In Art. 408, para. 1 of the Insurance Code states that the insurer can refuse payment of compensation only:
1. when the insured event is intentionally caused by a person who has the right to receive the insurance compensation;
2. when the insured event is intentionally caused by the insurer in order to receive the insurance compensation from another person;
3. in case of non-fulfilment of an obligation under the insurance contract by the insured, which is significant in view of the insurer's interest, was provided for by law or in the insurance contract and led to the occurrence of the insured event;
4. in other cases provided by law.
The practice of the Supreme Court in case of refusal by the insurer
In order to protect the interests of the insured, not every failure to fulfill a contractual obligation leads to the exclusion of the insurer's liability. It is necessary that an obligation which is provided for in the law or the contract and which is significant in view of the interest of the insurer has not yet been fulfilled. in the cases referred to in art. 211, item 2 of the Insurance Code, the insured does not fulfill obligations stipulated in the law and the contract, does not fulfill them culpably, the non-fulfilment is in a direct causal relationship with a substantial increase of the risk or has led to its realization and therefore it should be assumed that in the execution of these obligations would not have occurred until the insurance event occurred. the insurer must prove that the culpable non-fulfillment of the insured's obligation is the cause of the occurrence of the insured event. With this factual composition, the insurer may refuse to pay the insurance compensation.
Examples of refusal
In the event of an obligation of the insured not to leave the registration card in the vehicle provided for in the insurance contract, under the action of the Insurance Code (repealed), the practice of the SC has been formed. In this practice, it is accepted that leaving the registration plate in a stolen motor vehicle, the subject of "Motor vehicle comprehensive" insurance, upon the occurrence of the insured event - theft, does not significantly constitute, in view of the insurer's interest, a failure to fulfill the obligation under the insurance contract within the meaning of art. . 211, para. 2 of the Insurance Code (repealed) and as such is not grounds for a complete refusal to pay insurance compensation under Art. 208 of the Insurance Code (repealed). Violation of the obligation not to leave any part of the vehicle registration plate in the motor vehicle, expressly provided for in the insurance contract, can only lead to a reduction of the corresponding insurance compensation, according to Art. 207, para. 2 Insurance Code (repealed) in the event that the insured event has already occurred, but not to justify a complete refusal to pay compensation. The authorizations are motivated by the fact that leaving the registration plate in the stolen car does not contribute to the occurrence of the insured event "theft", but it can make it difficult to detect the perpetrator and thus affect the amount of damage.
Leaving the scene of the accident by the driver and not notifying the authorities of the Ministry of Internal Affairs undoubtedly constitutes a failure to comply with the provisions of Art. 125 Bulgarian Road Traffic Law and from the general conditions obligation, but it is not sufficient to justify the insurer's right to refuse payment of the insurance compensation claimed by the insured.
