Imagine you had a car accident. Between you and the other driver a protest arises about who is right and who is wrong. Convinced of being on the right side and having respected the highway code present the claim for compensation to your insurance. But this denies you the reimbursement of the expenses necessary for the repair of the car. In the liquidator’s opinion, in fact, there is no certainty about the methods of the accident and the respective faults: therefore,
in the presence of a protest by the other driver, it is not possible to proceed with the liquidation of the damage. Marveled, you go to a lawyer. These, like you, are convinced of your reasons; so it suggests you sue the insurance. But you need the money right away to fix the car without which you can not go to work: impossible to wait for the long times of a trial, nor do you have a sum to anticipate for the mechanic.
So propose to your lawyer an agreement: he will give you the money necessary for the development of the car in exchange for the assignment of credit for compensation that the judge will recognize. In practice, if the judgment is successful, all the compensation that will pay the insurance will be able to collect your defender. Is such a pact valid? In case of all the compensation that the insurance will pay will be able to collect your defender. Is such a pact valid? In case of all the compensation that the insurance will pay will be able to collect your defender. Is such a pact valid? In case ofaccident, can you give the lawyer credit? The question, albeit singular, was the subject of a recent ruling by the Supreme Court  . Here’s what the supreme judges said about it.
The problem arises from the interpretation of a rule of the civil code  . It establishes (among other things) that lawyers can not , even through a third party, become assignees of rights on which a dispute arises before the judicial authority of which they belong or in whose jurisdiction they exercise their functions, under penalty of nullity and damages.
As clarified by the Court of Cassation, the law establishes the nullity of any agreement with which the customer transfers to his lawyer, in charge of suing the insurance, the claim that will vanish against the insurance once the judgment is completed as determined by the judge. It does not matter – say the judges – that the sale takes place before the start of the case, when the mandate has been conferred – extrajudicial – to the recovery of credit towards the company. The extensive interpretation of the prohibition of assignment referred to the “rights on which a dispute arises”, observes the panel, is consistent with the cumulation in the same person of the quality of the assignee of the credit and of the lawyer appointed to recover it in court.
It should not be forgotten, however, that the transfer of the credit to the workshop in charge of repairing the vehicle is allowed. And this because the mechanic is not included among the subjects to whom the Civil Code prohibits the assignment of credit. As we have already explained in How to get the car repaired for free, already from the time of the request for compensation – which must be sent as soon as possible, and in any case never more than two years, with a registered letter with a credit card the motorist has a claim against the company.
This credit right can be “transferred” to third parties. Thus, by agreeing with the coachbuilder, the injured person can have the machine repaired by him free of charge and immediately; in return he gives him the credit towards the insurance company. In this case the mechanic takes over all the rights of the motorist in respect of the insurance: he will have to go “knocking” on the liquidator’s door to be compensated and he can also sue if he does not receive the payment.