Avtoyurist
Petrozavodsk not rare encounters with insurance disputes under hull
when the insurance refuses to pay , citing a particular item CASCO rules
. Many
insurance companies in Petrozavodsk CASCO rules stipulate that theft
(theft ) of the vehicle with the registration documents is not an
insurance case. If
the policyholder accidentally left documents in the glove compartment ,
and the car was stolen , then it is a failure to pay by CASCO . Insurance payments " hijacking TS" in this case is provided by the rules of insurance.If you go to court , the insurer will refer to the freedom of contract , and because CASCO rules - part of an insurance contract that you signed , it means you agree to its terms.
This is the position of insurance companies podrbnyh disputes. I mean, is of paramount importance the fact that the policyholder has agreed to this clause rules CASCO when signing documents , and therefore the so agreed .In the course of litigation insurance based on rules CASCO terms , while avtoyurist Petrozavodsk should talk about the nullity of contract, contrary to the law .At the resolution of such disputes , the courts lately come from the fact that only the law can be provided insurer exemptions from duty . CASCO contract must always comply with the law.Terms of insurance of motor vehicles CASCO are an integral part of the insurance contract and must not contain norms of the treaty , civil law and contrary to worsen the situation of the insured against an established law.What the law says , the judicial practice .
In accordance with Art . 422 Civil Code must comply with the contract binding on the parties to the rules established by law, the parties can not enter into a contract on terms that are contrary to law.Grounds for exemption of the insurer to indemnify under Art . Art. 961 , 963 , 964 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation .Thus , since Russian law does not set such ground for refusal to pay as "Failure on the hull for stealing car with documents" , the denial of insurance payment is illegal.Based on the above , we can safely say that the payment of insurance CASCO - contract for theft must be made even in the presence of fact left documents in the car ! And to prove it in court. In voluntary insurer will not pay this amount.How can you make payments on the hijacking of the documents ? Only the courts. Refer to avtoyuristu Petrozavodsk on insurance disputes , it will prepare you to present all the documents and in court .Previously, courts do not always meet the requirements of insurers caught in such a situation , the practice was different , the courts' decisions are known to us and such other .There are cases when the first two instances courts sided with the insurance company , supporting the position of freedom of contract and justifying their decisions voluntary consent of the owner of a vehicle for such coverage.Recently, however, Russia's Supreme Court spoke clearly in favor of the insured .Now practice on such disputes are usually in favor of the insured .Supreme Court's position is crucial
Russian Armed Forces said on this occasion that including such conditions in the contract , the insurance company reduces its business risk as posing payments depending on the actions of the insured (beneficiary) , and not by the mere fact of an event in the event that the insurance is . Insured event consists of the fact of danger , the fact of the injury and a causal link between them. If there is damage , it must be a cause of danger from which the insured car. In particular , the review of the Supreme Court of the RF ON SELECTED ISSUES Litigating With voluntary insurance of property of citizens from January 30, 2013 stated the following:
Failure by the insured vehicle registration documents or certificate of its registration , or set (s) of keys, pass inspection does not relieve the insurer to indemnify for stealing (theft ) of a motor vehicle .As the study of judicial practice on this category of cases , disputes about collecting insurance compensation for theft (theft ) of a motor vehicle , in which the payment was refused by the insurer based on the fact that the insured did not provide vehicle registration document or certificate of registration or a set of keys , pass inspection , courts are permitted, usually in favor of the insured .In this case the courts rely on the fact that leaving the vehicle registration documents to him by virtue of Article 963 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation can not be regarded as the intent of the insured, the beneficiary or the insured in the insurance case .The same applies to the requirements to provide the keys to the vehicle .exonerations insurer to indemnify provided for in Articles 961 , 963 , 964 Civil Code, the provisions of which do not contain a base such as failure to complete sets of keys of the insured car. Paragraphs insurance rules , under which the insurer has the right to fully or partially deny insurance claims if the policyholder has lost a key from the vehicle without notifying the insurer in writing within seven days from the time of its loss before the insured event , provide clear criteria that would predetermine the conditions of such payment or denial of her permit decisions for reimbursement at the discretion of the insurance company are not the same for all insurers that does not guarantee compliance with the principle of equality of participants in relevant relations.The occurrence of harm set decision to institute criminal proceedings , was the cause of harm to the theft , and that is the danger from which the insured property.Thus , you can achieve recovery indemnity when denied CASCO for stealing car with documents.
This is the position of insurance companies podrbnyh disputes. I mean, is of paramount importance the fact that the policyholder has agreed to this clause rules CASCO when signing documents , and therefore the so agreed .In the course of litigation insurance based on rules CASCO terms , while avtoyurist Petrozavodsk should talk about the nullity of contract, contrary to the law .At the resolution of such disputes , the courts lately come from the fact that only the law can be provided insurer exemptions from duty . CASCO contract must always comply with the law.Terms of insurance of motor vehicles CASCO are an integral part of the insurance contract and must not contain norms of the treaty , civil law and contrary to worsen the situation of the insured against an established law.What the law says , the judicial practice .
In accordance with Art . 422 Civil Code must comply with the contract binding on the parties to the rules established by law, the parties can not enter into a contract on terms that are contrary to law.Grounds for exemption of the insurer to indemnify under Art . Art. 961 , 963 , 964 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation .Thus , since Russian law does not set such ground for refusal to pay as "Failure on the hull for stealing car with documents" , the denial of insurance payment is illegal.Based on the above , we can safely say that the payment of insurance CASCO - contract for theft must be made even in the presence of fact left documents in the car ! And to prove it in court. In voluntary insurer will not pay this amount.How can you make payments on the hijacking of the documents ? Only the courts. Refer to avtoyuristu Petrozavodsk on insurance disputes , it will prepare you to present all the documents and in court .Previously, courts do not always meet the requirements of insurers caught in such a situation , the practice was different , the courts' decisions are known to us and such other .There are cases when the first two instances courts sided with the insurance company , supporting the position of freedom of contract and justifying their decisions voluntary consent of the owner of a vehicle for such coverage.Recently, however, Russia's Supreme Court spoke clearly in favor of the insured .Now practice on such disputes are usually in favor of the insured .Supreme Court's position is crucial
Russian Armed Forces said on this occasion that including such conditions in the contract , the insurance company reduces its business risk as posing payments depending on the actions of the insured (beneficiary) , and not by the mere fact of an event in the event that the insurance is . Insured event consists of the fact of danger , the fact of the injury and a causal link between them. If there is damage , it must be a cause of danger from which the insured car. In particular , the review of the Supreme Court of the RF ON SELECTED ISSUES Litigating With voluntary insurance of property of citizens from January 30, 2013 stated the following:
Failure by the insured vehicle registration documents or certificate of its registration , or set (s) of keys, pass inspection does not relieve the insurer to indemnify for stealing (theft ) of a motor vehicle .As the study of judicial practice on this category of cases , disputes about collecting insurance compensation for theft (theft ) of a motor vehicle , in which the payment was refused by the insurer based on the fact that the insured did not provide vehicle registration document or certificate of registration or a set of keys , pass inspection , courts are permitted, usually in favor of the insured .In this case the courts rely on the fact that leaving the vehicle registration documents to him by virtue of Article 963 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation can not be regarded as the intent of the insured, the beneficiary or the insured in the insurance case .The same applies to the requirements to provide the keys to the vehicle .exonerations insurer to indemnify provided for in Articles 961 , 963 , 964 Civil Code, the provisions of which do not contain a base such as failure to complete sets of keys of the insured car. Paragraphs insurance rules , under which the insurer has the right to fully or partially deny insurance claims if the policyholder has lost a key from the vehicle without notifying the insurer in writing within seven days from the time of its loss before the insured event , provide clear criteria that would predetermine the conditions of such payment or denial of her permit decisions for reimbursement at the discretion of the insurance company are not the same for all insurers that does not guarantee compliance with the principle of equality of participants in relevant relations.The occurrence of harm set decision to institute criminal proceedings , was the cause of harm to the theft , and that is the danger from which the insured property.Thus , you can achieve recovery indemnity when denied CASCO for stealing car with documents.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий