Section 887 Disaster insurance trig contract, the insurer agreed to support the use of claims on behalf of the insured for any casualty occurring to another person. And the insured is responsible.
A person must be like to receive the compensation as they should from the insurer directly. However, such claims may be thinking to find than an insurer may be required under the contract has not. In the case between the insurer and the injured. You need to be called into action by the insured.
Furthermore, although the insurer has claims for the insured was also released from liability to the injured party is not. Unless they can prove that the insured can claim to be damaged.
Section 888 If an insurer uses claims to the Court is not worth the full amount of casualty gem. You still have to get used to the insured amount is lacking. But unless the injured party can not ignore a summons to the lawsuit by the Insured as stated in the previous section.
Supreme Court in 3506/2551.
Although it is known that because of the negligence of the defendant No. 1 and No. 2 together, and no less than the defendants 1 and 2, has caused damage to the cars of the plaintiff, a party must be considered. that the defendants 1 and 2, have all contributed to cause such damage, all the defendants 1 and 2, must be jointly liable for damage caused to the debtor and the defendant No. 1 and No. 2 or any one of you. liable to the plaintiff the full amount of damages will be liable. The plaintiff obtained a third defendant, the insurer must be jointly liable with the defendant, a result of such violations as well.
Supreme Court in 6277/2550.
The plaintiff sued the defendant under the contract claims of the plaintiff insured. Insurance will be liable for damage to property of M and S, which is the third accident caused the plaintiff violated. Car insurance with the defendant's car, grab the M and S have been damaged, so the plaintiff is entitled to a claim filed on behalf of the plaintiff from the defendant. Insurance under Section 887, the plaintiff will have claims to a third party, then m, and S or not. No matter if they are not entitled to inherit.
The plaintiff sued the defendant to pay interest rate of 7.5 percent per year, the two lower courts allow the defendant to pay interest at the rate of 15 percent per year, but the defendant denied liability to plaintiff. The preliminary evidence that the plaintiff was not driving at the scene. The driver of the plaintiff does not have a driver's license, vehicle conditions, the defendant will not. Liable under the policy. It is to be justified by. The interest rate should be 7.5 percent per year, according to plaintiff's request.
Supreme Court in 6012/2550.
Defendant No. 3 car accident car insurance from the defendant to a claim by a third party agree to use the first defendant to be liable to third parties. It is Disaster insurance trig under Section 887 paragraph one, the company hired by the defendant that a C to C, the shipping company's insurance units to the plaintiff by the truck. Even if the plaintiff is not a party to the third defendant and the plaintiff is the beneficiary of the policy did not specify the defendant's insurer would be liable, on behalf of three defendants to a casualty loss arising to the Company C, where a defendant is insured. responsibility. The plaintiff, a subcontractor of the SOI like to receive direct compensation from the defendant pursuant to Section 887 3.
Supreme Court in 6012/2550.
A third defendant, obtain insurance from a defendant by the defendant third parties agree to use the defendant's claim that an insured. Which will be responsible for any third party. Insurance, such as Disaster insurance trig. Although the plaintiff is not a party to the third defendant and the defendant is an insurance policy does not specify whether the plaintiff is the beneficiary. However, when such insurance is Disaster insurance trig and damage. Amount not exceeding the third defendant, the defendant shall be liable to a third insurer, on behalf of a defendant to a casualty loss arising to the Company C, which is an insured defendant is responsible. The company said the injured person would like to receive as compensation. T should be directed to the insurer of the defendant's third claim that the three defendants have expressly agreed that this policy is not responsible for any of the assets of the insurance carrier or other type of receiver. I already have. It shall not be liable to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 4814/2550.
Section 90/60 of the Bankruptcy Act, second paragraph stipulates that the order of the court, which approved the plan does not change the liability of the person. Partnership with the debtor. Or liable with the debtor. Or guarantor or as a guarantor of the debtor in debt. Before the court agreed with the plan ... Thus, the plaintiff fails to file an application for repayment to the official receiver within one month from the date of your order to the plan and the court shall order the cancellation. The rehabilitation of a defendant so that the first defendant that the plaintiff may obtain relief from debt payments was in reorganizations. But still only affect a defendant that the plaintiff is entitled to receive payment. Debt and it has put an end to the suspension. The liability of the defendants, two of which may be jointly liable with the defendant that a violation of the contract must be met. And provisions. Civil and Commercial Code regarding Disaster insurance trig. The fact that a withdrawal without prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff to the defendant and the plaintiff sued two defendants, the insurer has two.
Supreme Court in 1631/2550.
The plaintiff sued the defendant to liability as an insurer, two car accident in which a defendant has insurance. But according to the complaint, the plaintiff has not alleged or shown that the defendant's two insurance from the defendant a look Prakanpaicgmhun the defendant No. 2 insurer, agreed to the compensation on behalf of the defendant, an insurer for a casualty, which happened to another person. And has not been described to sue for the kite to drive a legal relationship, however, the defendant is an insured, the defendant, an insured will be responsible for the consequences of violations of the new. With a lawsuit against the plaintiff is the essence of the information that the defendant 2. complaint, the plaintiff was not liable for claims based on a presentation of charges to users. Liability insurance required. The indictment does not expressly provided by Section 172, paragraph two Civil Procedure Code plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the dark The next two defendants are correct that the defendant received two Prakanpaicgmhun car accident. The plaintiff's complaint was not unlawful, but the first is that the indictment. Legal them. The court ruled that the plaintiff wins the case without the defendant's second complaint, the defendant, the two can not be held liable for the plaintiff by the first paragraph of Section 887.
Supreme Court 1802/2549.
Disaster insurance trig under Section 887 of the insurance one. The separate provisions in Part 3 of Section 2 liability under the claim that the recipient Disaster insurance trig. We need to enforce the provisions of Section 882 of the General provisions in Part 1 of the same category. The time limit prescribed by it. It may not be comparable to that provided in other cases, life insurance and may not lead. 193/30 under the general provisions shall apply to the case Disaster insurance trig.
Claims that the recipient Disaster insurance trig liability claims, the second paragraph of Section 887 stipulates that "a person must be like to receive the compensation as they should be from Insurer directly to ... etc. "the plaintiff is entitled to sue the defendants liable for damages to four without intent to take advantage of the contract before the age of prosecution under Section 882, paragraph one of which is prohibited by law from prosecution. expiration of two years from the date that the casualty. Provided only that the date of casualty. It may be general principles of the statute under Section 193/12 is applicable to this case or the interpretation is different, so when the plaintiff filed the expiration of two years from the date of the plaintiff in the lawsuit casualty of the defendant. 4 to terminate the.
Supreme Court in 5590/2548.
The defendant claims the insurer will pay compensation on behalf of the defendant at the second insured. This will require disclaimers. Although the exception does not cover liability arising from the vehicle by a person. Never received any license, it has a special agreement that The defendant does not raise the invalidity of the insurance policy or negligence. Gross carelessness of the defendant as a defense, the two parties to the disclaimer. When a defendant claims to have used it. The defendants are liable under law or policy, the second defendant is accused of two cases in which the defendant is liable to a third party that requires two co-defendants to pay the amount refunded to the defendants. Which means that The liability of the defendant to two of the insured person's driver's license has never been any co-defendant, the defendant shall not be liable to the 2, but is liable to a third party in the amount of the liability in the table. Policy Recourse against the second defendant to the defendant to be liable to the plaintiff and the defendant to two, a third party for damages incurred but not over the limit. The limits of liability insurance.
Supreme Court in 4997/2548.
Plaintiff's complaint that the defendants spoke to two employees and a driver in the employ of the defendant was driving recklessly on a slick drive the truck that the plaintiff employee has been damaged. The two defendants to pay compensation to the plaintiff. This is enough to understand the charges and accused the defense has. The plaintiff, who did not specify whether employees. All non-essential and can attest that the plaintiff is more detailed in its consideration. The plaintiff sued, so do not be vague
Accused the two employees accused the first day of the attacks car of the defendant who first brought the Vice President of Defendant No. 1 to show that the defendant's second drive of the order of the person authorized to act on behalf of the defendant at first to be made. order the defendant to a even a week is not normal behavior of the defendant, the two would act in the employ of the defendant as a defendant in a claim that occurred after hours of Defendant 2 Defendant: 1. It can not be held liable.
Plaintiff to repair the truck can not be used for 173 days, the plaintiff is entitled to compensation from the lack of benefit from using the car during the repair. And damage from lack of income, which is carried in the car while delivering newspapers were. Because it sells newspapers and could be returned.
According to that policy. The defendant's claims on behalf of the insured, the insured will Liable. For damage to property of third parties arising from the accident. The use of vehicles during the period of insurance as a benefit of using the car and damage the newspaper's revenue. Plaintiff's delay was not available. There is damage to property of the plaintiff, a third party. Arising from an act in direct violation of the defendant, an insurer is liable to the plaintiff. Defendants must jointly liable with the defendant and the plaintiff as well.
Supreme Court in 580/2519.
The plaintiff took the car to the defendant. For damage caused to the property of others is by car. Not exceeding 50,000 baht per employee of the plaintiff's car crash injuries and fatalities, many others were injured plaintiffs to sue and be sued for damages to the plaintiff for some. Defendant to pay plaintiff's damages paid. Compromise agreement. The defendant refused to pay the plaintiff's case is 29,000 Baht to the defendant liable for the plaintiff to sue the plaintiff for damages paid to victims. Plaintiff's car was hit by a lawsuit, even this amount of damages the plaintiff claims in this case some of the money to the plaintiff. The money paid to the victim with the victim in the case before it, but it is the case. The plaintiff sued for compensation by policyholders. The decision to issue the same to the defendant that the plaintiff is entitled to claim compensation. The money just was not. The court ruled that the liability of the defendant by virtue of facts about The same accident. Based on the same policy. Against the plaintiff in this case is prohibited by the Code of Civil Procedure Section 148.
Supreme Court in 1042/2518.
The plaintiff sued the defendant that the plaintiff is a beneficiary under the policy are that Disaster insurance trig car. The plaintiff claims to use a third party does not exceed 10,000 units, the defendant's car collided with another vehicle. The plaintiff, the defendant shall be responsible for repairing the car was hit by the end of the money to the defendant to pay 25,000 baht to 15,000 baht to pay the plaintiff as the plaintiff. The injured party would prefer to receive money from the plaintiff the amount of the repairs. As far as the plaintiff and the defendants agreed in the policy on the part of the lack of it. To claim that the defendants used. The plaintiff has no legal duty to pay for the repairs to be damaged beyond. Than its liability is limited to 10,000 but was paid to the defendant will not be assigned to handle the matter. As a result, the debt would still be the car that was canceled. And the defendant escape liability to the injured could be accused of that. And have a true desire or intention of that. Will be assumed. If the lawsuit is out of order management that could cause the debt obligations. Defendant to pay money due from the plaintiff, a manager has to manage. Defendants in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 401 plaintiff sued the defendant has a right to sue in the courts prefer to consider
A person must be like to receive the compensation as they should from the insurer directly. However, such claims may be thinking to find than an insurer may be required under the contract has not. In the case between the insurer and the injured. You need to be called into action by the insured.
Furthermore, although the insurer has claims for the insured was also released from liability to the injured party is not. Unless they can prove that the insured can claim to be damaged.
Section 888 If an insurer uses claims to the Court is not worth the full amount of casualty gem. You still have to get used to the insured amount is lacking. But unless the injured party can not ignore a summons to the lawsuit by the Insured as stated in the previous section.
Supreme Court in 3506/2551.
Although it is known that because of the negligence of the defendant No. 1 and No. 2 together, and no less than the defendants 1 and 2, has caused damage to the cars of the plaintiff, a party must be considered. that the defendants 1 and 2, have all contributed to cause such damage, all the defendants 1 and 2, must be jointly liable for damage caused to the debtor and the defendant No. 1 and No. 2 or any one of you. liable to the plaintiff the full amount of damages will be liable. The plaintiff obtained a third defendant, the insurer must be jointly liable with the defendant, a result of such violations as well.
Supreme Court in 6277/2550.
The plaintiff sued the defendant under the contract claims of the plaintiff insured. Insurance will be liable for damage to property of M and S, which is the third accident caused the plaintiff violated. Car insurance with the defendant's car, grab the M and S have been damaged, so the plaintiff is entitled to a claim filed on behalf of the plaintiff from the defendant. Insurance under Section 887, the plaintiff will have claims to a third party, then m, and S or not. No matter if they are not entitled to inherit.
The plaintiff sued the defendant to pay interest rate of 7.5 percent per year, the two lower courts allow the defendant to pay interest at the rate of 15 percent per year, but the defendant denied liability to plaintiff. The preliminary evidence that the plaintiff was not driving at the scene. The driver of the plaintiff does not have a driver's license, vehicle conditions, the defendant will not. Liable under the policy. It is to be justified by. The interest rate should be 7.5 percent per year, according to plaintiff's request.
Supreme Court in 6012/2550.
Defendant No. 3 car accident car insurance from the defendant to a claim by a third party agree to use the first defendant to be liable to third parties. It is Disaster insurance trig under Section 887 paragraph one, the company hired by the defendant that a C to C, the shipping company's insurance units to the plaintiff by the truck. Even if the plaintiff is not a party to the third defendant and the plaintiff is the beneficiary of the policy did not specify the defendant's insurer would be liable, on behalf of three defendants to a casualty loss arising to the Company C, where a defendant is insured. responsibility. The plaintiff, a subcontractor of the SOI like to receive direct compensation from the defendant pursuant to Section 887 3.
Supreme Court in 6012/2550.
A third defendant, obtain insurance from a defendant by the defendant third parties agree to use the defendant's claim that an insured. Which will be responsible for any third party. Insurance, such as Disaster insurance trig. Although the plaintiff is not a party to the third defendant and the defendant is an insurance policy does not specify whether the plaintiff is the beneficiary. However, when such insurance is Disaster insurance trig and damage. Amount not exceeding the third defendant, the defendant shall be liable to a third insurer, on behalf of a defendant to a casualty loss arising to the Company C, which is an insured defendant is responsible. The company said the injured person would like to receive as compensation. T should be directed to the insurer of the defendant's third claim that the three defendants have expressly agreed that this policy is not responsible for any of the assets of the insurance carrier or other type of receiver. I already have. It shall not be liable to the plaintiff.
Supreme Court in 4814/2550.
Section 90/60 of the Bankruptcy Act, second paragraph stipulates that the order of the court, which approved the plan does not change the liability of the person. Partnership with the debtor. Or liable with the debtor. Or guarantor or as a guarantor of the debtor in debt. Before the court agreed with the plan ... Thus, the plaintiff fails to file an application for repayment to the official receiver within one month from the date of your order to the plan and the court shall order the cancellation. The rehabilitation of a defendant so that the first defendant that the plaintiff may obtain relief from debt payments was in reorganizations. But still only affect a defendant that the plaintiff is entitled to receive payment. Debt and it has put an end to the suspension. The liability of the defendants, two of which may be jointly liable with the defendant that a violation of the contract must be met. And provisions. Civil and Commercial Code regarding Disaster insurance trig. The fact that a withdrawal without prejudice to the rights of the plaintiff to the defendant and the plaintiff sued two defendants, the insurer has two.
Supreme Court in 1631/2550.
The plaintiff sued the defendant to liability as an insurer, two car accident in which a defendant has insurance. But according to the complaint, the plaintiff has not alleged or shown that the defendant's two insurance from the defendant a look Prakanpaicgmhun the defendant No. 2 insurer, agreed to the compensation on behalf of the defendant, an insurer for a casualty, which happened to another person. And has not been described to sue for the kite to drive a legal relationship, however, the defendant is an insured, the defendant, an insured will be responsible for the consequences of violations of the new. With a lawsuit against the plaintiff is the essence of the information that the defendant 2. complaint, the plaintiff was not liable for claims based on a presentation of charges to users. Liability insurance required. The indictment does not expressly provided by Section 172, paragraph two Civil Procedure Code plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the dark The next two defendants are correct that the defendant received two Prakanpaicgmhun car accident. The plaintiff's complaint was not unlawful, but the first is that the indictment. Legal them. The court ruled that the plaintiff wins the case without the defendant's second complaint, the defendant, the two can not be held liable for the plaintiff by the first paragraph of Section 887.
Supreme Court 1802/2549.
Disaster insurance trig under Section 887 of the insurance one. The separate provisions in Part 3 of Section 2 liability under the claim that the recipient Disaster insurance trig. We need to enforce the provisions of Section 882 of the General provisions in Part 1 of the same category. The time limit prescribed by it. It may not be comparable to that provided in other cases, life insurance and may not lead. 193/30 under the general provisions shall apply to the case Disaster insurance trig.
Claims that the recipient Disaster insurance trig liability claims, the second paragraph of Section 887 stipulates that "a person must be like to receive the compensation as they should be from Insurer directly to ... etc. "the plaintiff is entitled to sue the defendants liable for damages to four without intent to take advantage of the contract before the age of prosecution under Section 882, paragraph one of which is prohibited by law from prosecution. expiration of two years from the date that the casualty. Provided only that the date of casualty. It may be general principles of the statute under Section 193/12 is applicable to this case or the interpretation is different, so when the plaintiff filed the expiration of two years from the date of the plaintiff in the lawsuit casualty of the defendant. 4 to terminate the.
Supreme Court in 5590/2548.
The defendant claims the insurer will pay compensation on behalf of the defendant at the second insured. This will require disclaimers. Although the exception does not cover liability arising from the vehicle by a person. Never received any license, it has a special agreement that The defendant does not raise the invalidity of the insurance policy or negligence. Gross carelessness of the defendant as a defense, the two parties to the disclaimer. When a defendant claims to have used it. The defendants are liable under law or policy, the second defendant is accused of two cases in which the defendant is liable to a third party that requires two co-defendants to pay the amount refunded to the defendants. Which means that The liability of the defendant to two of the insured person's driver's license has never been any co-defendant, the defendant shall not be liable to the 2, but is liable to a third party in the amount of the liability in the table. Policy Recourse against the second defendant to the defendant to be liable to the plaintiff and the defendant to two, a third party for damages incurred but not over the limit. The limits of liability insurance.
Supreme Court in 4997/2548.
Plaintiff's complaint that the defendants spoke to two employees and a driver in the employ of the defendant was driving recklessly on a slick drive the truck that the plaintiff employee has been damaged. The two defendants to pay compensation to the plaintiff. This is enough to understand the charges and accused the defense has. The plaintiff, who did not specify whether employees. All non-essential and can attest that the plaintiff is more detailed in its consideration. The plaintiff sued, so do not be vague
Accused the two employees accused the first day of the attacks car of the defendant who first brought the Vice President of Defendant No. 1 to show that the defendant's second drive of the order of the person authorized to act on behalf of the defendant at first to be made. order the defendant to a even a week is not normal behavior of the defendant, the two would act in the employ of the defendant as a defendant in a claim that occurred after hours of Defendant 2 Defendant: 1. It can not be held liable.
Plaintiff to repair the truck can not be used for 173 days, the plaintiff is entitled to compensation from the lack of benefit from using the car during the repair. And damage from lack of income, which is carried in the car while delivering newspapers were. Because it sells newspapers and could be returned.
According to that policy. The defendant's claims on behalf of the insured, the insured will Liable. For damage to property of third parties arising from the accident. The use of vehicles during the period of insurance as a benefit of using the car and damage the newspaper's revenue. Plaintiff's delay was not available. There is damage to property of the plaintiff, a third party. Arising from an act in direct violation of the defendant, an insurer is liable to the plaintiff. Defendants must jointly liable with the defendant and the plaintiff as well.
Supreme Court in 580/2519.
The plaintiff took the car to the defendant. For damage caused to the property of others is by car. Not exceeding 50,000 baht per employee of the plaintiff's car crash injuries and fatalities, many others were injured plaintiffs to sue and be sued for damages to the plaintiff for some. Defendant to pay plaintiff's damages paid. Compromise agreement. The defendant refused to pay the plaintiff's case is 29,000 Baht to the defendant liable for the plaintiff to sue the plaintiff for damages paid to victims. Plaintiff's car was hit by a lawsuit, even this amount of damages the plaintiff claims in this case some of the money to the plaintiff. The money paid to the victim with the victim in the case before it, but it is the case. The plaintiff sued for compensation by policyholders. The decision to issue the same to the defendant that the plaintiff is entitled to claim compensation. The money just was not. The court ruled that the liability of the defendant by virtue of facts about The same accident. Based on the same policy. Against the plaintiff in this case is prohibited by the Code of Civil Procedure Section 148.
Supreme Court in 1042/2518.
The plaintiff sued the defendant that the plaintiff is a beneficiary under the policy are that Disaster insurance trig car. The plaintiff claims to use a third party does not exceed 10,000 units, the defendant's car collided with another vehicle. The plaintiff, the defendant shall be responsible for repairing the car was hit by the end of the money to the defendant to pay 25,000 baht to 15,000 baht to pay the plaintiff as the plaintiff. The injured party would prefer to receive money from the plaintiff the amount of the repairs. As far as the plaintiff and the defendants agreed in the policy on the part of the lack of it. To claim that the defendants used. The plaintiff has no legal duty to pay for the repairs to be damaged beyond. Than its liability is limited to 10,000 but was paid to the defendant will not be assigned to handle the matter. As a result, the debt would still be the car that was canceled. And the defendant escape liability to the injured could be accused of that. And have a true desire or intention of that. Will be assumed. If the lawsuit is out of order management that could cause the debt obligations. Defendant to pay money due from the plaintiff, a manager has to manage. Defendants in the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 401 plaintiff sued the defendant has a right to sue in the courts prefer to consider
