A Critical Look at the Law to Amend the Code of the Third Party Insurance, approved in 2008

The Act of the third party insurance was amended after 40 years.Though late, this promises a striking development in the field of social responsibility and compensation. Clarification of the concept of possessor of policy, extension of insurance coverage, floating of the responsibility of insurer, elimination of the statute of limitations, calling the insurer to hearing session, acceptance of the policy as a guarantee, immediate payment of at least 50% of the approximate blodwyte to the victim (predicted in the Article 16 of the new Act) as well as a professional commission to resolve debates may be regarded as being among privileges of this Act.But, it faces some challenges as well. Ambiguity in the notion of owner as one who possesses policy: whether owner is the one who has an official document or the one who has some ordinary written promise or a proxy may be regarded as the owner. Does the content of the Clause 3 of the Article 1 require a legal judgment to be issued? In cases wherein the blodwyte determined is much more than the costs borne, should it [blodwyte] still be paid? The insurer's responsibility is limited to the amount mentioned in policy; now if the insured party was sentenced to pay more than that amount, who shall pay for the cure costs: the insurer or the insured party? When called to the hearing session, is the insurance company regarded as defendant or as an informed party? Of what influence is communication of the verdict to the insurer? May he protest? These are some examples of points which should be clarified; and, it remains to see how the judicial precedent reacts.