The Supreme Court considered methanol poisoning an insured event
[ad_1]
Thanks to this, the widow of a bank client will be able to receive compensation.
Poisoning with a liquid with methyl alcohol sold under the guise of ordinary alcohol cannot be equated with banal alcohol poisoning. The Supreme Court came to such an unexpected conclusion when considering the complaint of a resident of Orenburg, to whom the bank refused to pay out insurance after the death of her husband.
The husband of the Orenburg woman, shortly before her death, took a loan of 2 million rubles from a local bank and at the same time concluded an insurance contract. Insured events in the insurance program were death, disability of groups 1 and 2 as a result of an accident or illness. And after about two months, the debtor died. The medical examiner’s office concluded that the cause of death was methanol poisoning.
The wife of the deceased applied to the bank for an insurance payment, but she was refused. The fact is that in the contract, in the “exceptions” section, it was indicated that death or disability resulting from the voluntary use of alcohol-containing, narcotic or toxic substances cannot be recognized as insured events.
The appeal of the citizen to the court in order to achieve payment of the result did not work: the courts of the first appeal and cassation instances considered the bank’s refusal to pay insurance lawful. But the Supreme Court did not agree with their point of view.
The higher authority indicated that one of the insured events in the contract was accidental acute poisoning. The courts and the bank emphasized that the man was poisoned by alcohol, and he purchased and drank it voluntarily. However, the fact that a citizen purchased an alcohol-containing liquid at a grocery store does not at all indicate that the purchase was voluntary for the subsequent use of a toxic substance. That is, we are talking about accidental acute poisoning. The decisions of the courts of appeal and cassation instances were canceled, the case was sent for a new consideration on appeal.
[ad_2]
Source link
