Supreme Court forbids blaming buyers for alcohol poisoning – Kommersant
[ad_1]
The Supreme Court (SC) considered the complaint about the refusal to pay insurance compensation to the heiress. The insurance company indicated that the testator, who joined the borrowers’ collective insurance program as part of a loan, died due to alcohol poisoning. The court concluded that there were no grounds for the insurance payment, two subsequent courts supported the insurers, but the Supreme Court did not agree with them, reports RAPSI.
The cause of death of the testator was named the toxic effect of alcohol, accidental poisoning and exposure to alcohol. The court of first instance proceeded from the fact that this happened through the fault of the insured, who voluntarily consumed surrogate alcohol containing methanol. The court of appeal pointed out that there were no legal grounds for imposing on the defendant the obligation to pay insurance compensation. The same position is held by the court of cassation.
But the Supreme Court clarified that the fact of purchasing an alcohol-containing liquid that is allowed for consumption “does not indicate the voluntariness of the acquisition for subsequent use of toxic substances (methanol) with awareness of the possible consequences.” He also recalled that a case was initiated against the entrepreneur who sold alcohol to the deceased under Part 3 of Art. 238 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation (production, storage, sale of goods and products, performance of work or provision of services that do not meet safety requirements).
The SC noted that the terms of the insurance contract are to be interpreted in such a way as not to allow any party to take advantage of its illegal behavior. However, the interpretation of the treaty should not lead to an understanding of it that the parties “obviously could not have had in mind”. As a result, the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Armed Forces decided to send the case for a new trial.
[ad_2]
Source link
