The Presidium of the Moscow City Court revoked the decision of the Meschansky District Court of Moscow and the determination of the Civil Chamber of the Moscow City Court on the dispute arising from a property insurance contract, due to violations of subs

The insurance company CJSC “Strakhovaya Gruppa AVANGARD-GARANT” had refused to pay its client A.E. Gorevoy the due insurance compensation for the theft of his car. The company based its refusal on the circumstance that A.E. Gorevoy had left certain documents concerning his rights to drive the vehicle in the stolen car, thereby violating the conditions of the insurance policy.

The insured A.E. Gorevoy filed a claim with the courts for the recovery of the due insurance payment by CJSC “Strakhovaya Gruppa AVANGARD-GARANT.”

Pursuant to the decision of 2 June 2005 of the Meschansky District Court of the City of Moscow, and the determination of the Civil Chamber of the Moscow City Court of 25 October 2005, A.E. Gorevoy’s claim was dismissed.

At the request of A.E. Gorevoy, the attorneys of the Law firm “YUST” filed a supervisory complaint against the above-mentioned court rulings with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. In this complaint “YUST” attorneys indicated, inter alia, that pursuant to paragraph 2 part 1 art. 963 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, and p. 9 of the Information Letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of 28 November 2003 № 75, the condition pertaining to the release of the insurer from payment of insurance compensation in an insurance situation resulting from gross carelessness by the insured person may be envisaged only by law; if such a condition is contained in the insurance policy, it is negligible as being contrary to the law, and is therefore inapplicable.

The supervisory complaint was filed with the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on 27 February 2006. As a result of the consideration of the supervisory complaint by a judge of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, the matter was directed to the Presidium of the Moscow City Court for consideration in substance.

At its hearing on 13 July 2006, the Presidium of the Moscow City Court upheld the arguments of the attorneys of the Law firm “YUST” and revoked the resolutions of lower court bodies as contrary to the law. Consequently, the matter was directed to the Meschansky District Court of the City of Moscow for a new consideration. Upon new consideration of the matter, the claim was satisfied.