An entrepreneur from Penza operates two heavy vehicles, a MAZ and a Scania, both insured under a policy with JSC Sogaz. The drivers carried out transport tasks on a project basis, without formal employment arrangements. After a collision between the MAZ and the Scania, the MAZ driver admitted fault in the incident.
Following the crash, the Scania sustained damage and the entrepreneur pursued direct compensation from the insurer under the OSAGO policy, aiming to receive a monetary settlement rather than repairs.
The insurer balked, arguing that because both vehicles were owned by the same person, the debtor and the creditor were effectively the same party, and thus the claim should be denied, according to a report by Pravo.ru.
Subsequently, the entrepreneur filed a lawsuit in the Penza Region Court seeking 400,000 rubles. The court found that both drivers had acted under a verbal instruction from the business owner to transport the goods. It also noted that there were no formal labor or civil relationships between the two drivers. The court concluded that the accident involved two vehicles under the same ownership, which meant the debtor and creditor were identical to the entrepreneur himself, and, in accordance with article 413 of the Civil Code, the obligation was terminated. As a result, the insured event did not occur and Sogaz was not obligated to reimburse the repair costs [citation: Pravo.ru].
When the insured event under an OSAGO policy results in damage to third parties rather than to the insured vehicle itself, the courts of subsequent instances shared the same view, and eventually the matter reached the Supreme Court for a final determination.
Supreme Court ruling
The Supreme Court disagreed with the notion that ownership of both cars by the same person makes the entrepreneur both the victim and the perpetrator. As the owner of the damaged Scania, he was considered the victim here, while the MAZ driver remained the debtor who caused the collision. The court confirmed that the incident occurred, that the claimant’s property was injured, and that the insurer had no legitimate basis to refuse payment. If the insurer accepted payment for the policy but then refused to compensate the claimant, it would constitute unjust enrichment, the court stated [citation needed].
Moreover, since the driver was included under the OSAGO policy, his use of the heavy truck was lawful and covered by insurance. The decision signaled that the insurer should pay the claim, while it retained a potential recourse against the MAZ driver for reimbursement if applicable.
There is an interesting implication: if the entrepreneur had formal employment contracts with the drivers, it would be easier to attribute responsibility to the owner of the two vehicles for the damage caused. In contrast, in other scenarios, the insurer’s denial may not be reasonable and could be challenged in court.