Valid balances under compulsory motor liability insurance judicial practice

Question: As a result of an accident, my car was significantly damaged and therefore had to be scrapped. I contacted the insurance company that insured the risk of liability of the person responsible for the accident, and submitted all the necessary documents. As a result, they told me that they would make the insurance payment minus the remaining balance. Does the insurance company have the right to take into account these usable balances, what should I do with these balances, can I leave them with the insurer, since I don’t need them?

Answer: If there are any usable remains of your vehicle, you can transfer them to the insurance company. Or you can not transfer it (keep it for yourself), then the amount of insurance compensation will be less by the cost of the usable balances. You decide. The legislation does not provide the opportunity for the insurer to return “usable remains” to the victim in an accident and at the same time deduct the cost of these “usable remains” from the insurance payment against the will of the victim himself.

Rules of law

In accordance with. Clause 18 of Article 12 of the law on compulsory motor liability insurance, the amount of losses to be compensated by the insurer in case of damage to the property of the victim is determined:

a) in the event of complete loss of the victim’s property - in the amount of the actual value of the property on the day of the insured event minus the cost of usable remains . Total loss refers to cases in which repair of damaged property is impossible or the cost of repairing damaged property is equal to the value of the property on the date of the insured event or exceeds the specified value;

In accordance with clause 5 of Article 10 of the Law “On the Organization of Insurance Business in the Russian Federation”, in the event of loss or destruction of the insured property, the policyholder, the beneficiary has the right to waive his rights to it in favor of the insurer in order to receive insurance payment (insurance compensation) from him in the amount of the full sum insured.

Explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in 2017:

Paragraph 54 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated December 26, 2017 N 58 “On the application by courts of the legislation on compulsory civil liability insurance of vehicle owners” contains the following explanation:

The issue of returning to the victim the components to be replaced (parts, assemblies and assemblies) is a circumstance that is essential for the correct consideration and resolution of the dispute between the victim and the insurance company regarding compensation for harm in the form of organizing and paying for the restoration of a damaged vehicle at a service station, in connection with which the court is obliged to bring this circumstance up for discussion between the parties (Article 56 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and Article 65 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).

In the event that components (parts, assemblies and assemblies) to be replaced are returned to the victim, the amount of the insurance payment is reduced by their cost.

If the victim refuses to receive components (parts, assemblies and assemblies) that need to be replaced, the court does not have the right to impose on the insurer the obligation to return them to the victim.

Explanations of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation in the invalidated resolution of 2015

In pp. 33, 36 of the now invalid Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated January 29, 2015 No. 2 “On the application by courts of the legislation on compulsory insurance of civil liability of vehicle owners” contained a similar explanation:

The return of usable remains entails a reduction in the insurance payment by the amount of their value, but is possible only with the consent of the victim:

In accordance with subparagraph “a” of paragraph 18 and paragraph 19 of Article 12 of the Law on Compulsory Motor Liability Insurance, the amount of losses to be compensated by the insurer in the event of complete loss of the victim’s property is determined by its actual value on the day of the insured event minus the value of serviceable remains, taking into account their wear and tear.

The issue of returning to the victim the components to be replaced (parts, assemblies and assemblies) is essential for the correct consideration and resolution of the dispute between the victim and the insurance organization regarding compensation for damage in the form of organizing and paying for the restoration repair of a damaged vehicle at a service station, in connection with than the court is obliged to bring this issue up for discussion between the parties (Article 56 of the Civil Procedure Code of the Russian Federation and Article 65 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation).

In the event that components (parts, assemblies and assemblies) to be replaced are returned to the victim, the amount of the insurance payment is reduced by their cost.

Examples from judicial practice:

If any usable remains remain with the victim

". The appellate court found that the “usable remains” of the damaged car remained with the plaintiff, but were not used by him to restore the vehicle. The plaintiff's car was deregistered due to disposal, which is confirmed by the vehicle registration card. Thus, the plaintiff lost the said vehicle and incurred expenses.

Meanwhile, the court did not take into account that, by virtue of Part 5 of Article 10 of the Federal Law “On the Organization of Insurance Business in the Russian Federation”, in the event of loss or destruction of the insured property, the insured, the beneficiary has the right to waive his rights to it in favor of the insurer in order to receive insurance payment from him (insurance compensation) in the amount of the full insured amount.

There is no evidence that the plaintiff expressed his will to abandon the usable remains of the vehicle and transferred these remains to the defendant.

According to Article 15 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, a person whose rights have been violated may demand full compensation for the losses caused to him.
Moreover, according to this rule, losses (real damage) 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.

Since, by virtue of the law, the insurer compensates for actual damage, accordingly, if there are usable remains of the lost property, the insurer pays an insurance payment without taking into account the value of the remains of the car.

As the court established, the “usable remains” of the car remained at the disposal of the plaintiff, therefore, the court’s conclusion that the plaintiff lost property and incurred expenses in the amount of 13,020 rubles is not lawful. To properly resolve this dispute, the court had to find out from the plaintiff whether there are liquid balances available, whether he agrees to transfer them to the insurance company and, depending on what is established, resolve the dispute "(Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Karelia dated October 20, 2010 in case No. 44g-54 -2010).

The amount of insurance compensation recovered from the harm causer = pre-accident market value – cost of usable remains – insurance compensation

E. filed a claim in court against the person causing harm in the road accident for compensation for damages.

The defendant's civil liability was insured (OSAGO), the insurer paid the plaintiff an insurance indemnity in the amount of 118,650 rubles (insurance indemnity limit of 120,000 rubles minus the costs of conducting an assessment in the direction of the insurer in the amount of 1,350 rubles).

The plaintiff did not agree with the decision of the court of first instance, indicating in the complaint that the amount of damage should be the difference between the pre-accident market value of the car, the value of the usable remains of the car and the insurance compensation paid under compulsory motor liability insurance. The court, at the same time, when determining the amount of damage to be compensated, erroneously deducted the cost of usable remains from the cost of restoration repairs, and not from the pre-accident value of the car.

Changing the court's decision, the regional court stated the following.

The court incorrectly determined the amount to be recovered.

According to the conclusion of the forensic expert, the plaintiff’s damaged car cannot be repaired from an economic point of view, while its pre-accident market value was 757,000 rubles, and the value of the usable remains was 252,000 rubles. The market cost of restoration repairs, recognized by the expert as inappropriate, taking into account the wear and tear of the car at the date of the accident, could amount to 676,348 rubles.

Taking into account the above, the total amount of restoration repairs subject to compensation to the plaintiff is 386,350 rubles (757,000 - 252,000 - 118,650), and not 304,348 rubles, and therefore the appealed decision in this part is subject to change (from the determination of the Leningrad Regional Court dated September 10, 2014 N 33-4590/2014)

I kept the good leftovers and reduced the amount of insurance compensation.

..As follows from the presented materials and taken into account by the courts, the “usable remains” (i.e. parts, components or assemblies suitable for further use) of the damaged car remained with the plaintiff and were used by him to restore the vehicle.

Since, as stated above, when restoring the damaged car, the plaintiff used “usable remains”, the cost of which was 19,500 rubles, that is, he did not lose property and did not incur expenses for the said amount, the exclusion of the latter from the total amount of insurance compensation is justified and complies with the above standards of material rights (Determination of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated January 23, 2008 N 17893/07 in case N A54-161/2007С19).

Return to the contents of the review of judicial practice: Insurance payment under compulsory motor liability insurance. Procedure, terms, claims. Arbitrage practice

Valid balances under compulsory motor liability insurance judicial practice

Specialists from the Nizhny Novgorod Society for the Protection of Consumer Rights will help you win a dispute with the insurer, receive compensation for damages under compulsory motor liability insurance in full, and correctly assess the usable balances. The judicial practice on compulsory motor liability insurance of our organization is large, some of the cases won are presented in the section Judicial practice - Termination of a car purchase and sale agreement, compulsory motor liability insurance, CASCO insurance, vehicle insurance, poor-quality repairs.

Valid balances are assessed by qualified experts, but problems with assessment often arise. Insurance companies, wanting to reduce their costs, underestimate insurance compensation for compulsory motor liability insurance. Our specialists often encounter violations even from large insurance companies; they have repeatedly recorded that Rosgosstrakh does not pay insurance compensation under compulsory motor liability insurance in full.

Once again, a citizen contacted our organization with a complaint against Rosgosstrakh LLC. He is the owner of an Audi A6, which received significant mechanical damage in an accident on the street. Fedoseenko in Nizhny Novgorod. The inspection materials established that this accident occurred due to the fault of the second participant in the incident, who was driving a VAZ 21110 car, and therefore the citizen turned to the insurance company for payment of insurance compensation under compulsory motor liability insurance. The civil liability of the victim at the time of the traffic accident was insured by Rosgosstrakh LLC in accordance with the OSAGO policy. It was to this insurance company that a citizen applied with a statement about the occurrence of an insured event and payment of insurance compensation under compulsory motor liability insurance.

Since the damage was significant, an independent examination was carried out to determine the cost of restoration of the vehicle, taking into account wear and tear, the market value of the vehicle and the cost of the usable remains of the vehicle. According to an expert opinion, the cost of restoration of the Audi A6 was 80,000 rubles higher than the cost of the car, which was estimated at 203,000 rubles. It became economically unfeasible to restore the car, and therefore the insurance company had to compensate for the damage based on the value of the property on the day the insured event occurred minus the cost of usable remains, which the expert estimated at 45,000 rubles. Thus, the insurance company had to transfer 158,000 rubles (203,000 rubles – 45,000 rubles).

However, Rosgosstrakh LLC made only a partial payment of insurance compensation under compulsory motor liability insurance in the amount of 110,000 rubles, and the citizen was not compensated for the cost of examination in the amount of 10,000 rubles.

A claim was sent to the insurance company under compulsory motor liability insurance with a requirement to pay the remaining amount of insurance compensation in the amount of 48,000 rubles, but the insurance company refused.

Our specialist initiated legal proceedings, as a result of which the insurance payment under compulsory motor liability insurance was made in full, and the insurance penalty and other compensation were additionally collected from the insurance company.

Eligible balances under compulsory motor liability insurance: how to return and calculate correctly

In the event that the car cannot be repaired after an accident, the injured party receives compensation under compulsory motor liability insurance from the insurance company of the culprit. However, this payment is made minus the usable balances. What is this concept of “usable MTPL balances” and how to return unused funds? Both of these issues are discussed in detail below.

What are valid balances under compulsory motor liability insurance?

Useful remains are suitable automotive parts that survived an accident and were dismantled at a service center during vehicle repair or due to its destruction. These spare parts can be sold and reused.

Let’s simulate the situation that after a car accident, a car cannot be repaired and is considered structurally damaged, but its bumper remains intact. This part is removed and is considered a suitable remainder for sale on the used car parts market.

The cost of usable residues under compulsory motor liability insurance includes the residual cost of parts that survived the accident, taking into account the funds spent on their disassembly, storage and repair. The company takes into account the value of serviceable residues when calculating the amount of compensation and subtracts this figure when paying for the risk of “damage to someone else’s property.” And there are legal reasons for this.

Legislative framework for the return of part of insurance premiums

The procedure for returning money for unused compulsory motor insurance is stated in the following regulatory documents:

Federal Law No. 40 “On compulsory civil liability insurance of vehicle owners” dated April 25, 2002;
“Regulations on the rules of compulsory civil liability insurance of vehicle owners” dated September 19, 2014 No. 431-P (as amended on August 11, 2017).

These statutes cover the following aspects of obtaining compensation for unused insurance:

the owner undertakes to indicate a valid reason for termination of the contract if he wants to return the remaining part of the insured amount;
the owner of the vehicle must provide documentary justification for termination of the contractual relationship;
the insurer reimburses its client part of the premium received for the unexpired term of the policy;
the client can terminate the contract before the end of its validity period without specifying a reason, but in this case he cannot claim payment of the annual balances;
The policy expires on the same day the car’s owner changes.

As for cases in which the car cannot be restored, the initiative to terminate contractual obligations under MTPL must come from the owner of the constructively damaged car.

If we talk about payments due to the death of a vehicle, then Art. 12 Federal Law No. 40 regulates the following:

If, as a result of an accident, the property of the victim cannot be restored, or the cost of its repair is equal to/exceeds its estimated value at the time of the incident, the insurance company pays compensation to the owner in the amount of the value of the lost car on the day of the insured event minus the cost of the usable remains.

In this case, the car owner has the right to refuse to receive the surviving parts and components of the lost car, but this will not affect the amount of the insured amount - one way or another, their cost will be deducted from it.

In the event of destruction or loss of the car, the policyholder has the right to abandon his property and transfer the rights to it to the insurer if he wants to receive payment.

Reasons for termination

So, as mentioned earlier, if the car cannot be repaired due to an insured event, its owner receives a payment from the insurance company of the person responsible for the incident. In this case, the victim has the right to visit his insurer, demand termination of the contract and receive payment. However, the destruction of a car is not the only precedent for terminating a policy and returning unused funds. You can receive compensation for the remaining period:

when selling a car. The old policy will no longer be useful to the new owner, since it is not valid, but the previous owner can return part of the insured amount by terminating the contract with the insurer;
death of the owner or policyholder. In this case, one of the parties can no longer fulfill its obligations, so the contract is considered invalid;
bankruptcy of the insurance company or revocation of its license. In the first case, the owner can contact the Russian Union of Auto Insurers and demand a refund from this organization. If the company’s license to provide this type of service was simply taken away, it is still obliged to pay compensation to its clients;
liquidation of legal entities the person who owned the car.

How much money can I get back when my insurance policy ends?

How much you will pay out when your policy lapses will depend on how much time is left before your policy ends. There is a formula by which the amount of compensation is calculated:

A – the amount to be returned;

C – cost of annual insurance according to the policy;

D – remaining unused period in days;

23% is the amount withheld, most of which goes to the insurance company (20%), and a smaller part goes to RSA (3%).

Judicial practice knows many cases where owners of compulsory motor liability insurance successfully challenged the retention of these 23% in court. This is quite understandable, since the deduction of this percentage is considered an illegal extortion.

Who can receive money upon termination of compulsory motor liability insurance?

When the contract is declared invalid as a result of the death of the owner of the car, compensation for unused insurance is received by its beneficiaries. In addition, if the owner dies in an accident, as an injured person, the insurance company of the culprit pays his heirs the amount of the auto insurance premium.

The old car owner can receive payment within two months after the transaction is completed. The new owner also has the right to apply for compensation if the previous owner gave him the old policy along with a package of documents for the car.

How long does it take for the insurance company to return money upon termination of compulsory motor liability insurance?

Usually no one delays payment. Phys. individuals receive money immediately, and legal entities. persons within 5 banking days.

By law, there are 14 calendar days to return funds to the client. This is regulated by Regulation No. 431-P. The countdown starts from the day the application is submitted. Do not forget that this document must indicate a valid reason for terminating the policy.

In what cases should you not terminate the contract?

Termination of contractual relations with the insurer due to the destruction of the car or after its sale does not always bring benefits. For example, in the following cases it is definitely not worth returning funds:

The policy is about to expire. In this situation, the amount of compensation will be negligible. There is a risk of wasting time and ending up with pennies;
The insurance company is in a state of termination of its activities. In this case, you will have to wait a long time for compensation, the case may go to court, so the amount paid may not recoup the costs spent.
if, after the complete loss of the car or after selling his vehicle, the driver quickly purchases a new car and compulsory motor liability insurance will still be needed. And if he has an accident-free record over the last year, he receives a discount on the purchase of the next policy. This is called the bonus-malus ratio.

The best way to get out of the situation profitably is to include in the price of the vehicle the amount of compensation for unused insurance, and then reissue it to the new owner of the car.

Procedure for terminating the MTPL agreement

It doesn’t take much time to break the contractual relationship with the insurance company and get your money back. Step-by-step instructions for terminating your policy are given below.

Step one: collecting documentation

The basic set of documents that you need to have with you when contacting an insurance company consists of:

passports of a citizen of the Russian Federation;
a contract of sale, gift or exchange, or a document confirming the destruction of the car;
vehicle passports;
MTPL policy;
power of attorney (if the interests of the policyholder are represented by someone else);
receipts for payment of insurance premiums and details for crediting funds.

All of the above documents must be copied.

Step two: contact the insurer's office

At the office, the client must fill out an application for payment of part of the premium in two copies and present the necessary documents. Only copies are given to the insurance employee - no one has the right to demand that the originals be left for review.

Do not forget that the application must indicate a valid reason for terminating the contract, otherwise compensation will not be paid. In addition, the insurer's representative must certify one copy of the application with a signature and seal.

Step three: calculations for the return of the insurance premium

You can calculate the amount to be paid upon termination of the compulsory motor liability insurance contract using an online insurance return calculator. Such services can be seen on the websites of popular companies with this focus. It is not difficult to carry out the calculation manually using the above formula.

In the office, the refund amount is calculated in the presence of the client. As a rule, special programs are used for this.

Step four: payment of funds

As mentioned earlier, the payment of the residual premium is carried out on the same day. Of course, anything can happen, so if the company is not ready to immediately reimburse the residual value of the contract, it has 14 days to do so.

If during this time the funds have not reached the owner of the vehicle, he has the right to write a complaint to the RSA and go to court, but for this he must have a statement in his hands with the date of contacting the insurer and his signature.

Conclusion

So, the party injured in the accident receives compensation for the insured event from the insurance company of the culprit minus the usable balances if the car cannot be repaired. In addition, the owner of a lost vehicle can return the cost of unused compulsory insurance by contacting his insurer.

You will also be interested in learning about how to collect vehicle insurance under compulsory motor liability insurance.

We are waiting for your questions in the comments.

If you have any disputes with your insurance company, our lawyer can help you. Consultation is free.

Please rate the post and like it.

justice pro...

legal assistance

Total loss of the car or repair: “total” under compulsory motor liability insurance and outside the insurance settlement

The decision about the complete loss of the car or the possibility of restorative repairs affects the amount of insurance compensation under compulsory motor liability insurance and as part of the recovery of damages from the culprit of the accident. Let’s find out when “total” under compulsory motor liability insurance and the complete loss of a vehicle are recognized in a dispute with the culprit of the accident, with examples from judicial practice.

As you know, a victim in an accident has the right to compensate for real damage, i.e. expenses resulting from the loss or damage of your car. Real damage also includes the loss of the marketable value of a car damaged as a result of an accident (when determining the amount of damage in the event of a complete loss of a vehicle, the vehicle is not taken into account).

Total loss of a car under compulsory motor liability insurance: law

The total loss of a car is recognized not only in the case when the car cannot be repaired due to significant structural damage. According to paragraph 18 of Article 12 of the Law on Compulsory Motor Liability Insurance, the complete loss of a vehicle means cases in which

repair of damaged property is impossible
or the cost of repairing damaged property is equal to the value of the property on the date of the insured event or exceeds the specified value.

Here the question may arise as to what cost of repairs is taken into account to determine the “total” under compulsory motor liability insurance: taking into account wear or without taking into account wear. To determine the amount of costs for restoration repairs within the framework of compulsory motor liability insurance, an independent technical examination is carried out using a unified methodology, which is approved by the Bank of Russia. This is what clause 6.1 of the “Unified Methodology for Determining the Amount of Restoration Repair Costs for a Damaged Vehicle” says (Appendix to Bank of Russia Regulations dated September 19, 2014 N 432-P):

When making a decision on the economic feasibility of restoration repairs, the destruction and value of the vehicle before the traffic accident, it is necessary to take the value of the vehicle at the time of the traffic accident equal to the average cost of the analogue on the specified date according to available information and reference materials containing information about the average cost of a vehicle, a direct address link to which must be present in the expert opinion. The cost of restoration repairs, calculated without taking into account the wear and tear of components (parts, assemblies, assemblies) to be replaced, and the average cost of an analogue vehicle are subject to comparison. Carrying out restoration repairs is considered inappropriate if the estimated costs are equal to or exceed the cost of the vehicle before the traffic accident (the cost of an analogue).

Let us note that by the Decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of October 15, 2018 N AKPI18-877, paragraph 6.1 of the unified methodology was recognized as not contradicting the current legislation.

The amount of payment for the total loss of a car under compulsory motor liability insurance

According to paragraph 18 of Art. 12 of the Law on Compulsory Motor Liability Insurance in the event of a total loss of a car, the amount of losses to be compensated by the insurer is determined in the amount of the actual value of the property on the day of the insured event minus the value of the usable remains. In the event of a total loss of a vehicle under compulsory motor liability insurance, its remains remain with the owner of the vehicle.

Total loss of a vehicle under compulsory motor liability insurance: judicial practice

If the liability of the culprit of the accident is insured under compulsory motor liability insurance, then the victim in the accident can receive insurance compensation (even if the victim himself has no insurance or is not included in the compulsory motor liability insurance policy).

In the event that the amount of insurance compensation does not suit the victim, after filing a pre-trial claim with the insurer, he has the right to go to court. Here is an example from practice when an insurance company significantly underestimated the insurance payment. Having disagreed with the amount of insurance compensation (RUB 36,300), the victim went to court. Based on the results of the forensic examination, the destruction of the vehicle was established (the cost of restoration repairs excluding wear and tear was 529,618.40 rubles, the market value of the car was 516,666 rubles). The court found that the insurance company’s obligations were not fully fulfilled and insurance compensation was subject to recovery in favor of the plaintiff, taking into account the payment made in the amount of 363,700 rubles. (Decision of the Leninsky District Court of Krasnodar (Krasnodar Territory) dated October 22, 2018 in case No. 2-10905/2018).

Please note that the amount of insurance compensation based on the results of an independent examination conducted by the insurer is not always underestimated. Thus, the victim went to court to recover insurance compensation from the insurance company in the amount of the difference between the losses determined based on the results of an independent examination (the complete loss of the vehicle was established) carried out by the victim, and the losses determined based on the results of an independent examination of the insurer. However, the forensic examination determined the market value of the car to be less (compared to the conclusion of the victim’s examination and even the insurer’s examination). As a result, the claim of the victim regarding the recovery of insurance compensation was denied (Decision of the Pskov City Court (Pskov Region) dated October 22, 2018 in case No. 2-2025/2018).

Situations are possible when the victim asks the court to recover unpaid insurance compensation from the insurance company in his favor based on the cost of restoration repairs. But after a forensic examination, the complete loss of the car is recognized, as a result of which the amount recovered may be reduced (Leninsky District Court of Voronezh (Voronezh Region) dated September 13, 2018 in case No. 2-2962/2018).

The complete loss of a car can be recognized not only in cases where repairs are impossible, but also in cases of economic inexpediency

Recovery of damages from the culprit of an accident in the event of the death of a vehicle

If the liability of the person responsible for the accident is not insured, the victim has the right to sue the person responsible for the accident to recover damages. Thus, the victim asked to recover the cost of restoration repairs in his favor, because he intended to completely restore his car to the condition in which it was before the damage as a result of the accident. However, the court, based on the results of the forensic examination, decided to destroy the victim’s car (the vehicle was completely destroyed). In this case, the court was guided by the Resolution of the Constitutional Court of the Russian Federation of March 10, 2017 No. 6-P, according to which the amount of compensation payable by the person who caused the harm may be reduced by the court if, as a result of compensation for the harm caused, taking into account the cost of new parts, assemblies, units, there will be a significant improvement in the vehicle, entailing a significant and clearly unfair increase in its value at the expense of the person who caused the harm. The court considered that restoring the car was clearly impractical due to significant damage to engine parts and related units and body parts. And, as a result, satisfying the claim based on the plaintiff’s arguments, in the opinion of the court, would clearly lead to a very significant improvement in his car, which would entail a significant and clearly unfair increase in its value at the expense of the defendant who caused the damage, or would allow the plaintiff to purchase two or more similar cars instead one damaged. The court came to the conclusion that the victim’s car was considered destroyed (the vehicle was completely destroyed) (Decision of the Pervomaisky District Court of Omsk (Omsk Region) dated October 11, 2018 in case No. 2-2169/2018).

Let us note that in the event of recovery of damages for an accident outside of an insurance settlement (for example, when the culprit of the accident does not have insurance, including in the case of fake insurance), another examination technique could be used. Thus, previously, according to the methodological recommendations “Study of motor vehicles in order to determine the cost of restoration repairs and assessment (Methodological recommendations for forensic experts)” (ceased on January 1, 2019 due to the entry into force of the “Methodological recommendations for conducting forensic automotive technical examinations and research of wheeled vehicles in order to determine the amount of damage, the cost of restoration repairs and assessment" dated January 1, 2018), the complete loss of a vehicle ( complete destruction) is understood as the case when the cost of restoration repairs of a damaged vehicle, taking into account the wear of replacement parts, components, assemblies, is equal to or exceeds 80% of its value at the time of damage (Decision of the Kaluga District Court (Kaluga Region) dated September 3, 2018 in case No. 2-5985/2018).

On the issue of insufficient insurance compensation and/or recovery of damages from the culprit of the accident, you can contact the specialists of this project for legal advice. Assistance will be provided by project participants and partners - practicing lawyers with extensive experience in this area of legal relations.

If a car is damaged in an accident and, based on the results of an examination, it is determined that repairs are impossible or are not economically feasible, then the car may be completely lost. If the victim does not agree with the amount of damage in this case, then he can go to court to protect his violated rights.