The High Court of Cassation and Justice, looking at the allegations of the case found that: in relation to art. 1270 Civil Code, according to which valid closed contract has the force of law between the contracting parties, as such, judges are obliged to apply them as they were designed and drafted by the participants at the conclusion of the Convention. It follows from the file that the respondent refused to voluntarily execute the contract, opposing to the creditor terms of the Convention which in his view entitle him not to pay damages.
From the provisions of chapter XI result that the insured is obliged to report the event no later than within 5 days from the date of the insured risk. Under the word that these provisions have not been complied with, the inferior courts held that although this clause does not exempt from liability, the penalties for breaches of this obligation entitles the insurer to refuse payment of the insurance premium.
The previous courts have accepted this argument without noticing the provisions of Chap. XIII Article 13.6, which established that the insurer is entitled to refuse to pay compensation if therefore it could not determine the cause of the insured risk and the size and extent of the damage.
Therefore, the courts had to observe that the insurer cannot challenge a refusal of payment of compensation only if it would be proved that he could not determine the cause of the insured risk and the size and extent of damage, assuming the burden of proof thereof. In other words, ignoring these provisions of clause from Chap. XIII Article 13.6, the previous courts have established the facts inconsistent with the willingness in the Convention, the solutions given being the result of the fact that they did not focused on identifying the common intention of the parties when the contract was closed.
This method of interpretation in favor of the insurer is not a rule that applies without taking into account the terms subject to interpretation. Therefore, in dubio pro reo is the meaning of Art. 1269 C. civ., which imposes as rule of interpretation of contracts when searching for the common intention of the parties.
Therefore, the interpretation can be done against the insurer.
Given the considerations shown, the High Court of Cassation and Justice, pursuant to art. 312 paragraph (3) Civil Procedure Code admitted the appeal, and sent the case back for retrial with the recommendation to administer new evidence in order to determine the actual situation depending on the intent of the parties, resulted in the contract clauses mentioned above.