Success! Client wins dispute with lessor for compensation.

In the lawsuit, the client (a business) wanted compensation for damage caused by the lessor not doing their job right. Even though it was clear, they didn’t tell the car insurance company that the current lessee wanted to keep the comprehensive insurance after taking ownership of the car. The client decided to purchase the vehicle from the lessor, informing the lessor that he intended to continue the comprehensive insurance (which requires an additional notification by the seller). Importantly, it was the lessor who concluded the direct insurance contract. The customer was not a party to this agreement, nor was it concluded on his behalf. Despite the lessee’s notification of his intention to continue comprehensive insurance, the lessor failed to fulfil this obligation, while charging the customer the comprehensive insurance premium. As a result, the customer remained unaware of the lack of cover until the vehicle was stolen. Fully convinced of his rights, he applied to the insurer for compensation, which he believed he was entitled to after the loss of the car. The Customer’s loss in this case was the lost benefits he would have obtained if he had had valid comprehensive insurance (covering, among other things, damage caused by theft of the vehicle). As a result of the evidence proceedings, the Regional Court in Warsaw ruled that it was the lessor’s contractual obligation to take out insurance for the vehicle, including the extension of comprehensive insurance cover. As the current lessee, the customer was not able to independently report the purchase of the vehicle from the insurer because, as we know, he was not a party to the agreement. In addition, on the date of notification, he did not yet have physical proof of the vehicle’s purchase from the lease and, therefore, could not make a legally binding statement. In the Court’s opinion, the lessor’s conduct should be classified as improper performance of its obligation due to gross negligence. A lessor is, by definition, an entity that professionally leases vehicles to entrepreneurs. Its activities therefore include not only leasing and sales, but also all ancillary activities related to the maintenance, use and depreciation of the ‘leased’ items. Such ancillary activities also include the transfer of rights under the insurance contract to the user. There is no doubt that the lessor was aware of the customer’s intention to continue the insurance contract concluded with the insurer, as evidenced by the evidence presented. The due diligence that an entrepreneur should exercise required that this intention be reported together with the purchase of the vehicle. As the Court pointed out, the mere failure to notify could be classified as a failure to exercise due diligence, but the lessor kept the customer in a false belief as to the transfer of rights under the agreement for as long as eight months, and such conduct qualifies as gross negligence, which consequently exposed the customer to damage. Failure to inform the insurer of the intention to continue insurance cover and failure to inform the customer of the failure to submit the application resulted in damage to the customer in the form of failure to obtain compensation from the comprehensive insurance policy for the theft of the vehicle. Thus, the prerequisite of a causal link between the damage incurred and the improper performance of the contract was also fulfilled. The judgment is final. The client was supported by: Krzysztof Brysiewicz, attorney-at-law, Paulina Sułkowska, attorney-at-law, and Łukasz Laskowski, trainee attorney-at-law.