Kuwait Court of Cassation principle number 3867

The insurer’s payment to the insured of the insurance amount for damage. Its effect. Its subrogation by operation of law to the insured’s rights against the third party responsible for the damage. This subrogation is limited to actions available to the insured against the person responsible for the insured damage. Article 801, Civil Code. Its implication. The insurer’s payment of compensation to the injured party and the injured party’s assignment of his right to compensation to the insurer. These fall outside this scope. - The person paying a debt may be subrogated to the rights of the creditor whose claim has been satisfied where the payer is liable for the debt together with the debtor or is obliged to pay it on his behalf under the general rules. Article 394/a, Civil Code. The concurrent liability of the insurer and the third party responsible for the accident for payment of the debt in civil liability arising from motor vehicle accidents. Its implication. The insurer’s payment of compensation to the injured party simultaneously discharges the debt of the third party responsible for the damage. Its effect. The insurer’s subrogation by operation of law to the injured party’s rights against the responsible third party. The reason for this. - The insurer’s subrogation by operation of law to the injured party’s rights. Its implication. It may have recourse against the responsible person for the compensation it has paid - 651 - Commercial, and the right passes to it with its character, accessories, and securities. Establishment that the person responsible for the damage is a relative or relative by marriage of the insured sharing the same household, or a person for whose acts the insurer is responsible. Its effect. Recourse against him is precluded, because the same rationale applies as in the prohibition prescribed by Article 801, Civil Code. This relates to public policy. An example concerning the appellant’s plea that the insurance company could not have recourse against him for what it had paid to the injured parties because he was the son of the owner of the insured vehicle.