SOLUTION

IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

On August 17, 2012, the Golovinsky District Court of Moscow, composed of the presiding judge Zhilkina T.G., with the secretary A.N. Svitushkov, examined in open court civil case No. 2-2773 / 12 at the suit of D.Yu. Reztsov. to Sheftel O.L., Open Insurance Joint Stock Company "RESO-Garantia" for compensation for damage caused by a road traffic accident,

U S T A N O V I L:

Plaintiff Reztsov D.Yew. represented by a representative by proxy Lubnina M.A. filed a lawsuit against Sheftel O.L., RESO-Garantia OJSC for compensation for damage caused by a road traffic accident, and asked to recover from RESO-Garantia OJSC the costs of restoring the vehicle in the amount of RUB 78,970. 67 kopecks; from Sheftel O.L. the difference between the insurance compensation and the actual amount of damage in the amount of 11534 RUB. 79 kopecks, expenses for the examination of the vehicle in the amount of 5,000 rubles; recover from the defendant and the co-defendant in proportion to the size of the satisfied claims legal costs: state fee in the amount of 3065 RUB. 15 kopecks; costs of issuing a court power of attorney to a representative in the amount of RUB 1200; the cost of paying for the services of a representative in the amount of 35,000 rubles, justifying their claims by the fact that on March 17, 2012 there was a road traffic accident involving a car<данные изъяты> <данные изъяты>belonging to Reztsov D.Yu .. In accordance with the certificate of the road traffic accident, the decision in the case of an administrative offense, Sheftel O.L. was found guilty of this road traffic accident, having violated paragraphs. 8.4 Traffic rules of the Russian Federation. IJSC "RESO-Garantia" paid the plaintiff RUB 41029 on account of the insurance indemnity. 33 kopecks .. In accordance with the Report No. dated April 10, 2012 on the assessment of the market value of the right to claim for damages arising from damage in a road accident car<данные изъяты> the cost of refurbishment, taking into account the wear of parts, amounted to 131,534 rubles. 79 cop .. At the hearing the representative of the plaintiff by proxy Lubnina M.A. he supported the claim. RESO-Garantia IJSC was duly notified of the time and place of the hearing, the representative did not appear at the hearing, did not inform the court about the reasons for his failure to appear, and did not file a written request to postpone the hearing. Sheftel O. L. the time and place of the hearing was duly notified, did not appear at the hearing, did not inform the court about the reasons for failure to appear, did not declare written requests to postpone the hearing. At the hearing on August 08, 2012 he did not dispute guilt in a road traffic accident and the amount. In accordance with Art. 233 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation 1. In case of failure to appear at the court session of the defendant, notified of the time and place of the court session, who did not report the good reasons for failure to appear and did not ask for the consideration of the case in his absence, the case may be considered in absentia. The court shall issue a ruling on the consideration of the case in this manner. 2. If several defendants participate in the case, consideration of the case by way of proceedings in absentia is possible if all defendants fail to appear at the court session. The representative of the plaintiff by proxy Lubnina M.A. agrees to the consideration of the case in absentia in the absence of the defendants, and the court ordered to consider the case in absentia. The court, after hearing the representative of the plaintiff by proxy Lubninu M.A. having checked and studied the materials of the case, the court considers the claims to be satisfied on the following grounds. In accordance with Art. 56 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation 1. Each party must prove the circumstances to which it refers as the basis for its claims and objections, unless otherwise provided by federal law. 2. The court determines what circumstances are relevant to the case, which party has to prove them, brings the circumstances for discussion, even if the parties did not refer to any of them. According to Art. 15 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation 1. A person whose right has been violated may demand full compensation for losses caused to him, if the law or contract does not provide for compensation for losses in a smaller amount. 2. Losses are understood as expenses that a person whose right has been violated has made or will have to make in order to restore the violated right, loss or damage to his property (real damage), as well as lost income that this person would have received under normal conditions of civil turnover, if his right had not been violated (loss of profits). In accordance with Art. 1064 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, damage caused to the property of a legal entity is subject to compensation in full by the person who caused the damage. By law, the obligation to compensate for harm may be imposed on a person who is not the cause of harm. By virtue of Art. 1079 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, legal entities and citizens whose activities are associated with increased danger to others (use of vehicles ...) are obliged to compensate for harm caused by a source of increased danger, if they do not prove that the harm was caused by force majeure or the intent of the victim. The obligation to compensate for harm is imposed on a legal entity or citizen who owns a source of increased danger on the basis of ownership, the right of economic management or the right of operational management, or on another legal basis (on the basis of a lease, by power of attorney to drive a vehicle, etc.). According to paragraph 1 of Art. 929 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation under a property insurance contract, one party (the insurer) undertakes for a fee specified in the contract ( insurance premium) upon the occurrence of an event provided for in the contract ( insured event) reimburse the other party (the policyholder) or another person in favor of whom the contract was concluded (the beneficiary) for the losses caused as a result of this event in the insured property or losses in connection with other property interests of the policyholder (pay insurance compensation) within the amount specified in the contract (the sum insured) ). According to paragraph 3 of Art. 931 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, an insurance contract for the risk of liability for causing harm is considered concluded in favor of persons who may be harmed (beneficiaries), even if the contract is concluded in favor of the insured or another person responsible for causing harm, or the contract does not say in whose benefit it is concluded. 4. In the case when liability for causing harm is insured due to the fact that its insurance is compulsory, as well as in other cases provided for by law or the insurance contract for such liability, the person in whose favor the insurance contract is considered concluded shall have the right to present directly to the insurer a claim for compensation for harm within the insured amount. According to Art. 1072 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a legal entity or citizen who insured their liability on a voluntary or compulsory insurance in favor of the victim, in the event that the insurance indemnity is insufficient to fully compensate for the damage caused, the difference between the insurance indemnity and the actual amount of damage shall be compensated. According to Art. 307 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation 1. By virtue of the obligation, one person (the debtor) is obliged to perform a certain action in favor of another person (the creditor), such as: transfer property, perform work, pay money, etc., or refrain from a certain action, and the creditor has the right to demand that the debtor fulfill his obligation. 2. Obligations arise from the contract, as a result of causing harm and from other grounds specified in this Code. According to Art. 309 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, obligations must be fulfilled properly in accordance with the terms of the obligation and the requirements of the law, other legal acts, and in the absence of such conditions and requirements - in accordance with the customs of business or other commonly required requirements. According to Art. 1082 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, satisfying the claim for compensation for harm, the court, in accordance with the circumstances of the case, obliges the person responsible for the harm to compensate for the harm in kind (to provide a thing of the same kind and quality, to fix the damaged thing, etc.) or to compensate for the damage caused ( paragraph 2 of Article 15). As established by the court, on March 17, 2012 there was a road traffic accident involving a car<данные изъяты>, under the control of Sheftel O.L., as a result of whose actions significant mechanical damage was caused to the car<данные изъяты>owned by D.Yu. Reztsov. As a result of this traffic accident, mechanical damage was caused to a car of the brand<данные изъяты>: damaged front left and right headlights, front bumper, hood, front panel, left front door, hidden damage (ld 11). By Resolution No. in the case of an administrative offense dated March 17, 2012 Sheftel O.L. was brought to administrative responsibility under Part 3 of Art. 12.14 of the RF Code of Administrative Offenses for violation of clause 8.4 of the RF Traffic Rules (ld 11). The civil liability of the defendant Sheftel O.L. at the time of the road accident was insured in RESO-Garantia OJSC under the policy no. March 21, 2012 Reztsov D.Yu. applied to RESO-Garantia OJSC with a claim for damages. On March 27, 2012, the injured car of the plaintiff was examined by a specialist of LLC "PARTNER". Inspection certificate No. dated March 27, 2012 recorded numerous damages, including possible hidden damages (ld 15). On April 03, 2012, the damaged vehicle was re-examined. In accordance with the Inspection Certificate No. the list of damages has been increased. In the repeated Inspection Report, the possibility of hidden damage was also noted (case file 16). On March 27, 2012, LLC "NEK-GROUP" carried out an expert assessment of vehicles, according to which the cost of restoring the damaged vehicle, taking into account wear and tear, amounted to 41029 rubles. 33 kopecks (ld 17-18). According to the Report No. dated April 10, 2012 on the assessment of the market value of the right to claim compensation for losses incurred as a result of damage in a car accident<данные изъяты>, compiled by LLC "Center for Independent Expertise" Varshavsky ", the cost of refurbishment, taking into account the wear of parts, amounted to 131,534 rubles. 79 kopecks (l.d. 22-52). By virtue of clause "c" of Article 7 of the Federal Law "On Compulsory Insurance of Civil Liability of Vehicle Owners", the sum insured, within which the insurer, upon the occurrence of each insured event (regardless of their number during the term of the compulsory insurance contract), undertakes to reimburse the victims the damage caused is: in terms of compensation for damage caused to the property of one victim, no more than 120 thousand rubles. The court considers it possible to base the decision on the Report No. dated April 10, 2012 on the assessment of the market value of the right to claim for damages resulting from damage to a car accident<данные изъяты>, compiled by LLC "Center for Independent Expertise" Varshavsky ", since it meets the requirements of the law on the admissibility and relevance of evidence (Articles 59, 60 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation). As for the Expert Appraisal of Motor Transport, compiled by NEK-GROUP LLC on March 27, 2012 ", the court cannot take it into account, since it was carried out in violation of the requirements of the Federal Law" On appraisal activities in Russian Federation", Orders of the Ministry of Economic Development of the Russian Federation of July 20, 2007 No. 256" General concepts of valuation, approaches to valuation and requirements for the assessment (FSO No. 1) ", No. 255" On approval of the federal valuation standard "The purpose of valuation and types of value (FSO No. 2 ) ", No. 254" On the approval of the federal assessment standard "Requirements for the assessment report (FSO No. 3)", which are mandatory for the implementation of valuation activities. The Expert Assessment does not indicate information about the expert appraisers, does not provide documents confirming their qualifications, does not indicate the approaches to the assessment and the motivation for their non-use. Also, the Expert Assessment of Motor Transport also does not meet the requirements of the Methodological Recommendations for an independent technical examination of a vehicle under OSAGO dated October 12, 2004 No. 001МР / SE, developed in pursuance of the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated April 24, 2003 No. funds "and the Order of the Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation, the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation and the Ministry of Internal Affairs of the Russian Federation No. 171/183/590 of July 30, 2003" On the implementation of the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of April 24, 2003 No. 238 "On the organization of independent technical expertise vehicles "taking into account the requirements of the Federal Law" On Compulsory Insurance of Civil Liability of Vehicle Owners ", Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation dated May 7, 2003 No. 263" On Approval of the Rules for Compulsory Insurance civil liability of vehicle owners ", since there is no link to the used technical literature and catalogs of the manufacturer, the technical condition of the vehicle is not described, there are no items provided for in clause 8.4.9. "001МР / SE" photographic materials, there is no full corporate name and location of the insurer, data of the identity document of the victim, substantiation of the results of an independent technical examination, as well as limitations and limits of application of the results obtained. In addition, 001МР / SE establishes that an independent technical examination, including the inspection stage, can only be carried out by expert technicians. Evaluating the evidence in their relevance, admissibility, reliability, as well as the sufficiency and interconnection of the evidence in their totality, the court concludes that the violation by the defendant Sheftel O.L. Of the traffic rules of the Russian Federation led to a road accident, which caused damage to the property of Reztsov D.Yu .. Since Civil responsibility defendant Sheftel O. L. at the time of the road traffic accident was insured in RESO-Garantia, the court considers that the difference between the previously paid insurance compensation and the insurer's liability limit of 78,970 rubles is subject to recovery from the defendant RESO-Garantia. 67 kopecks (120,000 rubles - 41,029 rubles 33 kopecks). From Sheftel O.L. in favor of D.Yu. Reztsov the amount of 11,534 rubles uncovered by the insurance indemnity is subject to recovery. 79 kopecks (131,534 rubles 79 kopecks - 120,000 rubles). In accordance with Art. 100 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, taking into account the principle of reasonableness and the scope of protection of the violated right, the court considers it possible to determine the amount of expenses for payment of the representative's services in the amount of 15,000 rubles. In accordance with paragraph 1 of Art. 98 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation in proportion to the amount recovered in favor of D.Yu. Reztsov. from Sheftel O.L. the costs of paying for the preparation of the Report in the amount of 5000 rubles, costs of paying for the services of a representative in the amount of 2596 rubles are subject to collection. 94 kopecks, expenses for drawing up a power of attorney in the amount of 207 rubles. 76 kopecks. and the cost of paying the state duty in the amount of 530 rubles. 67 kopecks; from IJSC "RESO-Garantia" the costs of paying for the services of a representative in the amount of 12403 rubles are subject to collection. 06 cop., Expenses for drawing up a power of attorney in the amount of 992 rubles. 24 kopecks and the cost of paying the state duty in the amount of 2534 rubles. 48 kopecks .. Based on the foregoing, guided by Articles 194-199, 237 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation,

Claims Reztsova D.Yew. to Sheftel OL, Open Insurance Joint Stock Company RESO-Garantia regarding compensation for damage caused by a road traffic accident - to satisfy. Collect from Sheftel O. L. in favor of D.Yu. Reztsov RUB 11534 79 kopecks, expenses for the preparation of the Report in the amount of 5,000 rubles, expenses for payment for the services of a representative in the amount of 2,596 rubles. 94 kopecks, expenses for drawing up a power of attorney in the amount of 207 rubles. 76 kopecks. and the cost of paying the state duty in the amount of 530 rubles. 67 kopecks .. To collect from the Open Insurance Joint Stock Company "RESO-Garantia" in favor of D.Yu. Reztsov. RUB 78,970 67 cop., Expenses for payment of services of a representative in the amount of 12403 rubles. 06 cop., Expenses for drawing up a power of attorney in the amount of 992 rubles. 24 kopecks and the cost of paying the state duty in the amount of 2534 rubles. 48 kopecks. An application for revision of the decision can be submitted to the Golovinsky District Court of Moscow within 7 days from the date of delivery of a copy of the decision, or the decision can be appealed to the Moscow City Court within a month after the deadline for filing an application to cancel the decision court, and if such an application is filed, - within a month from the date of the court ruling on the refusal to satisfy this application.

Court decision to the Russian Union of Auto Insurers

Lawyer of the metro Profsoyuznaya

Civil court decisions

Litigation in civil cases

Appellate ruling of the Investigative Committee on civil cases of the Altai Regional Court dated October 02, 2013 in case N 33-8017 / 13

The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Altai Regional Court composed of:

presiding over T.I. Paraskun

judges Dmitrieva O.S., Businoj N.The.

under the secretary A.N. Akhromenko

considered in open court appeals of the defendant IJSC "Reso - Garantia", a third party - bankruptcy trustee SP Ivashkova The.The. - Pupkova A.V. on the decision of the Central District Court of Barnaul dated July 2, 2013 in the case

at the claim of Ivashkova D.The., Ivashkov The.The. to IJSC "Reso-Garantia" on the collection of insurance compensation,

on the counterclaim of IJSC "Reso-Garantia" to Ivashkova D.The., Ivashkovu V.The. on the recognition of the insurance contract as invalid,

on the claim of a third party, filing independent claims, Popova D.AND. to IJSC Reso-Garantia on the collection of insurance compensation.

Having heard the report of Judge Busina N.V., the judicial board

INSTALLED:

Ivashkova D.V., Ivashkov V.V. applied to the court against Reso-Garantia OJSC with a claim to recover the amount of insurance compensation.

In support of the stated claims the plaintiffs indicated that (date) between Ivashkova D.The. and OJSC "Reso-Garantia" entered into a voluntary property insurance contract, under the terms of which a residential building with outbuildings, located at the address: "address", was insured. The agreement was concluded in favor of the beneficiary V.V. Ivashkov, D.V. Ivashkova. The term of the agreement is determined from (date) to (date). The list of risks is set out in the Property Insurance Rules. individuals from fire and other hazards from (date). Sum insured agreed by the parties in the amount of "data taken" RUB. in connection with the destruction of the fire of the main building and "data taken" rub. - in connection with the destruction of an economic structure.

(date) a fire broke out in the aforementioned house, as a result of which the insured house and utility structure were destroyed. (date) D.V. Ivashkova applied to the Reso-Garantia OJSC with an application for the payment of insurance compensation, but there was no response from the insurer. (date) D.V. Ivashkova applied to the insurer with a claim for the fulfillment of obligations under the insurance contract by paying insurance compensation or issuing a refusal to pay. A letter from (date) denied payment to the plaintiff with reference to clause 4.11l of the above Insurance Rules, according to which it is not an insured event and damage arising from obligations arising from the contractual relationship of the policyholder with third parties is not indemnified.

The plaintiffs do not agree with the refusal of the insurer, since at the date of the conclusion of the insurance contract, the work on the installation of the fireplace, which is the source of fire, had been completed. In this connection, according to the plaintiffs, the fire that occurred is an insured event.

Taking into account the clarification of the claims, the plaintiffs asked to recover in their favor the amount of insurance compensation in the amount of "data seized"., Including "data seized" RUB. in connection with the destruction of a residential building, and "data seized" RUB. in connection with damage to an outbuilding, interest for the use of others in cash for the period from (date) to (date) in the amount of "data taken".

During the consideration of the case Popov D.AND. recognized as a third party making independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute.

Popov D.I. filed a claim against Reso-Garantia OJSC to recover the amount of insurance compensation.

In support of the stated requirements Popov D.AND. indicated that according to the contract of purchase and sale of the mortgage from (date) he is the mortgagee in respect of the residential building and the land plot located at the address: "address". By the decision of the Industrial District Court of Barnaul from (date) s Ivashkov The.The., Ivashkova D.The. in favor of D.I. Popov debt was recovered under a loan agreement secured by a mortgage of the disputed property in the amount of "data taken". According to the certificate of the head of the OND, as a result of the fire (date), the above residential building was completely lost and cannot be restored. However, according to the conclusion of the forensic examination, the cost of refurbishment of the house is “data taken”. By virtue of Art. 334 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the pledgee has the right to receive, on the same basis, satisfaction from insurance compensation for the loss or damage of the pledged property, regardless of in whose favor it is insured. Since in this case there was an insured event, provided for by the property insurance contract concluded with Ivashkova D.The., Popov D.AND. asked to recover from Reso-Garantia OJSC in its favor the amount of insurance compensation in the amount of "data taken".

OSAO "Reso-Garantia" filed a lawsuit against Ivashkova D.The., Ivashkov V.The. on the recognition of the insurance contract dated (date), concluded between Reso-Garantia IJSC and DV Ivashkova, invalid.

In support of the stated claims, the plaintiff indicated that the object of the contested insurance contract is a residential building and two outbuildings located at the "address". When concluding an insurance contract Ivashkova D.The. it was pointed out that there was no seizure and pledge in respect of the property subject to insurance, about which there is an entry in insurance policy... In accordance with clause 3.4. Of the Insurance Rules, which are an integral part of the insurance contract, in all cases, property withdrawn from circulation or restricted in circulation in accordance with civil law is not subject to insurance. According to clause 9.1 of the Insurance Rules, during the period of validity of the contract, the policyholder is obliged to immediately inform the insurer of any changes in the circumstances reported at the conclusion of the insurance contract and increasing the insured risk. By the decision of the Industrial District Court of Barnaul from (date), the property of the Ivashkovs was divided, as a result of which the disputed residential house and land plot were transferred to the ownership of V.V. Ivashkov. Thus it is insured Dashkova D.The. at the time of the conclusion of the insurance contract, she did not have a legitimate interest in preserving the insured property, besides, she did not bear any rights and obligations in relation to the residential building. the policyholder intentionally and deliberately did not inform the insurer of information about the seizure and pledge of the disputed property, that is, provided false information about the circumstances known to her that are essential for determining the probability of an insured event.

By the decision of the Central District Court of Barnaul dated 02 July 2013 it was recovered from the OSAO "Reso-Garantia" in favor of Ivashkov The.The. the amount of insurance compensation in the amount of "data taken" cop., interest for the use of other people's funds in the amount of "data taken"

In satisfying the claims Ivashkovoj D.The. denied.

Recovered from OJSC "Reso-Garantia" in favor of D.I. Popov. the amount of insurance compensation was recovered in the amount of "data taken".

The counterclaims of Reso-Garantia IJSC were denied.

Collected from Reso-Garantia OJSC as income municipality Barnaul state duty in the amount of "data taken"

In the appeal, Reso-Garantia IJSC asks the court to cancel the decision and make a new decision, by which the counterclaims are satisfied, the initial claims are left unsatisfied.

The arguments of the appeal are similar to those set out in the counter statement of claim... In addition, it is indicated that the condition on the nature of the event, in the event of the occurrence of which the insurance is made, is essential for this contract. The event that occurred, as a result of which damage was caused to the property of the plaintiff, was not classified by the insurance contract as an insured event on the basis of clause 4.11 l of the Insurance Rules, since the damage was caused due to circumstances arising from the contractual relations of the insured with third parties, namely with LLC "I." to install a fireplace in the insured residential building. As follows from the decree on the refusal to initiate a criminal case on the fact of the fire, the damage to the owner arose as a result of the unfair provision of services for the manufacture of a fireplace by LLC "I." Meanwhile, the loss or damage to property, entailing the emergence of the obligation of the insurer to pay insurance compensation, should be the result of circumstances that are referred to by the contract as insured events.

In the appeal bankruptcy trustee SP Ivashkova The.The. - Pupkov A.V. asks the court decision to cancel and make a new decision to recover the amount of insurance compensation in full in favor of Ivashkov The.The.

In support of the complaint, it is indicated that the procedure for satisfying creditors' claims for obligations secured by a pledge of the debtor's property is established by the Bankruptcy Law. According to Art. 65 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation established the priority of the Bankruptcy Law over the norms Civil Code RF in relation to the order and priority of satisfying creditors' claims in the debtor's bankruptcy procedure. Demands of D.I. Popov were satisfied by the court in violation of the procedure established by the bankruptcy law. By the definition of the Arbitration Court Altai Territory Demand Popov D.AND. included in the register of claims of the debtor's creditors in the third order. The determination of the Arbitration Court of the Altai Territory from (date), left unchanged by the decision of the Seventh Arbitration Court of Appeal from (date), refused to satisfy the application of D.I. Popov. on the recognition of his claims in the amount of "data taken." Thus, Popov D.I. the status of a pledged creditor was lost, however, on the basis of a court decision, he received satisfaction of his claims at the expense of the amount of insurance compensation as a result of the destruction of the pledged item.

In objections to the appeal Popov D.AND. asks to leave the court decision unchanged, pointing out that the loss of certain advantages during the bankruptcy procedure should not entail the loss of all rights that the pledgee has in civil law.

Having studied the case materials, having heard the representative of the defendant IJSC "Reso-Garantia" Sh.N.AND., Who supported the arguments of the appeal, the representative of the third party bankruptcy trustee SP Ivashkov The.The. A.V. Pupkova - O.M.The., Who supported the arguments of the appeal of the bankruptcy trustee, a representative of a third party filing independent claims, Popova D.AND. - O.Yu.S., who objected to the cancellation of the court decision, after checking the legality and validity of the decision made in accordance with Part 1 of Art. 327.1 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, within the limits of the arguments of the complaint, the judicial board finds the decision to be canceled due to the incorrect application of substantive law.

In accordance with Art. 929 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation under a property insurance contract, one party (the insurer) undertakes to compensate the other party (the insured) or another person in favor of whom the contract was concluded (the beneficiary ), losses caused as a result of this event in the insured property or losses in connection with other property interests of the policyholder (pay insurance compensation) within the amount specified in the contract (insured amount).

From the materials of the case it follows that (date) between Ivashkova D.The. and Reso-Garantia OJSC entered into a voluntary property insurance contract - a residential building with two outbuildings located at the address: Altai Territory, in favor of beneficiaries D.V. Ivashkova, V.V. Ivashkov, for the period from (date ) to (date).

The list of risks, in the event of the occurrence of which insurance is provided, is defined in the Rules for insuring property of individuals against fire and other dangers from (date).

According to these rules, fire is defined as one of the insurance risks.

(date) about "data taken" min. a fire broke out in the insured residential building, as a result of which the main building was destroyed, the outbuilding was damaged.

According to a certificate from a specialist of UGOCHS and PB to the "address" *** dated (date), the most likely cause of a fire is the ignition of combustible material in the fire center, caused by prolonged thermal exposure from the heated surfaces of the fireplace chimney. When installing the chimney at the intersection with the combustible structural elements, a proper cut was not arranged to provide protection against critical heating of these elements. The fireplace is not equipped with a device that prevents the removal of hot fuel particles outside. The chimney had two sections with a hidden seal, excluding visual control over the condition of the chimney surfaces.

According to the conclusion of the forensic construction and technical examination carried out in the case, it was established that the most likely cause of the fire of a residential building and an outbuilding was the thermal spontaneous combustion of the wooden building structures of a residential building from fire hazards that arose during prolonged heating of the fireplace.

(date) D.V. Ivashkova applied to Reso-Garantia OJSC with an application for insurance compensation in connection with property damage. However, there was no answer. In this connection (date) a claim was sent to the insurer with a demand to pay insurance compensation or send a response to refuse to pay.

In response from (date), the insurer refused to pay insurance compensation, since the damage was caused as a result of obligations arising from the contractual relationship of the insured with LLC "I." as a result of unfair provision by the latter of services for the manufacture of a fireplace, which, by virtue of clause 4.11 k) of the Rules for insuring property of individuals from fire and other hazards, which are an integral part of the insurance contract, excludes the presence of an insured event.

Disagreeing with the answer of the insurer, the plaintiffs went to court with this claim. The insurer has declared counterclaims for the recognition of the insurance contract as invalid.

Considering the counterclaims and refusing to satisfy them, the first instance court came to the correct conclusion that there were no grounds for invalidating the insurance contract.

As follows from the materials of the case, the decision of the Industrial District Court of Barnaul dated (date) divided the property of the spouses Ivashkov, according to which the land plot with the residential building located on it at the "address" was transferred to the ownership of V.The.

In accordance with Art. 930 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, property can be insured under an insurance contract in favor of a person (insured or beneficiary) who has an interest based on the law, other legal act or contract in the preservation of this property. A property insurance contract entered into in the absence of the policyholder or beneficiary of interest in preserving the insured property is invalid.

Interest in preserving property under a contract voluntary insurance consists in preserving it from the negative consequences provided for by the insured event. When insuring property, the object of insurance is a property interest associated with the risk of loss (destruction), shortage or damage to property belonging to the insured (beneficiary) on the basis of a law, other legal act or transaction.

In this case, the conclusion of an insurance contract Ivashkova D.The. in favor of another person - the beneficiary Ivashkov V.The. does not contradict the requirements of Art. 929, 930 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, since V.V. Ivashkov, being the owner of the property, has an interest based on the law in preserving the insured property.

Thus, the defendant's argument about the invalidity of the insurance contract concluded with D.V. Ivashkova, due to the latter's lack of interest in preserving the insured property, is untenable.

Also, the establishment of an arrest and a pledge in relation to the insured property does not affect the presence of interest in the preservation of property and the increase in the likelihood of an insured event. Insurance of such property is not prohibited by applicable law.

By virtue of Art. 129 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation by law or in accordance with the procedure established by law, restrictions on the turnover of objects of civil rights may be introduced, in particular, types of objects of civil rights may be provided that may only belong to certain participants in the turnover or transactions with which are allowed by special permission.

Meanwhile, the presence of an arrest or pledge of property does not affect its turnover in the sense of the above norms.

Thus, the insurer has not provided evidence that the person in whose favor the insurance contract was concluded has no interest in preserving the insured property. In this connection, there are no grounds for recognizing such an insurance contract as invalid on the grounds indicated by the defendant.

In accordance with Art. 9 of the Law of the Russian Federation of 27.11.1992 N 4015-1 "On the organization of insurance business in the Russian Federation", the insurance risk is an alleged event, in the event of which insurance is carried out. An event considered as an insurance risk must have signs of the likelihood and randomness of its occurrence. An insured event is an event that has occurred, provided for by an insurance contract or by law, with the onset of which the insurer becomes obliged to make insurance payment the policyholder, the insured person, the beneficiary or other third parties.

The insured event includes the danger from which the insurance is made, the fact of causing harm and the causal relationship between the danger and harm and is considered to have occurred from the moment of causing harm (loss, death, establishment of shortage or damage to the insured property) as a result of the action of the danger against which insurance was made ... The anticipated event, in the event of the occurrence of which insurance is provided, must have signs of probability and chance. In this case, the event is recognized as accidental if, when concluding the insurance contract, the parties to the contract did not know and should not have known about its occurrence or that it could not occur.

According to the terms of the insurance contract concluded with the plaintiffs, the insurance risk, in the event of which the insurance was made, is a fire. The fact of causing harm to the insured property as a result of a fire was confirmed by the materials of the case.

Thus, the event that has occurred has the signs of an insured event established by law.

According to clause 4.11 k) of the Insurance Rules, it is not an insured risk, an insured event, and damage incurred as a result of obligations arising from the contractual relationship of the policyholder with third parties is not indemnified.

According to clause 4.11 c) of the Insurance Rules, it is not an insured risk, an insured event and damage caused by violation or non-compliance by the policyholder, as well as by the person in whose possession and use the insured property, fire safety rules, work technology, instructions for storage, operation, maintenance of the insured property.

In fact, the aforementioned clauses of the Insurance Rules, which exclude the occurrence of an insured event, contain the conditions for exempting the insurer from paying insurance compensation, since they contradict the concept of an insured event provided for by the legislation on the organization of insurance business.

Meanwhile, the circumstances exempting the insurer from paying insurance compensation are provided for by Articles 961, 963, 964 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. And in this case, such circumstances have not been established.

In this connection, the court of first instance came to a reasonable conclusion about the existence of legal grounds for the payment of insurance compensation.

At the same time, the conclusion of the court on the recovery of insurance compensation partially in favor of D.I. Popov, who is the creditor of the IP Ivashkov V.V., is based on the incorrect application of the substantive law.

As follows from the materials of the case, the residential building and the land plot located in the "address" are subject to mortgage, which is confirmed by the mortgage, drawn up by V.V. Ivashkov, D.The. and the original pledgee of LLC KB "E." According to the contract of purchase and sale of the mortgage bond *** dated (date) the legal owner of the said mortgage bond is D.I. Popov.

The decision of the Industrial District Court of Barnaul that entered into force on (date) from Ivashkov V.V., Ivashkova D.The. in favor of D.I. Popov debt was recovered under the loan agreement in the amount of "data taken". This decision of the court has not yet been executed, which is not contested by the parties.

In accordance with Article 334 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, by virtue of the pledge, the creditor under the obligation secured by the pledge (the pledgee) has the right, if the debtor fails to fulfill this obligation, to receive satisfaction from the value of the pledged property, mainly to other creditors of the person who owns this property (the pledger), for exemptions established by law. The pledgee has the right to receive, on the same basis, satisfaction from the insurance indemnity for the loss or damage of the pledged property, regardless of in whose favor it is insured, unless the loss or damage has occurred for reasons for which the pledgee is responsible.

In connection with the above, the court concluded that Popov D.The. the preemptive right to receive insurance compensation in connection with the destruction of the pledged item.

Meanwhile, the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Altai Territory from (date) in relation to the individual entrepreneur Ivashkov The.The. the bankruptcy procedure was introduced, the bankruptcy commissioner was approved by A.V. Pupkov.

According to Art. 23, 24 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a citizen has the right to engage in entrepreneurial activity without forming a legal entity from the moment of state registration as an individual entrepreneur and is responsible for his obligations with all property belonging to him, with the exception of property, which, in accordance with the law, cannot be foreclosed.

In accordance with Art. 126 of the Federal Law of (date) N 127-FZ "On insolvency (bankruptcy)" from the date of the decision by the arbitration court to declare the debtor bankrupt and to open bankruptcy proceedings all creditors' claims on monetary obligations, on the payment of mandatory payments, other property claims, for with the exception of current payments specified in Clause 1 of Article 134 of this Federal Law, and requirements for the recognition of property rights, for the recovery of moral damage, for the reclamation of property from someone else's illegal possession, for the invalidation of void transactions and the application of the consequences of their invalidity may be presented only in the course of bankruptcy proceedings.

The order of satisfaction of creditors' claims is established by Art. 134 of the Federal Law "On Insolvency (Bankruptcy)", the procedure for meeting credit claims for obligations secured by a pledge of the debtor's property is determined by Art. 138 of the named Law.

The definition of the Arbitration Court of the Altai Territory from (date) monetary claims Popov D.AND. included in the register of third priority creditors' claims.

The definition of the Arbitration Court of the Altai Territory from (date), left unchanged by the decision of the Seventh Arbitration Court of Appeal from (date) Popov D.AND. the application for the recognition of his claims, included in the third priority, was denied as claims for obligations secured by the pledge of the debtor's property.

These circumstances were not taken into account by the court of first instance when considering the case.

Thus, the panel of judges agrees with the argument of the liquidator's appeal that Popov D.AND. the status of a pledged creditor was lost, and therefore, the collection in his favor of the amount of insurance compensation in this case violates the sequence of satisfaction of claims established by the bankruptcy law.

In addition, after the debtor was declared bankrupt, all claims of creditors for monetary obligations were subject to consideration within the framework of bankruptcy proceedings.

Under the aforementioned circumstances, the court's decision regarding the satisfaction of claims Popova D.AND. is subject to cancellation with a new decision to dismiss the claim.

Taking into account the circumstances established in the case, the panel of judges considers it necessary to recover the amount of insurance compensation in favor of the plaintiff Ivashkov The.The. in full.

According to the conclusion of the forensic construction and technical examination, the walls of the basement and the foundations of the residential building were partially preserved, the rest of the structural elements were lost. The outbuilding is partially burnt. The cost of replacement costs of real estate, taking into account depreciation, will be "data withdrawn".

The sum insured under the insurance contract concluded with DV Ivashkova was agreed in the amount of "data withdrawn" for the main structure and "data withdrawn" for the outbuilding.

The fact of complete destruction of the insured residential building and damage to the outbuilding is not disputed by the defendant. The arguments regarding the amount of the insurance indemnity subject to recovery are not contained in the defendant's appeal.

Thus, in favor of the plaintiff Ivashkov V.V., the amount of insurance compensation in the amount of "data taken" is subject to recovery, in connection with which the court's decision in this part is subject to change.

Since the insurance relationship is subject to consumer protection legislation, the disputed legal relationship is applicable general provisions Of the RF Law "On Protection of Consumer Rights" in terms of the responsibility of the service provider.

By virtue of paragraph 6 of Art. 13 of the Law of the Russian Federation "On Protection of Consumer Rights", when the court satisfies the consumer's requirements established by law, the court collects a fine of fifty percent of the the amount awarded by the court in favor of the consumer.

Thus, in connection with the failure of the insurer to voluntarily fulfill the legal requirement of the insured to pay insurance compensation, the judicial board collects a fine in favor of the latter in the amount of 50 percent of the amount recovered from the insurer.

According to Art. 333 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, if the penalty payable is clearly disproportionate to the consequences of the violation of the obligation, the court has the right to reduce the penalty.

Taking into account the amount of the amount of insurance compensation subject to recovery, the judicial board considers it necessary to reduce the amount of the fine to "data taken".

Based on Art. 98, 103 from OJSC "Reso-Garantia" to the income of the municipal formation of the city of Barnaul, a state duty in the amount of "data taken" is subject to collection.

Based on the foregoing, guided by Article 328 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the judicial board

DEFINED:

The decision of the Central District Court of Barnaul, Altai Territory dated July 02, 2013 in terms of satisfying the claims of Popov D.AND. cancel and make a new decision:

Popov D.I. refuse to satisfy claims against Reso-Garantia OJSC for the recovery of the amount of insurance compensation.

The decision of the court in part of the satisfaction of claims Ivashkova The.The. and the size of the state duty to change, setting out the operative part in the following wording:

Collect from OJSC "Reso-Garantia" in favor of Ivashkov The.The. the amount of insurance compensation in the amount of "data seized"., interest for the use of other people's funds in the amount of "data seized"., a fine in the amount of "data seized".

To collect from the Reso-Garantia OJSC in the income of the municipal formation the city of Barnaul the state duty in the amount of "data taken"

The rest of the court decision is left unchanged.

Presiding

SOLUTION
NAME: RUSSIAN FEDERATION
December 04, 2009 the Magistrate of the judicial district No. 418 of the Presnensky district of Moscow, Kiryanen E.D., with the secretary Kolganova Yu.V., with the participation of the plaintiff's representative PL Zhukov, the defendant M.O.V.'s representative, having examined open court session civil case No. 2 - *** / 09 on the claim of M.AND.A. to IJSC "RESO-Garantia" for compensation for damage caused as a result of a road traffic accident,
INSTALLED:
The plaintiff went to court with a claim against RESO-Garantia OJSC for compensation for damage caused by a road traffic accident, referring to the fact that as a result of a collision of a Lexus RX 300 car, state registration plate Р970ХМ177, driven by driver M.A. V., owned by K.M.A., with a Hyundai Elantra car, state registration plate **** 199, under the control of J.K.V., owned by M.I.A., Hyundai Elantra, state registration plate ***** 99, was mechanically damaged.
The specified road traffic accident occurred due to a violation of traffic rules by the driver M.A.V., who was driving a Lexus RX 300 car, state registration plate Р970ХМ177, whose civil liability is insured at RESO-Garantia OJSC,
The plaintiff applied to RESO-Garantia OJSC for the payment of insurance compensation. Insurance company examining the damaged vehicle plaintiff and. organizing his independent examination, paid the plaintiff insurance compensation in the amount of 8614 RUB. 69 kopecks
The plaintiff, disagreeing with the amount of the insurance compensation paid by the defendant and with the results of the examination carried out by the defendant, applied for an independent examination, according to the results of which, the cost of refurbishing the plaintiff's car, taking into account wear and tear, is 25347 rubles. 29 kopecks.
Considering their rights violated, the plaintiff asks the court to recover from the defendant IJSC RESO-Garantia the lost insurance compensation in the amount of 16,732 rubles. 60 kopecks, the cost of paying for an independent examination in the amount of 3900 rubles. 00 cop., Expenses for payment of postal services in the amount of 682 rubles. 30 kopecks, expenses for payment of notary services in the amount of 500 rubles, expenses for payment of state fees in the amount of 602 rubles. 00 kopecks, the cost of paying for the services of a representative in the amount of 12,000 rubles.
In this court session, the representative of the plaintiff, after familiarizing himself with the forensic examination, clarified the claim, asked to recover from the defendant the lost insurance compensation in the amount of 12958 RUB. 70 kopecks, the cost of paying for an independent examination in the amount of 3900 rubles. 00 cop., Expenses for payment of postal services in the amount of 682 rubles. 30 kopecks, expenses for payment of notary services in the amount of 500 rubles, expenses for payment of state fees in the amount of 602 rubles. 00 kopecks, the cost of paying for the services of a representative in the amount of 12,000 rubles.
The representative of the defendant IJSC "RESO-Garantia" appeared at the hearing, did not admit the claim.
Third parties did not appear at the hearing, were duly notified, and asked to consider the case in their absence.
The court, having heard the parties, having examined the case materials, finds the claims subject to partial satisfaction on the following grounds.
By virtue of Art. 15 of the Federal Law on Compulsory Insurance of Civil Liability of Vehicle Owners of April 25, 2002 N 40-FZ, compulsory insurance is carried out by vehicle owners by concluding compulsory insurance contracts with statisticians. Under the compulsory insurance contract, the insured is the risk of civil liability of the policyholder himself, another named in the compulsory insurance contract of the owner of the vehicle, as well as other owners using the vehicle on a legal basis.
By virtue of Art. 929 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, under a property insurance contract, one party (the insurer) undertakes to compensate the other party (the insured) or another person in favor of whom the contract was concluded (the beneficiary) upon the occurrence of an event (insured event) provided for in the contract losses caused as a result of this event in the insured property or losses in connection with other property interests of the policyholder (to pay insurance compensation) within the amount specified in the contract (sum insured).
By virtue of Art.! Of the Federal Law on Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance of Vehicle Owners of April 25, 2002 N 40-FZ, the contract of compulsory civil liability insurance of vehicle owners (hereinafter referred to as the compulsory insurance contract) is an insurance contract under which the insurer undertakes for a fee specified in the contract (insurance premium ) upon the occurrence of an event provided for in the contract (insured event), compensate the victims for the harm caused to their life, health or property as a result of this event (make an insurance payment) within the amount (insured amount) specified in the contract. Compulsory insurance contract: is concluded in the manner and on the conditions provided for by this Federal Law, and is public.
Between K.M.A. and OJSC RESO-Garantia entered into a compulsory civil liability insurance contract for vehicle owners. According to which Makarova A.The. is a person authorized to drive a vehicle.
The conditions on which the compulsory insurance contract was concluded are determined in the Rules for compulsory insurance of civil liability of vehicle owners, approved by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation on May 07, 2003 No. 263.
In accordance with clause 7 of the Rules of Compulsory Insurance, an insured event is the occurrence of civil liability of the policyholder, other persons whose risk of liability is insured under a compulsory insurance contract, for causing harm to the life, health or property of victims when using a vehicle, which entails the obligation of the insurer make an insurance payment.
In accordance with clause 73 of the Compulsory Insurance Rules, in the event of a disagreement between the insurer and the victim regarding the amount of damage to be reimbursed under the compulsory insurance contract, the insurer is in any case obliged to make an insurance payment in the uncontested part.
At the hearing it was established that as a result of the collision of the Lexus RX 300 car, state registration plate ***** 177, which occurred on 17.03.2009, under the control of the driver M.A.The., Owned by K.M. A., with a Hyundai Elantra car, state registration plate ***** 199, under the control of Zh.K.V. owned by M.I.A., Hyundai Elantra car, state registration plate * **** 199, received mechanical damage.
As seen from the materials of the administrative case, the specified road traffic accident occurred as a result of violation of traffic rules of the Russian Federation driver M.A.The.
Due to the fact that the civil liability of the inflictor of harm was insured in RESO-Garantia OJSC, the plaintiff applied to the defendant with an application for the payment of insurance compensation.
The insurance company, having examined the damaged vehicle of the plaintiff and, having organized its independent examination, paid the plaintiff the uncontested part of the insurance
compensation in the amount of 8614 RUB. 69 kopecks
The plaintiff, disagreeing with the amount of insurance compensation, applied for an independent examination (300 "AUTO-PROFI", according to the results of which the cost of refurbishing the plaintiff's car, taking into account the wear of the replaced parts and components, is 25347 rubles 29 kopecks.
In accordance with Art. 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, if issues arise in the process of considering a case that require special knowledge in various fields of science, technology, art, craft, the court appoints an examination. The examination can be entrusted to a forensic institution, a specific expert or several experts.
Considering the need for special knowledge in determining the actual cost of refurbishment damaged car of the plaintiff, the court, at the request of the representative of the defendant, appointed a forensic auto-technical examination, and its implementation was entrusted to the experts of LLC "Gos-Appraisal". Payment for expert work is assigned to the defendant. According to the conclusion of the forensic autotechnical examination No. 6-500 dated 10.24.2009, the cost of refurbishment, taking into account the wear of spare parts and the service life of the Hyundai Elantra car, state registration plate P011KE199, in relation to damage that was received as a result of a road traffic accident, that occurred on March 17, 2009, is 21,573 rubles. 39 kopecks
The court has no reason not to trust the conclusion of the forensic examination carried out by OOO GosOtsenka, since it is logical and consistent with the case file.
The court accepts as evidence the conclusion of this examination, since the expert has sufficient experience and has the necessary qualifications to establish the circumstances indicated in the expert opinion, the expert gave a specific answer to the question raised by the court, the conclusion contains a detailed description of the research part of the examination, from which it can be seen in connection with which the expert came to this conclusion, the expert was warned of criminal liability under Article 307 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation for giving a deliberately false opinion.
Since the appraisal reports of AUTO-PROFI LLC and EKS-PRO LLC, submitted by the parties, contradict the conclusion of the forensic examination, the court is critical of this evidence and cannot base its decision on it.
Based on the foregoing, and also taking into account the conclusion of the forensic auto-technical examination, the court considers it necessary to recover from the defendant the cost of refurbishing the damaged car of the plaintiff in the amount of 12958 RUB. 70 kopecks, which is the difference between the cost of refurbishment, taking into account the wear of the replaced parts and parts, determined by forensic examination and the amount of insurance compensation paid by the defendant.
In accordance with Art. 98 Code of Civil Procedure. RF, to the party in whose favor the decision of the court took place, the court awards to reimburse on the other side all legal costs incurred in the case. If the claim is partially satisfied, the court costs specified in this article shall be awarded to the plaintiff in proportion to the amount of the claims satisfied by the court, and to the defendant in proportion to the part of the claims in which the plaintiff was denied.
Based on the foregoing, in favor of the plaintiff from the defendant, the costs of paying for an independent examination in the amount of 3900 rubles are subject to recovery. 00 cop., The cost of paying the state duty in the amount of 640 rubles. 33 kopecks, postage in the amount of 682 rubles. 30 kopecks, expenses for payment of notary services in the amount of 500 rubles, expenses for payment of state fees in the amount of 602 rubles. 00 kopecks, and only 5571 rubles. 06 kopecks
According to Art. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, to the party in whose favor the court decision was made, at its written request, the court awards on the other party the costs of paying for the services of a representative within reasonable limits.
Taking into account the reasonableness (taking into account the preparation of the claim by the representative, his participation in the process, the complexity of the case), the court considers that the costs of paying the representative's services in the amount of RUB 6,000 should be recovered from the defendant.
Based on the foregoing, guided by Art. 194-198 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation,

M.I.A. to OJSC "RESO-Garantia" for compensation for damage caused as a result of a road traffic accident to partially satisfy.
Collect from IJSC "RESO-Garantia" in favor of M.AND.A. insurance compensation in the amount of 12,985 rubles. 70 cop., Court costs in the amount of 5571 RUB. 06 cop., The cost of paying for the services of a representative in the amount of 6,000 rubles. 00 kopecks
The rest of the claim M.AND.A. refuse.
The decision can be appealed on appeal in the Presnensky District Court of Moscow within 10 days from the date of making the decision in the final form through the court section No. 418.
The final solution was made on December 08, 2009.
Justice of the Peace Kiryanen E.D.

Hello! Got into an accident on a BMW E39 in the city of Dzerzhinsk, Nizhny Novgorod region! The cause of the traffic accident was the wheel of a Ford Sierra that flew off on the move - not having time to dodge the wheel due to the dense traffic in both lanes, he made emergency braking, but the wheel hit exactly the center of the bumper, damaging it, the right headlight, the radiator grill, both fog lights, the front of the hood, which in turn was deformed from the impact.

I called the traffic police officers, who arrived at the scene of the accident literally 10 minutes later, the driver of the Ford Sierra car was recognized as the culprit, whose wheel flew off on the move (tore out the hub nut and flew off). Traffic police officers issued papers, issued a certificate of an accident, where visible damage was described, namely: front bumper, right front headlight, radiator grill, both fog lights, front part of the hood, hidden defects are possible

The culprit was insured under OSAGO RESO-Garantia, a branch of the city of Dzerzhinsk, Nizhny Novgorod region. 3, Tsiolkovsky avenue, where I went with all the documents! Having completed all the necessary papers, the manager of the Reso insurance company offered me an independent examination by their INDEPENDENT expert! I don’t understand how an independent expert can be INDEPENDENT if it is offered by an insurance company! It’s clear that these experts will work in favor of the insurance company that recommended them!

I went to a company engaged in the assessment of damage to vehicles at my own discretion, on the same day, before passing the examination, I notified by postal telegram insurance company RESO and the culprit of the accident on the passage of an independent examination, and the appearance on a certain day and hour of an employee of the insurance company Reso for an independent examination (the examination was appointed exactly one week later), and if the representative did not appear, an examination would be carried out without their presence! Also, when sending telegrams to the insurance company and the culprit, he asked for a notification that the ordered telegrams were delivered to the recipients! The next day I received a notification that the telegrams were received by the name and surname of the time employees and their signatures!

On the day of the independent examination, there was neither the culprit of the accident, nor the representative from the insurance company Reso! Conducted an examination according to which the amount of repair, taking into account wear and tear and hidden defects (which turned out to be a large number), amounted to about 80657 rubles.

After receiving an estimate with a detailed report, photographs and a calculation, I attached it to the executed documents at the Reso insurance company. Then I was told that the amount of payments is made within a month. We wait!!!

2 weeks have passed since the submission of the last documents (calculation-estimate), as the amount for insured event, and the amount was about 25,424 rubles. On subsequent questions to the insurance company Reso, what is the reason for such a payment, an answer was received that, on the basis of the examination carried out by them, it was decided that the amount of 25,424 rubles. will be enough to rebuild my vehicle. I asked for information about the name and surname of the expert who conducted this remote examination. It turned out to be a certain Lavrov Andrey Igorevich, who is located in the head office of Moscow. I couldn’t get through to this expert, who hadn’t even seen my car in his eyes, and I could not find out the reason for such a payment amount. Then I again turned to the RESO insurance company, and asked to be given a price calculation, on the basis of which the amount of 25,424 rubles was drawn. Having received a calculation, I was very surprised that all defects were written off from a certificate from the traffic police. Then a question for you, employees of RESO, why do you need an independent examination provided by me to YOU? If you wanted to sneeze at her! The answer was received right there: if you did an examination with our INDEPENDENT expert, then you shouldn't have any problems with payments, so if you please, we can't help you anymore, if you have problems go to the COURT! Collected all the documents and filed a lawsuit! The case is pending before the court!

An earnest request to all citizens: do not contact the RESO insurance company, and if something happened with the participation of your car, do not waste your nerves on oral proceedings - sue them !!