The TS condemns Mapfre to assume the largest compensation for the Spanair accident

The victims and relatives of the Spanair accident, the plane bound for Las Palmas de Gran Canaria that collapsed as soon as it took off at Barajas airport (Madrid) in August 2008, causing 154 dead 18 wounded, they continue to sue in front of the Mapfre insurer almost 14 years later of the facts.

A judgment of the Supreme Court of last December 21, to which EL PERIÓDICO DE ESPAÑA has had access, contemplates the largest indemnities confirmed so far in a single resolution: more of 3.8 million euros for almost 40 families who went to the high court considering that the calculations of the compensations that were granted in 2018 by the Provincial Court of Madrid were not in accordance with the law.

The Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court, in a resolution of which the magistrate has been rapporteur Rafael Sarazá, rejects their claims, although confirm the amounts imposed Based on the doctrine issued in previous resolutions, which calculate the compensation according to the traffic accident scales with an additional percentage of 50 percent, plus interest.

The resolution declares Mapfre civil responsible for the damages caused by the accident, as the insurer of the Spanair company at the time of the events, and for that reason it is the one that must face the payments. In addition, the ruling states that “without prejudice to other possible causes, the accident occurred as a consequence of the improper aircraft configuration to perform that maneuver, attributable to the pilot and co-pilot Of the same”.

There will be no question

The victims requested the presentation by the Supreme Court before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of a prejudicial question -which would have paralyzed the process until receiving an answer-, considering doubtful the compensation regime of the bodily damages produced in air accidents.

The recurring families believe that it should be clarified whether the compensation regime that results from EU law is incompatible with the establishment of compensation limits at a specific point, relative to the so-called ‘loss of profits’, that is, in relation to what families cease to earn financially due to the death of their relative, due to the tests carried out. According to the Supreme, however, this question should not be posed to Europe because has already been sufficiently resolved by the Spanish justice, even if it is against the interests of the plaintiffs.

Precedents

The sentence handed down last December It is not the first of the Supreme on this matter, but the one that confirms a higher amount in terms of compensation. A year ago, at the end of 2020, the Civil Chamber decided force Mapfre to pay more than one million euros to 18 family members of fatalities from the Spanair accident, as reported by Cadena Ser.

Throughout 2019, three other sentences had already established criteria on how to compensate family members and victims of the tragedy: based on the traffic accident scales but with an additional 50 percent percentage on the amount, together with interest. The sentences are due to the lawsuits of the victims with respect to whom the company could not reach out-of-court settlements.

In this case, in the first instance, the Commercial Court number 12 of Madrid, which declared the insurer civilly liable for the damages caused by Spanair “due to its reckless behavior “ which gave rise to the accident on August 20, 2008 at the Adolfo Suárez Madrid-Barajas airport today.

Related news

A subsequent appeal by both victims and presented by Mapfre gave rise to a resolution issued by Section 28 of the Madrid Court in January 2018, which is the one that is now confirmed by the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs filed an extraordinary appeal for procedural infringement, that it has been inadmissible in its entirety, and an appeal based on nine grounds, with respect to which only one has been admitted. Mapfre also appealed and has managed to agree only on two shallow reasons, so the coasts must be distributed among all.

The victims pointed out that the sentence under appeal violates certain articles of the Montreal Convention, which is the one that governs air regulations since 1999, something that the high court rejects. Only the claim of two relatives is admitted who argued that, although the contested judgment admits that the moral or psychological damage who suffered due to the death of their son and brother, the compensation recognized for them does not adequately include compensation for the same.