Gross negligence of the insured or beneficiary in liability insurance

Abstract

The article analyzes the concept of gross negligence in the occurrence of an insured event and its legal significance for liability insurance. The broad interpretation of gross negligence in judicial practice leads to an increase in the number of cases of refusal to pay insurance compensation. For this reason, customs representatives and other professional participants in the turnover cannot use insurance protection in situations for which such protection is provided. Using the examples of judicial practice, the author substantiates the need to analyze all elements of the insured event as a whole, and not only the behavior of the party preceding this case, when determining gross negligence. In addition, in the article the author touches upon the currently relevant issue of the admissibility of providing in the contract the possibility of releasing the insurer from the payment of compensation. The author comes to the conclusion that the rules regarding gross negligence in the occurrence of an insured event should be considered imperative, because this form of guilt does not exclude the randomness characteristic of insurance relations. According to the author, the rules of Article 959 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation allow to protect the interests of the insurer in connection with the increased risk of an insured event due to gross negligence.

References

1. Lyon, S.E. (1892). Contract insurance under Russian law. Moscow (in Russ.).
2. Notkin, O.A. (1888). Property insurance under Russian law. Kiev (in Russ.).
3. Dedikov, S.V. and Arkhipova, A.G. (Eds.) (2022). Essays on insurance law of foreign countries. Moscow (in Russ.).
4. Serebrovsky, V.I. (2003). Selected works on inheritance and insurance law. Moscow (in Russ.).
5. Stepanov, I. (1875). Experience of insurance contract theory. Kazan (in Russ.).
6. Rak, V.P. (2018). Subrogation in insurance: the main problems in the comparative legal perspective. In A. V ., Egorov and A.A., Novitskaya (Eds.) Contracts and obligations: Collection of works by graduates of the Russian School of Private Law at the S. S. Alekseev Private Law Research Center under the President of the Russian Federation: In 2 Vol. Vol. 2: Special part. Moscow (in Russ.).
7. Khudyakov, A.I. (2010). Theory of insurance. Moscow (in Russ.).
8. Brown, C. (1985). Deterrence in Tort and No-Fault: The New Zealand Experience. California Law Review, Vol. 73, 3, pp. 976–1002.
9. Hellner, J. (1986). Compensation for Personal Injuries in Sweden — A Reconsidered View; The New Swedish Tort Liability Act. Modern Swedish Perspectives. The American journal of comparative law, 3, pp. 249–276.
10. Palmer, G.W.R. (1977). Accident Compensation in New Zealand: The First Two Years. The American journal of comparative law, 1, pp. 1–45.
11. Harris, D.R. (1974). Accident Compensation in New Zealand: A Comprehensive Insurance System. The Modern Law Review, Vol. 37, 4, pp. 361–376.
12. Mahoney, R. (1992). New Zealand’s Accident Compensation Scheme: A Reassessment. The American Journal of Comparative Law, Vol. 40, 1, pp. 159–211.
13. Wagner, G. (2006). Tort Law and Liability Insurance. The Geneva Papers. 31. pp. 277–292.