(Decision of the Supreme Court from 23 August 2016, file no. 23 Cdo 4058/2015)
The subject matter of this case is the legitimacy of the insurance payment to the insured person to whom the damage has already been compensated by another person. The insurance company had provided the insurance payment to the insured person but subsequently requested a refund of the payment as it would otherwise represent unjust enrichment of the insured person. The insurance company argued that there was no damage to be compensated to the insured person by the insurance company at the moment of the insurance payment.
The Supreme Court decided that the insurance payment did not represent unjust enrichment of the insured person even if such insured person had already received compensation from another person.
According to the Supreme Court, it is not decisive whether the insured person incurred any damage. The right for insurance payment and the right for damages are two different rights. The insurance company may not refuse to provide the insurance payment due to the fact that the third party has already compensated the damage.