History, many familiar. The man took a Bank loan to buy the car and paid the required by law insurance. But then the citizen has done anything to repay the loan as quickly as possible. And it had turned out.

After full repayment of the loan the citizen demanded the termination of the insurance contract and refund to him the remaining money. The insurance firm refused to do so. The courts, which went to the last borrower, unanimously sided with insurers. Had the citizen to reach the Supreme court. There the complaint was examined and told that the citizen’s rights, and the courts – no.

the Supreme court began its explanation of the law “On organization of insurance business in the Russian Federation”. This law States the following: insurance is the relationship to protect the interests of individuals and legal entities when certain insurance cases from cash funds, which was formed by insurers from paid insurance premiums.

under this law, the insurance risk is the supposed event, in case of occurrence of which is held insurance. Insured named in the law an accomplished event provided by the contract. Conclusion the Supreme court: the insurance case, unlike events, are not such, should be provided for in the insurance contract and create the obligation of the insurer to pay. The event, which does not entail obligations of the insurer to pay an insured event is not.

On the 958-th article of the Civil code the insurance contract is terminated before the term for which he concluded, if after its entry into force possibility of approach of insured event has disappeared and the existence of insurance risk has stopped “in circumstances other than insurance case.”

the Policyholder is entitled to refuse the insurance contract at any time if by the moment of refusal possibility of approach of insured event has not disappeared. In case of early termination of the insurance contract in the circumstances listed in the 958-th article, the insurer is entitled to a part of the insurance premium proportional to the time during which insurance acted. In case of premature withdrawal of the insured from the contract paid to the insurer the insurance premium is not refundable unless the contract provides otherwise.

Of these rules, the Supreme court makes this conclusion: the list of circumstances entailing the early termination of the insurance contract is not exclusive. If the terms of the insurance contract after the repayment of loan insurance compensation is not payable due to the lack of debt associated with the size of insurance indemnity, the early redemption ceases the possibility of occurrence of the insured event, because every event, including both formally stipulatedthe contract will not give rise to the insurer’s obligation to make the indemnity. The insurance contract is terminated prematurely, the force of law.

These standards, emphasizes the Supreme court, were not considered by the district court, which referred only to the fact that the refund of the insurance premium is not a contract. This “significant error,” said the high court, which affected the conclusion. Appeal to the refusal of the district court added that under the terms of the insurance contract the possibility of occurrence of the insured event in case of early repayment of the loan is not stopped. This conclusion is not accepted by the court. He said it was “significant violations of statutory rules of Treaty interpretation”.

the Supreme court is reminded of its Plenum (No. 49 of December 25, 2018). There it was stressed that the terms of the contract shall be interpreted in such a way as not to allow one party to “derive an advantage”.

the Civil code article 431. It says that the obscurity of the terms of the contract interpretation should go in favour of the counterparty of the party that prepared the contract. And until proven otherwise, this party were those who professionally prepared the contract. This point, said the Supreme court, and has not considered the appeal.

In our case, the contract of insurance was in connection with the credit agreement. And the plaintiff – consumer banking services – credit and insurance services, which was provided by defendant. This Respondent – a professional in insurance, which has developed and approved the terms of the insurance program “Protection of borrower’s loans”. He’s filled out and given to the citizen of the Polis. The Supreme court said that local courts did not pay attention to the fact that in case there is no payment schedule, not to discuss the terms of the insurance contract, was not given to them by the rating.

the Court overturned all the decisions in the case and ordered the dispute to be revised to reflect the clarification.

Previous articleBenefit for chip
Next articleDoctor in touch
Jennifer Alvarez is an investigative journalist and is a correspondent for European Union. She is based in Zurich in Switzerland and her field of work include covering human rights violations which take place in the various countries in and outside Europe. She also reports about the political situation in European Union. She has worked with some reputed companies in Europe and is currently contributing to USA News as a freelance journalist. As someone who has a Masters’ degree in Human Rights she also delivers lectures on Intercultural Management to students of Human Rights. She is also an authority on the Arab world politics and their diversity.