Пошук академічних текстів

Інформація × Реєстраційний номер 2119U002929, Матеріали видань та локальних репозитаріїв Категорія Стаття Назва роботи Differentiation of reasons for refusal in insurance indemnity and for recourse Розмежування підстав для відмови у виплаті страхового відшкодування та для регресу Автор Дата публікації 25-03-2019 Постачальник інформації Київський національний університет імені Тараса Шевченка Першоджерело https://ir.library.knu.ua/handle/15071834/5065 Видання Опис Стаття присвячена аналізу відповідності страховому законодавству судової практики в частині реалізації страховими компаніями права регресної вимоги та права відмови у виплаті страхового відшкодування. Запропоновані шляхи усунення дискусійних висновків суду. The article is devoted to the analysis of compliance with the insurance law of judicial practice in the part of the implementation by insurance companies of the right of recourse and the right to refuse to pay insurance indemnity. It is stressed that the grounds for recourse can not be simultaneously and the grounds for refusal to pay the insurance indemnity, since regression arises after the payment of the insurance indemnity. The insurer has a duty to make an insurance indemnity (and not a right). The insurance indemnity must be substantiated and, if any, the insurer must pay. If there is no reason to pay the insurance indemnity, then the payment can not be realized, and accordingly, there can be no recourse (the insurer does not have the right to choose to pay the insurance indemnity with the subsequent submission of the recourse or to refuse to pay the insurance indemnity). Therefore, the grounds determined by the law as grounds for recourse can not simultaneously be the grounds for refusal to pay insurance indemnity. It is emphasized that compensation for damage can be relied on on a person whose liability is insured in the event that the insurer has no obligation to pay insurance indemnity due to actions (inaction) of the insured, another person whose liability is insured. If the reason for the refusal was the actions (inactivity) of the victim (his representative), another person who is entitled to the insurance indemnity, then all the negative consequences associated with the refusal of the insurer in payment of the insurance indemnity should not be transferred to the person whose responsibility insured Legislation does not stipulate mandatory consequences of non-fulfillment of obligations (non-communication) as grounds for recourse. The presence of a legal fact of non-communication without a valid reason is an independent reason for a recourse, regardless of the consequences (their presence or absence). No rule of law provides for a causal link between failure and undesirable consequences as grounds for a recourse. The article suggests ways of eliminating the controversial conclusions of the court. Додано в НРАТ 2025-05-12 Закрити