by Davide Gatto
Last January 16, the Council of Ministers approved the proposal for the draft Presidential Decree regarding the "Single table of the pecuniary value to be attributed to each single point of disability between 10 and 100 points for the quantification of non-pecuniary damage, in its biological and moral component, for minor injuries“. This regulation concerns injuries resulting from the circulation of motor vehicles and boats, as well as those resulting from the activity of the healthcare professional and of the healthcare or social-health facility, public or private. The approval took place in execution of the regulatory activity delegated to the technicians according to the art. 138 of the Insurance Code, even if the approval process was temporarily interrupted by the suspension of the necessary opinion of the Council of State, which identified procedural and substantial problems.
The draft Presidential Decree in question should fill the regulatory gap that has persisted since the entry into force of the Insurance Code, which occurred 18 years ago. However, over the years, this void has been compensated by the settlement tables of the Court of Milan and the Court of Rome. Although the legislator has expressed the desire to respect the jurisprudential evolution underlying these tables and to take them into account of the criteria for assessing non-pecuniary damage deemed appropriate by the consolidated jurisprudence of legitimacy, the draft decree does not appear to reflect this intent.
The arguments provided by the Executive to justify the choices contained in the draft decree, which illegitimately and significantly deviate from the actual legislative intention, appear weak. Above all, the application of the monetary values envisaged for the settlement of permanent and temporary biological damage resulting from minor injuries, even in the case of macro-injuries, is to be considered arbitrary, as it does not respect the will of the legislator. In fact, with the provision of two distinct rules, the Legislator has instead intended to differentiate the regulation aimed at compensation protection in the event of damage resulting from macro-injuries (pursuant to art. 138 of the Civil Code, i.e. in the case of major injuries resulting in permanent disability between 10% and 100%) compared to cases of damage from micro-injuries (pursuant to art. 139 CdA, i.e. in the case of minor injuries resulting in permanent disability of up to 9%) given the different and significant relevance between the two hypotheses. It follows that this choice on the part of the technicians involves an unjustified reduction in the compensation amounts, thus giving rise to the sole need to economically benefit the companies to the detriment of the further and much more important primary requirement of the law which is that of "guarantee the right of accident victims to full compensation for non-pecuniary damage actually suffered".
The Council of State has detected various irregularities and inadequacies in the draft decree, both at a procedural and substantive level, and has therefore suspended its opinion in order to allow the Administrations concerned to reactivate the procedure for the development of a table that effectively takes into account of the compensation parameters deemed appropriate by jurisprudence and which does not lead to regressions of compensation. He underlined the need to guarantee full and complete compensation for victims given that this is the primary requirement imposed by the law, without compromising the fairness of protection due to a secondary need such as the rationalization of insurance costs. The hope is that a regulation will be reached that adequately respects the rights of victims and does not lead to unjustified reductions in compensation.
For further information, read the full article , promising.