World

Insurer Fidelidade disputes Elevador da Glória compensation, Lisbon City Council criticizes

The insurer Fidelidade refuses to pay compensation to the families of victims of the Elevador da Glória accident, prompting criticism from the Lisbon City Council regarding its statements.

28 October 2026Tagblick Newsdesk

AI-generatedWritten by an AI system, editorially responsible — how we work

Archive photo: Insurer Fidelidade disputes Elevador da Glória compensation, Lisbon City Council criticizes — Archive photoPhoto: Esquerda.net · Wikimedia Commons · CC BY-SA 2.0

The insurer Fidelidade has refused to pay the compensation requested by the family of one of the 16 fatalities of the Elevador da Glória accident. Fidelidade argues that the risks associated with using the lift were known and that the suffering prior to death was brief, according to information reported by various sources.

On the other hand, the insurer categorically rejected allegations of refusing to pay compensation, stating that it remains committed to just compensation for the injured. Fidelidade expressed regret that some expressions used in legal documents may have caused additional suffering to the victims and their families. This statement sought to clarify the insurer's position in a context of growing controversy.

The president of the Lisbon City Council considered the statements made by Fidelidade as disgraceful.

The City Council found the comments to be regrettable.

Moreover, they emphasized that the situation is significant.

The matter is relevant to the ongoing discussions around liability and safety.

It is evident that the tensions between the insurer and the City Council are escalating.

Both parties are facing increasing scrutiny from the public regarding their responses to the tragic incident.

This item was written by an AI system on the basis of the headlines and short teasers of the independently operating newsrooms named below. We disclose this under Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act). Before publication we check origin and verifiability — anything that appears in only one place is not published — as well as language, substance and legally sensitive content. No separate substantive review of each individual item by a natural person takes place; we therefore do not rely on the exemption in Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of the AI Act. Editorial responsibility for this publication rests with the person named in the imprint (§ 18 Abs. 2 MStV). Please report errors to [email protected] — we will correct or remove the item. Full reports are available from the sources listed.