Our practice

OSAGO lawsuit against RESO-Garantia

It has long been no secret to anyone that the law on "Compulsory car insurance civil liability» (OSAGO) is a very dubious boon for the car owners themselves. One of the most common problems that vehicle owners cite is the underestimation of the real cost of damage caused by an accident by auto insurance companies. But, as our practice shows, this can be dealt with ...

The owner of the car turned to OZPP "Resonance" GAZ 3110, who was recognized as injured in an accident and should have received compensation from the insurance company "RESO-Garantia". The amount of the insurance premium, according to the calculations of the insurer, amounted to 77,859 rubles. However, when performing repair and restoration work at a car service, the master found hidden damage cars that were not taken into account when calculating the insurance payment. Thus, the cost of repairs cost the owner of the Volga 132,410 rubles, and not 77,859, as the insurer calculated. An appropriate act was drawn up, and the owner of GAZ went to "RESO-Garantia", where, of course, they refused to cover the corresponding difference. Lawyers of the Society for the Protection of Consumer Rights "Resonance" drew up a statement of claim and submitted the documents for consideration to the court. Since, in accordance with Article 7 of the Federal Law "On Compulsory Insurance of Civil Liability of Vehicle Owners", no more than 120,000 rubles are paid in case of damage to property, the following was demanded as compensation in the statement of claim:

1. the difference between the amount already paid by the insurer (77,859 rubles) and the amount actually spent on repairs (but not more than 120,000 rubles) - 42,140 rubles
2. funds spent on an independent examination - 5,487 rubles
3. expenses for paying for the services of lawyers of OZPP "Resonance" - 4500 rubles
4. penalty for delay in obligations to cover the missing amount - (100%) - 42,140 rubles
5. compensation to the car owner for moral damage - 5000 rubles

Court decision the claims of the plaintiff were satisfied regarding paragraphs No. 1 - the difference between the amount already paid by the insurer (77,859 rubles) and the amount actually spent on repairs (but not more than 120,000 rubles) - 42,140 rubles and paragraph No. 3 - the costs of paying for the services of lawyers OZPP "Resonance" - 3000 rubles.

Appeal ruling of the IC in 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, consisting of:

presiding Paraskun T.AND.

judges Dmitrieva Oh.C., Busina H.The.

under the secretary Akhromenko A.N.

examined in open court the appeals of the defendant OSAO "Reso - Guarantee", a third party - bankruptcy trustee IP Ivashkov The.The. - Pupkova A.V. against the decision of the Central District Court of Barnaul dated July 02, 2013 in the case

on the claim of Ivashkova D.The., Ivashkov V.The. to OSAO "Reso-Garantia" for the recovery insurance compensation,

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

at the suit of a third party, declaring independent requirements, Popova D.AND. to OSAO "Reso-Garantia" for the recovery of insurance compensation.

Having heard the report of Judge N.V. Busina, the Judicial Board

SET UP:

Ivashkova D.V., Ivashkov V.V. filed a lawsuit against OSAO "Reso-Garantia" with a claim for the recovery of the amount of insurance compensation.

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

(date) a fire broke out in the above-mentioned house, as a result of which the insured residential house and the outbuilding were destroyed. (date) Ivashkova D.V. applied to OSAO "Reso-Garantiya" with a statement on the payment of insurance compensation, but there was no response from the insurer. (date) Ivashkova D.V. 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 such payment. By a letter dated (date), the claimant was denied payment with reference to clause 4.11l of the above Insurance Rules, according to which it is not an insured event and damage resulting from obligations arising from the contractual relationship of the insured with third parties is not compensated.

The plaintiffs do not agree with the insurer's refusal, because as of the date of conclusion of the insurance contract, the work on the fireplace, which is the source of ignition, 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 the outbuildings, interest for the use of other people's 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 declaring independent claims regarding the subject of the dispute.

Popov D.I. filed a lawsuit against OJSC "Reso-Garantia" for the recovery of the amount of insurance compensation.

In support of the stated requirements Popov D.AND. indicated that, according to the mortgage sale and purchase agreement dated (date), he is a pledgee in respect of a residential building and a land plot located at: "address". By the decision of the Industrial District Court of the city of Barnaul from (date) with Ivashkov The.The., Ivashkova D.The. in favor of Popov D.AND. arrears were collected under a loan agreement secured by a mortgage of the disputed property in the amount of "data seized". According to the certificate of the head of the ONM, as a result of a 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 restoring the house is "data seized". By virtue of Art. 334 of the Civil Code Russian Federation the pledgee has the right to receive satisfaction on the same basis from the insurance indemnity for the loss or damage to the pledged property, regardless of in whose favor it is insured. Since in this case there was an insured event, provided for in the property insurance contract concluded with Ivashkova D.The., Popov D.AND. asked to recover from OSAO "Reso-Garantiya" in his favor the amount of insurance compensation in the amount of "data seized".

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

In support of the stated requirements, the plaintiff pointed out that the object of the disputed 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 arrest and pledge in respect of property subject to insurance, which is recorded in insurance policy. In accordance with clause 3.4. The insurance rules, which are an integral part of the insurance contract, in all cases, property withdrawn from circulation or limited in circulation in accordance with civil law is not subject to insurance. According to clause 9.1 of the Rules of Insurance, 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 decision of the Industrial District Court of the city of Barnaul dated (date), the property of the Ivashkovs was divided, as a result of which the disputed residential building and land were transferred to the ownership of Ivashkov The.The. Thus it is the insured Dashkova D.The. at the time of conclusion of the insurance contract, she did not have a legitimate interest in preserving the insured property, she did not bear any rights and obligations in relation to the residential building, in addition. the policyholder intentionally and intentionally did not inform the insurer of information about the arrest and pledge of the disputed property, that is, he provided false information about the circumstances known to her that are essential for determining the likelihood of occurrence insured event.

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

In satisfaction of the claims Ivashkova D.The. denied.

Collected from OSAO "Reso-Garantia" in favor of Popov D.I. the amount of insurance compensation in the amount of "data seized" was collected.

Satisfaction of the counterclaims of OJSC "Reso-Garantiya" was denied.

Collected from OSAO "Reso-Garantiya" in income municipality Barnaul state fee in the amount of "data taken"

In the appeal of OSAO "Reso-Garantiya" asks the court's decision to cancel and adopt a new decision, which will satisfy the counterclaims, leave the original claims unsatisfied.

The arguments of the appeal are similar to the arguments set forth in the counterclaim. Additionally, it is indicated that the condition on the nature of the event, in the event of which insurance is made, is essential for this contract. The event that resulted in damage to the claimant's property 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 relationship of the insured with third parties, namely, LLC "I." by installing a fireplace in the insured residential building. As follows from the decision to refuse to initiate a criminal case on the fact of a fire, the damage to the owner arose as a result of the dishonest provision of a service for the manufacture of a fireplace by I. LLC. Meanwhile, the loss or damage to property, entailing the insurer's obligation to pay insurance compensation, must be the result of circumstances that the contract refers to insured events.

The appeal bankruptcy trustee IP Ivashkova The.The. - Pupkov A.V. asks the court's 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 the claims of creditors 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 establishes the priority of the Bankruptcy Law over the norms Civil Code Russian Federation regarding the order and sequence of satisfaction of creditors' claims in the debtor's bankruptcy proceedings. Requirements Popova D.AND. were satisfied by the court in violation of the procedure established by the bankruptcy law. The decision of the Arbitration Court Altai Territory demand Popova D.AND. included in the register of claims of the debtor's creditors in the third order. 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 Popov D.AND. on the recognition of his claims in the amount of "data seized", included in the third order of the register of creditors' claims, as claims for obligations secured by a pledge of the debtor's property. Thus, Popov D.I. the status of a secured 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.

The 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 file, after hearing the representative of the defendant OSAO "Reso-Garantiya" Sh.NI, supported the arguments of the appeal, the representative of a third party bankruptcy trustee SP Ivashkov The.The. Pupkova A.V. - O.M.The., who supported the arguments of the appeal of the bankruptcy trustee, the representative of a third party, declaring independent claims, Popova D.AND. - O.Yew.S., who objected to the annulment of the court decision, having checked the legality and validity of the decision 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 for a fee stipulated by the contract ( insurance premium) upon the occurrence of an event (insurance event) provided for in the contract, compensate the other party (the insured) or another person in whose favor the contract is 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 insured (pay the insurance indemnity) within the amount specified by the contract (sum insured).

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

The list of risks, in case of occurrence of which insurance is provided, is defined in the Rules for Insurance of Property of Individuals against Fire and Other Hazards dated (date).

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

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

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

According to the conclusion of the judicial construction and technical expertise carried out in the case, it was established that the most likely cause of the fire in the residential building and outbuildings was the thermal spontaneous combustion of the wooden building structures of the residential building from fire hazards that arose during prolonged burning of the fireplace.

(date) Ivashkova D.V. applied to OSAO "Reso-Garantiya" with a statement on the payment of insurance compensation in connection with damage to property. However, there was no answer. In this connection (date) a claim was sent to the insurer with a demand for payment of insurance compensation or a response to refuse payment.

In response dated (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 the unfair provision of services for the manufacture of a fireplace by the latter, which, by virtue of clause 4.11 l) of the Rules for insuring property of individuals against fire and other dangers, which are an integral part of the insurance contract, excludes the occurrence of an insured event.

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

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

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

In accordance with Art. 930 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, property may be insured under an insurance contract in favor of a person (insured or beneficiary) who has an interest based on law, other legal act or contract in the preservation of this property. A property insurance contract concluded if the insured or beneficiary has no interest in preserving the insured property is invalid.

The interest in the preservation of property under a voluntary insurance contract consists in its preservation 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 owned by the insured (beneficiary) on the basis of a law, other legal act or transaction.

In this case, the conclusion of the insurance contract Ivashkova D.The. in favor of another person - the beneficiary Ivashkov The.The. does not contradict the requirements of Art. 929, 930 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, since VV Ivashkov, being the owner of the property, has a legal interest in the preservation of the insured property.

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

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

By virtue of Art. 129 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, by law or in the manner prescribed 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 belong only 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 within the meaning of the above rules.

Thus, the insurer has not presented evidence of the absence of the person in whose favor the insurance contract is interested 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 November 27, 1992 N 4015-1 "On the organization of insurance business in the Russian Federation", an insured risk is an expected event, in the event of which insurance is carried out. An event considered as an insured risk must have signs of probability and randomness of its occurrence. An insured event is an event that has taken place, provided for by the insurance contract or the law, upon the occurrence of which the insurer is obliged to perform insurance payment the policyholder, the insured person, the beneficiary or other third parties.

An insured event includes the danger from which insurance is made, the fact of causing harm and the causal relationship between danger and harm and is considered to have occurred from the moment the harm was caused (loss, death, shortage or damage to the insured property) as a result of the danger against which insurance was made . The anticipated event, in the event of which insurance is made, 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 insured risk, in the event of the occurrence of which insurance was made, was determined to be fire. The fact of causing damage to the insured property as a result of a fire is confirmed by the case materials.

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

According to clause 4.11 l) of the Insurance Rules, it is not an insured risk, an insured event, and the damage that occurred as a result of obligations arising from the contractual relationship of the insured with third parties is not compensated.

According to clause 4.11 c) of the Insurance Rules, it is not an insured risk, an insured event, and no compensation is provided for damage caused by a violation or non-compliance by the insured, as well as by the person in whose possession and use of the insured property, fire safety rules, work technology, instructions for storage, operation, maintenance of the insured property.

In fact, the above paragraphs of the Insurance Rules, excluding the occurrence of an insured event, contain the conditions for the release of the insurer from the payment of 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 that exempt the insurer from the payment of insurance compensation are provided for in Articles 961, 963, 964 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. And in this case, such circumstances are not 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 court's conclusion on the recovery of insurance compensation in part in favor of D.I. Popov, who is the creditor of IP Ivashkov V.V., is based on the incorrect application of substantive law.

As follows from the case file, the house and the land plot located at the "address" are the subject of a mortgage, which is confirmed by a mortgage drawn up by Ivashkov V.The., Ivashkova D.The. and the original pledgee OOO KB "E.". According to the mortgage sale and purchase agreement *** dated (date), the legal owner of the said mortgage is Popov D.AND.

entered into force by the decision of the Industrial District Court of the city of Barnaul from (date) with Ivashkov The.The., Ivashkova D.The. in favor of Popov D.AND. debt collected under the loan agreement in the amount of "data seized". This decision of the court has not been executed to date, which is not disputed by the parties.

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

In connection with the foregoing, the court concluded that Popov D.The. pre-emptive right to receive insurance compensation in connection with the destruction of the subject of pledge.

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

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

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

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

Determination of the Arbitration Court of the Altai Territory from (date) monetary requirements Popova D.AND. included in the register of third priority creditors' claims.

Determination of the Arbitration Court of the Altai Territory from (date), upheld by the decision of the Seventh Arbitration Court of Appeal from (date) Popov D.AND. refused to satisfy the application for recognition of his claims, included in the third priority, as claims for obligations secured by a pledge of the debtor's property.

These circumstances were not taken into account by the trial court when considering the case.

Thus it is the panel of judges agrees with the argument of the appeal of the bankruptcy trustee to the effect that Popov D.AND. the status of a secured creditor has been lost, and therefore the recovery of the amount of insurance compensation in his favor in this case violates the order of satisfaction of claims established by the bankruptcy law.

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

Under the circumstances set out the court's decision regarding the satisfaction of claims Popova D.AND. subject to cancellation with the issuance of a new decision to dismiss the claim.

Taking into account the circumstances established in the case, the Judicial Board 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 judicial construction and technical expertise, the walls of the basement floor and the foundations of the residential building were partially preserved, the rest of the structural elements were lost. The outbuilding was partially burned. The cost of restoration costs of real estate objects, taking into account depreciation, will be "data withdrawn".

The sum insured under the insurance contract concluded with DV Ivashkova was agreed upon in the amount of "data taken" for the main building and "data taken" for the outbuildings.

The fact of the complete destruction of the insured residential building and damage to the outbuildings is not disputed by the defendant. Arguments regarding the size of the insurance compensation payable in the appellate complaint of the defendant are not contained.

Thus, in favor of the plaintiff Ivashkov V.V., the amount of insurance compensation in the amount of “data taken” is to be recovered, in connection with which the court decision in this part is subject to change.

Since insurance relations are subject to consumer protection legislation, disputed legal relations are subject to general provisions Law of the Russian Federation "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 requirements of the consumer established by law, the court collects from the manufacturer (executor, seller, authorized organization or authorized individual entrepreneur, importer) for non-compliance with the voluntary satisfaction of consumer requirements a fine in the amount of fifty percent of amount awarded by the court in favor of the consumer.

Thus, in connection with the failure by the insurer to voluntarily comply with the legal requirement of the insured to pay insurance compensation, the judicial panel collects in favor of the latter a fine 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 breach of obligation, the court has the right to reduce the penalty.

Taking into account the amount of the insurance compensation to be collected, the panel of judges considers it necessary to reduce the amount of the fine to "data taken".

Based on Art. 98, 103 with OSAO "Reso-Garantia" in the income of the municipality of the city of Barnaul, a state fee in the amount of "data seized" is to be collected.

Based on the foregoing, guided by Article 328 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the Judicial Board

DETERMINED:

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

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

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

recover from OSAO "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".

Collect from OSAO "Reso-Garantia" in the income of the municipality the city of Barnaul a state duty in the amount of "data seized"

The rest of the court's decision is left unchanged.

presiding

Insurance company Reso-Garantiya is included in the TOP-10 largest and most reliable companies in the entire Russian Federation. However, in the national rating, this company is far from being a leader, this is primarily due to the company's policy, which is focused on new customers and does not care about customers at all who are already paying her money.

Therefore, IC Reso-Garantia does not take into account the opinion of its policyholders and significantly understates the amount of insurance payments, delays the timing of their implementation, and often does not pay at all, refusing to pay insurance compensation on completely far-fetched and untenable grounds.

So, the lawyers of the insurance giant underestimate the size of the insurance payment by an average of 5 times. In this situation, the connivance of state bodies represented by Rospotrebnadzor, Rosstrakhnadzor and the Russian Union of Motor Insurers remains the most surprising. In the presence of such statistics available in the courts (an understatement of insurance payments by 5 times and 95% of court cases won by insurers), it is necessary to apply certain administrative measures, for example, revocation of a license to carry out insurance activities.

But this is not happening and, most likely, will not happen. Therefore, the only thing left for the insured is to gather his thoughts and go to file a claim in court to protect his rights and to strengthen the already established positive judicial practice.

Reso-Garantia pays little for insurance. In other words, the amount of insurance compensation is much lower than the cost of restoring a car.

In this situation, there is nothing to worry about, this is just part of the marketing policy of IC Reso-Garantia. Reso understates payments to everyone who comes in with this demand, and half of those people walk away with money that can't fix their car. And only a part of them will decide to go to court, to collect their money by force.

Even taking into account the reimbursement of all court costs and expenses for the assessment and examination, it is quite obvious that it is beneficial for Reso to pay money to half of the people according to a court decision, and to pay half of them 5 times less than necessary.

Decisions on the collection of money from the insurance Reso

What to do if Reso pays little?

First you need to send a pre-trial claim. But, as practice shows, this does not resolve the issue on the merits, but only contributes to a positive decision by the court.

In any case, it is better to have a lawyer deal with the issue already at the stage of filing a claim. Thus, it will be possible to provide all the documents necessary within the framework of the chosen legal vector, which he will adhere to in court.

At the next stage, you need to assess the cost of restoring the car and file a claim with the court against the Reso insurance.

The lawyer to whom you entrust the conduct of your case must have experience in handling such cases, since at any stage of the fight against Reso you will encounter company employees who know all the tricks and loopholes in order not to pay you money. In court, it is also necessary to support the stated claims and successfully resist the arguments of Reso's lawyers.