The numerous refusals of insurance companies in Casco payments became the subject of study for the country's main judicial department. The Supreme Court, having examined typical cases, actually obliged insurance companies to pay victims in any case.
The main points of the decision are as follows. The insurance company does not have the right to refuse to pay reimbursement if keys or registration documents remain in the stolen car. An exception is the intention of the insured (but it still needs to be proved!). Insurers must also pay if the driver was driven by a driver who was not included in the policy. The court’s position with respect to the amount of compensation is also fundamental: for any repairs, insurance companies are required to pay the price of new spare parts, excluding depreciation. They will also have to pay the real cost of repairing the car; the calculations made by the insurers themselves (or rather, their experts) are not taken into account.
The court also drew attention to the refusals of insurance companies when a client violated the terms of payment of insurance premiums. Hijacked, for example, a car owner’s car, he applies for payment. But by this time I did not manage to make the next insurance payment on time. In this situation, insurers refuse to pay, citing late payment of the contribution and termination of the contract. The court indicated that the violation by the insured of the deadlines for the payment of insurance premiums does not in itself terminate or terminate the insurance contract, therefore the insurer is not exempt from paying insurance compensation. According to the court, the insurer must first notify the policyholder of the termination of the contract in connection with the delay. If there was no such notice at the time the insured contacted, payment under the contract should be made.
Another common reason for refusal to pay insurance is violation of the terms of notification of the insured event. It is spelled out in the insurance rules that you need to report an accident or theft within ten days - be nice, meet the deadline. Do not have time - get a refusal. The court clarified that failure to fulfill this obligation is not grounds for refusal.
Insurers will have to pay for the loss of commodity value (TCB) even if this position was not prescribed in the comprehensive insurance contract. The court considered that TCB is related to general damage and therefore is subject to monetary compensation in any case. As a result, the court ruled: if the terms of the insurance rules do not comply with the provisions of the Civil Code, then the insurance company cannot refuse to pay.
Of course, the decision attracted criticism from the insurance business. Here is the opinion of Nikita Sitnikov, deputy head of the retail insurance department of RESO-Garantia OJSC: “The position of the Supreme Court is an amazing example of how strict mathematical laws are being tried to correct with the help of legislation. The basis of any insurance product is the most complex actuarial calculations, which ultimately determine the cost of the insurance policy. But the Supreme Court, apparently, considers otherwise. And some of his decisions, which, at first glance, were taken solely for the benefit of the insured, could result in negative consequences for customers. For example, we are the largest customers for any car service and pay for the work and spare parts at wholesale prices. But if you follow the letter of the decision of the Supreme Court, insurers should be guided by the pricing for customers - individuals when calculating the calculation. It turns out that there is a high probability of a rise in price for Casco policies,”the expert said. And this objection is only on one of the points.
What is quite unexpected, the clarification of the Supreme Court also aroused the discontent of human rights defenders. The Autoinsurance Association has even sent a letter to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Say, why should insurance companies pay even when the driver is not included in the comprehensive insurance policy? This limits the rights of both insurers and policyholders. After all, the policy will necessarily become significantly more expensive, as a trouble-free driver-auto-insurance will be forced to pay for everyone else, including a scorcher and a muddler, says president of the association Maxim Khanzhin.