The basis of non-acceptance of the statute of limitations of the injured party's claim against the insurer in the compulsory insurance law approved in 2016

The rule of passing time as one of the ways of regulating the number of lawsuits has received the attention of many legal systems. Iran’s legal system, influenced by the famous Imami jurists and due to the necessity of conforming the regulations based on Sharia standards, has considered the rule of passage of time to be obsolete according to the theory of the Guardian Council. Ambiguity in the comprehensiveness of the Guardian Council’s opinion has made the expression of views for the revalidation of the passage of time to be strengthened and its generalities accepted in specific lawsuits. Although the validity of time limit is generally considered acceptable in insurance claims under Article 36 of the Insurance Law adopted in 1316, but more than seventy years have passed since the enactment of this law and the creation of new conditions next to the topic expansion of the mechanism, requires the necessity for re-validation time limit in traffic accident insurance claims. The purpose of this research is to review the survival directions of the institution of passage of time in insurance claims and to analyze the reasons for not accepting passage of time based on the compulsory insurance law approved in 2016.

The method used in this research is descriptive-analytical, which has explained and examined the reasons of the above problem by using library sources and reading and searching in books, articles and related theoretical topics.

Although the removal of the statute of limitations for civil lawsuits from Iran’s legal system, based on the theory of the Guardian Council, has been practically recognized, the arguments for the survival of the statute of limitations in some specific lawsuits, such as insurance lawsuits, are based on the general disregard of this institution and the current legal system has made it difficult. The current research proves that: acceptance of a two- year short period of time in insurance claims challenges the idea of protecting the victim and comprehensively guaranteeing the damages caused to him in the field of traffic accidents. Therefore, unconditional protection of the victim in compulsory liability insurance does not follow this field. The broader scope of compensation in insurance rights, compared to civil liability rights, has made it difficult to determine the time of payment of damages in insurancerights, despite the lack of limitation in civil liability rights. This issue violates the principle of complete compensation in insurance rights. Also, the direct recourse of the injured party to the insurer, in addition to the basis of the contract, is an independent and legal right, which is exclusive for a short period of time, against the requirements and protective conditions of the compulsory insurance law approved in 2016. In addition, the generality of Note 2 of Article 2 and the non-restriction of Article 4 of the Compulsory Insurance Law approved in 2016 also strengthen the idea of prohibiting the time limit for filing a lawsuit against the insurer.

The guarantee of compensation for traffic accident victims and the need to compensate all losses by means of insurance makes the short period of two years to file a lawsuit unreasonable. On the other hand, the legal bases follow the necessity of not accepting the time limit for insurance claims in the field of driving, and as the contractual time limit has been considered ineffective in this area, the two-year legal time limit cannot be supported. Compulsory insurance approved in 2016, which was established according to the interests of the society and to protect the victims of traffic accidents, the basis of the insurer’s support over time, prohibits ways of compensating the vulnerability of the victim and establishes the basic and logical rights that establishes the correctness of this claim.