The insurer who has made the insurance payment has the right to claim back against the policyholder (insured) within the amount paid.
By virtue of subparagraph 4) of paragraph 1 of Article 28 of Law No. 446, the insurer who has made the insurance payment has the right to claim back against the policyholder (insured) within the amount paid if, 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 I should have known. From the literal meaning of this rule, it follows that it is necessary to establish a causal relationship between the malfunction and the insured event, and, most importantly, the insurer must prove that the policyholder (insured) knew or should have known about the presence of such malfunctions. By the decision of the district court No. 2 of the Saryagash district of the South Kazakhstan region dated November 2, 2016, the claim of JSC "I" to D., A., S. for the recovery of the amount by way of recourse was satisfied. The court found that the accident, which resulted in harm to third parties, occurred due to a malfunction of the coupling device. This fact was discovered during the consideration of the administrative case. Driver D. testified in court that he knew about the malfunction and repeatedly informed the owner about it, but the latter postponed the repair until a later date. The expression "should have known" in relation to the specified norm means that the malfunction was either obvious or one that the driver or the owner of the vehicle could identify when inspecting the vehicle before departure. By the decision of the Yenbekshinsky District Court of the Almaty region dated May 19, 2015, the claim of JSC "I" to O. and A. was reasonably denied. about collecting the insurance payment. It turned out in court that during the movement of the car driven by defendant O., the rear left wheel was disassembled, which collided with an oncoming car. In rejecting the insurer's claim, the court proceeded from the fact that, according to the diagnostic inspection card, the policyholder's vehicle met the requirements of road safety. Therefore, the court concluded that the policyholder could not have foreseen the occurrence of the insured event.
Attention!
Law and Law Law Law draws your attention to the fact that this document is basic and does not always meet the requirements of a particular situation. Our lawyers are ready to assist you in legal advice, drawing up any legal document suitable for your situation.
For more information, please contact a Lawyer / Attorney by phone: +7 (708) 971-78-58; +7 (700) 978 5755, +7 (700) 978 5085.
Attorney at Law Almaty Lawyer Legal Services Legal Advice Civil Criminal Administrative Cases Disputes Protection Arbitration Law Firm Kazakhstan Law Office Court Cases
