Over time, we have assisted companies in the commercial and insurance sectors in resolving complex legal challenges. Each case study reflects our strategic approach, the legal solutions delivered, and the tangible results achieved for our clients.
Case Study 1
A recent case tested not only our legal expertise in safeguarding our client’s interests — a leading insurance company — but also the boundaries of fairness and the principle of good faith.
An 18-year-old man, the victim of a road traffic accident caused by a vehicle insured under a compulsory third-party liability policy issued by our client, brought a claim seeking substantial compensation for non-pecuniary damages arising from his bodily injuries: €1,000,000, plus statutory interest of 0.2% per day from 13 October 2023 until full payment- an additional €854,000.
To support his claim, the claimant argued that he had suffered intense physical and psychological distress, requiring 55–60 days of medical care, and resulting in permanent disability due to the loss of binocular vision.
While the gravity of the victim’s situation was acknowledged, our defence focused on the manifestly disproportionate nature of the claim and the absence of any wrongful conduct attributable to the insurer that would justify the imposition of daily penalties.
In a case charged with emotion and public sensitivity, where the financial stakes were high, the lawyer’s essential role is to bring the debate back to the realm of law and equity.
We demonstrated that:
“€200,000 awarded as principal, representing non-pecuniary damages. Statutory interest of 0.2% per day to apply starting from the 10th day after the judgment becomes final.”
The court of first instance accepted our arguments, finding that €200,000 constituted fair and proportionate compensation and rejecting the claim for daily penalties.
The claimant appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the judgment as lawful and well-founded.
This case confirms that the insurer’s role is not to deny compensation, but to ensure the payment of fair, reasonable, and equitable damages corresponding to the victim’s actual loss—thus preventing unjust enrichment.
It also demonstrates how a lawyer specialised in insurance litigation can turn a complex and emotionally charged dispute into an example of legal balance and effective defence, in full accordance with both the spirit and letter of the law.
Case Study 2
Our client, a private individual, had been struggling since 1992 to obtain title to a plot of land in Bucharest’s District 1. The land had been wrongfully taken during the communist regime and later claimed under restitution laws.
Although the public authorities never disputed the legitimacy of his title, they refused all mediation and consistently failed to issue the necessary documents. This prevented him from exercising the full incidents of ownership.
The property measured 375 square metres in total, of which 240 square metres were held without title, while the remaining 135 square metres could not be reinstated in possession, as that portion had since become a public road.
This situation deprived our client not only of legal use of the property but also of enjoyment over many years.
Despite having followed every procedural step—both administrative and judicial—for nearly 26 years, he faced repeated and arbitrary refusals from the authorities.
We represented the client both before the public authorities and later in court, seeking issuance of the title deed and compensatory remedies for the portion of land that could not be returned in natura.
The case required an in-depth understanding of a complex and evolving legal framework that had undergone substantial changes over three decades.
Through solid legal reasoning and persistence, our team succeeded in restoring our client’s rights, effectively leveraging existing documentation and securing the court’s recognition of his legitimate interests.
“By final civil decision, the Bucharest Court of Appeal ordered the first respondent to issue title for the 240 square metres already reinstated in possession and instructed the second respondent to issue a decision proposing compensatory measures for the remaining 135 square metres.”
The court confirmed our arguments, holding that the failure to complete the restitution procedure and issue the title deed resulted from the fault of the public authorities—conclusions explicitly recorded in the final judgment.
Why this case matters
The case clearly demonstrates that determination and legal expertise are vital when citizens’ rights are infringed or delayed by institutional inertia.
It further confirms our ability to handle long-term, highly technical disputes and turn seemingly impossible situations into favourable outcomes—even in complex factual and legal contexts.
Case Study 3
We successfully represented a leading insurance company in a dispute where a road accident victim sought non-pecuniary damages for injuries sustained.
The accident had resulted in serious bodily harm and permanent disability (spleen removal). However, during criminal proceedings, the injured party had executed a notarised declaration expressly waiving any pecuniary claims against the at-fault driver, in exchange for a financial settlement that was never paid.
Subsequently, the same individual brought a civil claim against the insurer under the third-party liability policy, seeking the very same compensation.
Our defence focused on three key arguments:
The court upheld our reasoning and dismissed the claim, holding that the notarised waiver produced effects erga omnes, preventing any subsequent claims against the insurer. The decision was affirmed on appeal.
This case highlights the importance of a rigorous interpretation of expressed intent and a systemic understanding of the nexus between contractual insurance obligations and tortious liability. Through coherent and well-founded argumentation, we transformed a potentially high-stakes dispute into the natural conclusion: the dismissal of an unfounded claim.
Such disputes are particularly challenging, given the judicial tendency to favour accident victims even in cases involving procedural or substantive irregularities. Against this backdrop, the dismissal we obtained stands out for its clarity and the strength of its legal reasoning.
Indeed, the nature of the relationship between a third-party liability insurer and the injured third party remains debated: Is it a contractual duty, or a matter of tort liability? The answer shapes the architecture of the legal relationship and its practical consequences.