Conclusion, amendment, termination of the contract (transaction) and fulfillment of contractual obligations under the insurance contract, including collection of insurance payments

             Insurance is one of the most important economic institutions that has existed in various economic formations, but is most fully implemented in market conditions.

Insurance is designed to meet an urgent human need - the need for security.

In accordance with the current Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Insurance Activity", insurance activity is the activity of an insurance organization related to the conclusion and execution of insurance contracts, carried out on the basis of a license from an authorized state body in accordance with the requirements of the legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

In accordance with the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, insurance is divided into certain forms. The forms of insurance are:

according to the degree of commitment – voluntary and compulsory;

according to the object of insurance - personal and property;

on the grounds of insurance payment – accumulative and non-accumulative.

Compulsory insurance is insurance carried out in accordance with the requirements of legislative acts.

The types, procedure and conditions of compulsory insurance are established by legislative acts. Each type of compulsory insurance is a separate class of insurance, which includes life insurance, annuity insurance, accident and disease insurance, medical insurance, vehicle insurance, cargo insurance, property insurance, business risk insurance, civil liability insurance of owners of vehicles, civil liability insurance of the carrier, civil liability insurance-legal liability under the contract, insurance of civil liability for damage.

The plaintiff's claims to recover insurance payments from the defendant in a retrogressive manner previously paid by the plaintiff to the victim and the application of Articles 28 of the Law, Articles 931, 933 of the Civil Code are not subject to satisfaction due to the absence of intentional actions by the defendant when committing an administrative offense that do not indicate the premeditation of his actions.

             Thus, the Zyryanovsky District Court of the East Kazakhstan region (case No. 2-407-15) considered a civil case on the claim of Centras Insurance Company JSC against Morin V.V. for the recovery of an insurance payment in a recourse manner. The claims are motivated by the fact that on 08/02/2012, the defendant driving a Toyota Mark 2 vehicle, leaving a secondary road, did not give way to a Vaz 21213 car owned by Zhedel Kuzet LLP and collided with it. As a result of the accident, the driver of the Vaz car was injured.

By the resolution of the specialized administrative court of the Zyryanovsky district dated 28.08.2012, Morin V.V. was found guilty of committing an offense under art. 468 Part 2 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan. Zhedel Kuzet LLP sent a letter to its insurance company Kazkomertspolis Insurance Company with a request to make an insurance payment. Recognizing the above-mentioned traffic accident (hereinafter referred to as the accident) as an insured event under the insurance contract, the Company made a payment in favor of Zhedel Kuzet LLP of 225,056 tenge.

Since Morin V.V.'s civil liability is insured, Centras Insurance Company JSC has been notified by the plaintiff to Morin V.V. under the contract of compulsory insurance of civil liability of vehicle owners, so that the defendant provides the originals of the documents necessary to make the insurance payment to the beneficiary. At the same time, the plaintiff, Centras Insurance Company JSC, paid Kazkomertspolis JSC the amount of the insurance payment of 222,056 tenge by a payment order dated 04/24/2013. In this regard, the plaintiff asks the court to recover from the defendant the amount of insurance payment in the amount of 222 056 tenge.

At the hearing, the defendant, Morin V.V., did not recognize the plaintiff's claims, explaining that his civil liability at the time of the accident was insured by Centras Insurance Company JSC and, accordingly, the insurance company should make the payment. In addition, after receiving the notification specified in the statement of claim, he immediately provided the emergency commissioner with a package of necessary documents specified in the notification. In addition, he contacted the insurance company several times, where he was told that there were no claims against him.

The court concluded that the claim of Centras Insurance Company JSC against Morin V.V. for the recovery of insurance benefit in a recourse manner is subject to denial on the following grounds.

According to clause 8 of Article 1 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Compulsory Insurance of Civil Liability of Vehicle Owners" (hereinafter referred to as the Law), the owner of a vehicle is an individual or legal entity who owns a vehicle by right of ownership, right of economic management or operational management, or on another legal basis (lease agreement, power of attorney for management by vehicle, etc.).

Paragraph 1 of Article 933 of the Civil Code (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code) stipulates that a person who has compensated for damage caused by another person (an employee in the performance of his work duties, a person driving a vehicle, etc.) has the right to claim (recourse) against this person in the amount of the compensation paid, unless another amount is established by legislative acts.

The court considered that the plaintiff's claims that the defendant Morin V.V. is obliged to pay the amount of the insurance payment by way of recourse, since the plaintiff made the insurance payment to JSC IC Kazcomerts-Polis for the defendant Morin V.V. are unjustified, since the insurer who made the insurance payment within the amount paid only has the right to claim back. in cases established by art. 28 of the Law.

By virtue of paragraph 1 of Article 28 of the Law, an insurer who has made an insurance payment has the right to claim back against the policyholder (insured) within the amount paid in cases where: the civil liability of the policyholder (insured) has occurred as a result of his intentional actions aimed at causing an insured event or contributing to its occurrence, with the exception of actions committed by in a state of necessary defense and extreme necessity; the civil liability of the policyholder (insured) occurred as a result of driving a vehicle in a state of alcoholic, narcotic or toxic intoxication; the person driving the vehicle at the time of the accident had no right to drive it; during the trial, it was established that the insured event occurred due to technical malfunctions of the vehicle, which the policyholder (insured) knew or should have known; the vehicle is used for purposes not characteristic of its technical purpose; the policyholder (insured) intentionally failed to take measures to reduce losses from the insured event; the person driving the vehicle fled the scene of the accident; the person driving the vehicle and sent for an examination to establish the fact of substance use and intoxication, without valid justification. There are reasons why such an examination did not take place.

The plaintiff's evidence that the recovery of insurance payments from the defendant by way of a reverse claim falls under paragraph 1 of Article 28 of the Law was not presented to the court by the plaintiff.

Civil liability Morina V.V., insured by Centras Insurance Company JSC according to the contract of compulsory insurance of civil liability of vehicle owners dated July 13, 2012, in connection with which the plaintiff was obliged to make an insurance payment to the beneficiary.

In addition, the plaintiff has not submitted to the court a payment order dated 04/24/2013, according to which the plaintiff transferred the amount of insurance payment in the amount of 222,056 tenge to JSC IC Kazkomertspolis.

Another example testifies to a uniform approach by judicial authorities in the absence of evidence indicating deliberate actions of the perpetrator of the accident.

Thus, the Rudn City Court of the Kostanay region considered civil case No. 2-845/15 on the claim of JSC Insurance Company Salem against IP Focht Alexander Anatolyevich for recovery of the amount of insurance payment by way of recourse, which denied the claim based on the following.

At the hearing, it was established that on 17.03.2014, the driver, Cherny S.I., driving a Renault car, did not check and ensure the proper technical condition of the vehicle before leaving, as a result, the spare left wheel flew out and collided with a Toyota Hi Ace vehicle belonging to Vaganov E.I., under under the control of the driver Ostaptsov S.Yu.

By the resolution of the Specialized Administrative Court of the city of Rudny dated 03/27/2014, Cherny S.I. was found guilty of committing an administrative offense under art.468 Part 1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation.

In accordance with the insurance policy of OSVT No. 0528622 dated 05/21/2013, Salem Insurance Company JSC made an insurance payment to the owner of the car damaged in an accident, beneficiary Vaganov E.I., in the amount of 764,854 tenge on 07/28/2014.

In accordance with Article 28, paragraph 1, paragraph 4) of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Compulsory Insurance of Civil Liability of owners of motor vehicles" (hereinafter referred to as the Law), the insurer who has made the insurance payment has the right to claim back against the policyholder (insured) within the amount paid in cases where during the court proceedings it was established that The insured event occurred as a result of technical malfunctions of the vehicle, which the policyholder (insured) knew or should have known about.

The plaintiff's representative, P.N. Bychkov, pointed out at the hearing that the basis for filing a recourse claim was the establishment by an administrative court decision of the defendant's driver's guilt in failing to ensure the serviceability of the vehicle before departure and on the way. The court concluded that to satisfy the claims, it is not enough to establish the fact of a technical malfunction of the vehicle.

Subparagraph 4) of paragraph 1 of Article 28 of the Law provides that the policyholder should have known about the technical malfunction of the vehicle.

Having taken into account that the court has not been provided with evidence unequivocally indicating that the defendant knew or should have known about the malfunctions of the vehicle, taking into account the provision of paragraph 1 of the Regulatory Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Judicial Decision" No. 5 dated 11.07.2003, which establishes that the decision cannot be based on assumptions about In the circumstances of the case, the court concluded that the plaintiff had not proven this fact. In addition, the court took into account that the current legislation establishes a list of malfunctions in which vehicle operation is prohibited.

The spare wheel is not an operational part of the vehicle and at the time of the start of operation of the vehicle on the day of the insured event, there were no malfunctions, the spare wheel was fixed and was located in the designated place for its storage.

Accordingly, the defendant did not know and could not have known that the fastening bolt would fail on the way and this would lead to an accident.

The right to claim back against the policyholder (insured) within the amount paid in cases where the person driving the vehicle has fled the scene of a traffic accident.

By the decision of the court No. 2 of the city of Petropavlovsk of North Kazakhstan, the plaintiff's claims in the civil case on the claim of JSC Insurance Company TransOil against Mikhail Evgenievich Medvedev for the recovery of insurance benefits were satisfied.

The court found that on 16.02.2015, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a compulsory civil liability insurance contract for the owner of a Mitsubishi Galant vehicle by issuing an insurance policy. 17.02.2015 about M.E. Medvedev, driving a Mitsubishi Galant vehicle, while reversing, failed to ensure the safety of the maneuver, and inadvertently hit a Lexus Rx 300 car, which caused damage to the vehicle and caused material damage to the owner of the Lexus Rx 300 car, B.A. Ramazanov, in violation of paragraph 8. Paragraph 1 of Section 2 of the Traffic Regulations of the Republic of Kazakhstan, left the scene of a traffic accident in which he was a participant, without informing the police department about the incident.

By the resolution of the specialized Administrative Court of Petropavlovsk dated 03/19/2015, the defendant was found guilty of committing an administrative offense under Part 1 of Article 610 of the Criminal Code and Part 2 of Article 611 of the Criminal Code and subjected to administrative punishment.

The cost of repair of a Lexus Rx car, including depreciation, amounted to 77,363 tenge.

The plaintiff recognized the specified event as an insured event and paid out amounts in the amount of 85,863 tenge, which includes, in addition to the cost of restoration repairs, the cost of damage assessment services.

In accordance with Article 28 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Compulsory Insurance of Civil Liability of vehicle Owners", the insurer who has made the insurance payment has the right to claim back against the policyholder (insured) within the amount paid in cases where the person driving the vehicle has fled the scene of a traffic accident.

From the resolution of the specialized administrative court of Petropavlovsk dated 03/19/2015, it followed that the defendant, in violation of paragraph 8, paragraph 1, Section 2 of the Traffic Regulations of the Republic of Kazakhstan, left the scene of a traffic accident in which he was a participant, without informing the police department about the incident.

Another example, by an absentee court decision of Aktobe dated 05/12/2015, the claim of JSC Subsidiary Insurance Company of Halyk Bank of Kazakhstan Halykkazakhinstrakh against Sarsengaliev A.S. for recovery of damage in the amount of 59,975 tenge, by way of recourse, was satisfied.

The court found that the defendant Sarsengaliev A.S., driving an Opel Omega car, violated the requirements of paragraphs 8.13. of the Traffic Regulations of the Republic of Kazakhstan, namely, he performed a maneuver in reverse, not making sure that this maneuver would be safe and would not interfere with other road users, and collided with a Volkswagen Passat car.

In addition, Sarsengaliev A.S. left the place after the accident. By the resolution of the specialized administrative court of Aktobe dated 11.11.2014, Sarsengaliev A.S. was found guilty under Part 1st468 of the Administrative Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, and punished by deprivation of the right to drive a vehicle for a period of 9 months.

The court found that on 08/27/2014, the insurance company Kazakhinstrakh JSC and Sarsengaliev A.S. concluded a contract of compulsory insurance of civil liability of vehicle owners, under which the defendant's civil liability is insured when driving an Opel Omega car.

According to the movable property assessment report, the direct material damage to the Volkswagen Passat car amounted to 49,975 tenge.

The court found that JSC "Subsidiary Insurance Company of the People's Bank of Kazakhstan "Halyk-Kazakhinstrakh" made an insurance payment to the beneficiary Berdenov M.A. in the amount of 49,975 tenge, as well as expenses for assessment services in the amount of 10,000 tenge.

In accordance with Article 28, paragraph 1, paragraph 7 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Compulsory Insurance of Civil Liability of vehicle Owners", the insurer who has made the insurance payment has the right to claim back against the policyholder within the amount paid in cases where the person driving the vehicle fled the scene of the accident.

On similar grounds, the claim of NOMAD Insurance JSC against A.M. Ospanov for the recovery of the amount in a recourse manner was satisfied by the decision of the Yesilsky District Court of Astana dated 12/19/2014.

The Insurer's unsubstantiated refusal to recognize the event as an insured event and to pay the insured sum is the basis for rejecting the claim.

By the decision of the specialized interdistrict Economic Court of the West Kazakhstan region dated 17.09.2015, Onur Travel LLP refused to collect the insured sum of 979,700 tenge from IC Amanat Insurance JSC.

Onur Travel LLP (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed the above-mentioned lawsuit against IC Amanat Insurance JSC (hereinafter referred to as the defendant), arguing that on 03/19/2014 Onur Travel LLP recovered damages in the amount of 979 by court decision No. 2 of Uralsk in favor of Irmenov RM 700 tenge. The court's decision entered into force and was executed.

However, the material damage caused to the travel agency Onur Travel LLP was not reimbursed by the insurance company, although at that time there was a compulsory GPO insurance contract between the travel agency and the insurance company, where, according to its terms, the basis for paying the insured amount and paying off losses was the existence of a court decision that had entered into force. After the court's decision, the plaintiff repeatedly appealed to the defendant for compensation on a voluntary basis, but the material damage remained uncompensated.

The court found that on 03/01/2013, the parties concluded a contract of compulsory insurance of civil liability of the tour operator and the travel agent, according to clause 1.2 of which the object of insurance is the property interests of the Policyholder related to the latter's obligation, in accordance with the procedure established by the current legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, to compensate for damage caused to the property and/or other interests of tourists (beneficiaries) when implementation of activities related to the sale of a tourist product.

The insurance amount is 3,462,000 tenge. The contract is valid from 03/02/2013 to 03/01/2014. The plaintiff, referring to clauses 4.6, 4.9 of this agreement, requests to recover from the defendant an insurance amount in the amount of 979,700 tenge. According to Clause 1 of Article 803 of the Civil Code, under an insurance contract, one party (the policyholder) undertakes to pay an insurance premium, and the other party (the insurer) undertakes, upon the occurrence of an insured event, to make an insurance payment to the policyholder or another person in whose favor the contract was concluded (the beneficiary), within the amount specified in the contract (the insured amount).

In accordance with the requirements of art.807 of the Civil Code, an insured event is an event upon the occurrence of which the insurance contract provides for the insurance payment, and which must have signs of probability and randomness of its occurrence.

It is the responsibility of the policyholder to prove the occurrence of the insured event, as well as the losses caused by it.

According to clauses 2.1, 2.2 of the insurance contract, an insured event is recognized as the occurrence of the Policyholder's civil liability for compensation for damage caused to the property and/or other interests of beneficiaries when providing them with tourist services.

The insured event is considered to have occurred from the moment the court decision on compensation for damage caused by the policyholder enters into force, or the policyholder recognizes the beneficiary's claims for compensation for damage as justified and the insurer agrees with the recognition of the claims by the policyholder.

According to clause 1 of Article 835 of the Civil Code, the policyholder, after becoming aware of the occurrence of an insured event, is obliged to immediately notify the insurer or his representative of its occurrence.

It was established that on 08/13/2014 and 08/10/2014, the plaintiff sent appeals to the defendant about the need to record the occurrence of an insured event in connection with the effective decision of the Uralsk court No. 2 to recover from Onur Travel LLP in favor of Irmenov R.M. the amount of 979,700 tenge.

However, the material damage caused to the travel agency Onur Travel LLP was not reimbursed by the insurance company, although at that time there was a compulsory GPO insurance contract between the travel agency and the insurance company, where, according to its terms, the basis for paying the insured amount and paying off losses was the existence of a court decision that had entered into force. After the court's decision, the plaintiff repeatedly appealed to the defendant for compensation on a voluntary basis, but the material damage remained uncompensated.

The court found that on 01.03.2013, the parties concluded a contract of compulsory insurance of civil liability of the tour operator and the travel agent, according to paragraph 1.2 of which the object of insurance is the property interests of the Policyholder related to the latter's obligation, in accordance with the procedure established by the current legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, to compensate for damage caused to the property and/or other interests of tourists (beneficiaries) when implementation of activities related to the sale of a tourist product.

The insurance amount is 3,462,000 tenge. The contract is valid from 03/02/2013 to 03/01/2014. The plaintiff, referring to clauses 4.6, 4.9 of this agreement, requests to recover from the defendant an insurance amount in the amount of 979,700 tenge. According to Clause 1 of Article 803 of the Civil Code, under an insurance contract, one party (the policyholder) undertakes to pay an insurance premium, and the other party (the insurer) undertakes, upon the occurrence of an insured event, to make an insurance payment to the policyholder or another person in whose favor the contract was concluded (the beneficiary), within the amount specified in the contract (the insured amount).

In accordance with the requirements of art.807 of the Civil Code, an insured event is an event upon the occurrence of which the insurance contract provides for the insurance payment, and which must have signs of probability and randomness of its occurrence.

It is the responsibility of the policyholder to prove the occurrence of the insured event, as well as the losses caused by it.

According to clauses 2.1, 2.2 of the insurance contract, an insured event is recognized as the occurrence of the Policyholder's civil liability for compensation for damage caused to the property and/or other interests of beneficiaries when providing them with tourist services.

The insured event is considered to have occurred from the moment the court decision on compensation for damage caused by the policyholder enters into force, or the policyholder recognizes the beneficiary's claims for compensation for damage as justified and the insurer agrees with the recognition of the claims by the policyholder.

According to clause 1 of Article 835 of the Civil Code, the policyholder, after becoming aware of the occurrence of an insured event, is obliged to immediately notify the insurer or his representative of its occurrence.

It was established that on 08/13/2014 and 08/10/2014, the plaintiff sent appeals to the defendant about the need to record the occurrence of an insured event in connection with the effective decision of the Uralsk court No. 2 to recover from Onur Travel LLP in favor of Irmenov R.M. the amount of 979,700 tenge.

The respondent responded to these requests on 08/22/2014 and 10/16/2014 on the refusal to recognize the event as an insured event and to make insurance payments.

According to Clauses 7-8 of Article 839 of the Civil Code, the decision to refuse insurance payment is made by the insurer and notified to the policyholder in writing with a reasoned justification for the reasons for the refusal.

The insurer's refusal to make an insurance payment may be appealed by the policyholder to the court. The plaintiff's actions and the defendant's decision to refuse to make insurance payments were not appealed, and therefore, the court considered within the limits of the plaintiff's claims.

In addition, the court's decision of 03/19/2014 does not indicate the occurrence of an insured event, it can be seen from the decision that the representative of a third party of JSC IC Amanat Insurance objected to the satisfaction of the claim, which indicates the insurer's disagreement with the recognition of claims by the policyholder. This decision was not the subject of an appeal hearing.

Meanwhile, in order to prepare the case for trial, the court should, in accordance with art.167 of the CPC of the Republic of Kazakhstan, clarify the requirements and circumstances relevant for the proper resolution of the case.

When an accident resulting in disability occurred during the period of validity of the insurance contract, the insurer is obliged to pay the insurance payment in the amount stipulated by the contract.

So, on 06/18/2012, Kazkommerts-Life CSJ JSC and Z.O. Otyzbayeva concluded an accident insurance Contract for the bank's borrower with a validity period until 07/15/2014.

At the same time, an insurance amount of 300,000 tenge is stipulated. On 04/29/2013, when the plaintiff was sent to work by car, a traffic accident occurred, as a result, the plaintiff was taken to the Regional Medical Center with a serious injury.

According to the results of medical reports, the second disability group was established.

The insurance company refused to pay the insurance indemnity to the policyholder, referring to the fact that the disability of the second group was established to the plaintiff on 14.10.2014, and the period of validity of the Insurance Contract ended on 15.07.2014.

By the decision of the Kyzylorda City Court dated 06/16/2014, the claim of Z.O. Otyzbayeva against the defendant of Kazkommerts -Life CSJ JSC to oblige to make an insurance payment in the amount of 300,000 tenge was fully satisfied.

The Court of first instance justified its conclusions by the fact that there is no such reason for exemption from insurance indemnity payments as disability after the expiration of the insurance contract, the accident occurred on 04/29/2013, during the period of the Insurance Contract and the loss of disability lasted for the entire term of the Contract.

In accordance with clause 2.1, clause 2.1, Article 2 of the Insurance Contract, an insured event may be the loss of the Insured's ability to work with the establishment of disability of the first or second group, resulting from an accident that occurred during the period of validity of the insurance contract.

According to Clause 3 of Article 7 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Insurance Activities", accident insurance is a set of types of insurance that provide for insurance payments in a fixed amount and (or) partial or full compensation for the insured's expenses in cases of death, loss (full or partial) of working capacity (general or professional) or other injury. damage to the insured's health as a result of an accident or occupational disease, with the exception of risk insurance.

An accident is defined as a sudden, short-term event (incident) that occurs against the will of a person as a result of external mechanical, electrical, chemical or thermal effects on the insured's body, resulting in harm to health, injury or death.

Moreover, the Rules of Accident and Disease Insurance developed by Kazkommerts - Life Insurance Company provide for insurance payment in case of an accident that caused harm to the health of the insured. Thus, it is not necessary to establish a disability group.

When an insured event has occurred with two cars belonging to the same owner, the insurance payment is not made, due to the absence of harm caused to third parties.

Thus, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the court, arguing that civil liability, as the owner of vehicles, is insured in NOMAD Insurance IC JSC.

On 26.08.2014, an accident occurred between buses of the PAZ-32054 brand, operated by Utivlinova M.A. and Xmi6105j12c brand, operated by Bekkozhin K.T. By the decision of the administrative court of 09.09.2014, the driver Utivlinov M.A. was found guilty of the accident. However, the defendant refused to pay the insured sum, on the basis that the two collided cars belong to Aktobe Passenger Motor Transport Enterprise LLP.

Since the civil liability of the owner of each bus is insured separately, he asks to collect the amount of the insurance payment.

After examining the case file, the court came to the following conclusion. In accordance with Article 803 of the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan, under an insurance contract, one party (the policyholder) undertakes to pay an insurance premium, and the other party (the insurer) undertakes, upon the occurrence of an insured event, to make an insurance payment to the policyholder or another person in whose favor the contract was concluded (the beneficiary), within the amount of the insurance payment specified in the contract.

The court found that the plaintiff owns PAZ-32054 and Xmi6105j12c cars. Civil liability, as the owner of the specified vehicles, is insured in JSC IC NOMAD Insurance under a standard contract.

From the resolution of the specialized administrative court dated 09.09.2014, it follows that on 26.08.2014, the driver of the Paz 32054 Utivlinov M.A., when an obstacle and danger to movement arose, without taking measures to reduce speed until a complete stop, collided with an Xmi6105j12c car driven by Bekkozhin K.T. According to the assessment, the damage amounted to 111,741 tenge.

According to paragraph 5 of Article 11, Article 3 of paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Compulsory Insurance of civil Liability of vehicle Owners", the civil liability of the policyholder (insured) that has arisen as a result of causing harm to third parties is considered insured under a standard contract.

The object of compulsory insurance of civil liability of vehicle owners is the property interest of the insured person related to his obligation, established by the civil legislation of the Republic of Kazakhstan, to compensate for damage caused to life, health and (or) property of third parties as a result of the operation of the vehicle as a source of increased danger.

The purpose of compulsory liability insurance for vehicle owners is to ensure the protection of the property interests of third parties, whose lives, health and (or) property have been harmed as a result of the operation of vehicles, through insurance payments.

Since a standard agreement was concluded between the parties, as a result of the accident, two cars belonging to Passenger Motor Transport Enterprise LLP were damaged and there was no harm to third parties, the court considered the claim unfounded and unsatisfactory.

The legislation on insurance and insurance activities is based on

The Constitution of the Republic of Kazakhstan and are regulated by the Civil Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter referred to as the Civil Code, in particular, Articles 803-845 of Chapter 40),

The Civil Procedure Code of the Republic of Kazakhstan (hereinafter CPC),

Laws of the Republic of Kazakhstan:

- "On insurance activities" dated December 18, 2000 No. 126,

- "On compulsory social insurance" dated April 25, 2003 No. 405,

- "On the Insurance Benefit Guarantee Fund" dated June 03, 2003 No. 423,

- "On compulsory insurance of civil liability of private notaries" dated June 11, 2003 No. 435,

- "On compulsory insurance of civil liability of audit organizations" dated June 13, 2003 No. 440,

- "On compulsory insurance of civil liability of the carrier to passengers" dated July 01, 2003 No. 444,

- "On compulsory insurance of civil liability of vehicle owners" dated July 01, 2003 No. 446,

- "On compulsory insurance of civil liability of tour operators and travel agents" dated December 31, 2003 No. 513,

- "On compulsory insurance in crop production" dated March 10, 2004 No. 533,

- "On compulsory insurance of civil liability of owners of facilities whose activities are associated with the risk of harm to third parties" dated July 07, 2004 No. 580,

- "On compulsory insurance of an employee against accidents in the performance of his labor (official) duties" No. 30-III SAM dated February 07, 2005,

- "On compulsory environmental insurance" dated December 13, 2005 No. 93

- "On Mutual insurance" dated July 05, 2006 No. 163, etc. It should be noted that on 01.01.2016, amendments entered into force to the Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Compulsory Insurance of Civil Liability of vehicle Owners" concerning the procedure for settling an insured event, pricing the insurance tariff for temporary entry of vehicles into the territory of the Republic of Kazakhstan.

The legislator has fixed the obligation of the direct insurer to compensate the damage caused to the victim who applied to him or to the person who have the right to compensation for damage with the death of the victim, the so-called direct settlement, on the following grounds:

- a contract of compulsory insurance of civil liability of vehicle owners must be concluded between the insurer and the victim.

-the person who caused the insured event has an insurance policy.

However, not every victim is required by a direct insurer to make a payment. If the victim is not the owner of the property that has been harmed, the insurer has the right to refuse payment to the victim, and in this case the victim should contact the insurer of the person responsible for the insured event, the so-called "responsible insurer".

If the victim (beneficiary) does not agree with the result of the amount of damage determined by the insurer, the victim (beneficiary) has the right to challenge the amount of damage determined by the insurer in court.

Thus, if there is a dispute between the victim (beneficiary) and the insurer about the amount of damage determined by the insurer, it is necessary to contact the office of the insurance Ombudsman. The Rules of Procedure of the Insurance Ombudsman set a time limit for the consideration of the case, which should not exceed one month, during which a decision must be made.

The Insurance Ombudsman is an independent arbitrator who has called for the resolution of disputes between insurance companies or companies and their policyholder clients. The Ombudsman can identify the essence of the problem and make a legal decision, which is mandatory for the insurance company to implement.

   Attention!

      The Law and Law Law Firm draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a specific situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in drafting any legal document that suits your situation.

     For more information, please contact a Lawyer/Lawyer by phone; +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.

 Constitution Law Code Standard Decree Order Decision Resolution Lawyer Almaty Lawyer Legal service Legal advice Civil Criminal Administrative cases Disputes Defense Arbitration Law Company Kazakhstan Law Firm Court Cases