Facts
The case concerns a dispute between the life insurance company X and the insured party Y regarding the prescription of the annuity derived from a life insurance contract (policy no. 719'426). The insurance company claims that the claim would be prescribed based on Art. 46 ICA, as the action was brought more than two years after the due date of the first outstanding benefit. The appellate court, however, has recognized that Art. 131 CO also applies to periodic benefits based on insurance policies, despite the two-year time limit of Art. 46 ICA.
Considerations
The Federal Court confirms the opinion of the cantonal judges. Although the cited author proposes the application of Art. 131 CO to annuities derived from insurance policies, this thesis is not relevant in the case at hand. Art. 131 CO aims to prevent a legal relationship concerning periodic benefits that are susceptible to prescription in five years from continuing to exist despite multi-year non-performance, but the underlying legal relationship is nevertheless prescribed within the ordinary ten-year period.
Furthermore, the payment of the annuity depends on the insured's disabling condition, which may undergo changes. It would be contrary to the spirit and purpose of the contract to deprive the insured of the right to benefits solely on the grounds that he or…