Accident on the territory of the enterprise what to do

Accident on the territory of the enterprise what to do

Is this an insured event?
for what type of insurance?

if the damage was not caused by a machine from the same enterprise - yes, it is.

Sokol P.V. Compulsory civil liability insurance for vehicle owners. — “Business Yard”, 2012

An important novelty of the Law on Amendments to Compulsory Motor Liability Insurance of December 1, 2007 was the exclusion from the list of cases where the occurrence of civil liability of vehicle owners did not entail the insurer’s obligation to pay insurance compensation, the case of harm caused on the internal territory.
Previously in paragraphs.
"and" clause 2 of Art. 6 of the Law on Compulsory Motor Liability Insurance stated that damage caused when loading cargo onto a vehicle or unloading it, as well as when the vehicle moves through the internal territory of the organization is not covered by compulsory insurance. However, nowhere in the law was the concept of internal territory defined, which in practice led to a large number of disputes. It could be assumed that certain features of the internal territory included its fencing, the presence of a special access regime for entering the territory, peculiarities of movement within the territory, and a certain economic dominance over the specified territory on the part of the organization.
These signs could be present both in aggregate, and only a part of these signs could appear. In each specific case, the definition of internal territory was individual. The problem of the absence of the concept of internal territory was also paid attention to by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which, in the Review of Judicial Practice, when answering question 27: What features does the concept “internal territory of an organization” contain, noted that the internal territory of an organization is a land plot adjacent to the building of the organization, which belongs to her by right of ownership or on another legal basis.
Such a territory is intended for the movement of vehicles in order to support the activities of the organization, has a fence and is characterized by the presence of a limited regime for the access of vehicles to and from it (access regime). The insurer may additionally inquire whether the territory in which the traffic accident occurred meets the above criteria by requesting this information from this organization * (52). However, this did not exclude the facts of unfounded refusals on the part of insurers and ambiguity of legal qualifications in the courts, especially since the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation did not indicate its position on this matter.
Thus, in one of the disputes, the arbitration court refused to satisfy the victim’s demands to collect insurance compensation from the insurance company of the harm causer, because The accident occurred on the victim’s internal territory, which excludes the insurance company’s liability under insurance contracts. As the court noted, neither Art. 6 of the Law on Compulsory Motor Liability Insurance, nor the Rules on Compulsory Motor Liability Insurance did not stipulate that the internal territory of the organization belongs to the owner of the vehicle who carries out the insurance. Accordingly, this norm applies to all cases of causing harm on internal territory, regardless of the ownership of vehicles * (53). In another dispute, the court regarded the factory's entrance gate as the internal territory of the organization, despite the victim's arguments such as that there was a use of a vehicle; funds, since it is equipped with road signs that ensure road safety, the installation of which is agreed with the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate * (54).
Although the logic of the legislator was unclear in all these situations, namely: from the point of view of the essence of the event that occurred under compulsory civil liability insurance of the owner of a vehicle, how does causing harm to a victim on internal territory differ from causing harm not on internal territory?
Now, within the meaning of changes in the legislation on compulsory insurance, cases of harm on the internal territory of the organization that occurred after March 1, 2008, will fall under the cases covered by compulsory civil liability insurance of vehicle owners.

however, some “advanced” courts still continue to think in the old way:

Resolution of the Tenth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated February 24, 2014 N 10AP-13339/13

Moscow
February 24, 2014 Case No. A41-38246/13

The operative part of the resolution was announced on February 17, 2014.
The resolution was made in full on February 24, 2014.

The Tenth Arbitration Court of Appeal composed of:
presiding judge Korotkova E.N.,
with the minutes of the court session being kept by secretary Savanova V.V.
having considered, through summary proceedings, the appeal of Airport Moscow LLC against the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow Region dated November 20, 2013, adopted by Judge I.M.
Lokshina in summary proceedings in case No. A41-38246/13 on the claim of Sheremetyevo International Airport OJSC against Moscow Airport LLC for recovery of damages when participating in a meeting:
from the plaintiff: Cheglokova E.V., power of attorney No. 197 dated 16.04. 2013;
from the defendant: Vlasov S.E., power of attorney No. D-040/13 dated 09/05/2013
ESTABLISHED:
Sheremetyevo International Airport OJSC (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a claim with the Arbitration Court of the Moscow Region against Moscow Airport LLC ( hereinafter referred to as the defendant) for the recovery of damages in the amount of 34,500 rubles caused as a result of a collision with the right gate of Checkpoint-2 at the Sheremetyevo airfield.
By a court decision of November 20, 2013 in case No. A41-38246/13, the stated claims were satisfied.
Having disagreed with the adopted judicial act, the defendant filed an appeal to the court, in which he asked the court decision to be canceled and the claims to be refused.
At the court hearing, the defendant's representative supported the arguments set out in the appeal in full and asked to overturn the decision of the trial court.
The plaintiff's representative objected to the satisfaction of the appeal, asked the decision of the court of first instance to be left unchanged, and the appeal to be left unsatisfied.
Having considered the appeal, the case materials, heard explanations from representatives of the parties, examined and assessed the evidence presented, the appellate court considers that there are no grounds for canceling the court decision.
As can be seen from the case materials, on August 10, 2010, the driver of motor vehicles - the loader of the SPOG LLC "Airport Moscow" Kasyanov Yu.V., driving a road train consisting of a state-owned MTZ-82 tractor.
N 50 OK 1936 and four pallet roller carts with cargo, moved from the territory of the cargo terminal of Moscow Airport LLC in the direction of Checkpoint-2 of the Sheremetyevo airfield, and collided with the first pallet roller cart on the right gate of Checkpoint-2. The fact of a collision with the right gate of checkpoint-2 is confirmed by the report of the official investigation of the accident at the Sheremetyevo airfield dated 08/20/2010 and the explanatory note of Yu.V. Kasyanov.
As a result of the collision with the checkpoint-2 gate, the defendant's property was damaged in the form of damage to the right door, namely: a tear in the upper and lower corners on the right side of the door, abrasion and chipped paint on the right side of the door.
According to the act of provision of services 00000033 dated 10/04/2010, invoice No. 039 dated 10/04/2010, invoice N 00000040 dated 10/04/2010, the cost of restoration of damaged property amounted to 34,500 rubles.
and was paid by the plaintiff with payment order No. 4208 dated October 12, 2010. The defendant did not voluntarily compensate for the damage caused, and therefore, the plaintiff filed this claim in the arbitration court.
Damage resulting from the use of sources of increased danger (vehicles, etc.) is compensated on the basis of Articles 1064, 1079 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, according to which damage caused to the property of citizens is subject to compensation in full by the person who owns the source of increased danger. legal dangers.
In confirmation of expenses incurred to pay for restoration repairs in the amount of RUB 34,500.
The plaintiff presented in the case materials act N 00000033 dated 10/04/2010, invoice N 00000040 dated 10/04/2010, payment order N 4208 dated 10/12/2010. Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides for the possibility of a person whose right has been violated to demand full compensation for losses caused to him, unless the law or contract provides for compensation for losses in a smaller amount.
Losses are understood as expenses that a person whose right has been violated has made or will have to make to restore the violated right, loss or damage to his property (real damage), as well as lost income that this person would have received under normal conditions of civil circulation if his right was not violated (lost profits).
At the same time, the application of a measure of liability in the form of compensation for losses when carrying out business activities presupposes the need for a set of legal facts: the presence of losses on the plaintiff’s side, proof of the cause-and-effect relationship between the actions of the defendant and the consequences that occurred, as well as the amount of losses.
The fact that the defendant's vehicle caused damage to the plaintiff's property in the amount of 34,500 rubles, the plaintiff's repair of damaged property, and the incurrence of actual expenses in the amount of the cost of restoration repairs was reasonably considered by the arbitration court of first instance to be proven.
The defendant's reference to the need to present these requirements to the defendant's civil liability insurer was not rightfully accepted by the arbitration court of first instance.
Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Federal Law of April 25, 2002 N 40-FZ “On compulsory insurance of civil liability of vehicle owners” (hereinafter referred to as the Law on Compulsory Motor Liability Insurance) establishes that vehicle owners are obliged under the conditions and in the manner established by this Law and in accordance with it, insure the risk of its civil liability, which may occur as a result of causing harm to the life, health or property of other persons when using vehicles.
In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Law on Compulsory Motor Liability Insurance, the use of a vehicle is its operation associated with movement on roads (road traffic). According to paragraph 9 of clause 1.2.
Traffic Rules of the Russian Federation, approved by Resolution of the Council of Ministers - Government of the Russian Federation dated October 23, 1993 N 1090 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), road traffic is recognized as a set of social relations that arise in the process of moving people and goods with the help of vehicles or without them in within the roads. In this case, a road is recognized as a strip of land equipped or adapted and used for the movement of vehicles or the surface of an artificial structure.
The road includes one or more carriageways, as well as tram tracks, sidewalks, roadsides and dividing strips, if any (paragraph 8 of clause 1.2 of the Rules).
Taking into account the above, the arbitration court of the first instance came to the correct conclusion that the rules of the Law on Compulsory Motor Liability Insurance do not apply to the legal relations of the parties in the present case insofar as there are no public roads in the internal territories of the airfield, traffic movement is regulated by the Instructions for organizing the movement of special transport and mechanization on civilian airfields of the Russian Federation, approved by Order of the Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation dated July 13, 2006 N 82, causing harm in these territories cannot be qualified as the occurrence of an insured event under compulsory motor liability insurance.
In view of the above, and taking into account the obligation of the defendant, as the owner of a source of increased danger, arising from the content of Articles 15, 1064, 1079 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation to compensate the victim for the cost of the damage caused, the arbitration court comes to the conclusion that there are grounds to satisfy the claims in full.
The arguments of the appeal are similar to the arguments of the defendant's response presented in the trial court, and they were given due assessment in the decision of the trial court.
Under such circumstances, there are no grounds for canceling the judicial act.
Guided by Articles 266, 268, Part 1, Article 269, Article 271, 272.1 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the court
DECIDED:
The decision of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow Region dated November 20, 2013 in case No. A41-38246/13 is left unchanged, appeal - without satisfaction.

Accident on the territory of the enterprise

Road accidents on the territory of an enterprise do not happen very often, and there are many nuances when investigating these cases. Often additional measures are taken to quickly determine the causes of the accident. The territory of an enterprise is a land plot that an organization owns or leases. It may have access control and internal rules and regulations.

What to do in case of an accident on the territory of the enterprise?

An accident on the territory of an enterprise can have three scenarios:

• both cars are the property of the company;
• the company's car collided with an unauthorized vehicle;
• both cars are foreign.

In the first two cases, a special commission of the organization is created on whose territory the incident occurred. If the company’s vehicles were involved in the accident, the committee has the right to punish the person responsible for the accident. This could be deprivation of a bonus, a reprimand or dismissal under an article. If an organization's vehicle collides with an unauthorized vehicle, the punishment is limited to a fine or dismissal.

If the culprit of the accident is not an employee of the organization, then a special commission can only conduct an investigation and refer the case to court, where the driver will be sentenced. In the case of two unauthorized cars, the commission has the right to transfer the investigation to traffic police officers.

In the event of an accident on the territory of the enterprise, it is necessary to adhere to the following algorithm of actions:

• vehicles must be secured in the position they were in at the time of the accident. It is forbidden to change anything before the arrival of the traffic police;
• report the incident to the director of the enterprise;
• call the traffic police, detain eyewitnesses of the accident until they arrive;
• provide medical assistance to the wounded, if necessary, call an ambulance or fire brigade.

An accident on the territory of the enterprise is investigated with the utmost care and information is forwarded to the traffic police.

Who is responsible for conducting the investigation?

Responsibility for conducting the investigation lies with a special commission consisting of employees of the organization. The number of members of the service group and its chairman is usually chosen by the director of the company. It must include an employee who regulates traffic on the territory of the company; a traffic police officer and an independent expert can also be included in the commission.

This commission can be formed both at the stage of creating an enterprise and immediately after an accident.
Traffic police officers must assist in every possible way in the investigation of the incident.

What to do if the traffic police do not have access to the enterprise?

Some enterprises are strictly guarded, because their activities may be strictly classified or they may harm the health of citizens. In such cases, traffic police access to the territory of the enterprise is prohibited, but it is necessary:

• notify the head of the organization about the accident;
• report the incident to the road inspector, indicating that access to the enterprise territory is prohibited;
• take a photograph or video record the scene of the accident;
• create a special service group to analyze the causes of accidents;
• provide the results of the investigation to the State Traffic Inspectorate.

When the territory of the organization is closed to unauthorized persons, the proceedings are conducted only by authorized persons.

Documentary support of the accident

When registering an accident, a special commission draws up an incident card, which includes data such as:

• date, place and time of the accident;
• information about drivers and cars;
• information about victims;
• purpose of vehicle travel;
• whether the drivers were intoxicated or under the influence of drugs;
• harm caused.

At the end of the investigation, the commission is obliged to issue an act of investigation of an accident on the territory of the enterprise, which must indicate information about the members of the commission, information about the participants in the accident, conclusions, damaged property and the results of the investigation.

Photo and video recording of the incident is carried out, in which it is necessary to record the general plan of the accident, each car separately, damage to the cars, the condition of the road and the victims.

You can download the document form regarding an accident that occurred on the territory of the organization using the link .

Reimbursement

A special service group deals with issues of cost recovery, and:

• if the company's cars are damaged, the costs of repairs are borne by the person responsible for the accident;
• if the company’s car is damaged, and the culprit is a third party, then the organization that owns the damaged car can bear the costs;
• if both cars are foreign, then the person responsible for the accident is obliged to reimburse the expenses incurred by the parties.

An accident that occurs on the territory of a private organization must be investigated as soon as possible.

Time frame for the investigation

An official investigation into an accident on the territory of an organization should occur as quickly as possible. Time frame for conducting an investigation in case of an accident:

• without casualties or fatalities is 5 days;
• if there are wounded - no more than 14 days.

In certain cases, by order of management or a court decision, these periods may be extended.

An accident on the territory of an enterprise is a special case that requires a serious investigation by a special commission. In this case, you should provide first aid to the victims and do not forget to notify the traffic police about the incident.

An accident on the premises of an enterprise is an insured event.

Registration of accidents on the territory of the enterprise

In addition, the operation of a vehicle when driving in adjacent areas, such as in courtyards, residential areas, parking lots, gas stations, also applies to the use of the vehicle”[1]. Checking a car for insured events However, as follows from the certificate provided by the Dandelion COOP, the specified organization has not been re-registered since 1966, according to certificates from the Federal Tax Service for the city **** and the Inspectorate for the **** district, this organization is not registered in the database regional level data. Constituent documents for the organization were not received from the registration authorities.

What to do in case of an accident on the territory of the enterprise?

An accident on the territory of an enterprise can have three scenarios:

• both cars are the property of the company;
• the company's car collided with an unauthorized vehicle;
• both cars are foreign.

In the first two cases, a special commission of the organization is created on whose territory the incident occurred. If the company’s vehicles were involved in the accident, the committee has the right to punish the person responsible for the accident. This could be deprivation of a bonus, a reprimand or dismissal under an article. If an organization's vehicle collides with an unauthorized vehicle, the punishment is limited to a fine or dismissal.

If the culprit of the accident is not an employee of the organization, then a special commission can only conduct an investigation and refer the case to court, where the driver will be sentenced. In the case of two unauthorized cars, the commission has the right to transfer the investigation to traffic police officers.

In the event of an accident on the territory of the enterprise, it is necessary to adhere to the following algorithm of actions:

• vehicles must be secured in the position they were in at the time of the accident. It is forbidden to change anything before the arrival of the traffic police;
• report the incident to the director of the enterprise;
• call the traffic police, detain eyewitnesses of the accident until they arrive;
• provide medical assistance to the wounded, if necessary, call an ambulance or fire brigade.

An accident on the territory of the enterprise is investigated with the utmost care and information is forwarded to the traffic police.

A car owner finds himself in a difficult situation if he finds his car in the parking lot with a dented bumper or a dent on the side, if the driver who caused this damage fled the scene without leaving coordinates. What should the injured motorist do in this case? Is it really possible to pay for repairs out of your own pocket?

Automotive lawyers argue that there is no need to rush to give away your money. The widespread use of modern technical means that is relevant today makes it possible to quite successfully find those drivers who did not want to show civic consciousness.

If the culprit of an accident in a parking lot has disappeared, the injured motorist should act as standard:

1. Call the traffic police, since all accidents that occur on the road and adjacent areas are dealt with by employees of this particular department.
2. Do not move or move the damaged vehicle until the police arrive.
3. If necessary, turn on the hazard warning lights and display a warning triangle.
4. Do not pick up or touch parts of the car that have fallen off as a result of an accident or scattered glass.
5. Find witnesses to the incident, who may be dog walkers walking in the yard, a parking lot watchman, or owners of cars parked nearby, and write down their contact information.
6. Report the incident to the insurance company.
7. Take photos of the damage to your car.

The correctness of the victim’s actions will deprive the insurer of the opportunity to evade the insurance payment. He is obliged to pay for the damage in any case if the victim in the accident provides evidence of the guilt of the other driver. The insurer has the right to recover its own losses from the culprit of the incident, but after his identity has been established by law enforcement agencies.

Time frame for the investigation

Responsibility for conducting the investigation lies with a special commission consisting of employees of the organization. The number of members of the service group and its chairman is usually chosen by the director of the company. It must include an employee who regulates traffic on the territory of the company; a traffic police officer and an independent expert can also be included in the commission.

This commission can be formed both at the stage of creating an enterprise and immediately after an accident. Traffic police officers must assist in every possible way in the investigation of the incident.

An official investigation into an accident on the territory of an organization should occur as quickly as possible. Time frame for conducting an investigation in case of an accident:

• without casualties or fatalities is 5 days;
• if there are wounded - no more than 14 days.

In certain cases, by order of management or a court decision, these periods may be extended.

An accident on the territory of an enterprise is a special case that requires a serious investigation by a special commission. In this case, you should provide first aid to the victims and do not forget to notify the traffic police about the incident.

Is an insured event an accident on the territory of the enterprise?

and an explanatory note by Kasyanov Yu.V. As a result of the collision with the checkpoint-2 gate, the defendant’s property was damaged in the form of damage to the right door, namely: a tear in the upper and lower corners on the right side of the door, abrasion and chipped paint on the right side of the door. According to the act of provision of services 00000033 dated 10/04/2010, invoice No. 039 dated 10/04/2010, invoice N 00000040 dated 10/04/2010.

What to do if the traffic police do not have access to the enterprise?

Some enterprises are strictly guarded, because their activities may be strictly classified or they may harm the health of citizens. In such cases, traffic police access to the territory of the enterprise is prohibited, but it is necessary:

• notify the head of the organization about the accident;
• report the incident to the road inspector, indicating that access to the enterprise territory is prohibited;
• take a photograph or video record the scene of the accident;
• create a special service group to analyze the causes of accidents;
• provide the results of the investigation to the State Traffic Inspectorate.

When the territory of the organization is closed to unauthorized persons, the proceedings are conducted only by authorized persons.

Accident on the internal territory of the enterprise. what is the best way to proceed?

In accordance with sub. “k” clause 9 of the OSAGO Rules, as well as sub. "and" clause 2 of Art. 6 of the Law on Compulsory Motor Liability Insurance does not apply to insured events involving the occurrence of civil liability of vehicle owners due to damage caused when the vehicle is moving on the internal territory of the organization. This is called an exclusion from insurance coverage. To date, there is no legal definition of the concept of “internal territory of an organization.”

N 4208 of October 12, 2010. The defendant did not voluntarily compensate for the damage caused, and therefore the plaintiff filed this claim in the arbitration court. Damage resulting from the use of sources of increased danger (vehicles, etc.) is compensated on the basis of Articles 1064, 1079 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, according to which damage caused to the property of citizens is subject to compensation in full by the person who legally owns the source of increased danger. In confirmation of the costs incurred to pay for restoration repairs in the amount of 34,500 rubles.

Documentary support of the accident

When registering an accident, a special commission draws up an incident card, which includes data such as:

• date, place and time of the accident;
• information about drivers and cars;
• information about victims;
• purpose of vehicle travel;
• whether the drivers were intoxicated or under the influence of drugs;
• harm caused.

At the end of the investigation, the commission is obliged to issue an act of investigation of an accident on the territory of the enterprise, which must indicate information about the members of the commission, information about the participants in the accident, conclusions, damaged property and the results of the investigation.

Photo and video recording of the incident is carried out, in which it is necessary to record the general plan of the accident, each car separately, damage to the cars, the condition of the road and the victims.

You can download the document form regarding an accident that occurred on the territory of the organization using the link.

Payments under compulsory insurance

At the same time, the application of a measure of liability in the form of compensation for losses when carrying out business activities presupposes the need for a set of legal facts: the presence of losses on the plaintiff’s side, proof of the cause-and-effect relationship between the actions of the defendant and the consequences that occurred, as well as the amount of losses.

The fact that the defendant's vehicle caused damage to the plaintiff's property in the amount of 34,500 rubles, the plaintiff's repair of damaged property, and the incurrence of actual expenses in the amount of the cost of restoration repairs was reasonably considered by the arbitration court of first instance to be proven. The defendant's reference to the need to present these requirements to the defendant's civil liability insurer was not lawfully accepted by the arbitration court of first instance. Clause 1 of Article 4 of the Federal Law of April 25, 2002

• Categories
• Insurance
• Is it an insured event under compulsory motor liability insurance if I, while driving up to a loading facility, damaged a gate with a car and am required to pay for the repair of the gate? MTPL, payments under MTPL, compensation for damage under MTPL, repairs under MTPL, insured event under MTPL, is it an insured event Collapse Victoria Dymova Support employee Pravoved.ru Try looking here:

• How and to which court to file a claim for improper payment of compulsory motor liability insurance?
• Where to apply to receive MTPL insurance benefits?

You can get an answer faster if you call the toll-free hotline for Moscow and the Moscow region: 8 499 705-84-25 Free lawyers on the line: 6 Answers from lawyers (3)

• All legal services in Moscow Assistance in case of refusal of insurance payment Moscow from 15,000 rubles.

Reimbursement

A special service group deals with issues of cost recovery, and:

• if the company's cars are damaged, the costs of repairs are borne by the person responsible for the accident;
• if the company’s car is damaged, and the culprit is a third party, then the organization that owns the damaged car can bear the costs;
• if both cars are foreign, then the person responsible for the accident is obliged to reimburse the expenses incurred by the parties.

An accident that occurs on the territory of a private organization must be investigated as soon as possible.

Loss of marketable value (hereinafter referred to as LCV) can be characterized as a premature deterioration in the marketable (external) appearance of a motor vehicle caused by a decrease in the strength and durability of individual parts, assemblies and assemblies, connections and protective coatings due to repair work, the use of used or repaired spare parts.

Accident on the territory of the enterprise what to do

Is this an insured event?
for what type of insurance?

if the damage was not caused by a machine from the same enterprise - yes, it is.

Sokol P.V. Compulsory civil liability insurance for vehicle owners. — “Business Yard”, 2012

An important novelty of the Law on Amendments to Compulsory Motor Liability Insurance of December 1, 2007 was the exclusion from the list of cases where the occurrence of civil liability of vehicle owners did not entail the insurer’s obligation to pay insurance compensation, the case of harm caused on the internal territory.
Previously in paragraphs.
"and" clause 2 of Art. 6 of the Law on Compulsory Motor Liability Insurance stated that damage caused when loading cargo onto a vehicle or unloading it, as well as when the vehicle moves through the internal territory of the organization is not covered by compulsory insurance. However, nowhere in the law was the concept of internal territory defined, which in practice led to a large number of disputes. It could be assumed that certain features of the internal territory included its fencing, the presence of a special access regime for entering the territory, peculiarities of movement within the territory, and a certain economic dominance over the specified territory on the part of the organization.
These signs could be present both in aggregate, and only a part of these signs could appear. In each specific case, the definition of internal territory was individual. The problem of the absence of the concept of internal territory was also paid attention to by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, which, in the Review of Judicial Practice, when answering question 27: What features does the concept “internal territory of an organization” contain, noted that the internal territory of an organization is a land plot adjacent to the building of the organization, which belongs to her by right of ownership or on another legal basis.
Such a territory is intended for the movement of vehicles in order to support the activities of the organization, has a fence and is characterized by the presence of a limited regime for the access of vehicles to and from it (access regime). The insurer may additionally inquire whether the territory in which the traffic accident occurred meets the above criteria by requesting this information from this organization * (52). However, this did not exclude the facts of unfounded refusals on the part of insurers and ambiguity of legal qualifications in the courts, especially since the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation did not indicate its position on this matter.
Thus, in one of the disputes, the arbitration court refused to satisfy the victim’s demands to collect insurance compensation from the insurance company of the harm causer, because The accident occurred on the victim’s internal territory, which excludes the insurance company’s liability under insurance contracts. As the court noted, neither Art. 6 of the Law on Compulsory Motor Liability Insurance, nor the Rules on Compulsory Motor Liability Insurance did not stipulate that the internal territory of the organization belongs to the owner of the vehicle who carries out the insurance. Accordingly, this norm applies to all cases of causing harm on internal territory, regardless of the ownership of vehicles * (53). In another dispute, the court regarded the factory's entrance gate as the internal territory of the organization, despite the victim's arguments such as that there was a use of a vehicle; funds, since it is equipped with road signs that ensure road safety, the installation of which is agreed with the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate * (54).
Although the logic of the legislator was unclear in all these situations, namely: from the point of view of the essence of the event that occurred under compulsory civil liability insurance of the owner of a vehicle, how does causing harm to a victim on internal territory differ from causing harm not on internal territory?
Now, within the meaning of changes in the legislation on compulsory insurance, cases of harm on the internal territory of the organization that occurred after March 1, 2008, will fall under the cases covered by compulsory civil liability insurance of vehicle owners.

however, some “advanced” courts still continue to think in the old way:

Resolution of the Tenth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated February 24, 2014 N 10AP-13339/13

Moscow
February 24, 2014 Case No. A41-38246/13

The operative part of the resolution was announced on February 17, 2014.
The resolution was made in full on February 24, 2014.

The Tenth Arbitration Court of Appeal composed of:
presiding judge Korotkova E.N.,
with the minutes of the court session being kept by secretary Savanova V.V.
having considered, through summary proceedings, the appeal of Airport Moscow LLC against the decision of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow Region dated November 20, 2013, adopted by Judge I.M.
Lokshina in summary proceedings in case No. A41-38246/13 on the claim of Sheremetyevo International Airport OJSC against Moscow Airport LLC for recovery of damages when participating in a meeting:
from the plaintiff: Cheglokova E.V., power of attorney No. 197 dated 16.04. 2013;
from the defendant: Vlasov S.E., power of attorney No. D-040/13 dated 09/05/2013
ESTABLISHED:
Sheremetyevo International Airport OJSC (hereinafter referred to as the plaintiff) filed a claim with the Arbitration Court of the Moscow Region against Moscow Airport LLC ( hereinafter referred to as the defendant) for the recovery of damages in the amount of 34,500 rubles caused as a result of a collision with the right gate of Checkpoint-2 at the Sheremetyevo airfield.
By a court decision of November 20, 2013 in case No. A41-38246/13, the stated claims were satisfied.
Having disagreed with the adopted judicial act, the defendant filed an appeal to the court, in which he asked the court decision to be canceled and the claims to be refused.
At the court hearing, the defendant's representative supported the arguments set out in the appeal in full and asked to overturn the decision of the trial court.
The plaintiff's representative objected to the satisfaction of the appeal, asked the decision of the court of first instance to be left unchanged, and the appeal to be left unsatisfied.
Having considered the appeal, the case materials, heard explanations from representatives of the parties, examined and assessed the evidence presented, the appellate court considers that there are no grounds for canceling the court decision.
As can be seen from the case materials, on August 10, 2010, the driver of motor vehicles - the loader of the SPOG LLC "Airport Moscow" Kasyanov Yu.V., driving a road train consisting of a state-owned MTZ-82 tractor.
N 50 OK 1936 and four pallet roller carts with cargo, moved from the territory of the cargo terminal of Moscow Airport LLC in the direction of Checkpoint-2 of the Sheremetyevo airfield, and collided with the first pallet roller cart on the right gate of Checkpoint-2. The fact of a collision with the right gate of checkpoint-2 is confirmed by the report of the official investigation of the accident at the Sheremetyevo airfield dated 08/20/2010 and the explanatory note of Yu.V. Kasyanov.
As a result of the collision with the checkpoint-2 gate, the defendant's property was damaged in the form of damage to the right door, namely: a tear in the upper and lower corners on the right side of the door, abrasion and chipped paint on the right side of the door.
According to the act of provision of services 00000033 dated 10/04/2010, invoice No. 039 dated 10/04/2010, invoice N 00000040 dated 10/04/2010, the cost of restoration of damaged property amounted to 34,500 rubles.
and was paid by the plaintiff with payment order No. 4208 dated October 12, 2010. The defendant did not voluntarily compensate for the damage caused, and therefore, the plaintiff filed this claim in the arbitration court.
Damage resulting from the use of sources of increased danger (vehicles, etc.) is compensated on the basis of Articles 1064, 1079 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, according to which damage caused to the property of citizens is subject to compensation in full by the person who owns the source of increased danger. legal dangers.
In confirmation of expenses incurred to pay for restoration repairs in the amount of RUB 34,500.
The plaintiff presented in the case materials act N 00000033 dated 10/04/2010, invoice N 00000040 dated 10/04/2010, payment order N 4208 dated 10/12/2010. Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation provides for the possibility of a person whose right has been violated to demand full compensation for losses caused to him, unless the law or contract provides for compensation for losses in a smaller amount.
Losses are understood as expenses that a person whose right has been violated has made or will have to make to restore the violated right, loss or damage to his property (real damage), as well as lost income that this person would have received under normal conditions of civil circulation if his right was not violated (lost profits).
At the same time, the application of a measure of liability in the form of compensation for losses when carrying out business activities presupposes the need for a set of legal facts: the presence of losses on the plaintiff’s side, proof of the cause-and-effect relationship between the actions of the defendant and the consequences that occurred, as well as the amount of losses.
The fact that the defendant's vehicle caused damage to the plaintiff's property in the amount of 34,500 rubles, the plaintiff's repair of damaged property, and the incurrence of actual expenses in the amount of the cost of restoration repairs was reasonably considered by the arbitration court of first instance to be proven.
The defendant's reference to the need to present these requirements to the defendant's civil liability insurer was not rightfully accepted by the arbitration court of first instance.
Paragraph 1 of Article 4 of the Federal Law of April 25, 2002 N 40-FZ “On compulsory insurance of civil liability of vehicle owners” (hereinafter referred to as the Law on Compulsory Motor Liability Insurance) establishes that vehicle owners are obliged under the conditions and in the manner established by this Law and in accordance with it, insure the risk of its civil liability, which may occur as a result of causing harm to the life, health or property of other persons when using vehicles.
In accordance with paragraph 3 of Article 1 of the Law on Compulsory Motor Liability Insurance, the use of a vehicle is its operation associated with movement on roads (road traffic). According to paragraph 9 of clause 1.2.
Traffic Rules of the Russian Federation, approved by Resolution of the Council of Ministers - Government of the Russian Federation dated October 23, 1993 N 1090 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), road traffic is recognized as a set of social relations that arise in the process of moving people and goods with the help of vehicles or without them in within the roads. In this case, a road is recognized as a strip of land equipped or adapted and used for the movement of vehicles or the surface of an artificial structure.
The road includes one or more carriageways, as well as tram tracks, sidewalks, roadsides and dividing strips, if any (paragraph 8 of clause 1.2 of the Rules).
Taking into account the above, the arbitration court of the first instance came to the correct conclusion that the rules of the Law on Compulsory Motor Liability Insurance do not apply to the legal relations of the parties in the present case insofar as there are no public roads in the internal territories of the airfield, traffic movement is regulated by the Instructions for organizing the movement of special transport and mechanization on civilian airfields of the Russian Federation, approved by Order of the Ministry of Transport of the Russian Federation dated July 13, 2006 N 82, causing harm in these territories cannot be qualified as the occurrence of an insured event under compulsory motor liability insurance.
In view of the above, and taking into account the obligation of the defendant, as the owner of a source of increased danger, arising from the content of Articles 15, 1064, 1079 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation to compensate the victim for the cost of the damage caused, the arbitration court comes to the conclusion that there are grounds to satisfy the claims in full.
The arguments of the appeal are similar to the arguments of the defendant's response presented in the trial court, and they were given due assessment in the decision of the trial court.
Under such circumstances, there are no grounds for canceling the judicial act.
Guided by Articles 266, 268, Part 1, Article 269, Article 271, 272.1 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, the court
DECIDED:
The decision of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow Region dated November 20, 2013 in case No. A41-38246/13 is left unchanged, appeal - without satisfaction.

An accident on the premises of an enterprise is an insured event.

Registration of accidents on the territory of the enterprise

In addition, the operation of a vehicle when driving in adjacent areas, such as in courtyards, residential areas, parking lots, gas stations, also applies to the use of the vehicle”[1]. Checking a car for insured events However, as follows from the certificate provided by the Dandelion COOP, the specified organization has not been re-registered since 1966, according to certificates from the Federal Tax Service for the city **** and the Inspectorate for the **** district, this organization is not registered in the database regional level data. Constituent documents for the organization were not received from the registration authorities.

What to do in case of an accident on the territory of the enterprise?

An accident on the territory of an enterprise can have three scenarios:

• both cars are the property of the company;
• the company's car collided with an unauthorized vehicle;
• both cars are foreign.

In the first two cases, a special commission of the organization is created on whose territory the incident occurred. If the company’s vehicles were involved in the accident, the committee has the right to punish the person responsible for the accident. This could be deprivation of a bonus, a reprimand or dismissal under an article. If an organization's vehicle collides with an unauthorized vehicle, the punishment is limited to a fine or dismissal.

If the culprit of the accident is not an employee of the organization, then a special commission can only conduct an investigation and refer the case to court, where the driver will be sentenced. In the case of two unauthorized cars, the commission has the right to transfer the investigation to traffic police officers.

In the event of an accident on the territory of the enterprise, it is necessary to adhere to the following algorithm of actions:

• vehicles must be secured in the position they were in at the time of the accident. It is forbidden to change anything before the arrival of the traffic police;
• report the incident to the director of the enterprise;
• call the traffic police, detain eyewitnesses of the accident until they arrive;
• provide medical assistance to the wounded, if necessary, call an ambulance or fire brigade.

An accident on the territory of the enterprise is investigated with the utmost care and information is forwarded to the traffic police.

A car owner finds himself in a difficult situation if he finds his car in the parking lot with a dented bumper or a dent on the side, if the driver who caused this damage fled the scene without leaving coordinates. What should the injured motorist do in this case? Is it really possible to pay for repairs out of your own pocket?

Automotive lawyers argue that there is no need to rush to give away your money. The widespread use of modern technical means that is relevant today makes it possible to quite successfully find those drivers who did not want to show civic consciousness.

If the culprit of an accident in a parking lot has disappeared, the injured motorist should act as standard:

1. Call the traffic police, since all accidents that occur on the road and adjacent areas are dealt with by employees of this particular department.
2. Do not move or move the damaged vehicle until the police arrive.
3. If necessary, turn on the hazard warning lights and display a warning triangle.
4. Do not pick up or touch parts of the car that have fallen off as a result of an accident or scattered glass.
5. Find witnesses to the incident, who may be dog walkers walking in the yard, a parking lot watchman, or owners of cars parked nearby, and write down their contact information.
6. Report the incident to the insurance company.
7. Take photos of the damage to your car.

The correctness of the victim’s actions will deprive the insurer of the opportunity to evade the insurance payment. He is obliged to pay for the damage in any case if the victim in the accident provides evidence of the guilt of the other driver. The insurer has the right to recover its own losses from the culprit of the incident, but after his identity has been established by law enforcement agencies.

Time frame for the investigation

Responsibility for conducting the investigation lies with a special commission consisting of employees of the organization. The number of members of the service group and its chairman is usually chosen by the director of the company. It must include an employee who regulates traffic on the territory of the company; a traffic police officer and an independent expert can also be included in the commission.

This commission can be formed both at the stage of creating an enterprise and immediately after an accident. Traffic police officers must assist in every possible way in the investigation of the incident.

An official investigation into an accident on the territory of an organization should occur as quickly as possible. Time frame for conducting an investigation in case of an accident:

• without casualties or fatalities is 5 days;
• if there are wounded - no more than 14 days.

In certain cases, by order of management or a court decision, these periods may be extended.

An accident on the territory of an enterprise is a special case that requires a serious investigation by a special commission. In this case, you should provide first aid to the victims and do not forget to notify the traffic police about the incident.

Is an insured event an accident on the territory of the enterprise?

and an explanatory note by Kasyanov Yu.V. As a result of the collision with the checkpoint-2 gate, the defendant’s property was damaged in the form of damage to the right door, namely: a tear in the upper and lower corners on the right side of the door, abrasion and chipped paint on the right side of the door. According to the act of provision of services 00000033 dated 10/04/2010, invoice No. 039 dated 10/04/2010, invoice N 00000040 dated 10/04/2010.

What to do if the traffic police do not have access to the enterprise?

Some enterprises are strictly guarded, because their activities may be strictly classified or they may harm the health of citizens. In such cases, traffic police access to the territory of the enterprise is prohibited, but it is necessary:

• notify the head of the organization about the accident;
• report the incident to the road inspector, indicating that access to the enterprise territory is prohibited;
• take a photograph or video record the scene of the accident;
• create a special service group to analyze the causes of accidents;
• provide the results of the investigation to the State Traffic Inspectorate.

When the territory of the organization is closed to unauthorized persons, the proceedings are conducted only by authorized persons.

Accident on the internal territory of the enterprise. what is the best way to proceed?

In accordance with sub. “k” clause 9 of the OSAGO Rules, as well as sub. "and" clause 2 of Art. 6 of the Law on Compulsory Motor Liability Insurance does not apply to insured events involving the occurrence of civil liability of vehicle owners due to damage caused when the vehicle is moving on the internal territory of the organization. This is called an exclusion from insurance coverage. To date, there is no legal definition of the concept of “internal territory of an organization.”

N 4208 of October 12, 2010. The defendant did not voluntarily compensate for the damage caused, and therefore the plaintiff filed this claim in the arbitration court. Damage resulting from the use of sources of increased danger (vehicles, etc.) is compensated on the basis of Articles 1064, 1079 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, according to which damage caused to the property of citizens is subject to compensation in full by the person who legally owns the source of increased danger. In confirmation of the costs incurred to pay for restoration repairs in the amount of 34,500 rubles.

Documentary support of the accident

When registering an accident, a special commission draws up an incident card, which includes data such as:

• date, place and time of the accident;
• information about drivers and cars;
• information about victims;
• purpose of vehicle travel;
• whether the drivers were intoxicated or under the influence of drugs;
• harm caused.

At the end of the investigation, the commission is obliged to issue an act of investigation of an accident on the territory of the enterprise, which must indicate information about the members of the commission, information about the participants in the accident, conclusions, damaged property and the results of the investigation.

Photo and video recording of the incident is carried out, in which it is necessary to record the general plan of the accident, each car separately, damage to the cars, the condition of the road and the victims.

You can download the document form regarding an accident that occurred on the territory of the organization using the link.

Payments under compulsory insurance

At the same time, the application of a measure of liability in the form of compensation for losses when carrying out business activities presupposes the need for a set of legal facts: the presence of losses on the plaintiff’s side, proof of the cause-and-effect relationship between the actions of the defendant and the consequences that occurred, as well as the amount of losses.

The fact that the defendant's vehicle caused damage to the plaintiff's property in the amount of 34,500 rubles, the plaintiff's repair of damaged property, and the incurrence of actual expenses in the amount of the cost of restoration repairs was reasonably considered by the arbitration court of first instance to be proven. The defendant's reference to the need to present these requirements to the defendant's civil liability insurer was not lawfully accepted by the arbitration court of first instance. Clause 1 of Article 4 of the Federal Law of April 25, 2002

• Categories
• Insurance
• Is it an insured event under compulsory motor liability insurance if I, while driving up to a loading facility, damaged a gate with a car and am required to pay for the repair of the gate? MTPL, payments under MTPL, compensation for damage under MTPL, repairs under MTPL, insured event under MTPL, is it an insured event Collapse Victoria Dymova Support employee Pravoved.ru Try looking here:

• How and to which court to file a claim for improper payment of compulsory motor liability insurance?
• Where to apply to receive MTPL insurance benefits?

You can get an answer faster if you call the toll-free hotline for Moscow and the Moscow region: 8 499 705-84-25 Free lawyers on the line: 6 Answers from lawyers (3)

• All legal services in Moscow Assistance in case of refusal of insurance payment Moscow from 15,000 rubles.

Reimbursement

A special service group deals with issues of cost recovery, and:

• if the company's cars are damaged, the costs of repairs are borne by the person responsible for the accident;
• if the company’s car is damaged, and the culprit is a third party, then the organization that owns the damaged car can bear the costs;
• if both cars are foreign, then the person responsible for the accident is obliged to reimburse the expenses incurred by the parties.

An accident that occurs on the territory of a private organization must be investigated as soon as possible.

Loss of marketable value (hereinafter referred to as LCV) can be characterized as a premature deterioration in the marketable (external) appearance of a motor vehicle caused by a decrease in the strength and durability of individual parts, assemblies and assemblies, connections and protective coatings due to repair work, the use of used or repaired spare parts.