of the outcome, an important principle has emanated from this opinion – the fact that a harmonised approach to interpreting EU laws is necessary in order to ensure a level playing field across all EU member states and the utmost protection to those who the law is intended to safeguard.
Mariosa Vella Cardona is a freelance legal consultant specialising in European law, competition law, consumer law and intellectual property law.mariosa@vellacardona.com