The Court of Second Instance (TSI) has ruled that an insurance company needs to pay a car owner 103,823 patacas in compensation for his or her 20,000-pataca vintage car because the current “market price does not reveal the true value of a vintage car”, a statement by the Court of Final Appeal (TUI) said yesterday.
According to the statement, the case started with a traffic accident when ‘A’ did not give way at a junction, which led to a collision between ‘A’s’ vehicle and ‘B’s’ vehicle. The statement said that the left side of ‘B’s’ vehicle was damaged, which made it almost impossible to open the front door on the passenger side. The statement added that therefore ‘B’ filed a lawsuit with the Court of First Instance (TJB) to claim compensation for the damage.
The statement pointed out that the Court of First Instance decided that the insurance company that covers ‘A’s’ car needed to compensate ‘B’ 103,813 patacas for the damage. The statement said that ‘A’s’ insurance company was not happy with the result, so it appealed to the Court of Second Instance.
According to the statement, the insurance company insisted that the market price for ‘B’s’ vehicle is only 20,000 patacas and claimed that the Court of First Instance did not take the market price into consideration and therefore came up with a wrong judgement.
However, the statement said that the judge from the Court of First Instance considered that ‘B’ is a car enthusiast who is very fond of his vehicle and consequently standing in ‘B’s’ shoes, the damaged vintage car is worth much more than the market price.
Moreover, the statement noted that the Court of First Instance clearly stated two major reasons for not accepting the market price as the value of compensation: On the one hand, as pointed out in the report by the claims adjuster, it is difficult to assess the mechanical condition of ‘B’s’ vehicle before the accident – i.e. the state of the car after the accident did not reveal the mechanical condition of the car before the accident, therefore the market price cannot represent the true value of the vintage car. On the other hand, ‘B’s’ damaged vintage car is a collectible, and ‘B’ took good care of it before the accident happened. The report by the claim adjuster failed to reflect ‘B’s’ vehicle’s condition objectively and did not take the rarity of the vehicle into consideration, the statement pointed out.
The statement concluded that the insurance company cannot pinpoint the value of ‘B’s’ vehicle before the accident and therefore the market price cannot reflect the true value of the vintage car. The statement underlined that the Court of Second Instance concurred with the conclusion and did not find any flaw in the logic, hence it rejected the appeal.
The statement also said the insurance company claimed that the cost of the repairs were way more expensive than the price of the car, hence according to the Civil Code’s Article 560, Section 3, the maximum compensation amount should be 25,000 patacas.
The statement pointed out that according to Article 556 of the Civil Code the repairs of a damaged vehicle aim to restore it to its original state, adding that compensation can be paid in cash when the vehicle’s restoration is impossible. The statement stressed the even though Article 560, Section 3 protects a debtor who cannot afford the cost, in this case, the insurance company is able to bear the restoration price and therefore Article 560 does not apply.
The statement stressed that the vehicle is a collectible the value of which is not equal to the current market price. The Court of Second Instance decided that overall it agreed with the Court of First Instance’s judgement and therefore rejected the insurance company’s appeal.
