The webinar, which opened with institutional speeches by Natalia Baldassi, head of Upi's Credit and Finance Department, and Michele Larini, head of Inser's Parma office, featured two experts in the field: Manuel Gentili and Paolo Brusamarello, respectively head and senior manager of Inser's specialised credit department. Thanks to their contributions, the participants were able to learn about the characteristics of credit insurance policies, from options for the domestic market to international cover, including customisable formulas such as Whole Turnover (domestic and international), Medium Long Term, Single Risk and Level II or Top Up solutions.

Among the topics discussed was the important competitive advantage that credit insurance can offer over other risk mitigation tools. Experts presented concrete examples of how these solutions enable companies to protect themselves against insolvency, thereby ensuring greater financial stability. In particular, credit insurance provides greater peace of mind in managing the risks associated with late or uncollected payments, offering protection that goes beyond national borders and is adaptable to each company's specific needs.

This appointment aims to meet the growing need of Italian companies to effectively manage credit risk, an increasingly pressing challenge in a complex and ever-changing economic environment.

Today, the general criterion for attributing such liability is found in Article 2052 of the Italian Civil Code (c.c.), which presumes ownership (or, in any case, use) of the animal rather than a duty of custody. From a causal perspective, the damage must be directly connected to the animal's actions, with the burden of proof on the injured party to establish causation. However, this burden is met if the liable party cannot demonstrate the existence of a fortuitous event.

As for damage caused by wild animals (traditionally considered res nullius), case law previously denied the Public Administration’s liability, as Article 2052 c.c. was deemed applicable only to damage caused by domestic animals.

This position changed with Law No. 968 of 1977 (now Law No. 157 of 1992), which reclassified wildlife as part of the State’s inalienable assets. Consequently, the Public Administration’s liability under Article 2052 c.c. now extends to damage caused by animals used for institutional purposes as well as by wild animals.

Recently, the Supreme Court of Cassation, in Judgment No. 17253/2024, stated:
"The criterion for attributing liability must refer to the provisions of Article 2052 of the Civil Code and is based not on road ownership or a general duty of custody, but on ownership or use of the animal, as well as on the principle that protected wildlife species under Law No. 157 of 1992 are part of the State’s inalienable assets".

For Further Reading:
- Article 2052 c.c.;
- Court of Cassation, Judgment No. 17253/2024;
- Law No. 968 of 1977;
- Law No. 157 of 1992.

Reasons for the decision
Article 2051 c.c. imposes on the custodian the obligation to compensate for damages caused to third parties by the item under their custody, “unless the custodian proves the occurrence of a fortuitous event”, understood as an extraordinary and exceptional occurrence. The rationale is to transfer the economic burden of harmful events to the party benefiting from the item’s availability.

In this case, the court-appointed expert's report revealed that the accident occurred because a lorry driving ahead of the claimant’s vehicle had lost the metal sideboard, which the claimant’s car subsequently struck. Specifically, the sequence of events demonstrated the sudden and unpredictable change in the state of the custodian’s property. This fortuitous event effectively broke the causal link, thereby negating the custodian's objective liability.

Therefore, the custodian of a publicly accessible road is responsible for original defects, unless it is proven that the suddenness of the alteration made it unreasonable to expect intervention to prevent potential harm.

For further reading:
- Article 2051 c.c.
- Court of Cassation, Order No. 25079/2024
- Court of Cassation, Judgment No. 24179/2023