The Plenary Session confirmed legal positions expressed by the Supreme Court in the Review from 30 January 2013. Besides, the Plenary Session pointed out that:
- the Law on protection of consumer’s rights extends to the area of insurance, but only in cases, not connected to the effectuation of entrepreneurial activity;
- the contestation of insured value of property by the insurer is possible only in case if he failed to make evaluation of property in advance and was deliberately deceived (para 19);
- the term of the insurance contract which excludes the payment of insurance premium if the amount of insurant’s losses that emerged as a result of the occasion of insurance event does not exceed or is lower than the amount of losses fixed in the insurance contract (i.e. franchise clause) is admissible, but only to the extent that it does not lead to the abuse of right (para 20);
- the elapse of payment of insurance compensation entails the duty to pay interest under Art 395 of the Civil Code (para 43), and the insurer’s refusal to voluntarily pay insurance premium entails fine which is to be recovered by court at its own initiative to the benefit of insurant (para 45); the reduction of the amount of such fine is admissible only in exceptional cases.
Regarding the question as to whether it is possible to include in the contract a clause on the reduction of insurance premium by depreciation (wearing out) of components of insured property (a car or so on) the position of the Supreme Court has slightly changed as compared to the Review: it is said that the insurer may at the conclusion of the contract offer the client to choose the way of calculation of losses – either with or without taking depreciation into account (para 36).
