An entrepreneur from Penza has two heavy trucks – MAZ and Scania, insured by JSC Sogaz. Drivers transported goods on these vehicles for one-off assignments, they did not enter into employment relationships. After MAZ and Scania collided, the driver of the MAZ confessed to the error in the accident.
As a result of the accident, Scania suffered and the entrepreneur turned to the insurance company to request direct compensation for damage under the OSAGO agreement (i.e. not to repair the car, but to pay money).
The insurance company believed that since both vehicles belong to the same person, the debtor (the one who caused the damage) and the creditor (the victim) coincide, and refused to pay, writes Pravo.ru.
Subsequently, the entrepreneur filed a lawsuit against Sogaz for 400,000 rubles in the Penza Region Court. But the court indicated that both drivers followed a verbal order from the businessman to deliver the goods. At the same time, there were no labor or civil law relations between them. This means that the accident happened with two cars of the same owner, which means that the debtor and creditor are the same – this is the entrepreneur himself, and according to art. 413 of the Civil Code in this case the obligations are terminated. That is, the insured event has not occurred and Sogaz does not have to reimburse the repair costs.
An insured event under an OSAGO agreement causes damage to third parties, and not to itself, the courts of subsequent instances were of a similar opinion, and as a result, the owner reached the Supreme Court.
Supreme Court ruling
The Sun disagreed that since both cars belong to the entrepreneur, he is both the victim and perpetrator of the accident. As the owner of the damaged Scania, he is only considered a victim and the debtor is the MAZ driver who caused the collision. The fact of the accident is established and the insurance company admits that the claimant’s property has been damaged, meaning there is no reason to refuse the insurance payment. If the company has received money for the policy and refuses to pay compensation, it turns out that it has unlawfully enriched itself, according to The Sun.
And since the driver is included in the OSAGO policy, it means that he has used the heavy truck legally and is covered by insurance. So there has to be paid, but Sogaz has a potential right of recourse against the MAZ driver.
Interestingly, if the entrepreneur entered into an employment contract with the driver, it would make it possible to hold the owner of two cars liable for the damage caused. In other cases, the refusal is unreasonable.