News Supreme Court rulings May 2021

Life insurance: compensation shared equally among heirs

The Supreme Court intervened in a United Sections ruling (No. 11421/2021) on the subject of life insurance, responding to a number of questions it had been asked.

First, the courts ruled that the expression “legitimate heirs” in the insurance contract is merely indicative and does not in any way refer to the application of the rules of succession, the designation of heirs as beneficiaries of the insurance being an inter vivos act. Therefore, since the indemnity claim has its source in the contract, it will necessarily have to be divided among the beneficiary heirs in equal shares and not in proportion to the inheritance shares.

The United Sections also clarified that in the event of the predecease of one of the heirs, the claim of the successors of the predeceased will instead be divided in proportion to the share that would have been due to the beneficiary, since this is a right that the heirs obtain iure successionis.

Unlawful reporting to Crif: failure to give notice only relevant to the client-consumer

The Supreme Court, in Order no. 14382/2021, stipulated that, in the case of a report to the Crif, failure to comply with the requirement of written notice to a debtor who is first classified “negatively,” referred to in Article 4 of the Privacy Guarantor’s Resolution No. 8/2004 and Article 125 TUB, following the amendment by Legislative Decree. n. 141/2010, is relevant only for consumer credit transactions.

Therefore, from the absence of the finalization of the notice cannot be inferred the consequence of the unlawfulness of the report, where it concerns a mortgage loan contract entered into in 2007 with the plaintiff bank, the latter being excluded from the scope of Chapter II of the aforementioned TUB.

Cohabitation does not prove reconciliation of spouses

For the Supreme Court (Order No. 14037/2021), the circumstance that two former spouses return to share the same roof does not prove reconciliation and, therefore, is not sufficient to break the separation or prevent a divorce decree.

In order for the interruptive effect of separation to occur, the reconstruction of the so-called ‘affectio coniugalis,’ i.e., that spiritual and material communion characteristic of married life, is necessary, whereas the mere temporary resumption of cohabitation due to practical interests of both former spouses cannot be relevant.