Bank demands repayment of "dead debt" for 7 million dirhams

The Federal Supreme Court ruled that the insurance company should join the heirs of a deceased to pay AED 5 million to a bank, which lent financial facilities before his death, and upheld the judgment of the first instance in which he ordered the heirs of the deceased to pay the bank an amount of AED 2,317,835.

In detail, a bank filed a lawsuit demanding that heirs be bound within the legacy of their inheritance and a solidarity insurance company to pay him AED 7,317,835 and interest of 9% from the date of the claim until full payment.

The bank said that the bank had obtained an insurance policy on the loan from an insurance company in case of default due to the death of the customer or his total physical disability. His lawsuit. "

The Court of First Instance ruled, after assigning a banking expert in the case, "to oblige the defendants - the heirs of the deceased - to pay the plaintiff an amount of AED 2,327,835 each according to the status of the estate, and to oblige the second defendant, the loan insurance company, to pay the plaintiff five Million dirhams with interest of 5% annually from the date of filing the lawsuit until full payment and rejected any other requests. "

The Court of Appeal then amended the first judgment by requiring the defendant to insure the bank to pay the bank five million dirhams with the heirs, in solidarity and solidarity among them and to support the ruling otherwise.

The heirs challenged this ruling, saying that "the ruling violated the law and erred in its application, by requiring them in solidarity with the insurance company to pay five million dirhams to the bank, without a provision in the law or agreement between them."

The Federal Supreme Court upheld the successors' appeal, stating that “solidarity between debtors is not presumed, but is based on an agreement or a provision in the law and the creditor must prove the source of the solidarity. Staying the same.
She pointed out that "the source of the obligation of the insurance company is different from the obligation of the heirs. .

The court rejected an appeal by the insurance company against the decision to refuse its request to consider the health of the deceased before his death, claiming that he was a smoker and suffering from a stroke for which he underwent surgery in hospital.