The Supreme Court will clarify the procedure for collecting insurance after the death of the borrower

The Supreme Court of the Russian Federation (SC) will have to figure out whether the lender can receive payment in connection with the death of the insured borrower, if several years have passed after it. The lender claims to have known nothing and deserves an insurance claim. But the insurance company refuses to pay, believing that the lender missed the statute of limitations due to its own “unreasonable and dishonest behavior.” Lawyers recognize the problem of time and the difficulty of obtaining information about the death of citizens for creditors, and about debts for heirs.

The SC will consider the dispute about the possibility of collecting insurance years after the occurrence of the insured event. The story began in June 2012, when the Asia-Pacific Bank issued a loan to Gennady Matveev for 320 thousand rubles. The borrower insured his life and health in favor of the bank in IC “Helios”.

Mr. Matveev stopped making payments, and in December 2014, the Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky City Court collected the debt at the bank’s claim, but the citizen did not voluntarily pay. The creditor was in no hurry to apply to the bailiffs – enforcement proceedings were initiated only in July 2019, and already in December the bank ceded the debt to Trust LLC. In June 2021, the new creditor informed Helios about the occurrence of an insured event – the death of the insured back in 2017 – and demanded payment. The insurer did not pay, and the LLC went to court.

Arbitration courts of three instances satisfied the claim, recovering 223.9 thousand rubles in favor of Trust. According to the courts, the limitation period is counted from the moment the insurance company refuses to pay, therefore it has not been omitted.

Helios challenged these decisions in the Supreme Court, considering the statute of limitations to have expired, and the creditors’ actions to be “unscrupulous and unreasonable.” The insurer explained that in the presence of numerous non-payments, the bank “did not take any action to establish the reasons for the delay, and did not contact the bailiffs” for a long time. The complaint notes that the LLC also did not try to clarify the status of the borrower and appeal against the inaction of the bailiff, who only “found out 15 months later that the debtor had died long before the initiation” of enforcement proceedings. According to Helios, the death “should have become known back in 2017.” The case was referred to the Economic Board of the Armed Forces, consideration is scheduled for September 20.

Mikhail Yasenkov, partner of YurTechConsult, emphasizes that the key issue here is the limitation period, which, under personal insurance contracts, is three years. The lawyer explains that with the actual calculation of the term in practice, “difficulties arise.” As a general rule, the right to sue arises when the creditor knew or should have known about the violation of his right. The courts often consider the date of the insurer’s refusal to pay as such a moment, but “this is not always correct,” especially if the beneficiary did not follow the procedure and deadlines for applying, Dmitry Chaplin, a lawyer at the Lemchik, Krupsky and Partners dispute resolution practice, notes. After the lender receives information about the death of the borrower, he must notify the insurer within the period specified in the contract (by law, at least 30 days), said Pen & Paper partner Ekaterina Tokareva.

In recent years, the courts have begun to impose increased requirements on banks as professional participants in the lending market, lawyers say. Now, for the recovery of insurance payments in connection with the death of the borrower, the statute of limitations can be calculated from the date of non-payment by the citizen of the next payment on the loan, Ms. Tokareva clarifies. However, it is not known whether the SC will apply this position to a new creditor that is not a bank.

In addition, it is not easy for the creditor to find out the reasons for non-payment, since “he is limited in his ability to collect evidence and learn about what happened far from immediately,” emphasizes Mr. Yasenkov. They made life easier only for banks and recently: in May, 438-FZ came into force, which obliged the tax authorities to report the deregistration of citizens due to death. An interlocutor of Kommersant among bankers says that they used to receive this information from various sources, mainly from notaries conducting inheritance cases, but the terms “could reach up to several years.”

The beneficiary “in any case must act in good faith,” Mikhail Yasenkov clarifies, since delays in filing claims “affect the predictability and stability of civil transactions.” In the case with IC Helios, the presence of a court decision that had not been executed for several years “should have prompted the creditor to conduct an audit,” Mr. Yasenkov believes, including as part of the assignment of the right to claim. The courts also need to “investigate the reasons for such a long lack of information of the creditor,” adds Mr. Chaplin.

The decisions made do not mention such reasons, and if they are found to be disrespectful, then, according to lawyers, the claim against the insurer will be rejected. Theoretically, the creditor may try to recover damages from the bailiffs or from the heirs of the deceased, notes Ms. Tokareva, but “for such claims, the period has probably also expired.” Moreover, the heirs may not know about the debts of the deceased: they cannot request information themselves, this information is a banking secret, says Natalya Patseva, managing partner of FTL Advisers. According to Anna Kuznetsova, a lawyer at BVMP, heirs can contact a notary who is in charge of the inheritance case – he has the right to receive data from the credit bureau.

Anna Zanina, Ekaterina Volkova