The policyholder who has committed actions that contribute to the occurrence of an insured event without being in a state of necessary defense and extreme necessity is not entitled to claim insurance payments.
According to subparagraph 1) of paragraph 1 of Article 839 of the Civil Code, the insurer has the right to refuse insurance payment to the policyholder in whole or in part if the insured event occurred as a result of intentional actions of the policyholder, the insured and (or) the beneficiary aimed at causing the insured event or contributing to its occurrence, with the exception of actions committed in a state of necessary defense and extreme necessity. According to paragraph 5 of Article 839 of the Civil Code, the release of an insurer from insurance liability to the policyholder on the grounds of his unlawful actions provided for in this Article simultaneously releases the insurer from making insurance payments to the insured or beneficiary. In the civil case concerning B.'s claim against JSC Insurance Company Astana -Finance (hereinafter - JSC IC Astana-Finance) on the recovery of the insurance payment, the claims are motivated by the fact that on March 25, 2009, B. he concluded a car insurance contract with the defendant under the CASCO program and is the policyholder, the object of insurance is a Land Cruiser Prado car, the amount of insurance payment under the contract is 6134600 tenge, and on February 09, 2010, the car was stolen from the parking lot, a criminal case was opened against unidentified persons, on February 10, 2010, the plaintiff reported the insured event was notified to the defendant within the time limits stipulated in the contract, however, the defendant refused to make the insurance payment.
The policyholder who has committed actions that contribute to the occurrence of an insured event without being in a state of necessary defense and extreme necessity is not entitled to claim insurance payments.
The claim was partially satisfied by the decision of the Medeu District Court. An insurance sum of 6134660 tenge was collected from JSC IC Astana-Finance in favor of B. By a decision of the appellate judicial board of the Almaty City Court, the decision in this part was overturned, and a new decision was made to dismiss B.'s claim against JSC IC Astana-Finance to recover the amount of the insurance payment. By the decision of the cassation judicial board, the appeal ruling was changed, in terms of the cancellation of the decision of the court of first instance, the decision of the court of first instance on the recovery from JSC IC Astana Finance in favor of B. the insured sum of 6134660 tenge remained in force. As established in the case, plaintiff B. left the car with documents, including the vehicle registration certificate, in an unguarded parking lot at night, and also handed over the car keys to an unauthorized parking attendant, which contributed to the occurrence of an insured event with indirect intent. According to clause 2.3.4. According to the traffic regulations approved by the Decree of the Government of the Republic of Kazakhstan dated November 25, 1997 No. 1650, the driver must not leave the vehicle without taking measures to exclude its use by unauthorized persons. Plaintiff B. knew that in case of theft or theft of the insured car, the policyholder, by virtue of subparagraph 4.2.3.1. Clause 4.2 of the annex to the Insurance Contract must provide the original vehicle registration certificate, complete sets of original control panels, cards, active and passive activators of all electronic and electronic mechanical anti-theft systems, and all keys to mechanical anti-theft devices equipped with the insured vehicle. Despite this, B. handed over the car keys along with the documents to an outsider, which contributed to the occurrence of the insured event. In such circumstances, the supervisory judicial board, by its resolution 3gp-407-12 dated April 17, 2012, recognized as justified the conclusions of the court of appeal that plaintiff B., in violation of the requirements of subparagraph 6.2.6 of the annex to the Insurance Contract, had failed to take measures to ensure the safety of the insured car and his claims for recovery of insurance payments were untenable by virtue of the above provisions. subparagraph 1) of paragraph 1 and paragraph 5 of Article 839 of the Civil Code.
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
