OREANDA-NEWS. October 11, 2012. Pskov city court of Pskov Region pronounced its decision in the action of the insured party, Yuri Vitalievich Mikhailov, versus Ingosstrakh Insurance Company and in the cross-action of the company versus the insured party. According to the decision, Mr. Mikhailov is obliged to pay back RUB 687,134.07 to the company which he had obtained before as a hull insurance indemnification for a motor car damaged in the road accident.

According to the files of the case, in December 2010, Mr. Mikhailov concluded a voluntary motor car insurance agreement (hull insurance) with Ingosstrakh Insurance Company. His car Nissan Pathfinder was insured against the vehicle theft and loss risks for the total insurance amount of RUB 1,200,000.

Mr. Mikhailov informed that on March 31, 2011 he had a road accident when he lost control of the car due to severe weather conditions. The car spinned, it was thrown to the roadside and then to the side ditch, whereafter it overturned. Mr. Mikhailov called the State Road Traffic Safety Inspection officer to the scene of the accident who drew a diagram of the accident in the presence of the witnesses. Having collected all the required documents, the insured party submitted an application for damage indemnification to Ingosstrakh Insurance Company.

Ingosstrakh Insurance Company recognized the accident the insured event and paid RUB 687,134.07 to Mr. Mikhailov as the claimed indemnification. Disagreeing with the amount of the payment made, Mr. Mikhailov brought a court action with a claim for charging the insurance company with a non-paid part of the indemnification in the amount of RUB 169,084.24, as an independent expert company which the plaintiff had referred to estimated the value of Nissan Pathfinder renovation to be RUB 856,084.24.

In the course of an internal investigation held by the Security Service of Ingosstrakh Insurance Company, the signs of malpractices on the part of the insured party were discovered – both at the insurance agreement conclusion and formalization of the road accident. Thus, forgery of photographs of the pre-insurance vehicle inspection was elicited. The examination showed signs of digital restitution of the license plate image. The experts assumed that, during the photo survey held at the moment of undersigning the agreement, the license plate had been bound by treads to some other car of the same make. With reference to the circumstances stated, Ingosstrakh Insurance Company filed a counter-claim to the court, in which it demanded to render the deal with the hull insurance agreement undersigned ineffective and returning the insurance indemnification previously paid.

In the course of judicial proceedings, requests were sent to various agencies, interrogations of witnesses were held, trace and computer-technology examinations were arranged. As a result it was found out that the mechanical damages claimed by the insured party to be consequences of the road accident as well as the vehicle's position at the diagram of the road accident did not correspond to the above circumstances of the accident. Moreover, it was also found out that the persons claimed to be witnesses do not exist, and the road accident files had been fabricated by the Road Patrol Service inspector.

Having examined the files of the case, the court accepted the arguments of Ingosstrakh Insurance Company and obliged Mr. Mikhailov to pay back the obtained insurance indemnification in the amount of RUB 687,134.07 and compensate for examination expenses and costs of litigation.