9621 Agnes Crossing, Lake Suzanneview, New Mexico Island 84604-9295.
Wild for a normal person, the logic of greedy insurers, oddly enough, even found support in the Supreme Court. The AvtoVzglyad portal came across a case of a
The incident, the consequences of which eventually became the subject of legal proceedings, took place in Sochi in January 2021. 2019 Mersedes-Benz V 220 D 4MATIC, owned by Nedvizhimost-2014 LLC, was insured by a major federal insurance company under CASCO for the risks of “damage” and “theft”. On the evening of January 25, 2021, the driver of the company left the car at a car wash with instructions to clean it by morning. A couple of laundromats had a drink and drove off in a customer’s V-class “for more.”
On the way, they crashed the car and fled from the scene of the accident. Then, of course, they were found and even convicted under a criminal article for theft without theft purpose. Accordingly, the police returned the damaged vehicle to its owners. And they applied for insurance compensation in the amount of 4.5 million rubles, but were refused.
The insurer motivated him by the fact that the car was returned to the owner, so there was virtually no theft. And since the hijackers were not included in the policy, they were drunk and fled the scene of the accident, the insurance company did not pay for the damage to the car. LLC “Nedvizhimost-2014” went to court, logically assuming that the car was damaged due to “illegal actions of third parties”.
But even at the Supreme Court, the company that owns the car did not find support. The courts of all instances decided that the insured accidents “accident” and “third party wrongful acts” are different. The judges ruled that despite the fact that the hijackers caused damage to the car through an accident, “illegal acts of third parties” cannot be a basis for payment in this case.
But the courts also found no grounds for the insurer to pay car damage based solely on the fact of an accident. At the same time, they indicated that the perpetrator of the accident (i.e. the hijacker) has fled the scene. And since his behavior violates the insurance company’s CASCO rules, compensation for damage is not allowed in this case. It turns out that the owner of the cars can get insurance in case of theft, as they say, “with the ends”, or if someone broke it in the parking lot. No other way.
Logically, the situation looks insane. But she proves once again that even the most respected and largest insurance company for her client is not a “friend-comrade-brother”, but something like a street thimble-maker, just waiting for the right moment to “throw money”. .
The incident, the consequences of which eventually became the subject of legal proceedings, took place in Sochi in January 2021. 2019 Mersedes-Benz V 220 D 4MATIC, owned by Nedvizhimost-2014 LLC, was insured by a major federal insurance company under CASCO for the risks of “damage” and “theft”. On the evening of January 25, 2021, a company driver left the car at a car wash with instructions to clean it up by morning. A couple of laundromats had a drink and drove off in a customer’s V-class “for more.”
On the way, they crashed the car and fled from the scene of the accident. Then, of course, they were found and even convicted under a criminal article for theft without theft purpose. Accordingly, the police returned the damaged vehicle to its owners. And they applied for insurance compensation in the amount of 4.5 million rubles, but were refused.
The insurer motivated him by the fact that the car was returned to the owner, so there was virtually no theft. And since the hijackers were not included in the policy, they were drunk and fled the scene of the accident, the insurance company did not pay for the damage to the car. LLC “Nedvizhimost-2014” went to court, logically assuming that the car was damaged due to “illegal actions of third parties”.
But even at the Supreme Court, the company that owns the car did not find support. The courts of all instances decided that the insured accidents “accident” and “third party wrongful acts” are different. The judges ruled that despite the fact that the hijackers caused damage to the car through an accident, “illegal acts of third parties” cannot be a basis for payment in this case.
But the courts also found no grounds for the insurer to pay car damage based solely on the fact of an accident. At the same time, they indicated that the perpetrator of the accident (i.e. the hijacker) has fled the scene. And since his behavior violates the insurance company’s CASCO rules, compensation for damage is not allowed in this case. It turns out that the owner of the cars can get insurance in case of theft, as they say, “with the ends”, or if someone broke it in the parking lot. No other way.
Logically, the situation looks insane. But she proves once again that even the most respected and largest insurance company for her client is not a “friend-comrade-brother”, but something like a street thimble-maker, just waiting for the right moment to “throw money”. .
Source: Avto Vzglyad
Donald Salinas is an experienced automobile journalist and writer for Div Bracket. He brings his readers the latest news and developments from the world of automobiles, offering a unique and knowledgeable perspective on the latest trends and innovations in the automotive industry.
