This essay has been anonymously peer-reviewed by a referee selected by the editors. Submitted: 2013-07-19; Accepted: 2013-09-05; Published: 2013-09-09.

One year after the so-called ‘Riforma Fornero’ was enacted, the heated debate created by the changes to the art. 18 St. Lav. has not abated. On the contrary, the new law continues to raise doubts, even on aspects that were initially considered to be marginal compared to the core of the law. In particular, these refer to the lawmakers’ debatable choice to explicitly mention in the law’s text the possibility of deducting aliunde perceptum and aliunde percipiendum from damage compensation. This choice has generated questions regarding its interpretation and it is further clouded by the absolute absence from the same statute of any equally explicit reference to the so-called ‘danno ulteriore’.