Exclusion of Mandatory Insurance Coverage for Damage to the Semi-Trailer in an Accident Caused by the Tractor Unit: The Supreme Court Clarifies Its Doctrine on the Interpretation of Article 5.2 of the Law on Civil Liability and Insurance in the Circulation of Motor Vehicles (LRCSCVM), Treating the Semi-Trailer as “Goods Transported”
Facts
Following a traffic accident in Spain, specifically on the so-called Autovía de la Plata, which involved the vehicle leaving the road, overturning, and subsequently catching fire, both the insured articulated vehicle (covered under an automobile insurance policy with Company A) and the refrigerated semi-trailer (which had been leased and was transporting various products – fresh fruits and vegetables – from Huelva and Cádiz to multiple consignees in Finland, the Netherlands, Estonia, and Latvia, with a commercial value of €65,283.64) were affected. As a consequence of the accident, part of the goods remained inside the semi-trailer and part was spilled onto the ground. After a prompt inspection, it was determined that the goods were unfit for human consumption, and they were removed and transported for destruction.
Legal Grounds
At the time of the incident, R. covered the losses suffered by the goods under a cargo insurance policy. In accordance with the agreed covers, R. paid the aforementioned amount and made an out-of-court claim for reimbursement from the insurer covering the civil liability risk derived from the circulation of the tractor unit, which denied the claim. Failing agreement, R. exercised a right of recourse under Article 43 of Law 50/1980 on Insurance Contracts (LCS) for the damage caused to the transported goods.
It was argued that the principle of joint liability between articulated vehicles in respect of third parties does not preclude, in internal relations, both the tractor and the semi-trailer from being considered independent vehicles. Each may cause damage autonomously, and each is a “third party” vis-à-vis the other. Thus, there is no reason why the owner of the semi-trailer or the goods should not bring proceedings against the driver of the tractor and its insurer for damage caused to the semi-trailer or its cargo, attributable to the negligence of the said driver. Furthermore, damage to the trailer and the goods it carries is covered by the compulsory civil liability insurance of the tractor unit, as the exclusion in Article 5.2 of the LRCSCVM concerns goods transported in the insured vehicle, and not goods or damage involving another vehicle, such as the trailer or semi-trailer.
The contrary argument was that the compulsory insurance of the tractor unit does not cover damage to the semi-trailer or the goods transported when, as here, both elements operate as a single functional unit. It was asserted that in addition to the statutory exclusion, “Damage to goods transported in the insured vehicle, whether during transport or during loading and unloading operations,” is also excluded.
The court of first instance fully upheld the claim and ordered the defendant to pay the claimed sum. The judgment rejected the alleged statutory exclusion on the basis that the tractor unit and the semi-trailer involved in the accident are, internally, two independent vehicles, both materially and legally individualised. Therefore, the exclusion under Article 5.2 LRCSCVM does not extend to cover damage caused to goods transported in a vehicle other than the insured, such as the semi-trailer.
Appeal
The defendant appealed, reiterating arguments raised at first instance.
The Provincial Court partially upheld the defendant’s appeal regarding costs, while fully allowing the claimant’s appeal. Specifically, regarding the exclusion of coverage, the Court stated that exclusion may arise only when the articulated unit (tractor plus semi-trailer) causes damage to a third party, but not when no other vehicle is involved, in which case they should be considered independent vehicles. Therefore, the owner of the goods transported in the semi-trailer (insured with R) is a third party in relation to the insurer of the tractor unit.
The only issue raised in the appeal was the proposed exclusion of damage to the semi-trailer, caused by the negligence of the tractor driver, from the compulsory insurance coverage of the tractor. The Supreme Court, having clarified that such exclusion does not contravene EU law, held that Article 5 of the LRCSCVM should be interpreted to exclude such coverage because the semi-trailer is classified as “goods transported” in the insured tractor unit.
As tractor units lack capacity to transport goods independently, both the semi-trailer (lacking its own traction) and its cargo must, in cases like this, be considered as “goods transported” in the tractor unit. Therefore, the exclusion of coverage for damage to the semi-trailer, resulting from the negligence of the tractor driver, under the compulsory insurance of the tractor unit is justified and the appeal must be upheld, as the disputed judgment ran contrary to established Supreme Court doctrine.
Spanish Supreme Court cassation
The Supreme Court allowed the cassation appeal brought by the defendant against judgment 534/2020 of 15 July from the Provincial Court. The original judgment was overturned, the appeal by the defendant upheld, and as a consequence the first instance judgment was reversed and the claim brought by R was dismissed. The following doctrine is reiterated: “Article 5.2 of the Law on Civil Liability and Insurance in the Circulation of Motor Vehicles must be interpreted to mean that, in cases of traffic accidents involving articulated vehicles caused by the negligence of the tractor unit driver, the compulsory insurance of the tractor unit does not cover damage to the attached semi-trailer.”
