جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « دارنده » در نشریات گروه « مدیریت »

This study aimed to find a properly theory to analyze the relationship between owner's responsibility and insurer in “Compulsory insurance to losses to third parties as a result of accidents caused by vehicles act” that the owner's responsibility is restricted merely to insure his motor vehicle and the Insurer is responsible to compensate any damages resulting from motor vehicle. Really the owner insurs the vehicle and there is no obligation to him but insurer take all other obligations and responsibilities in all cases refering to 2016 Act, even in some force majeure cases such as Acts of God or theft.

This study was descriptive-analytical and was done according to library resources with qualitative variables.

With regarding to the structure of “Compulsory insurance to losses to third parties as a result of accidents caused by vehicles act”, there is no reasonable relation between the responsibility of owner as insured and the insurer. As in some cases such as force majeure, damages by thief and damages which the owner or the driver has no role or fault in its occurrence, then, the owner or the driver has no liability for compensation, but the insurer shall compensate the damages upon regular basis. 

Thus, to find out the relationship between the liability of the owner and the insurer, the responsibility of owner shall not be considered as the basis of insurer's responsibility, but with reliance on the theories of "Distributive Justice" and "the relationship between the insurer's responsibility and the damages resulting from vehicle" the rule of act shall be accepted to compensate damages incurred by injured party even the owner has no responsibility for compensation, i.e., we can consider the liability of the insurer instead of the liability of the owner as the basis for compensation. This is because the legislator has sought to compensate the maximum damage and this goal is not achieved by basing the liability of the owner, but the main responsibility in these accidents is the insurer’s and this responsibility has been transferred ccording to the insurance contract and the 2016 Compulsory Insurance Act. Therefore, the basis of insurer's responsibility shall not be owner's responsibility, and there is no subordinate relationship between the insured and the insurer in the responsibility.

The Iranian legal system has already completed four stages of legislation in the field of compulsory insurance of civil liability of owners of motor vehicles against third parties. These acts were enacted in the years 1952, 1968, 2008 and 2016, respectively. The new act has brought about innovations and developments regarding the protection of rights for both the damaged party and the insured, including the lack of need to obtain an addendum by the insured, the expanding of the concept of incident, the expanding of the concept of a third party and the separation between the policyholder and the driver of the vehicle. Another innovation is to increase the insurer and the bodily injury indemnity fund’s duties and anticipating the guarantee of civil and criminal acts in order to prevent their abuse. In this article, we study the strengths and weaknesses of the act. In some respects, this act is a reinstatement to act of 1952, which pays more attention to insurance indemnity than civil liability insurance.

The 2016 Law of obligatory insurance of damages to the third person arising from accidents caused by vehicles” has taken apart the conditions of responsibility of responsible persons from the insurance law by the omission of the phrase “civil responsibility of the holder” from legislation title and also the duty of insurance companies in funding payments to damaged persons even in the case of being caused by driving accidents due to force majeure.
The afore-mentioned law stipulates numerous innovations on strengthening the insurance deterrence in issues such as damage recovery, support of insured especially by the exclusion of the appendix, support of insured especially by the lack of obligation for the delivery of insurance services. Although lawmakers legislate different regulations in support of the deterrence aspect, but as driving accidents require special regulations, conditions and rules related to civil liability of individuals involved in traffic accidents also requires special regulations. This new law may cause inefficiency of insurance regulations by the omission of the responsibility of holder and the referral of conditions of responsibility to public rules.