Compensation for close relatives following a death

Under the new interpretation of the right to compensation, the insurer’s liability for non-pecuniary harm caused by the insured extends to close relatives and, exceptionally, to another person who had formed a deep and lasting emotional bond with the deceased. The reasons for point 1 of Interpretative Decision No. 1/2016 of the General Assembly of the Criminal, Civil and Commercial Chambers explain which family relationships are traditionally understood in Bulgarian society as involving mutual affection, moral support and spiritual and emotional closeness. Those features alone cannot justify a fair extension of the liability that an insurer can foresee. An exception requires specific, established circumstances that gave rise to an unusually strong attachment capable of causing grief and suffering more intense and prolonged than would ordinarily accompany the loss of someone in that particular family relationship. The interpretative decision does not lay down criteria for the exception. Courts deciding individual cases often draw on earlier awards above the usual level to members of the immediate family. Examples include circumstances that leave a surviving relative especially vulnerable following a premature death: elderly parents deprived of the support they expected from their adult children (Supreme Court of Cassation, Commercial Chamber, Judgment No. 131 of 4 January 2016 in commercial case No. 2592/2014; see also Judgment No. 79 of 6 July 2016 in commercial case No. 1787/2015); conversely, young people deprived of parental care before they can establish a family of their own (Judgment No. 70 of 28 July 2015 in commercial case No. 707/2014); or the exceptional and irreplaceable loss of a parent who cared for an adult descendant vulnerable because of a physical or emotional impairment (Judgment No. 158 of 22 March 2016 in commercial case No. 1919/2014, First Commercial Division). In the case discussed here, however, the claimant’s relationship with his parents had not broken down and been replaced by his relationship with his grandfather during the latter’s lifetime. Nor did the death of the eldest member of the close-knit extended family impair the bonds within the immediate family. In applying the criterion of fairness in everyday life, one must also consider how the family relationships could naturally and foreseeably have developed in the years ahead (Judgment No. 158 of 22 March 2016 in commercial case No. 1919/2014, Commercial Chamber).

This article is not a legal opinion or advice about a particular person or situation. For legal assistance in an individual case, consult a lawyer. If you have questions about claiming compensation, you can also contact a law firm handling compensation for road traffic accidents and/or accidents at work.