Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 254

Summary: - The insurer’s recourse against the person responsible for the damage. Its condition. That he not be a relative or relative by marriage of the insured, or a person for whom the latter is legally responsible. The prohibition provided by Article 801 of the Civil Code. A matter of public policy. Its consequence: its application to legal subrogation. The reason for this. Preventing the loss of the benefit of insurance for the insured. - Establishment that the driver of the insured vehicle is the son of its owner, the insured, that he lives with him in one household, and that this father was legally responsible for his acts at the time of the accident because of his young age. Its consequence. The conditions for applying Article 801 of the Civil Code are fulfilled, and the insurance company is barred from recourse against her for the compensation it paid. Rule: It is established that if the person responsible for the damage is a relative or relative by marriage of the insured who lives with him in one household, or is a person for whose acts the insured is legally responsible, recourse against him is barred. This is because the prohibition provided by Article 801 of the Civil Code in this situation is a general rule relating to public policy—as expressly stated in the Explanatory Memorandum—and must therefore apply to legal subrogation in the present case because the rationale is the same, namely preventing the loss of the benefit of insurance for the insured. However, application of this rule requires the party invoking it to prove that the two conditions barring subrogation are satisfied, namely kinship or affinity and being among those living with him in one household, or being a person for whose acts the insured is legally responsible. That being so, and since the appellants invoked the application of Article 801 of the Civil Code, as it is established from the papers that the second appellant is the son of the first appellant, the owner of the vehicle insured with the respondent, that he lives with him in one household, and that the latter was legally responsible for his acts at the time of the accident because of his young age, the conditions for applying the said article have therefore been fulfilled in the papers. Recourse against the appellants by the respondent for the compensation it paid to the injured party is barred, and the action is thus without a legal basis and merits dismissal. Since the appealed judgment departed from this view and ordered the appellants to pay the adjudged sum, it contravened the law and erred in its application, requiring its reversal and a ruling dismissing the action.