Initiation of Direct Claim in French and Iranian Law with Emphasis on Regulations Regarding Third Party Insurance

According to the principle of relativity of contractsو the rights and obligations arising from the contract only affect the parties concerned and have no effect on third parties. However, this principle has faced many exceptions, including obligation towards the subsequent parties to the contract. One of the most important issues in this regard is the possibility of filing a direct claim against the primary obligor. The purpose of establishing this right is to perform the obligation or compensate a third party in a faster and easier way. In the new trot law, interested third parties have the right to file a claim directly against the primary obligor for compensation for damages caused by breach of contract. Direct claim (Action Directe) is a privilege that in some cases (and exceptionally) is granted to a third party to directly sue the primary obligor. In French law, initiation of a direct claim against the primary obligor started in cases dealing with insurance in traffic accidents. However, such claims did not remain limited to traffic accidents and were extended to other areas of tort law as well. In Iranian law, this question has not yet been answered absolutely, and has only been raised in some areas for compensation of damages, such as traffic accidents, and the judicial precedent has not yet issued clear rulings in this regard. Now, this research seeks to answer the question as to whether it is absolutely possible to use the possibility of filing a direct claim in various areas of tort law in order to speed up and facilitate compensation for damages, despite the principle of principle of relativity of contracts. To answer this question, we must see how this method of compensation for damages entered French law and examine the possibility of its compliance with Iranian law. It can be stated that the direct claim against the insurer is one of the most important examples of direct claim. In this lawsuit, the injured party has the right to demand compensation for the damage caused to him from his liability insurer before going to the cause of the loss, and the insurer is required to compensate all losses. Despite the belief of many lawyers, this lawsuit is not foreign in the country's legal system, but the history of its acceptance goes back to the social security law. This lawsuit does not conflict with the principle of relativity of contracts and does not ignore the principle of equality of creditors. Because it prevents the principle of relativeness from being used against principles such as the principle of full compensation.