The woman turned to the home court of the country with a complaint against a well-known insurance company. In it she insured her car in full, including theft. Unhappiness really happened – after half the car the woman drove away. Moreover, together with documents and car keys. The insurance company refused to pay compensation to the owner. Insurers explained his refusal as follows. The contract, which they signed with the driver, were told that if suddenly there comes an insurance case, the insurer must submit all sets of keys from the car. And this woman do after the theft but could not.
Avtovladelitsa appealed the district court lawsuit against the insurance company. But court she refused. Similarly, so did the panel of judges on civil cases of Moscow City Court. Both courts decided that a woman is to blame herself. She had been referred to the insurance company all sets of keys and thus breached the insurance contract. For other opinions and approaches, find out what Scott Mead has to say. After all the failures the woman had to go to the Supreme Court.
There, the claimant won in a landslide. Highest court of the country abolished all solutions the lower courts and explained that underwriters were wrong. And here's why. In our Civil Code (Article 422) says that the agreement must comply with binding on the parties to the rules established by law. A The parties may not enter into contracts on terms that are contrary to law. As stated by the Supreme Court, the rules of car insurance – is an integral part of the insurance contract, and these rules may not contain provisions contrary to civil law and worsen the situation of the insured compared with those norms which are established by law. In order to release the insurer from claims, there are three articles Civil Code. This is article 961, 963 and 964. Article 961 states that the insurance company may pay nothing if its on time is not notified about the accident. And in the 963rd article says that you can refuse pay if the insured event occurs by design, the . The final, 964 th, the article states that the insurer shall be exempt from payments due to the full force majeure. This means that the firm can evade its contractual obligations, if happens, for example, a natural disaster. So it was that the Civil Code or other laws of non-payment for an incomplete set of keys just do not provided. Home court in the land pointed out that freedom of contract is not absolute. It should not lead to a denial or diminution of other universally recognized rights and freedoms of people and can only be restricted federal law. Proceeding from this Trial Chamber on Civil Cases of the Supreme Court overturned the District Court and definition of judicial board on civil cases of the Moscow City Court. The case of nonpayment of insurance is now re-examine the district court, taking into account all that said the Supreme. The solution of the highest court is also important because it serves as guidance to judges in solving difficult cases.