Life insurance and passive standing in Banking and Insurance

BBVA

 

Hiring life insurance through banks generates frequent problems of passive legitimization

  Consult your case now

When different entities belong to the same business group “bancassurance”, the responsibility of each is individually enjoy legal personality as independent and self. That they belong to the same business group does not dilute their different legal status. However, it is essential to specify the particular entity with which it is hiring, to avoid problems in the event of having to judicially claim compensation.

The Supreme Court in its judgment of 9 July 2019, No.. 407/2019, It has resolved the conflict between the beneficiary of a life insurance and two entities belonging to the group BBVA bancassurance. In particular the lack of passive legitimation alleged the cause Demand entity (the bank BBVA S.A.) because it was not involved in hiring the life insurance policy.

Fact background,,es,Juan Alberto and Paulina filed suit against FTA,,es,Asset Securitization Fund,,es,requesting the declaration of nullity for abusive of the floor and ceiling clauses contained in the novation contract of the mortgage loan of,,es,with the corresponding refund of amounts unduly collected,,es,The Securitization Fund Management Company,,es,Beech,,es,acting on behalf of FTA, he responded to said claim alleging that he lacked passive legitimacy since the entity had no legal personality and that it constituted only a private and open fund and that therefore the passive legitimization corresponded to BBVA as successor of Catalunya Banc that was the Company fund constituent,,es

The 3 October 2007, Ms.. Tatiana y D. Pelayo (spouses) They formalized with the bank BBVA S.A. a policy of personal loan. The amount of capital was 14.314,93 euros with a repayment plan 96 shares.

Along with it they signed a policy seguro de vida dated February effects 2008 and a maturity date 3 October 2015. The policy was single premium amounting to 1.472,78 euros. The insured capital amounted to 7.739,61 euros.

The 17 April 2012 D fallecío. Pelayo.

Ms.. Tatiana requested certificate to the Registrar General Insurance Contracts death cover. The certificate is issued 17 May 2012 for which there was a seguro de vida her husband with the entity BBVA Seguros S.A..

Ms.. Tatiana contacted with the entity. This initially denied the existence of the policy. Therefore the 20 January 2014, the Court of First Instance No. 2 in Merida demanded the bank display and delivery of the policy. Thus it found that the policy was still in force.

He carried out an attempt at conciliation between the entity and the beneficiary which declared void.

Ms.. Tatiana filed a lawsuit seeking the payment of the sum insured and amounted to 7.739,61 euros.

The defendant objected. He alleged the lack of capacity to be sued the cause of the defendant. The applicant erred in considering BBVA Seguros BBVA as a section of when they were separate and distinct legal entities. So the insurance company and was not contracting entity BBVA, but BBVA Insurance and Reinsurance / Life.

Primera Instancia

The 28 April 2016, the Court of First Instance No. 3 of Mérida gave judgment estimating the lawsuit filed by Ms.. Tatiana and condemning the defendant to pay BBVA SA 7.739,61 euros plus legal interest and the interests of art. 576 LEC.

Provincial Court

Instance against the judgment appealed the defendant.

The 10 October 2016 Section 3 of the Provincial Court of Badajoz gave judgment upholding the appeal and revoking the first instance judgment in assessing the lack of capacity to be sued the defendant bank.

Audience considered, The documentation provided, and it appeared as a contracting entity obliged to comply with the obligations BBVA Seguros SA and BBVA SA no. Without prejudice to recognize the relevance of both entities to the same business group. A fact not diluted their different legal personality and prevented them accountable as if it were a single entity.

Supreme Court

Against the judgment of the Provincial Court was filed extraordinary appeal for procedural infringement and appeals by Ms.. Tatiana.

The extraordinary appeal for procedural infringement was based on the following reasons:

  • Infringement of art. 24.1 of the Spanish Constitution
  • Infringement of art. 217 LEC

The 9 July 2019, the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court delivered its judgment No.. resolution 407/2019 which solved this case.

The appellant complained that the judgment had made an assessment of the arbitrary test, illogical and absurd. Specifically, He had considered proven that two contracts were signed with two different entities. And it violated the right to effective judicial protection (art. 24.1 EC).

Room alluded to that the reason was due to a defect in transcription of a paragraph, so it did not respond to a court's reasoning. While the truth was that the sentence reflected that on 3 October 2007, Ms.. Tatiana y D. Pelayo with BBVA SA formalized a policy of personal loan. And, later, assessing the practical test Hearing determined: "simultaneously, o well, in date very close to signing the loan agreement referred, the borrower,,es,do so,,la,loses the right to use the term,,es,so that the credit will be already demandable ",,es,In the case of loans with interest, they are evident,,es,two reciprocal benefits,,es,It is feasible to admit the possibility of applying,,es,In this regard, the Chamber,,es,even in cases where,,es,in attention to the circumstances,,es,it could be understood that the contract was not perfected until the delivery,,es,so that the borrower could not have demanded it,,es,the provision of delivery of the money is the restitution's budget and there is reciprocity between the postponement of the recovery by the lender and the payment of interest by the borrower,,es, Don Pelayo signed with BBVA Seguros S.A an insurance company, contract had a duration of 96 months, as the loan, the only premium 1.472,78 euros, dated effect 6 February 2008 and expiration date 3 October 2015, being the policyholder / insured, Don Pelayo , the insurer, BBVA Seguros S.A., and beneficiaries, the bank BBVA S.A., unless the insured sum was greater than the outstanding principal, in which case, the difference, in the event of death, would be, first, for the spouse of the insured, and failing, as has policy ".

So, the Chamber concluded that in reviewing the documentation the absence of a signed contract was clear by D. Pelayo with BBVA Seguros S.A.. Since only he had the contract signed by him and Mrs.. Tatiana with BBVA S.A.

Therefore, there was an assessment of the evidence that impinged manifest error in finding that there was a different contract to loan concluded with the insurer.

So good, the contract made with the demand contained signature D. Pelayo but if this alleged statements not signed and dated the 7 January 2014 (having died D. Pelayo Year 2012).

There was no denying the legitimacy the cause BBVA S.A entity since it was the only one contract with D. Pelayo.

Also, noting that fit, when the conciliation was held between Mrs.. Tatiana and BBVA S.A, the latter did not claim the signing of the insurance contract with another entity. Solve the High Court:

“CUARTO.- By assuming this room over the matter, It is upheld the first instance judgment, which he condemned BBVA S.A. as requested in demand, It should no longer denying the legitimacy ad causam that entity to be sued in this process since it was the only one which hired Mr. Pelayo , as previously reasoned, all without prejudice to the relationships that may exist between BBVA S.A. and BBVA Seguros S.A.. they are not enforceable against the applicant today, taking into account performance displayed by said applicant, even requested conciliation with BBVA S.A. without resulting avenencia, without stating that entity were to indicate the circumstances of the insurance contract and the reality of your subscription with another entity, Signature of the policyholder.”

Therefore the Chamber considered the plea and annulled the contested judgment. Upheld the judgment of the Court of First Instance sentenced BBVA S.A to pay the plaintiff the sum of 7.739,61 euros plus legal interest and art. 576 LEC.

Conclusion

Two entities belonging to the same business group does not dilute its legal status. If the procedure against that of the two which has not intervened in the legal business is conducted, there will be a lack of passive legitimation.

 Consult your case now

Leave a Reply

Language


Set as default language
 Edit Translation


Subscribe to receive a book PDF


Just for signing up receive via email the link to download the book "How to change lawyers" en format digital.
Sign up here

Sígueme en Twitter



Subscribe me

* This field is required