2
Of course, one cannot trust the advertising promises of insurance companies. After all, these are commercial organizations, their task is to collect more money from car owners, and to pay less when an insured event occurs. And if possible, refuse to pay at all. And this concerns not only CTP, but also voluntary insurance … One of the cases when a car was stolen from a client of an insurance company even became a subject of study in the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation.
The bottom line is that the owner of the car forgot the registration certificate in the car. And on this day, as luck would have it, the car was stolen. The owner collected the necessary documents and contacted the insurance company, where he acquired a comprehensive insurance policy. But the insurer refused to compensate for the damage, and justified its decision with forgetfulness of the client. It turned out that in the insurance rules there is such a clause according to which compensation is not paid if registration documents were left in the car. Dissatisfied car owner went to court. However, it was considered there that the insurer was right. Say, the policy was bought voluntarily, the car owner agreed with the proposed rules - what is the demand from the company? But forgetfulness of the owner could not affect the hijacking. As if thieves choose cars, knowing about the documents left there! The dissatisfied client appealed this verdict in a higher court, but did not find support. And only in the Supreme Court they heard him. What served as the basis for the abolition of all decisions?
The main court considered that making the issue of paying insurance compensation dependent on the actions of the insured and not on the fact of the occurrence of the insured event is fundamentally wrong. According to the judges, by such actions the insurance company reduces its entrepreneurial risk, but, in fact, infringes on the rights of the car owner. In addition, the local courts that examined the case did not recall one of the most important provisions of the law: any insurance rules should not contain conditions that contradict the law or worsen the position of the insured in comparison with the established law. The Civil Code clearly states: only the law determines the conditions under which the insurer can be exempted from payment. Even if the occurrence of the insured event is due to the negligence of the insured! Therefore, the justification for the refusal of payment by the fact that the owner left a certificate of registration in the salon is the pure initiative of the insurers. The Supreme Court found that such conditions in the insurance rules are void, that is, they have no force. The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation already expressed a similar position about a year ago, when it clarified refusals to pay insurance on the basis that the owner did not provide a second set of keys.
The new decision of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation will force many insurance companies to edit the rules and carefully consider each appeal of the victims. After all, now the keys or registration documents left in the stolen car should not become the basis for refusing to pay insurance.
I am sure, despite the positive decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, problems will remain. Insurance companies will continue to fight for "their" money, even knowing that they are wrong. Without a doubt, they will try - under the pretext of increasing their risks - to raise the price of insurance … So, the victims will have to further upholster the judicial thresholds. Therefore, before signing a comprehensive insurance contract, carefully read the terms of insurance. If you find in them a lot of reservations that allow you to not pay out (especially those that contradict the laws and decisions of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation), is this not a reason to turn to another insurance partner? Save both time and money.
