The Supreme Court recognized an accident due to an open door as an insured event under OSAGO

The accident itself, which actually became a precedent, happened in the fall of 2018 in Vladivostok. Then a passenger in a parked right-hand drive car opened his door just as another car drove by. She bumped into the open door. The owner turned to the insurance company for compensation under OSAGO. Received refusal. For example, the perpetrator of the accident is not the driver, but the passenger. And therefore the accident does not apply to the sphere of mandatory “car citizenship”. The owner had to go to court. The first instance sided with him.

The insurer was ordered to indemnify the car owner (136,000 rubles), pay him a fine (70,000 rubles) and reimburse the cost of the citizen for the investigations conducted by him (7,000 rubles). The insurance company appealed this decision. Thus began a series of court hearings, which have now ended in the Judicial Collegium for Civil Affairs of the Supreme Court. The Sun sided with the car owner.

– With regard to the law “On OSAGO”, the use of a vehicle as a source of increased danger in road traffic also implies the transportation of passengers, including boarding and disembarking,” the conclusion of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation stated.

The decree specifically states that the term “use of the vehicle” must be interpreted more broadly than “movement in space”. Use is generally understood to mean “all actions associated with the movement and other operation of the vehicle as a source of increased danger”. Accordingly, in the event of an accident due to the opening of the door by the passenger, the fault is assumed to lie with the driver of the vehicle. Because he was not in control of the passenger’s actions.

The accident itself, which actually became a precedent, happened in the fall of 2018 in Vladivostok. Then a passenger in a parked right-hand drive car opened his door just as another car drove by. She bumped into the open door. The owner turned to the insurance company for compensation under OSAGO. Received refusal. For example, the perpetrator of the accident is not the driver, but the passenger. And therefore the accident does not apply to the sphere of mandatory “car citizenship”. The owner had to go to court. The first instance sided with him.

The insurer was ordered to indemnify the car owner (136,000 rubles), pay him a fine (70,000 rubles) and reimburse the cost of the citizen for the investigations conducted by him (7,000 rubles). The insurance company appealed this decision. Thus began a series of court hearings, which have now ended in the Judicial Collegium for Civil Affairs of the Supreme Court. The Sun sided with the car owner.

– With regard to the law “On OSAGO”, the use of a vehicle as a source of increased danger in road traffic also implies the transportation of passengers, including boarding and disembarking,” the conclusion of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation stated.

The decree specifically states that the term “use of the vehicle” must be interpreted more broadly than “movement in space”. Use is generally understood to mean “all actions associated with the movement and other operation of the vehicle as a source of increased danger”. Accordingly, in the event of an accident due to the opening of the door by the passenger, the fault is assumed to lie with the driver of the vehicle. Because he was not in control of the passenger’s actions.