Car accident. Insurance. If car repairs more expensive than buying?

Judges do not really “like” cases related to road accidents! There are too many nuances in them, the presence of which often makes an objective trial impossible, and the participation of insurance companies in them complicates everything at times!

The Supreme Court of Ukraine “had” to understand the case of collecting insurance compensation, in which car repair was more expensive than the car itself, and the IC did not want to see this fact, since it significantly increased the amount of compensation!

The courts of first and appellate instance also “did not notice” this circumstance and awarded the plaintiff compensation, which was not enough either to repair or buy another car.

The plaintiff appealed to the SCU!

The Supreme Court “troubled” to look into the incident and found out the following:

1. The fact of causing damage as a result of an accident that occurred through the fault of a person whose civil liability was insured has been fully proven.
2. The cost of refurbishment of the vehicle exceeds its market value, from which it follows that the defendant must compensate the claimant for damage within the amount of the insurance indemnity minus the deductible.
3. The fact that the plaintiff applied to the insurer with a claim-letter about the need to reimburse a larger amount is proved and documented in the case.

“Obviously! Compensation in the amount of the market value of a car, the repair of which is not economically justified, is fully consistent with the law. The opinion of the court of first instance that the payment is equal to the difference between the price of the car before and after the accident, as a result of which it “died”, is incorrect, despite the fact that the parties did not agree on the amount of compensation.”

The Supreme Court of Ukraine made the right conclusions, thanks to which the plaintiff did not need legal services:

1. The legislation determines that the occurrence of an insured event (commission of an accident) is the basis for the insurer to pay compensation to the victim in accordance with the terms of the contract and within the insured amount.
2. To determine the amount of damage, the insurer ordered a commodity expertise, which recorded the cost of restoring the vehicle in the amount of more than UAH 250,000. moreover, that the price of the car itself was slightly more than 60,000 UAH.
3. The plaintiff and the courts of previous instances agreed with the report, but the plaintiff was denied adequate compensation, despite the fact that the Law of Ukraine “On Compulsory Civil Liability Insurance …” does not provide for the court’s right to refuse payment in case of disagreement between the insurer and the applicant (victim) the amount of compensation.
4. The courts of previous instances, not only did not take into account a number of rules of the insurance compensation procedure, but they did not pay attention to the fact that the insurer did not pay anything to the victim at all, therefore the claim was in any case subject to partial satisfaction.