My insurer only paid part of the damage to my vehicle — can I still sue the person who caused it for the balance not covered by insurance?

The deficiency remains yours to recover

Article 2207 addresses exactly this gap between what insurance pays and what you actually lost. If the amount paid by the insurance company does not fully cover the injury or loss, the aggrieved party shall be entitled to recover the deficiency from the person causing the loss or injury. Partial payment from your insurer does not mean partial recovery is all you are entitled to overall — the shortfall remains a live claim you can bring against whoever actually caused the damage.

Subrogation covers what was paid, not what was not

The same article also explains why your insurer, not you, pursues the portion it already paid: the insurance company shall be subrogated to the rights of the insured against the wrongdoer or the person who has violated the contract. Subrogation means your insurer effectively steps into your shoes for the amount it paid out, so it is the one entitled to seek reimbursement from the wrongdoer for that specific portion — but only for that portion, not for the whole loss.

Two claims can exist side by side

Because subrogation covers what the insurer paid, and the deficiency provision covers what it did not, the wrongdoer can face two related but distinct claims arising from the same incident: the insurer's subrogated claim for the amount it indemnified, and your own claim for the balance it left uncovered. Neither claim substitutes for the other, and your right to the deficiency is not reduced or absorbed by the fact that your insurer is separately pursuing its own subrogated recovery.

What this means for pursuing the balance

If your insurer's payment did not make you whole, Article 2207 gives you a direct basis to go after the person responsible for the remainder, independent of whatever your insurer decides to do about the amount it already paid. Establishing the total loss and the portion your insurance did not cover is the practical starting point for pursuing that deficiency, since the article ties your entitlement specifically to the gap between the two figures.

Cases citing this provision

These Supreme Court decisions cite the provision above. We list them so you can read them yourself; the summaries of what each decided are not ours to give.

• Vicente G. Henson, Jr. vs. UCPB General Insurance Co., Inc, G.R. No. 223134, August 14, 2019 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• Vector Shipping Corporation, et al. vs. American Home Assurance Co., et al, G.R. No. 159213, July 3, 2013 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• C.V. Gaspar Salvage & Lighterage Corporation vs. LG Insurance Company, Ltd., (United States Branch), G.R. No. 206892 / G.R. No. 207035, February 3, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →
• UCPB General Insurance, Co., Inc. vs. Pascual Liner, Inc, G.R. No. 242328, April 26, 2021 — read the decision on LawPhil →

Related provisions

• Civil Code, Article 2207 — Insurance and Subrogation