Distinction of recourse and subrogation in insurance legal relations

Straipsnyje analizuojama teoriniu ir praktiniu požiūriu aktuali subrogacijos atskyrimo nuo regreso draudimo teisiniuose santykiuose problema. Siekiant atskleisti subrogacijos ir regreso teisinį santykį, pirmiausia straipsnyje atliekama terminų „subrogacija“ ir „regresas“ lingvistinė bei teisinė analizė, kurios dėka įvertinami šių dviejų institutų skirtumai. Pagrindinis dėmesys yra skiriamas regreso ir subrogacijos skirtumų nustatymui ir analizei, kuri atliekama pasitelkus teisės teoriją bei remiantis šiuo metu Lietuvoje veikiančiais teisės aktais ir aktualia Lietuvos Aukščiausiojo Teismo praktika. Autorės siekia atriboti subrogaciją nuo regreso, todėl, kad šiai dienai šiuos du institutus taikyti praktikoje padeda Lietuvos Aukščiausiojo Teismo praktika, o ne painus teisinis reglamentavimas. Draudikams šis momentas yra ypač aktualus, nes priklausomai nuo to ar draudikas įgyja regreso teisę ar jam reikalavimo teisė pereina subrogacijos būdu, priklauso įstatyme nustatytų terminų skaičiavimas teisei pareikšti atgręžtinį reikalavimą bei šalių santykiams taikytina teisė. Pažymėtina ir tai, kad nuo draudiko galimybės tinkamai įgyvendinti regreso ar subrogacijos teisę, gali priklausyti ne tik atitinkamų draudžiamųjų rizikų perėmimas iš draudėjo, bet tai gali įtakoti ir draudiko operatyvumą priimant sprendimus dėl draudimo išmokos, o draudėją kuo operatyviau informuoti draudiką apie draudžiamąjį įvykį.The problems of recourse and subrogation institutes regulation in the Civil Code of Republic of Lithuania are analyzed in this article. Distinction of institutes’ problems becomes more apparent analyzing legal relations of insurance. Variables and application of recourse and subrogation remains unclear analyzing both legal doctrine and constantly changing practice of Lithuanian Supreme Court. Legislature of Republic of Lithuania called Civil code chapter VII “transfer of legal requirement to third party in recourse order (subrogation)” thus contributing to confusion of recourse and subrogation equating. Relevance of the topic is also justified by the fact that since new Lithuanian Civil code came into force seventeen years ago it still remains unclear criteria implicating recourse and subrogation in legal relations. Recourse occurs after third party fulfills obligation for the debtor. This is a new recourse obligation which links debtor and party fulfilling debtor’s obligation. Meanwhile, in the case of subrogation institute it is the same continuing obligation causing consequences not only for the parties to the insurance contract, but also to third parties. The purpose of this scientific article is to analyze nature of recourse and subrogation institutes also to investigate legal framework of insurer's rights claiming compensation from the liable person's and to perform comparative analysis of recourse and subrogation in insurance legal relations and dissociate these two institutes. Object of scientific article – features of recourse and subrogation institutes application in insurance legal relations. After analysis of legislation, legal doctrine and legal practice of Lithuanian Supreme Court, it must be concluded that distinction between subrogation and recourse is important for the legal classification of the dispute relations. Calculation of time limits and applicable law is dependent if the creditor received legal requirement as a subrogation or acquired a right of recourse. Article authors presents main differences of subrogation and recourse in insurance legal regulations: 1. subrogation is when the tortfeasor and the insured are different parties but when tortfeasor and insured are the same insurer acquires obligation of recourse, therefore during subrogation insurer receives legal requirement from injured party, while during recourse from the party injured by insured actions; 2. recourse obligation is regarded as new obligation, but in case of subrogation obligation to compensate does not end, only changes one part of obligation parties; 3. in case of recourse obligation the payment of insurance indemnification is considered as start of legal prescription, but in case of subrogation fact of insurance indemnification is considered as appearance of subrogation right, but not as a start of legal prescription; 4. the practice of Lithuanian Supreme Court regarding application of simplified legal prescription term is not unified, therefore specific situations should be solved via restoration institute of legal prescription