According to the court decision, according to the CMTPL rules, a car can “die” only when it is disposed of and deregistered.
The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation had to consider another case related to compulsory motor third party liability insurance. We are talking about the case with Daewoo Nexia: this car was insured under OSAGO at Rosgosstrakh in June 2020. In August of the same year, the car got into an accident, while the insurance company admitted that repairing the damaged vehicle would not be economically feasible, so the car itself was considered “structurally dead”.
According to the ASN, as a result, the company paid insurance compensation in the amount of 90 thousand rubles to the injured party (that is, the owner of Daewoo Nexia). Further, Rosgosstrakh notified the client of the early termination of the «car citizen» contract in connection with the death of the car, in accordance with clause 1.13 of the Insurance Rules.
At the same time, in December 2020, another accident occurred, this time due to the fault of the Daewoo Nexia driver; Mazda3 was damaged in this accident. As a result, the owner of Mazda applied to Rosgosstrakh with an application for insurance compensation, but the company refused to pay, as it believed that the liability of the Nexia owner at the time of the December incident was not insured under OSAGO.
The financial officer did not agree with this decision, he ordered Rosgosstrakh to pay compensation in the amount of 200 thousand rubles to the party injured in the accident. The insurer appealed the decision of the financial commissioner in court and he canceled it. The court of first instance explained that the OSAGO agreement with the owner of Daewoo terminated ahead of schedule from the moment the company paid the insurance compensation. It was also indicated here that Rosgosstrakh returned the insurance premium to the client for the unused period of insurance.
The financial commissioner had to object to this: he explained that the car had been repaired after the «death». The court replied that the absence of “physical death” as such has no legal significance, because the “legal death” of the car was recorded, therefore, from that moment on, the “autocitizenship” agreement is considered to be prematurely terminated.
The position of the court of first instance was subsequently supported by the courts of appeal and cassation, but, as it turned out, not by the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The Supreme Court pointed out that the criteria for the complete destruction of the victim's property are used only to determine the amount of the CMTPL payment (according to the current wording of the OSAGO law). At the same time, the criteria do not allow assessing the fact of the safety of the vehicle and the possibility of its operation.
The judge also recalled that the “physical death” of a car can be formalized by deregistration after disposal. At the same time, “total loss” refers only to the method of calculating insurance compensation within the framework of “autocitizenship”. He explained that the owner has the right to operate the vehicle even after the “total” if there is no ban on his participation in road traffic. In such cases, it cannot be considered that the insurance contract has terminated. As a result, the case was sent for a new trial.
Свежие комментарии