A regress requirement is a legal norm that applies to the financial and insurance sectors of an economy. Most often, this concept is faced by lawyers involved in civil claims. According to the established rules, the organization that has indemnified for the damage may take advantage of the insurer's recourse claim and claim compensation from the perpetrator in the amount of the compensation paid. Such a rule is laid down in Art. 1081 GKRF and other regulatory acts. Often this right is used by insurance companies trying to minimize losses in this way.
What is a recourse requirement?
This concept is often found in claims aimed at reimbursing the costs of insurance companies, and such claims are addressed to the perpetrators of the accident. A similar norm first appeared in the banking and financial sectors. The bank filed a recourse against the person who issued the invalid bill for which the bank had already paid. An integral part of the recourse requirement is a direct lawsuit in court.
How recourse law works
A regression claim is an asset of the insurance company itself, which it is trying to realize. The amount of possible reimbursement in this case is limited by the amount of insurance payments. This norm is laid down in paragraph 1 of article 1081 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. In addition, the insurance company may require compensation for expenses that have arisen during the consideration of insurance cases or when considering a case in court. In the latter case, this clause must be included in the statement of claim.
CTP insurance requirements
The most common variant of the emergence of a regressive requirement is the presentation of claims under the insurance policy. With a higher degree of probability, the insurer may request a cash payment in the following cases:
- If the injured person’s health or life is caused by malicious intent. For example, a collision, if it was done on purpose, and this was proved in court, becomes an occasion in order to claim a cash payment from the guilty person.
- If the damage was caused due to a person acting under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Evidence of this fact can serve as acts of medical examination. The insurer's regressive claim cannot be satisfied if the fact of alcohol intoxication (or narcotic) has not been proven by medical personnel. Such acts are attached to the case and may serve as evidence from one side or another.
- If damage during an accident was caused by a person who at the given time did not have the right to drive a vehicle. This means that the recourse claims of the insurance company have a legally reliable base if the offender did not have a driver’s license or was deprived of him for previous traffic violations.
Other cases of recourse requirement
This compensation is most relevant in cases of malicious violation of the rules of conduct in the event of an accident. True, in order to take advantage of this paragraph of the law, the representative of the insurance company must prove that the culprit of the accident really disappeared from the scene. The administrative protocol, fixing the fact of committing such an offense, will not be sufficient evidence in court. The materials of the lawsuit must be accompanied by data on attracting the driver to administrative responsibility. The representative of the insurance company is obliged to present facts that convincingly prove that the driver intentionally left the scene of the accident.
Regress claim based on insurance contract
The auto insurance policy usually indicates the persons authorized to drive the insured vehicle. If damage was recorded, the culprit of which was a person who was not included in the compulsory motor liability insurance contract as a driver who was allowed to drive a car, then the insurance company has the right of recourse.
This type of claim will be very likely if there was a clause in the insurance contract limiting the number of persons authorized to drive the insured vehicle. Compulsory motor third party liability insurance contracts must be concluded taking into account this requirement. Restrictions on the use of the insured vehicle are as follows:
- the list of persons entitled to drive the insured car is indicated;
- the period in which the use of this vehicle within the insurance period is indicated;
If the insurance contains a clause on the circle of persons authorized to drive the vehicle, then the policy must indicate the names of the drivers allowed to drive this vehicle.
For citizens, the limited use of a car over a period of time means that the car can be used for a certain season. For example, for convertible cars, the limit of use is limited to the warm season, but it makes sense to insulate snowmobiles only for the winter period. Organizations and enterprises can also take advantage of “seasonal” insurance, applying the insurance period to irrigation, snowblowers in different seasons.
If in case of violation of these conditions an insured event occurs, the insurance company does not have the right to refuse payment, since these restrictions are not included in the list of items according to which payment may be refused. But, violating the terms of the insurance contract, the insured driver exposes himself to the risk of running into recourse claims of the insurance company.
Inspections and regression requirements
Our legislation does not agree on the dates of purchase of the insurance policy with the time of issue of technical inspection coupons. Meanwhile, in 2012, a provision came into force according to which the car owner is obliged to ensure timely passage of state inspection of a truck, taxi, truck, passenger bus and some other types of transport. If the validity period of the technical standards has expired at the time of the occurrence of the insured event, the insurance company has the right to file a claim, and the claim for compulsory liability insurance in this case will be satisfied.
Cases provoking recourse claims
In particular, the insurance company is entitled to claim compensation payment:
- if the fault of the car became the “culprit” of the occurrence of the insured event;
- if this malfunction has already been detected by the inspection operator, but the data on it has not been entered into the diagnostic card.
What to do if the insurer makes a recourse claim
In this situation, every car owner can find himself, therefore it will be useful to indicate an algorithm of actions in which claims of insurers can be reasonably challenged in court.
At the first stage, it is recommended to find out whether the insurance company really has the right to put forward recourse claims. This can be clarified by reading the previous paragraphs of this article.
There is no need to make concessions to insurers and immediately agree to indemnity for recourse claims. An accident or other incident that caused damage to property or health must be proved both from the point of view of the victim and from the point of view of the perpetrator of the tragedy. First of all, the basis for the claim should be the transfer of insurance compensation to the victim. If such a payment was refused, all claims of insurance for recourse can be safely rejected.
Please note that the insurer has the right of recourse only at the time of transfer of the insurance payment to the victim!
Amount of claim and statute of limitations
The defendant may appeal the claims of the insurance company if the amount of claims exceeds the insurance payments made. According to the law, the recourse amount must not exceed the actual amount of the insurance payment. You should also make sure that the statute of limitations has not yet expired - otherwise the insurer's recourse claims will be automatically rejected.
The beginning of the limitation period can be considered the moment when the insurer fulfills the obligation to pay insurance compensation. The culprit will not be able to object to the insurer's recourse claims if the deadline for filing claims has not yet expired.
And remember that only proven fault in a traffic accident gives the insurance company reason to hope for a positive court decision on recourse. If the actions of an individual led to the occurrence of an insured event, but for a number of reasons the person was not found guilty, all claims of the insurance company for recourse have no good reason.