Šulejić, prof. dr Predrag

Email:

Šulejić Predrag, PhD, Professor – creator of a scientific and study discipline and the first textbook on Insurance Law

Predrag Šulejić was born on April 21, 1934. He graduated from the Faculty of Law in Belgrade in 1957. In the academic year 1961/62, he completed his studies as a fellowship holder of the European University Center in Nancy (France) and graduated with the thesis on Le progres technique et 1 evolution du droit de la responsabilite civile. He was elected a teaching fellow at the Faculty of Law in Belgrade in 1962, an assistant professor in 1968, an associate professor in 1973, and was conferred the title of a full professor in 1979. In 1967/68 academic year, he stayed in Paris as a scholarship holder of the French government, where in postgraduate studies at universities and other centers, he improved his knowledge of economic and legal disciplines, and especially the insurance law.

At the Faculty of Law in Belgrade, he defended his doctoral dissertation on Civil Liability Insurance in 1964, and having written the first textbook on the subject of Insurance Law, he established and created it as a scientific and study discipline. In postgraduate studies at the Faculty of Law in Belgrade, he headed specialist studies in the field of international trade entitled Contracts in International Trade. At the Faculty of Economics in Belgrade, he lectured on Insurance and International Business Law, and at the Faculty of Transport and Traffic Engineering in Belgrade, he taught the Transportation Law.

He wrote over 60 bibliographical units (books, papers with monographic characteristics, professional articles, discussions, comments, encyclopedic entries, drafts, reviews, etc.), including a large number of writings in foreign languages. The most significant of his monographic papers are Civil Liability Insurance, Belgrade 1967; Insurance Law (2nd edition), Belgrade 1980; Legal Status of Insurance Organizations in Yugoslavia, Novi Sad, 1978; Transportation Law, Belgrade, 1985 (co-author).

Professor Šulejić held numerous offices at the Faculty and beyond. He was a Vice Dean, member of the Council and President of various committees. He also performed the duty of the President of the Statutory Commission of the University of Belgrade. He was elected a member of various parliamentary bodies (member of the Federal Assembly Review Committee for Property Insurance Law, member of the Federal Executive Council for the GATT Multilateral Trade Negotiations Committee (Uruguay Round), member of the Legislative Committee of the Serbian Parliament). He was the President of the Court of Honor at the Belgrade Chamber of Commerce, an arbitrator listed by the Foreign Trade Court of Arbitration at the Yugoslav Chamber of Commerce, and Vice President and Honorary President of the Association for Insurance Law of Serbia. He was also a member of the councils and editorial boards of numerous professional journals.

He died in 2016 in Belgrade.

(Biography taken from the website of the Faculty of Law of the Belgrade University)

UDK: 347.41+ 368.025.89:347.417+343.151

ARTICLES, DISCUSSIONS, ANALYSES, REVIEWS

SUBROGACIJA I REGRES U ZAKONU I SUDSKOJ PRAKSI PRAVNI POLOŽAJ GARANTNOG FONDA

Različita shvatanja o pravnoj prirodi regresnog zahteva Garantnog fonda prema licu odgovornom za prouzrokovanu štetu imaju direktan uticaj na stavove sudova, koji zauzimaju različita mišljenja zavisno od toga da li prihvataju da je reč o subrogaciji ili o regresu. To posebno dolazi do izražaja kod zastarelosti odštetnog zahteva GF. Razlike se ispoljavaju pre svega u pogledu dužine roka zastarelosti, kao i početka trajanja tog roka. Po jednom shvatanju, na zastarelost regresnog zahteva primenjuje se opšti rok zastarelosti koji, prema Zakonu o obligacionim odnosima, iznosi 10 godina (član 371.), a po drugom shvatanju, taj rok traje tri godine od dana kada je oštećeni doznao za štetu i učinioca (u smislu člana 376. st. 1. istog zakona). Kao dan početka trajanja roka, po jednima, uzima se prvi dan posle dana kada je osiguravač (odnosno Garantni fond) isplatio naknadu oštećenom licu, a po drugima, to je dan kada je oštećeni saznao za štetu i učinioca. Autor polazi od stanovišta da je regresni zahtev Garantnog fonda samostalni zahtev odštetnog karaktera, jer zakonska obaveza Garantnog fonda prema oštećenom licu pre svega ima karakter naknade štete. Ovaj pravni odnos potpuno je nezavisan od odnosa ugovora o osiguranju, koji je sopstvenik dužan da zaključi s društvom za osiguranje. Oštećeni ostvaruje pravo na naknadu štete od osiguravača bez obzira na obim pokrića iz ugovora o osiguranju od odgovornosti. Prema oštećenom licu osiguravač ne može da ističe nikakve prigovore koji proizlaze iz tog ugovora (član 28. st. 1. Zakona o obaveznom osiguranju u saobraćaju). Odnos između oštećenog i osiguravača je, dakle, odnos u kome je osiguravač, na osnovu zakona, obavezan da naknadištetu koju je oštećeni pretrpeo upotrebom motornog vozila. Otuda se na zahtev oštećenog lica primenjuju materijalne i procesne odredbe propisā o naknadi štete (o odgovornosti za štetu, o obimu naknade štete, sudskoj nadležnosti, zastarelosti i dr.). Garantni fond je u pravnoj poziciji osiguravača koji je isplatio tuđ dug (dug neosiguranog vlasnika motornog vozila, ili vozača kada zbog gubitka prava dug nije pokriven osiguranjem – na primer, u slučaju prouzrokovanja štete pod uticajem alkohola i sl.), koji se sastoji u nakadi štete koja bi bila pokrivena obaveznim osiguranjem. Naime, Garantni fond naknađuje štetu u istom obimu i prema istim uslovima kao da je bio zaključen ugovor o obaveznom osiguranju (član 91. st. 1. Zakona o obaveznom osiguranju u saobraćaju). Po isplati osigurane sume tj. naknadi štete, Garantni fond ima pravo na povraćaj isplaćene naknade od štetnika u istom iznosu i po istom osnovu. Pri tome ne dolazi do promene osnova njegovog zahteva u regresnom postupku – i tada je, naime, reč o naknadi štete (koju je Fond pretrpeo isplatom oštećenom licu). Dakle, nije posredi prenos prava oštećenog lica na GF, već sticanje sopstvenog prava na naknadu od neosiguranog vlasnika (odnosno od nepoznatog vlasnika ili iz stečajne mase). Sam zahtev za naknadu štete, prema pravilima, zastareva u roku od tri godine od dana kada je Garantni fond, u svojstvu oštećenog lica, doznao za štetu i za lice koje je štetu učinilo (član 376. Zakona o obligacionim odnosima). U odnosu na dužinu roka zastarelosti nema nikakvog razloga da on bude 10 godina (opšti rok zastarelosti), jer dužnik (neosigurani vlasnik) ne može da bude u povoljnijem položaju kada ga tuži Garantni fond negoli kada ga tuži oštećeno lice. U odnosu na početak roka zastarelosti, budući da je reč o samostalnom pravu Garantnog fonda na naknadu štete koju je on pretrpeo (ispunjavajući zakonsku obavezu prema oštećenom licu), to potraživanje je nastalo u momentu isplate odštete oštećenom licu, pa je logično da od tog momenta teče i zastarelost tog potraživanja. Početak roka zastarelosti ne može da bude uslovljen početkom roka zastarelosti odštetnog zahteva oštećenog lica ni iz teorijskih ni iz praktičnih razloga: naime, kada se eventualna parnica između oštećenog i Garantnog fonda pravosnažno okonča, možda je, s obzirom na vreme koje je proteklo od saobraćajne nezgode, već istekao rok za zastarelost potraživanja oštećenog prema štetniku, a to bi značilo da su zastarela i regresna potraživanja GF prema neosiguranom vlasniku. Otuda je prihvatljivo da početak roka zastarelosti regresnog potraživanja bude momenat isplate odštete oštećenom licu. Takvo rešenje je predloženo i u Prednacrtu Građanskog zakonika Srbije, a naime, da regresno potraživanje osiguravača prema osiguraniku ili nekom drugom licu za isplaćenu naknadu štete trećem licu, za koju postoji odgovornost osiguranika ili nekog drugog lica, zastareva u roku od tri godine od dana isplate.

UDK:368.861.54: 336.2.024.3:347.51:368.022:368.024.2:001.95

ARTICLES, DISCUSSIONS, ANALYSES, REVIEWS

DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS LIABILITY INSURANCE – LEGAL NATURE AND APPLICATION

In theory, this insurance is classified as a special type of professional liability insurance because the title of a director and/or manager of a joint stock company is perceived as profession.
In the special Article (Article 905), the Law on Contracts and Torts stipulates rules for insurance on behalf of someone else or for „whom it may concern“. These rules may be applied to all insurance lines. However, some of them present difficulty when it comes to liability insurance (particularly that the policyholder cannot avail himself of rights from the contract without the approval of the person whose interest is insured) and thus, this poses a question whether these latter norms prevail over the general rules for insurance on behalf of someone else.
The author analyses differences between norms of the two mentioned institutes and identifies the following: a) insurance scope of protection, b) legal position of the beneficiary, c) cover of intentionally caused losses. In case of insurance of intentionally caused losses, in line with the compulsory rule of the Law on Contracts and Torts (Article 929), the insurer is obliged to indemnify any loss caused by a person for whose actions the insured is held responsible on any grounds, regardless of whether the loss was caused by negligence or intentionally. In case of a company acting in the capacity of a policyholder or insured, since insurance relates to the company’s liability for actions of its directors and officers as the liability for the other person, insurance also covers the losses intentionally caused by such persons, provided that the insurer has the right of recourse against the person who acted intentionally