Judge for yourself - the interest rate was only 8%! True, they paid another $ 200 to consider the application, but this is nonsense! Here is just one “but”: a prerequisite was full car insurance under the CASCO policy. It would seem nothing special, because such is the generally accepted practice of banks; only the insurance company Andrei and Olga were not allowed to choose on their own. They were offered the only option - to insure all risks at Avangard-Garant, where it was not cheap. But, as it turned out, the company is not only distinguished by the high price of the policy …
FROM THE word “FEAR”?
The insurers handed Olga and Andrey a policy, insurance rules and a business card with a telephone of a 24-hour dispatch service. “If something happens, be sure to immediately call the phone number and strictly follow the instructions of the dispatcher!” Warned the spouses.
For almost a year Andrei (most often he used the car) did not recall the insurance policy. But once from under the wheels of a truck in front, a whole scattering of stones flew out. Two of the largest hit the Nexia: one coolly scratched the driver's door, the other broke the windshield. The truck, without stopping, rushed off, because, apparently, "had no complaints." Andrei stopped on the side of the road, turned on the alarm and carefully examined the “losses”. Yes, I got pretty … Our hero remembered about the round-the-clock service. "Do not worry! - reassured the male voice. - In your situation, the insurance payment will be made without a certificate of a traffic accident. It’s enough to drive up to us, write a statement and provide a car for inspection.” Andrei calmed down - really, why worry! - and decided not to call the traffic police. Of course, from the point of view of the Rules of the road, he did wrong; in extreme cases, having compiled a diagram of the incident, it was necessary to go to the nearest traffic police department and arrange an accident. But P.'s spouses were in a hurry, and the dispatcher explained that formalities were useless!
Already at home, Andrei carefully read the insurance rules and saw that without a traffic police certificate the company pays only if the damage does not exceed 3% of the insurance amount. In addition, another item was found: without reference, you can count on "compensation for damage due to damage to the windshield, if other parts of the car were not damaged." P. once again called Avangard-Garant. But the employee of the payment department reassured: his application is in the database and the issue of payment is likely to be resolved positively!
The very next day, Andrei brought a statement to the company, the car was examined by an expert, it remains only to wait for the money. But the troubles didn’t end there: a few days later P. left the Nexia near the house, and when he returned, he found that the side window was broken, the radio panel disappeared from the glove compartment. This time, he immediately called the police. The outfit arrived quickly, issued all the necessary papers, and P. again went to the insurance company.
Two days have passed. The insurer called Andrei and said that on the occasion of the windshield and the door, the company has a formal reason not to pay, because according to its rules, if the two parts are damaged, a certificate from the traffic police is required. At the same time, referring to his "goodwill", he offered to change the glass for free on his service.
A few days later, the mail brought two letters from the insurance company at once. In one, she refused to compensate for the incident with the windshield. True, the reason was given for some other reason - the director referred to the excess of the repair cost of 3% of the sum insured, but did not remember anything about the certificate from the traffic police. The reason for the second refusal was that, leaving the radio panel in the cabin, Andrei “provoked intruders, thereby failing to comply with the insurance rules that oblige the policyholder to take all necessary and affordable measures to reduce the risk of an insured event”. In a word, from all sides the spouses of P. turned out to be guilty!
Then Olga and Andrey decided to go to court. It seems that insurers are simply mocking them!
ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE INSURANCE RULES
We decided to build our position on the following. On the first refusal, they referred to insurance rules, according to which, if the windshield is damaged by objects from under the wheels of other vehicles, damage is compensated without the help of the traffic police and regardless of the size of the damage caused. In addition, it was on the instructions of the manager of the insurance company that Andrei did not call the traffic police! Andrei did not insist on repairing the scratched door.
As for the second case, Andrei fulfilled the obligation of the insured. After all, it cannot be considered that a tape recorder panel removed (!) And left in the glove compartment could provoke intruders to break the glass! In addition, we pointed out the confusion in the documents: insurance policies dated 1999-09-09 were listed in the policy, and others were handed to Andrei on 2004-27-12; on the company’s website at that time, the insurance policies of 2005 were posted. Taking into account that all written responses signed by the CEO of the company were based on the 2004 rules, we decided that they were the main ones.
First, we sent a pre-trial claim to the insurance company, but did not receive a response. Then, having collected the necessary documents, they sent a statement of claim to the court.
PROOF EVIDENCE
When considering the case, the company representative said that the insurance rules to which we refer did not apply when concluding the contract, they were not handed over to the client, and therefore they cannot be the basis for payments. In addition, the refusal responses sent initially to Andrei and Olga are invalid, as they are written in error. Immediately the court was given new options for refusals, where there was one reason - the policyholder did not submit papers from the competent authorities. That is, a certificate of accident from the traffic police on the first occasion and a certificate from the Department of Internal Affairs on the second! Andrei, speaking as a witness, said that after the windshield was broken, he followed the instructions of the dispatcher. “He had no right to give such instructions!” Said the insurer. And he explained that the phone number on the business card is a joint reference of the insurance company and the bank, and therefore he does not know who could give such advice. Alas, the court found the Avangard-Garant evidence sufficient and did not refuse to compensate for the damage associated with the repair of the windshield.
As for the case with a broken side window and a missing panel of the radio, here justice was on our side! After all, the insurance company based its refusal on the fact that Andrei and Olga did not submit a police report on the incident. At the court’s request, Avangard-Garant presented an “insurance case” - in fact, a pile of various statements, answers and references. It quickly found Andrei’s statement about the occurrence of an insured event, where, as an appendix, the certificate from the police department was peacefully resting. “But we just did not notice it!” - the insurer stated without bewilderment. But what - who doesn’t happen to anyone?.. Here the court had no choice but to recover from the insurance company the cost of replacing the side window.
Having received moral and (partially) material satisfaction, Andrei and Olga decided to terminate their relationship with this insurer and the next year they entered into an agreement with another, we have a lot of insurance companies. After all, the car market does not stand still, and competition dictates its conditions …