Payments for motor hull insurance

Failure to make payments on the hull - is illegal, even if the circumstances of damage to the machine is not set.

Whoever messed up the car - the money returned. Motorists can breathe freely now receive payments hull easier. This will affect those situations where the circumstances of damage to the machine is not set. At the very least, the precedent created. In general, the tone asked the Federal service, which is engaged in the financial markets. It FFMS, analyzing the main reasons for which the insurers refuse to make payments under the hull, drew attention to the non-recognition of the illegality of the insured event damage to the vehicle, if the circumstances of the police damage to the machine is not set. They are also supported by the court.

One precedent, as the beginning of change insurance practice

Judicial precedent has arisen because of the failure of "Rosgosstrakh" to pay compensation to its insured on the hull. The client company found his car damaged. Caused by the police could not find out who damaged the car under what circumstances it happened. Mostly, the second fact has led to a refusal to institute criminal proceedings. But no matter - there is no money. Therefore, when the insurer sought reimbursement in the "Rosgosstrakh", the experts of the company have decided that in such circumstances is impossible to determine whether this is an insurable event. So payments hull had not been implemented.

But not always the insurer's decision is final, even if the circumstances of damage to the machine is not set. It was in this case. Federal service that monitors the financial markets, has agreed with the arguments of the client and the insurance company sent a "Rosgosstrakh" instruction to reconsider the denial. But insurers have decided to defend their position by referring to the court. But the court sided with the insured and the Federal Financial Markets Service because just in insurance regulations stipulate that if a third party were committed against the illegal actions of the car, it is considered an insured event. A car is damaged by such actions and are, even if the circumstances of damage to the machine is not set. This follows from the decision of the police, which contains a refusal to prosecute.

There is another important point, which drew the attention of the court. If you objectively consider the insurance contract, the payment of hull related to the risk of "damage" are produced, under what circumstances would this damage occurred either. And if so, even when the circumstances of damage to the machine is not installed on the hull of payment must be made.

What do insurers think?

For all the logic of the Court and the Federal Financial Markets Service, the insurers are objections. And up to this precedent, the insurance companies in these cases were denied benefits. They explain their position that the damage to the machine if the circumstances are not set, and the risks can not be determined. In addition, in such situations, the insurer has no right to subrogation, and this is another argument in favor of non-payments.