The Supreme Court upheld the right of a Kaliningrad resident to insurance compensation for a fire

The woman had to prove that a fire in her home was an insured event.

A resident of Kaliningrad had to go all the way to the Supreme Court to prove that she had the right to an insurance payment after a fire broke out in her home. First, the insurance company that insured her home, and then the lower courts, denied her this right.

A contract of voluntary insurance of property against damage, destruction or loss, including as a result of fire, for a period of 12 months was concluded in December 2021. The plaintiff was issued an insurance policy. In total, the insurance amount was 500 thousand rubles. The insurance premium paid by the citizen was 2 thousand rubles.

And already in February of the following year there was a fire, property was damaged. The woman applied for insurance compensation, but was denied. The fact is that her house was built in 1945, and the contract stated that the policyholder does not accept houses built before 1960 for insurance, which means the contract is invalid.

Then the woman went to court to recover insurance compensation in the amount of 99.8 thousand rubles (the amount of damage was assessed), plus penalties and compensation for moral damage in the amount of 20 thousand rubles. But the district, regional, and cassation courts rejected her. But she managed to succeed in the Supreme Court. The highest authority found several grounds for overturning court decisions

The court, in particular, noted that when concluding the contract, the insurance company did not offer the plaintiff to indicate the year of construction of her house - she did not report it. If she had knowingly provided false information on this issue, then it would have been possible to demand that the contract be declared invalid. But she didn't do it.

According to the conclusion of representatives of Themis, in case of any ambiguity in the terms of the agreement and the impossibility of establishing the actual common will of the parties, the dispute should be resolved in favor not of the one who drew it up, but in favor of the one who signed it.

Based on these and other facts, the court overturned the decision of the Kaliningrad Regional Court and the ruling of the Third Cassation Court of General Jurisdiction, and the case was sent for re-examination by the appellate instance.