It does not apply to insured events and the insurance does not cover the offensive civil liability Policyholder (Insured) due to:

• 1. claims for compensation for harm (damage) declared on the basis of agreements, contracts, agreements, as well as payments made in return for the fulfillment of obligations in kind or as sanctions under contracts, as well as any other activity of the Insured within the framework of fulfilling obligations under contracts;
• 2. harm caused environment(environmental damage);
• 3. causing harm to life, health and property of the Insured (Insured), its employees, relatives, affiliates of the Insured (Insured);
• 4. deliberate infliction of harm by the Insured (Insured). In this case, the commission of an action or inaction is equated to intentional infliction of harm, in which the possible occurrence of a loss is expected with a sufficiently high probability and is deliberately allowed by the person responsible for such actions;
• 5. exposure to a source of increased danger;
• 6. non-elimination by the Insured within the period agreed with the Insurer of circumstances that significantly increase the degree of risk, the need to eliminate which, in accordance with generally accepted standards, indicated to the Insured by the Insurer;
• 7. wear of structures, equipment, materials used, including, in excess of the standard service life;
• 8. infliction of harm related to the infringement of copyrights, rights to a discovery, invention or industrial design, or similar rights, including the unauthorized use of registered trade, trade or trademarks, symbols and names;
• 9. causing harm to life, health and property of the tenant and / or employee of the tenant, if the Policyholder (Insured) is the lessor;
• 10. actions and/or omissions of the Insured (Insured) and/or his employee, committed or admitted as a result of the use of alcohol, drugs or other intoxicating substances;
• 11. non-compliance by the Policyholder (the Insured) within the established period with the requirements (orders) issued by the supervisory authority;
• 12. violation of fire safety rules committed by the Insured (Insured person) or his employee, who was responsible for their observance;
• 13. performance by the Insured (Insured) of works and/or provision of services in the absence of the permission of the supervisory authority (in the case when such permission is mandatory), illegal redevelopment of residential / non-residential premises;
• 14. operation of a technical device by an employee of the Insured (Insured) who did not have a document evidencing the right to operate a technical device (in the case when such a document is mandatory);
• 15. damage, destruction or damage to property that the Policyholder (Insured) has rented, rented, hired, leased or pledged, or accepted for storage under an agreement;
• 16. constant, regular and/or prolonged thermal influence or exposure to gases, vapors, rays, liquids, moisture or any, including non-atmospheric precipitation (soot, soot, smoke, dust, etc.). However, damages are recoverable if one of the above actions is sudden and unforeseen;
• 17. failure by the Insured (Insured) or the Injured to take reasonable and affordable measures to reduce possible losses;
• 18. causing moral damage, lost profits, damage to honor, dignity, business reputation, as well as imposing liability on the Insured in an amount exceeding that provided for by applicable law.

Events are not recognized as insured events and insurance indemnity is not paid if during the validity period of the insurance contract the following occurred:

• 1. Provision by the Policyholder and/or the Beneficiary of documents that are not properly executed. Documents are considered properly executed when they are registered in accordance with established order registration (according to the current regulatory legal acts), contain the proper details (seal, signature of the relevant official, etc.), contain full information provided for by this form of document (in accordance with the current regulatory legal acts), unless otherwise provided by the insurance contract;
• 2. provision by the Insured (Insured) and/or the Beneficiary of knowingly false information about the insured event and the amount of loss.

Exemption of the insurer from payment and exclusion from coverage

Recovery of disputed payments from insurance organizations remains the problem that most often brings their clients to court. In this article, we will consider what conditions Russian insurers include in contracts in order to reduce insurance payments or get rid of them altogether, and what do the courts think about it.

Civil legislation (Article 421 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) provides for the freedom of the parties to an agreement, including an insurance agreement, when concluding it. This is expressed, first of all, in the ability to determine the terms of the contract at your own discretion, except in cases where the content of any condition is prescribed by law.
Of course, the principle of freedom of contract also applies to contracts. voluntary insurance.
Since the terms of contracts in practice are formed mainly by insurers, they pay close attention to the reflection in the contract of exceptions from insurance coverage and grounds for exemption from payment.

Against the rules

Violation of any rules (construction, traffic, safety regulations, etc.) significantly increases the risk of various adverse consequences for the insured objects.
Therefore, insurers do their best to minimize their risks, including in the terms of insurance clauses on exemption from payment in case of violation of such rules by the insured (the person who concluded the contract) or the beneficiary (recipient of insurance compensation).
It should be noted that in fact violations of various norms and rules are manifestations of gross negligence.
However, taking into account the position set out in paragraph 9 of the information letter of the Presidium of the NAS of the Russian Federation dated November 28, 2003 No. 75, insurers try to avoid the wording “gross negligence” when describing exceptions and grounds for exemption from payment in contracts and rules.
The Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation pointed out that the terms of the agreements (rules) on refusal to pay compensation due to the gross negligence of the insured or the beneficiary are void.
This is due to the fact that such a condition is contrary to par. 2 p. 1 art. 963 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, according to which release due to gross negligence can only be provided for by law (and not by contract).

Lost in two concepts

In the insurance contracts that we, as a law firm, work with, insurance companies formulate terms in different ways, which, in their opinion, should exclude cases of payments in case of accidents arising from violations of various rules and regulations.

Basically, the conditions of the following sections are used for such restrictions:
"Exclusions from insurance coverage";
"Grounds for exempting the insurer from payment" of the insurance contract.
Our experience shows that insurers often confuse these concepts, considering them identical.
However, there is a significant difference here:
if the event is excluded from the insurance coverage, then the insurer does not have an obligation to pay due to the non-occurrence insured event;
the basis that exempts the insurer from payment allows him not to pay when the insured event has occurred.
It would seem that the courts, as direct law enforcers, when considering a huge number of insurance disputes, many of which reach the highest instances, should strive to develop common positions.
However, the same courts make diametrically opposed decisions on the same issues.
Often they themselves are confused in the concepts of "exemption from payment" and "exclusion from coverage", unreasonably mixing and identifying them.
After analyzing the practice, we tried to identify general trends in its development.

Conditions for exemption from payment

The grounds for the release of the insurer from payment are listed in Art. 963, 964 and paragraph 4 of Art. 965 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
At the same time, discretion (what is not prohibited is allowed) Art. 964 allows the parties to include in the insurance contract other grounds for exemption.
However, in one of the cases considered below, we will see that this freedom is still not absolute.
The largest number of insurance cases heard by the courts is traditionally associated with car insurance due to its widespread use.
The issue of including in contracts additional grounds for exempting insurers from payments is often raised in connection with the consideration of this particular category of cases.
Then the positions expressed by the courts in "automobile cases" are transferred to cases related to the insurance of other types of property.
Very often in court practice there are cases related to the theft of insured cars with keys and / or registration documents left in them.
In accordance with the insurance rules (that is, documents developed by insurers containing the main insurance conditions) of the vast majority of Russian insurers, such an accident is not an insured event.
In about half of the cases, this condition is described in the contracts as exempting the insurer from payment.
However, there are other editions of insurance rules.
In the decision of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated May 29, 2009 No. VAS-6245/09 in case No. A56-13413/2008, the court noted that the insurance rules have the right of an insurance company to refuse to pay compensation for the theft of a car with registration documents left in it.
In the ruling, the court indicated the discretion of Art. 964 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, i.e. on the possibility of the parties to independently form the terms of the contract.
Since the insurance rules contain the basis for exemption described above, the transfer of the case to the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation was refused and the insurer's exemption from payment was recognized as consistent with the law and the contract.

If the policyholder is at fault

In a slightly later decision of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of June 23, 2009 No. 4561/08, the court took a different position on this issue, which is consistently followed by lower courts at the present time.
The resolution also indicates the optionality of Part 1 of Art. 964 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, according to which the parties may establish in the contract other, except for those provided by law, grounds for exempting the insurer from payment.
However, the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation believes that the insurer can be exempted from payment only if the actions of the insured contributed to the occurrence of the insured event.
In particular, leaving the documents in the car by the insured does not contribute to the theft of the car.
Apparently, the courts can release insurers from payments on the basis of violations by insurers of various rules and regulations, if this violation led to the occurrence of an insured event.
Thus, in case No. A28-11704/2009, the inclusion in the contract of a condition on the release of the insurer from payment in the event of an insured event due to the fault of the insured was considered.
In the case, a violation of fire safety standards by an employee of the insured was established (determination of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated 10/14/2010 No. VAS-13494/10).
By courts of all instances, the insurer was exempted from payment with reference to the optionality of Art. 964 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and the possibility of the parties to provide additional grounds for the release of the insurer.

The decision is correct, the motive is not

The same position was taken by the courts when considering case No. A32-3666/2010.
As a result of the operation of a faulty car, an accident occurred, this fact was recorded in the protocol and the decision in the case of an administrative offense.
The insurance rules provided that “losses incurred as a result of an accident that occurred due to the operation by the insured of a technically faulty vehicle are not covered."
If we consider this condition literally, in our opinion, it should rather refer to exclusions from insurance coverage.
However, the court considered this condition as the basis for exempting the insurer from the payment stipulated by the contract.
The recovery from the insurer was refused, that is, an essentially correct, but incorrectly motivated decision was made.
From the considered practice, it can be concluded that if the basis for exemption from payment was included in the insurance contract, which subsequently affected the occurrence of the insured event, the insurer can be exempted from it.
However, as it seems at this stage, in order to apply the exemption, the fault of the insured must be confirmed by the relevant documents (for example, in the case of an accident, by a decision in the case of an administrative offense).

Exclusion from insurance coverage

Both insurers and practicing lawyers are well aware of paragraph 9 of the information letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of November 28, 2003 No. 75.
As mentioned above, it states that the terms of insurance contracts on refusal of payment due to the gross negligence of the insured are void.
In the case considered by the court, it was about insurance in case of failure or destruction of construction machines and mechanisms.
The insurance rules provided that an accident at a construction site, which occurred due to the gross negligence of the insured, is not an insured event.
That is, it was about exclusion from coverage, and not about the grounds for exemption from payment.
The court, however, interpreted this exclusion from coverage as a ground for exemption from payment, in violation of Art. 963 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, and exacted compensation.
After that, most insurers began to avoid the wording "gross negligence" in their insurance rules, actually replacing gross negligence with a description of its manifestations (in the form of violations of various rules and norms).

Loud process

An interesting and, in our opinion, correct position was taken by the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation when considering another high-profile case, which at one time was followed by the entire insurance market.
The rules of voluntary motor hull insurance of the Avangard-Garant insurance company included a condition on the exclusion from the insurance coverage of events that occurred in connection with the violation of traffic rules by the insured.
Since violation of traffic rules often leads to an accident, this insurer refused to pay out to its insurers, since under the contract coverage for such cases did not apply.
At the same time, paying out in cases where the other driver was the culprit, the insurer subsequently collected the paid indemnity in the order of subrogation (that is, from the guilty drivers).
Meanwhile, the tariffs of this insurer were approximately the same as those of companies that did not exclude such a risk.
Thus, insurers for the same money were offered significantly less protection.
The Federal Insurance Supervision Service (FSSN) issued an order to the insurer regarding this paragraph of the rules, but this order was successfully challenged by him.
The Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, in ruling No. 12235/07 of October 15, 2007, indicated that an accident with an insured car occurred as a result of a risk excluded from insurance coverage, and that the payment of compensation under such circumstances is contrary to the terms of the insurance contract.
The position of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation is based on a literal reading of the terms of the contract and, in our opinion, is correct (although not aimed at protecting the weak side - the insured).
Interestingly, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, in ruling No. 4-В08-23 dated 12/23/2008, through a complex interpretation, took a different position in the dispute on the same paragraph of the rules of the same insurer, in fact instructing lower courts to collect insurance compensation in the presence of such exceptions.

As an exception

The question of the application of exceptions to insurance coverage was considered in case No. A40-30245/08.
The property was insured legal entity including in case of fire.
In the rules of insurance, as an exception to the insurance coverage, events were named that occurred due to the intent or gross negligence of the insured, expressed, in particular, in violation of the rules and norms of fire safety. The decision to terminate the criminal case found a violation of fire safety rules.
The court of first instance satisfied the claim, referring to the violation of Art. 963 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation.
This decision was canceled by the decision of the appellate instance, the claim was dismissed (decree of the Ninth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated September 30, 2008 No. 09 AP-11767/2008-GK).
position court of appeal upheld by the higher courts.
The Court of Appeal rightly noted that the insurer's violation of fire safety rules is not a reason for refusing to pay insurance compensation, but a risk that is not covered by insurance coverage.
In this case, the payment of compensation under these circumstances is contrary to the terms of the insurance contract.
This decision is interesting in that despite the fact that the intent of the insured did not follow from the texts of the judicial acts, and the term “gross negligence” was present in the very wording of the exception, the courts applied the specified exception to the coverage and dismissed the claim.

Same condition, different application

A different position was taken by the court when considering case No. A56-38799/2009.
The insurer insured the decoration of the premises and the property located in it.
As a result of the fire, the property of the insured was destroyed.
The insurer recognized the incident as an insured event and paid out the insurance, partially compensating for the damage caused.
The dispute was submitted by the client to the court in connection with the incomplete payment of compensation.
By the decision of the court of first instance, left unchanged by the higher courts, the claim was partially satisfied (decision of the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and Leningrad region dated December 23, 2009).
It is curious that the insurer declared the absence of an insured event with reference to the paragraph of the rules, excluding from the number of insured events those that arose as a result of violation of fire safety rules.
In order to recover damages, the courts proceeded from the fact that Insurance Company did not prove the non-occurrence of the insured event.
The decision was motivated by the fact that no evidence of a violation of fire safety standards was presented.
The courts also pointed to the discrepancy between the specified exception and the imperative norms of the law (Article 963 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation), thereby making it clear that even if such evidence were presented, this condition of the contract would still not be applied.
Thus, we see a completely different interpretation by the courts of very similar terms of the contract.

Matter of chance

The courts came to the conclusion that the insured event did not occur when considering case No. A40-90205 / 08 (Decree of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Moscow District of October 14, 2009 No. KG-A40 / 10315-09; determination of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation of December 22, 2009 No. VAS-16429 / 09).
In this case, cash on hand was insured.
The insurance was carried out, among other things, against the risks of "burglary" and "robbery".
Having attacked the cashier, unknown persons took possession of the keys to the doors of the cash desk (not handed over under guard) and stole the money.

Grounds for refusal

The insurer refused to pay compensation, referring to the non-occurrence of an insured event, since, according to the terms of the contract, the damage caused by violation or non-observance of instructions for storage, operation, maintenance of the insured property is not an insured event.
The courts reasonably agreed with the insurer's arguments and refused to recover compensation.
The plaintiff's reference to the violation of the specified paragraph of the contract of Art. 963 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation was rejected, noting that this paragraph does not establish the grounds for exempting the insurer from payment in the event of an insured event.
It defines those signs, in the presence of which, as agreed by the parties to the contract, this fact of causing damage to property is not an insured event.

Judgment by court

Summing up our analysis, we note that it is aimed at detecting general trends in judicial practice in order to be able to predict the outcome of certain situations faced by insurers, their clients and lawyers.
Unfortunately, there was no uniformity in the logic of the courts.
The review found evidence that judges approach the same issues in different ways.
This increases the legal uncertainty of the position of the parties to the insurance contract and entails more and more litigation.
So, how to act in each specific case, in fact, is decided exclusively by the court.

Polina KONDRATIOUK, attorney at Clyde & Co (СIS), member of the Society of Insurance Lawyers (OSYUR)

Question 9

Protection of metals from corrosion organic and inorganic coatings.

8.1. In accordance with these Rules, losses incurred as a result of:

8.1.1. war, any hostilities, acts of terrorism, as well as maneuvers or other military activities, revolutions, riots, internal popular unrest, acts of terrorism and attempts to commit them, mass strikes, riots or lockouts;

8.1.2. exposure to a nuclear explosion, radiation or radioactive contamination;

8.1.3. use or possession of bombs, mines, projectiles or other weapons;

8.1.4. civil war, an armed uprising, as well as the actions of the authorities aimed at suppressing them;

8.1.5. theft without breaking;

8.1.6. confiscation, requisition, seizure, destruction or damage of property by order of military or civil authorities or other actions of administrative bodies;

8.1.7. indoor humidity, building (mold, fungus, etc.);

8.1.8. indirect losses arising, in particular, from delay in the supply of products or untimely delivery, interruption in production, trade, loss of profit or benefit, slowdown in production or reduction in the quantity of goods or services produced, even if such losses were the result of events, in connection with the occurrence of which, the Insurer would be obliged to pay compensation in accordance with the terms of these Insurance Rules;

8.1.9. natural wear and tear of the insured property or its gradual loss of its qualities or useful properties;

8.1.10. corrosion, oxidation, fermentation, decay or other natural properties of the insured property;

8.1.11. intentional actions or omissions of the Insured or his representatives, as well as the Beneficiary;

8.1.12. subsidence, cracking, compression, expansion or swelling of road surfaces or sidewalks, as well as foundations, walls, load-bearing structures or floors of buildings, structures or engineering structures, if they did not occur as a result of a sudden and unforeseen impact on them from the outside;

8.1.13. defects and shortcomings of the insured buildings, structures that already existed at the time of conclusion of the insurance contract, which should have been known to the Insured or its bodies or authorized persons, but were not reported to the Insurer;

8.1.14. ignition of production equipment, household electrical appliances, electronic equipment and office equipment, if this ignition did not cause a fire, i.e. further spread of fire;

8.1.15 subsidence or other movement of soil, if they are caused by blasting, excavation of soil from pits or quarries, backfilling of voids or excavation, as well as the extraction or development of deposits of solid, liquid or gaseous minerals;

8.1.16. storm, whirlwind, hurricane, tornado or other movement of air masses caused by natural processes in the atmosphere, if the wind speed that caused the loss did not exceed 60 km/h (16.6 m/s). The wind speed is confirmed by the certificates of the relevant institutions of the Hydrometeorological Center;

8.1.17. penetration of rain, snow, hail or dirt into the insured premises through unclosed windows, doors or other openings in buildings, unless these openings have been caused by a natural disaster;

8.1.18. damage to machinery and equipment, if it was not caused by a sudden and unforeseen impact from outside;

8.1.20. non-compliance by the Insured or his representative, as well as the Beneficiary with the requirements of regulatory enactments and instructions for the operation, storage and maintenance of the insured object, as well as the use of this object for other purposes than those for which it is intended.

8.2. Also, damage is not covered:

8.2.1. Caused to the insured property as a result of its treatment with fire or other thermal effects in order to change its properties or for other purposes in accordance with the technological process; this also applies to property in which or with the use of which a useful fire or heat is produced or maintained;

8.2.2. From burning that did not arise as a result of a fire (for example, when storing raw materials, materials, products, etc. near sources of maintaining fire);

8.2.3. Caused to mechanisms with an internal combustion engine during explosions occurring in combustion chambers, as well as damage from gas pressure arising in the switchgear of an electrical switch;

8.3. If, when resolving the issue of compensation for damage, the Insurer requires evidence that the damage caused is neither directly nor indirectly caused by the circumstances specified in subparagraphs 8.1.-8.3., then the Policyholder is obliged to provide such evidence.

8.4. When concluding an insurance contract, the Policyholder and the Insurer may agree to amend or exclude certain provisions of these Rules or to supplement these Rules.

Insurance cover

Cargo insurance is regulated by national and international legislation, and it also widely uses clauses developed by the long practice of implementing this type of insurance. Initially, the terms of insurance coverage were developed in England in the 18th century. and are currently used without fundamental changes (Table 8.11).

Exclusions from insurance coverage

The model clauses reviewed have general exceptions to insurance coverage. In particular, the loss or damage to the cargo, as well as the costs incurred as a result of:

• 1) direct or indirect exposure to radiation or a radioactive substance or the use of any weapon based on the use of atomic or nuclear fission and (or) fusion and other similar reactions;
• 2) war, civil war, revolution, insurrection, insurrection or resulting civil unrest or any hostile acts of a belligerent or directed against it;
• 3) the impact of wandering mines, torpedoes, bombs or other abandoned weapons of war, the impact of which on the object of insurance is random;
• 4) the actions of strikers, workers involved in a lockout, or persons involved in labor unrest, riots or civil unrest;

Table 8.11. Standard conditions of insurance coverage in cargo insurance

Clause "A": "All Risks Responsible"	Loss of or damage to all or part of the cargo for any reason, except as otherwise specified as an exception to the coverage. Losses, expenses and contributions in general average. Salvage expenses allocated or allocated in accordance with the contract of carriage and/or applicable law and practice, incurred in order to avoid or in connection with the avoidance of loss for any reason, except as otherwise specified as exceptions to coverage
Clause "B": "Liability for partial accident"	- fire, explosion, earthquake, volcanic eruption, lightning strike; - crash, overturning, collision of a vehicle with another vehicle or a fixed object (except for contact with water); - running a ship aground, throwing it ashore, flooding or capsizing, ice damage; - penetration of outboard water into the vehicle, container with cargo or place of storage, washing cargo overboard; - loss of a means of transport (vessel, aircraft) without a trace; - failure of bridges and storage facilities; - accidents during loading, unloading, unloading, receiving fuel by the vessel. Besides: - losses, expenses and contributions in general average; - salvage expenses allocated or assigned in accordance with the contract of carriage and (or) applicable laws and practice, incurred in order to avoid or in connection with the avoidance of loss for any reason, except in cases specified as exceptions to the coverage
"C" clause: "No liability for damages except in the event of a crash"	Loss or damage to all or part of the cargo as a result of: - fire, explosion; - crash, overturning, collision of a vehicle with another vehicle or a fixed object; - ship stranding, beaching, flooding or capsizing, ice damage; - losses, expenses and contributions in general average. Besides: Salvage expenses allocated or assigned in accordance with the contract of carriage and (or) applicable laws and practices performed to avoid or in connection with the avoidance of death from any cause, except as otherwise specified as an exception to the coverage; In the event of a total loss of cargo, damage caused by other risks listed in clause "B" may also be indemnified.

• 5) malicious intent or gross negligence of the insured or the beneficiary or their representatives, if such are determined as a result of the investigation of the insured event by the relevant competent authorities, as well as violation by any of them of the established rules for the transportation, forwarding and storage of cargo;
• 6) fire or explosion that occurred as a result of the loading of explosive and spontaneously flammable substances and objects (not being cargo under the insurance contract), carried out with the knowledge of the insured or the beneficiary, but without the knowledge of the insurer;
• 7) regulatory leakage, normal loss of weight or volume, natural wear and tear of the cargo;
• 8) insufficient or unsuitable packaging (including stowage of cargo into a container by the policyholder) or preparation of cargo; damage to the packaging while preserving the cargo, if repacking is not required;
• 9) shortage of cargo with the integrity of the outer packaging and the integrity of the seals of the consignor;
• 10) internal properties or defects in the cargo, including oxidation, rusting, shrinkage, etc.;
• 11) damage to cargo by worms, rodents, insects;
• 12) delivery delays, even if the delay is caused by a risk that is part of the insurance coverage (excluding general average and salvage costs allocated or assigned in accordance with the contract of carriage and (or) applicable laws and practices, made in order to avoid or in connection with the avoidance loss of cargo for any reason);
• 13) insolvency or failure to fulfill financial obligations by the owners, managers, charterers or operators of the vehicle;
• 14) unseaworthiness of the ship or barge, unsuitability of the means of transport, shipping container or hoist for the safe transportation of cargo;
• 15) the presence of the interest of the insured or his employees in the unseaworthiness or unsuitability of the means of transport during the loading of the cargo;
• 16) violation of the implied warranties of the seaworthiness of the ship and the suitability of the ship for the carriage of cargo to the destination, except for the case when the insured or his employees were not aware of such unseaworthiness or unsuitability;
• 17) seizure, confiscation, seizure, prohibition or detention (excluding piracy) and their consequences or any attempts to do so;
• 18) actions of terrorists or any other persons acting for political reasons.

The risk of theft, robbery, destruction or damage to the cargo as a result of the wrongful acts of third parties is an exception to clauses "B" and "C". In addition to the standard ones, there are special clauses, in particular, under additional agreements, coverage of the risks of clauses 1-4 can be provided, the risks of clauses 5-8 can be included in the insurance coverage when an additional franchise agreed upon by the parties is established. In the practice of cargo transportation, there are cases of deviation of a ship or other vehicle from the route indicated in the insurance documents, but with the intention to return to the previous course (deviation). According to the established norms of business turnover (unless otherwise provided in the contract), the fact of deviation releases the insurer from liability from the moment the deviation begins until the moment of returning to the route indicated in the insurance documents.

At the request of the insured, the scope of liability of the standard terms and conditions of insurance may include an additional "refrigeration risk" as the most frequently encountered in the practice of transportation. Refrigeration risk is defined as damage to cargo in a refrigerator as a result of failure of the refrigeration unit during transportation, which occurred for any reason, with the exception of dishonest performance of duties by the driver (mechanic) of the refrigerator. The damage associated with the defrosting of the cargo can be compensated by the insurer only if the failure of the refrigeration unit was caused by an accident or illegal action by third parties during the transportation period. Compensation is carried out according to the actual damage.

According to all existing internal legislative acts and international transport conventions, carriers, freight forwarders, custodians bear material liability to the owner of the cargo for causing damage to the cargo during transportation, transshipment, storage. But the carrier is released from liability if he proves that the destruction, damage or loss of the goods occurred due to circumstances that he could not prevent and the elimination of which did not depend on him.

In order to unify the interpretation of the terms of trade contracts for export-import transportation, the International Chamber of Commerce back in 1936 published a set of international rules for the precise definition of trade terms, known as the rules, or conditions, INCOTERMS, currently in force in the 2000 edition. cargo is now also based on the terms of delivery contained in the INCOTERMS. These rules stipulate the moment of transfer of risk from the seller to the buyer and the division of costs between them (Table 8.12). On this basis, the insurable interest and, accordingly, the main conditions of the cargo insurance contract are determined.

The use of INCOTERMS-2000 depends on the consent of the parties to the contract. If the terms of the transaction coincide with the terms of INCOTERMS, preference is given to the provisions fixed in the contract.

4.1. Events that occurred:

a) as a result of intentional actions of the Insured, the Beneficiary, a person admitted to driving the insured vehicle under an insurance contract, passengers of the insured vehicle, aimed at the occurrence of an insured event, or when the above persons commit or attempt to commit a crime;

b) as a result of driving the Vehicle by a person who was in a state of any degree of alcoholic, narcotic or toxicological intoxication or under the influence of medications, the use of which is contraindicated when driving the Vehicle, including those who consumed alcoholic beverages, narcotic, psychotropic or other intoxicating substances after an accident, to to which he is involved, and prior to the examination in order to establish the state of intoxication, or who refused to undergo an examination; and also if the driver of the insured vehicle left the scene of the accident;

c) due to the impact of a nuclear explosion, radiation or radioactive contamination;

d) due to military actions, maneuvers or other military actions, civil war, confiscation, seizure, requisition, arrest or destruction of the insured vehicle by order of state bodies;

e) as a result of driving a vehicle by a driver who does not have a driver's license for the right to drive a vehicle of the corresponding category, or by a person who does not have legal grounds for driving a vehicle (power of attorney, waybill, etc.);

e) due to the participation of the Vehicle in competitions, tests, or the use of the Vehicle for training purposes.

§5. Conclusion of an insurance contract

5.1. The insurance contract is concluded in writing on the basis of a written or oral application of the Policyholder. Failure to comply with the written form of the Insurance Contract shall entail its invalidity. The forms of the insurance contract, insurance policy and application for insurance provided for by these Rules (Appendix to the Rules) are standard. At the same time, the Insurer reserves the right to make changes and additions to them in accordance with the terms of a specific insurance contract and the legislation of the Russian Federation.

5.2. The insurance contract for the risk "Accident" can be concluded on a lump-sum system or on a system of places.

When concluding the Insurance Contract according to the system of places, the Insurance Contract stipulates sum insured for each insured seat in the vehicle. The number of insured places cannot exceed the number seats TC in accordance with the standards established by the manufacturer.

When concluding an insurance contract under a lump-sum system, the sum insured is negotiated for all vehicles. Each of the passengers (including the driver) who are in the vehicle at the time of the insured event is considered to be insured in a share of the total sum insured.