An important (especially for car-owners) explanation of the Supreme Court relates to the cost of the so-called “restorative repair”. The Court pointed out that the inclusion into the contract of insurance of a clause on the reduction of insurance compensation by the cost of depreciation (wearing out) of insured property is not legally valid,  and held the demands to insurers on compensation of actual value of repair, not reduced by the cost of depreciation, to be justified. 

 

Besides, the Court explained that: 

 

- if an insured car was driven by a person, not indicated in the insurance policy, it does not exonerate the insurer from payments under the risk of damaging;

- untimely making of insurance payments by the insurant does not constitute the ground for refusal to compensate, as long as the insurance contract was not repudiated; 

- if the insurant has harmed the insured property himself, only the actual intent of the insurant (not his negligence) would constitute an unconditional ground for insurance compensation;

- the failure of the insurant to notify in time about the occurrence of the accident insured against also does not constitute an unconditional ground for refusal to compensate. The insurer may not evade paying compensation also in the case when property was not defined in the insurance contract with sufficient certainty. The refusal to compensate or underpayment of compensation on the part of insurer invokes his duty to pay interest under Art 395 of the Civil Code;   

- driving a car in a state of alcoholic or narcotic intoxication is an unconditional ground for refusal to pay insurance premium.

   Besides, if the insurant has knowingly gave false information as to essential circumstances of the accident, the insurance contract may be deemed invalid under Art 179 of the Civil Code.