Accident liability – Finance – Kommersant

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (SC) will have to figure out the intricacies of releasing a bankrupt citizen from debts formed in connection with causing harm to people’s life and health. The Social Insurance Fund paid out more than 4 million rubles. families of those who died in the accident through the fault of the debtor, and then demanded this amount from the violator of traffic rules. As a result, the citizen went bankrupt, but the courts refused to write off this debt. The financial manager of the debtor did not agree with this. The final word remains with the Sun. Lawyers say that the fund is not injured in the accident, so formally its debt can be written off through bankruptcy, but not everyone considers this approach fair.

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation will consider an interesting issue related to the possibility of writing off a citizen’s debts following the results of bankruptcy. In February 2014, as a result of driving into the oncoming lane of a car driven by Maxim Dyakonov, an accident occurred, killing four people. The Nekrasovsky District Court of the Yaroslavl Region in August 2014 found Maxim Dyakonov guilty of violating the rules of the road, negligently resulting in the death of two or more persons (part 5 of article 264 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation).

The Social Insurance Fund of the Russian Federation (FSS) recognized this case as an insured one (as an accident at work) and paid the families of the victims a total of 4 million rubles, and also assigned one of the relatives of the deceased an indefinite monthly insurance payment in the amount of about 15 thousand rubles.

The FSS, in recourse, demanded money from Maxim Dyakonov as the tortfeasor, and the court of general jurisdiction recovered 4.25 million rubles from the defendant. (amount paid as of June 30, 2015).

Maxim Dyakonov considered this amount unbearable for himself and filed for bankruptcy, the FSS was his only creditor. The debtor had no property to collect, and the procedure was completed in seven months, but as a result, the arbitration courts refused to write off the citizen’s debt.

The courts decided that the fund’s claim against Mr. Dyakonov relates to claims for compensation for harm caused to life, which remains valid even after bankruptcy (clause 5, article 213.28 of the Bankruptcy Law). In addition, the courts considered that “in the event of a tort obligation” (arising as a result of causing harm to the life, health or property of another person), on which the fund bases its claim, the debtor “acted unlawfully, as evidenced by the sentence passed against him.” According to paragraph 4 of Art. 213.28 of the Law “On Bankruptcy”, in case of illegal actions of the debtor in the event of a debt, the latter is also not subject to write-off.

The financial manager of the debtor did not agree with these conclusions, he turned to the Supreme Court, believing that there were no grounds for not releasing Maxim Dyakonov from obligations to the fund.

In addition, the bankrupt has already been punished for the crime, and also voluntarily compensated moral damage to the victims in a larger amount than the court obliged him to. The case was transferred to the Economic Board of the Armed Forces, the hearing is scheduled for March 23.

The institute of bankruptcy of citizens, indeed, provides for the cancellation of debts from persons in a difficult financial situation, therefore the position of the Supreme Court on whether it is possible to recognize a debtor as a bona fide person here is of particular interest, points out the head of the bankruptcy practice of the law firm Lemchik, Krupsky and Partners David Kononov . Sotheby’s partner Anton Krasnikov emphasizes the social aspect of the case: “The Constitution of the Russian Federation establishes that a person, his rights and freedoms (including the right to life) are the highest value, in particular, therefore, any harm caused to human life or health is subject to priority recovery, for the same reason, such debts are not subject to write-off in the bankruptcy of the tortfeasor”.

Thus, according to Anton Krasnikov, the main question of the case is whether “the right of claim has passed to the insurer from the relationship that arose as a result of causing harm, or has it acquired an independent right of claim, which has a different basis.”

At the same time, the law does not say that after the insurance payment, the fund becomes the successor of the victims, but it is given the right to recourse, he clarifies. And now the Supreme Court will have to give a legal assessment of the nature of the insurer’s recourse claims, David Kononov notes.

BGP Litigation Dispute Resolution and Bankruptcy Practice Advisor Ruslan Petruchak believes that formally recourse claims cannot be classified as creditor claims for compensation for harm caused to life or health.

Also, they “can hardly be classified as claims that are inextricably linked to the personality of the creditor, which also remain in force after the end of the bankruptcy,” adds Mr. Petruchak. If the debtor’s creditors were the victims, then the failure to write off such a debt would be undoubted, since the obligation to the victims arose precisely from the infliction of harm as a result of the crime, points out the arbitration manager Sergey Domnin. “But the recourse claim of the insurer who compensated for the damage by virtue of the law does not fall under the indelible one,” he believes.

In addition, Mr. Domnin believes that the Supreme Court can also interpret the law in the sense that in order to not forgive debts, a citizen must have “a direct intent to harm creditors in order to obtain unreasonable advantages or avoid paying a debt,” and if a citizen has committed a crime, but did not pursue such goals, then the debt can be written off. But, according to Ruslan Petruchak, such an approach “can hardly be considered fair”, because as a result, the person guilty of a fatal accident will “avoid financial liability to the insurer” that paid compensation for the death of people, although it is obvious that the bankruptcy of the debtor is caused precisely unwillingness to pay the fund (the only creditor) money.

Ekaterina Volkova, Anna Zanina