Angelina M. Yablunovskaya

The article deals with the problem related to the definition of the content of the category “unlawful interest” in relation to liability insurance. In Russian law, the question of the content of an illegal interest becomes especially relevant, since the lack of an answer to it leads to the inability to insure the costs associated with the application of administrative liability measures in the form of monetary fines to policyholders, which significantly limits the possibilities of developing insurance as a financial institution. The article notes that not in all legal systems the use of insurance is limited by establishing a ban on insuring illegal interests, as is the case in Russia by virtue of paragraph 1 of Art. 928 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation. For these purposes, in addition to the direct prohibition of insuring illegal interests, a public order structure may be used that prevents the execution of an insurance contract in cases where such a contract violates public order. The author notes that despite the attempts of Russian scientists to determine what an unlawful interest is, according to the paragraph 1 of art. 928 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the answer to this question remains open and comes to the conclusion that it is impossible to determine the exhaustive content of the illegal insurance interest, because this category always implies the discretion of the court. However, for the purposes of practical determination of cases when the insurance interest is unlawful, it is necessary to be guided by the criteria developed by the doctrine and judicial practice for transactions that violate public interests, and in each specific case to assess whether the liability insurance contract violates public interests or not.

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.