Social Security subrogation and unjust enrichment: an analysis of Judgment no. 30699 of 2025

In the delicate balance between compensation for damages, social security benefits, and the right of recourse of public institutions, the Court of Cassation has provided further clarification with judgment no. 30699 of 21/11/2025. The case examined concerns the limits of the applicability of the action for unjust enrichment, provided for by Article 2041 of the Italian Civil Code, in the event that the INPS has obtained sums from an insurance company by way of subrogation and, subsequently, has revoked the welfare benefit provided to the injured party.

The case and the subrogation of the social insurer

The matter originates from the action brought by a citizen, G., represented by lawyer F. M., against the social security institution. The injured party, after having obtained a disability allowance from the INPS, saw the latter act in subrogation pursuant to Article 14 of Law no. 222 of 1984 against the insurance company of the liable party, obtaining a sum as reimbursement for the benefits provided. However, at a later stage, the INPS revoked the disability allowance initially granted to the beneficiary. At this point, the injured party brought an action for unjust enrichment ex art. 2041 c.c. against the INPS, claiming the payment of the sums that the institution had collected from the insurance company.

The decision of the Supreme Court and the legal principle

The Third Civil Section of the Court of Cassation, presided over by F. D. S. and with R. R. as reporting judge, dismissed the appeal, confirming the decision of the Court of Appeal of Bologna. The judges of legitimacy established a fundamental principle expressed in the following legal maxim:

The injured party who has received a disability allowance that was subsequently revoked has no standing to bring an action ex art. 2041 c.c. against the INPS for the payment of the sum obtained by the latter, by way of subrogation ex art. 14 of Law no. 222 of 1984, by virtue of a settlement with the liable party's insurance company, as the latter is the only party to have suffered an impoverishment lacking a valid justifying cause, as a consequence of the compensation for a prejudice that proved to be non-existent.

The core of the decision lies in identifying the party that actually suffered the economic prejudice. According to the Court, the action for unjust enrichment requires a precise correlation between the enrichment of one party and the correlative impoverishment of another.

Why is there no impoverishment of the injured party?

To fully understand the scope of the judgment, it is necessary to analyze the structure of the subsidiary action for enrichment. The essential requirements for the admissibility of the action ex art. 2041 c.c. are:

• The enrichment of one party to the detriment of another;
• The correlative impoverishment of the injured party;
• The absence of a just cause to justify the transfer of assets;
• The subsidiary nature of the action, which can only be proposed when no other protection is possible.

In the case at hand, the revocation of the disability allowance demonstrated the non-existence of the prerequisite for the social security benefit. Consequently, the INPS collected sums from the insurance company for damage that proved to be non-existent. The only party to have suffered an unjustified financial loss is the liable party's insurance company, which paid a sum that was not due. The injured party did not suffer any impoverishment, as they could not claim any right to sums paid by way of subrogation for a welfare benefit to which they were no longer entitled.

Conclusions

Judgment no. 30699 of 2025 reaffirms the rigorous application of the principles regarding unjust enrichment and legal subrogation. This ruling protects the consistency of the compensation system, preventing the injured party from indirectly benefiting from sums linked to revoked social security benefits, confirming that the action for restitution belongs solely to the insurance company that materially made the undue payment.