For example, often people are looking for information on whether CMTPL reimbursement is subject to Windshield stone. Agree, quite a common case. It would be logical to assume that it is not an insured event within the framework of the mandatory civil liability of road users. Indeed, in order for the insurance company to compensate for the damage under the OSAGO policy, the culprit of the accident is needed. In principle, everything is so. But as it turned out, our contradictory complex legislation confuses the courts, which often make completely opposite decisions. As a result, some drivers manage to get windshield reimbursement.
What happens if the courts in Russia do not unequivocally interpret our current legislation, then the owners who have insured their cars under OSAGO can theoretically count on compensation for damage if an ordinary stone that flew out from under the wheels of another vehicle hits the windshield? How do the courts come to such an ambiguous opinion? Indeed, in this case, there must be a culprit for the damage - i.e. responsible for the real accident.
Yes this is true. And what is most interesting, according to Rossiyskaya Gazeta, the appellate instance of the Kamchatka Regional Court recently issued an ambiguous decision, which recognized the defendant as the culprit of a traffic accident, as a result of which a stone flew out from under the wheels of the defendant's car.
What was the wording of the Kamchatka Regional Court of the Russian Federation? How did he find the driver guilty in an accident that, in principle, did not happen?
So, according to the court, the defendant violated the current traffic rules: he did not take into account the condition of the road surface, the features of the car when driving on a gravel section of the road and allowed the gravel to be thrown out.
That is, the court actually recognized the damage from the hit stone to be reimbursed by the insurance company under the law on OSAGO.
How so? It turns out that any driver on the road in which a stone hit the windshield can become a victim in an accident, and accordingly bring the culprit to justice and then receive compensation from the insurance company?
Unfortunately, you can't argue with the court's decision. It can only be challenged. But that is another story. For example, you need to contact . But more on that below.
The worst thing is that in this situation the imaginary culprit of the accident suffered the most. After all, recognizing the defendant as the culprit of damage to the windshield of the plaintiff's car, the judicial authority gives it to the insurance company in terms of the bonus-malus coefficient, on the basis of which insurance organizations annually calculate the final cost of the OSAGO policy.
Recall that in the event of at least one accident due to the fault of the driver, when applying for a new OSAGO policy, the insurance company will recalculate this coefficient, which will lead to a significant increase in the cost of the OSAGO policy for the defendant.
That is, it turns out that because of the stone that flew out from under the wheels, the defendant will now pay significantly more each year when applying for an OSAGO policy. Moreover, the increased amount will be valid for several years.
Stone in glass is not an accident!
However, as we have already said Russian legislation, and the judiciary very often makes conflicting decisions. One gets the feeling that in our country the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation is not looked at by more than one lower court.
Yes, unfortunately, although there is case law in our country, it operates according to special rules, unlike many Western countries where a court decision that has entered into legal force cannot be further called into question by a decision issued by another judicial authority.
In our country, each court has the right to make its reasoned decision. Although, of course, all lower judicial bodies are still obliged to take into account the decisions of the Supreme Court. For example, using the example of a decision made by the Kamchatka Regional Court of the Russian Federation in relation to a driver, it goes directly against the Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 39-AD16-1 dated March 11, 2016.
Recall that this decision of the Supreme Court put an end to the "i" in the question of whether a stone that hit the windshield is an accident.
True, this decision is not entirely related directly to the insured event under OSAGO. The fact is that the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 39-AD16-1 dated March 11, 2016 is related to the defendant, who was brought to administrative responsibility in accordance with part 2 of Article 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (leaving the scene of an accident). The driver disagreed and filed a lawsuit. As a result, several courts recognized the driver as the culprit of the accident, the culprit of the damage caused.
What did the defendant do? In fact, he was just driving his car. But on one section of the road, a stone flew out from under the wheels of his car, which hit the car of another road user. As a result of hitting a stone in the car, a crack formed in the windshield.
The driver of the damaged vehicle considered that an accident had occurred and called the traffic police to file an accident. The driver of the car from under the wheels of which a stone flew out left.
Unfortunately, in the future, this driver was held liable for leaving the scene of an accident, since the hit of a stone in the accident was recognized as facts of the accident.
Naturally, the defendant did not agree with this and began to challenge the actions of the traffic police in court. As a result, the defendant reached the Supreme Court, which rightly determined that the defendant cannot be the culprit of the accident, since the event occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the driver of the car. That is, logically, a stone that has flown out from under the wheels cannot be an accident.
Accordingly, the injured party cannot count on compensation for damages under the OSAGO law.
Yes, someone will say that the lawsuit considered by the appellate instance of the Kamchatka Regional Court and the decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation do not quite belong to the same topic. But it is not important. The very essence remains the same.
Anything can happen on the road. If a stone flew out from under the wheels of someone else's car towards you, you can not only lose your glass, but also get into a serious accident. Who will be to blame? And who will pay for the damage?
A driver who finds himself in such a situation must remain calm and stop as soon as possible, but not in the middle of the road, but still on the side of the road. After that, it is necessary to turn on the emergency light alarm, put up an emergency stop sign and report the incident to the traffic police. Inform your insurance company it is also desirable as soon as possible, but still it is better to wait for the arrival of the inspector, who will help to file an accident.
Yes, yes, no need to be surprised: a stone hitting a car is clearly interpreted as a traffic accident - read the definition in the Rules of the Road. Thus, the driver is obliged to complete all the necessary documents in order to have his car repaired under Casco. Well, if he has only OSAGO in his hands, then he will have to take into account all the circumstances of the incident. Moreover, the court sometimes comes to paradoxical, at first glance, conclusions that there really was no accident.
Dubious precedent
Recently, there have been reports that in such cases it is impossible to receive a payment for "autocitizenship". The basis for such conclusions was the decision of the Supreme Court of Russia, which returned the rights to the driver truck, from under the wheels of which a stone flew out, damaging the windshield of the car following behind. According to the traffic police, such an incident obliged the driver to stop and file an accident. He did leave. Therefore, he was charged with leaving the scene of a traffic accident.
As stated in the case file, on June 29 last year in the village of Dukhovets, Kursk region, a car was damaged by a stone, following in the same direction. The windshield cracked on impact.
Traffic police officers at the post issued the driver Shinakov A.A. accident report. At the same time, they imputed the driver Savchuk I.V., who was driving a car owned by CJSC Metallinvestleasing, for violating clause 2.5 of the traffic rules - leaving the scene of an accident. We drew up a protocol under Part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation and handed him over to the court.
The magistrate agreed that there had been an accident. And he concluded: since the truck driver left the scene of an accident, he should be deprived of his license for a year. The decision was not reviewed in the district and regional courts, but in the Supreme Court of Russia the case was qualified differently. And why?
Circumstances beyond the control of the driver
The highest court indicated that, in accordance with Art. 2 of the Law of December 10, 1995 No. 196-FZ “On Road Safety” and clause 1.2 of the SDA “a traffic accident is an event that occurred while driving on the road of a vehicle and with its participation, in which people died or were injured, damaged vehicles, structures, cargo or other material damage.
The event, the Supreme Court decided, does not meet the signs of a traffic accident in the sense given to this concept in Article 2 of the Law on Road Safety and in clause 1.2 of the SDA, and is not such, since the event occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the driver, without any action on his part.
He was not able to foresee this event, as well as the onset of consequences in the form of damage to the windshield from the car following in the same direction. Therefore, the conclusion of the lower courts on the presence in the actions of the driver of the objective side of the composition administrative offense according to part 2 of Art. 12.27 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation cannot be considered justified.
On this basis, the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation overturned the decisions of the lower courts and terminated the proceedings. (See Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of March 11, 2016 No. 39-AD16-1).
accident for one
Thus, the position of the Supreme Court can be interpreted as follows: a citizen cannot be blamed for an unfortunate set of circumstances, since he did not commit any illegal actions. It turns out that a stone flying into the windshield of a car is an accident only for the one who suffered.
This legal position is important in determining the consequences of any accident. And every driver must take it into account when deciding whether he is obliged to stop or not.
According to the Supreme Court, the accident is in a direct causal relationship with the actions of the driver. In the present case, it cannot be argued that if the truck driver had been more careful, nothing would have happened.
The ill-fated stone, which appeared on the road, could fall under the wheels of any car. And if the fault of a particular driver was not, then there is nothing to punish him for.
Prove the violation
However, do not rush to get upset. If you find yourself in a similar situation, the judge is not obliged to be guided by the decision of the Supreme Court in the case described above - we are not in the United States, and case law does not apply. You or your lawyer may be able to prove that the vehicle that threw the stone was overtaking you on the side of the road, which is not allowed, or on a road being repaired, where you should have slowed down. It is possible that aggressive driving will be proven if it is confirmed by witnesses or DVR recording. Then it will be possible to talk about a completely different qualification of the actions of the driver who drove over the stone. Even if he did it unintentionally.
Recall that the same Supreme Court recently disqualified a reckless driver whose dangerous maneuver led to an accident in which another car crashed into a tree. Likhach left safely, as his car was not damaged, but the court considered that the absence of damage to the car did not affect the qualification of the violation. Therefore, the driver was punished for.
However, today the law allows you to leave the scene of an accident if, as a result of the accident, damage was caused only to property and the participants in the accident have no disagreements about who is to blame for causing harm. However, even in this case, both drivers must first fix the position of the cars, including by means of photography or video recording (clause 2.6.1 of the SDA), and then they must complete the documents at the nearest traffic police post or police unit.
How to get insurance
So, if the windshield is broken by a stone, and you only have an OSAGO policy, then in most cases the insurance company will not help you, since the culprit most likely disappeared (or simply didn’t understand that he damaged your car), besides, no no evidence of his guilt. But if another object got into the glass, for example, a shovel left on the road by repairmen, then a civil claim can be brought against them. If the accident occurred as a result of a traffic violation committed by another driver, then he will have to compensate for the damage.
If you have voluntary insurance (casco), then you are required to change the glass at the expense of the insurance company. Arriving traffic police officers will issue an accident and give you the following documents: a certificate, a copy of the protocol and a decision on the case. After that, you will need to come with a set of documents to the insurance company and write a statement about the insured event. A notification coupon must be attached to the application - it will be given to you on the day the application is submitted to the police (even if it happened at night), a certificate in the F3 form and a decision to initiate or refuse to initiate a criminal case.
In some insurance companies, windshields are changed without certificates (with “full hull” insurance). Sometimes the insurance contract provides that without certificates you can apply in case of damage to glass elements, one body element, bumpers, if the damage does not exceed the amount specified in the insurance contract. Moreover, glass elements can be replaced repeatedly. In such cases, the list of documents to be provided must be specified in the contract and insurance rules. Usually this is a passport, policy, STS and a driver's license.
After breaking the windshield with a stone from the road, you must immediately stop and call the traffic police.
During the operation of the car, many of our motorists had cases when an oncoming pebble fell into the windshield. From this, not only a crack can occur, but the entire windshield can be covered with a dense mesh, after which it will only have to be changed. In this article, we will tell you how it will be possible to receive compensation to the owner of a car for a broken windshield.
Since the insurance company pays compensation for a crack or broken windshield, after such an event, you must immediately stop the car, turn on the hazard warning lights, install an emergency stop sign and call. This case of an oncoming stone hitting the windshield must be registered as a traffic accident by traffic police inspectors.
We remind you that in the rules of the road a stone hitting a car is considered a traffic accident. Accordingly, in order to recognize this case as insurance, it is necessary to register an accident by the traffic police. Only in this way it will be possible to achieve compensation for the received damage to the car under the CASCO insurance policy. Previously, compensation for a broken windshield could also be obtained under an OSAGO policy. However, recently even the courts refuse to do so, referring to the decision of the Supreme Court of Russia.
Bad windshield break precedent
Recently, the Supreme Court of Russia considered a case in which the windshield of a car was broken by a stone that flew out from under the wheels of a truck. The court's decision was to return the driver's license to the person who drove the car. This was done despite the fact that, according to the traffic police, the person who drove the truck left the scene without waiting for the traffic police. According to the current traffic rules, this case is considered as a traffic accident and requires registration by the traffic police. In this case, the truck driver was charged with leaving the scene of an accident.
And it was like this, on June 29, 2015, in the Kursk region near the village of Dukhovets, a stone flew out from under the wheel of a passing truck and hit the windshield of a passenger car. The impact left a large crack in the windshield. Traffic police officers drew up a protocol on the commission of an accident, in which the driver of the truck was named guilty, a stone flew out from under the wheels and broke the windshield of the passenger car. At the same time, he was charged with leaving the scene of an accident. This protocol was submitted to the court. After that, the court of first instance deprived the truck driver of the rights for one year. The appeal of this decision reached the Supreme Court of Russia, which qualified this situation in a completely different way and returned the driver's license to the truck driver.
A broken windshield is considered an accident.
According to article 2 of the law on road safety and paragraph 1.2 of the traffic rules, according to which a traffic accident is an event that occurred while a vehicle was moving on the road with its participation and in which people were injured or died, the vehicle was damaged , structures, cargo or any other material damage. According to paragraph 1.2 of the traffic rules, the case cited by us was not a traffic accident, since it occurred due to circumstances beyond the control of the driver. The driver did not perform any actions that could lead to this accident. This is the decision made by the Supreme Court of Russia. According to the Supreme Court of Russia, a truck driver could not foresee that a stone would fly out from under the wheel of his vehicle and hit the windshield of the car following him
As a result, this situation was not interpreted as a traffic accident, the driver's license was returned to the truck driver. Accordingly, any cases when a stone flies out from under the wheels of a passing car and breaks the windshield of the car following it are considered an accident only for the victim. The driver of the first car will not be prosecuted. It turns out that the driver of the first car was not required to stop to draw up a protocol on a traffic accident.
Evidence of the fact of violation when breaking the windshield with a stone
In our country, there may be cases when it will be possible to prove in court that the driver of the first car from under the wheels of which a stone flew out was still guilty. This may be in cases where the driver was driving his car on the side of the road, overtaking you. Such a maneuver is prohibited by the rules of the road. Also, in the case when the driver of the first car overtakes on the repaired section of the road without slowing down as it should, there will be traffic violation. Such behavior of the driver can be considered recklessness. In addition, the Supreme Court of Russia has recently deprived the driving license of a scorcher who made a dangerous maneuver, after which the second car crashed into a tree. Then the court considered that the reckless driver left the scene of a traffic accident, and deprived him of his driver's license.
According to CASCO, you can achieve compensation for a broken windshield. How to get CASCO compensation for a broken windshield
It will be possible to receive insurance compensation for a broken windshield on the road only under the CASCO insurance policy. To do this, it will be necessary to call the traffic police and draw up a traffic accident by drawing up a protocol. After that, with all the documents from the traffic police, you will need to contact the insurance company with a statement about the insured event. Depending on the insurance contract, a certificate in form F3 may be required. Do not forget that under a standard CASCO policy, glass body elements can be replaced several times during one period of validity of the insurance contract.
Many Russian car owners do not know that the driver can claim damages if, for example, a stone has flown into the windshield.
It turns out that such cases are classified as a traffic accident and you can get a payment for OSAGO.
What to do if a stone hits the glass?
Rockfalls happen not only in the mountains, for example, small pebbles on the road from the car in front.
Flying out from under the wheels, they can seriously damage your car. For example, the windshield. Even the most careful driver is not immune from this annoying nuisance. It's just impossible to react. The foreign object strikes at the speed of a bullet.
And now you are already looking at the world from behind cracks, like a spider. Agree, it's not pleasant. Especially in the evening, when the mini-mesh glare and dazzle the driver. After the “surprise” arrives, you pull over to the side of the road or park to the curb and you will face the question - did a stone hit the windshield, what should I do?
However, few people know that the damage can be compensated.
The fact is that according to the law, hitting the glass with a stone is considered a traffic accident, which means that there is always a victim and a culprit in it.
The service organizations of the public service are responsible for the condition of the roads in normal condition, they are obliged to monitor not only the absence of holes, but also any foreign objects on the canvas.
Received damage by a cobblestone, you can safely demand repairs from the road builders.
It is necessary to fix the fact that the stone flew out from under the wheel and hit the car. If there is a video recorder, it's pretty good - we have video material, if there is no registrar - testimonies of witnesses.
Call traffic police officers to the scene.
We get a damage report.
With this certificate we go to court.
However, if there is a repair on the road and the corresponding signs signal this, then the road builders have nothing to do with it.
If, as a result of the fact that the place was fenced and there were special signs and the driver should not have entered this zone, in accordance with the traffic rules, and the driver drove into this zone and a stone or other object flew out, then insurance will work in this situation.
This means that the driver of the car, from under the wheels of which the ill-fated stone flew out from under the wheels, is recognized as the culprit of the accident. He did not take into account road conditions and allowed an accident. Broken glass, according to OSAGO rules, is obliged to replace it with an insurance company.
The algorithm of actions is the same as, except for the last paragraph. First, we go to the insurance company with an application for an insurance payment, and only if the insurer refuses to pay, then the road to court.
Experts emphasize that it is impossible to save on this procedure. If the thought flashed to put not the original glass, throw this thought out of your head. This is a technically complex, science-intensive product, analogues, as a rule, consist of low-quality materials, they can distort the picture like a lens.
The plot of this story “spun” almost a year ago, in September 2016. Then a resident of Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky was driving in her car along one of the local dirt roads following another car. At some point, a particularly powerful sheaf of gravel flew out from under the wheels of the vehicle in front and hit the windshield of the main character's car. The amount of material damage, according to the results of an independent examination, subsequently organized by the injured car owner, amounted to about 60,000 rubles. Madam, deciding that what happened did not fall under, filed legal action to the perpetrator of the incident with a demand to reimburse her 85,150 rubles - taking into account the cost of damage, the cost of an examination and court costs.
However, the Petropavlovsk-Kamchatsky City Court assessed the incident in its own way. He decided that the direct cause of the accident was a violation of the traffic rules by the defendant: the driver did not take into account the condition of the road surface, technical features of his car and, as a result, allowed the emission of gravel from under the rear wheels of his car. Considering that the road incident occurred with the participation of two vehicles, and the civil liability of its culprit was insured at that time, the court concluded that the accident in question is an insured event.
charlotteautoglassnc.com
In addition, in the norms of the federal law there are no indications that an insured event occurs only in direct contact (collision) of two vehicles during an accident. On this basis, the owner of the car with glass broken by gravel in the lawsuit against the perpetrator of the incident was denied. Following the logic of the court, she should have filed an accident within the framework and applied for compensation from her insurance company.
This approach to the situation was also confirmed in the appellate instance - in the Kamchatka Regional Court. Taking into account this court decision, we can recommend the following algorithm of actions when a stone from a car in front broke the front of your car. After the impact, we fix the number of the shooter car using, for example, a DVR. Ideally - somehow stop it. Next - we call the police, draw up an accident and notify. If she refuses to reimburse, we poke the insurer's nose into the decisions of the Kamchatka courts. It does not work - we go to court and win the case, receiving a penalty from the insurance company.
All this is great, but what a misfortune: when registering ours, it will almost inevitably turn out that the offending car "fled from the scene of an accident." Despite the fact that her driver had no idea what had happened. But what is the deprivation of the "rights" of the actually innocent, in comparison with material compensation for our damage, isn't it?