insurance against loss

Section 869. The term "casualty" in this section means any damage whatsoever which may be estimated as income.

Section 870. If two or more insurance contracts are entered together for the same casualty. And the total amount of insurance that flooded the amount of real damage. He said that beneficiaries prefer to receive compensation only the actual amount of damage. Each insurer must spend a real amount of money divided by the much less insured.

The insurance contract. If the same day You have to be done simultaneously.

If the insurance contract is two or more consecutive sequences. The first insurer will be liable for the first. If and the amount of money the first insurer has used it is not worth the cost. The next insurer will be liable for the missing part until the next.

Section 871 if the insurance contract is two or more simultaneously. Or sequential order. You are willing to waive the right to the insurer. Not wound up the rights and obligations of other insurers.

Section 872. The insured will terminate the contract. But insurers like to get a half premium.

Section 873 if during the term of the insurance. Insurance is reduced to heavy. He said that the insurer would like to reduce the amount of insurance. And reduce the amount of premiums.

Reduce the amount of insurance. As a result, in the future.

Section 874 if the parties have set the price of insurance. Insurers prefer to reduce the amount of compensation. But when it proved that the price of insurance as agreed, it is too high. And return the amount of premiums to both the interest.

Section 875. If the object was insured. Change of the insured from the will. Or by the law. You have the right to the insurance contract will be transferred.

If the contract is not otherwise. When the Insured Person transfers the insured object and informs the transfer to the insurer. You have the right in the insurance contract will be transferred by the same. If in this transfer, the channel changed or increased heavy weight. You that the insurance contract becomes void.

Section 876. If the insurer must declare bankrupt. The insured will call for a reasonable insurance for themselves. Or will terminate the contract.

If the insured must declare bankrupt. You should use this same method as it should. Nevertheless If the premium has been sent in full amount to the insurance period is very low. You do not allow the insurer to terminate the contract before that period.

Section 877 requires the insurer to take the following claims.

(1) for the actual number of casualties

(2) for the damage caused to the property which has been insured because it has been reasonably managed to protect the property.

(3) for all reasonable expenses incurred to preserve the insured property;

The real number. You have to evaluate the price at the place and at the time that the accident was occurring. You are presumed to be the correct estimate of the price, as such.

You are not allowed to charge more than the amount insured.

Section 878. The insurer must be the issuer.

Section 879. The insurer shall not be liable for any damage or other cause as specified in the contract, resulting from fraud. Or serious negligence of the insured or the beneficiary.

The insurer shall not be liable for any direct consequential loss, but shall be insured in the material of the insured object. Unless otherwise agreed.

Section 880. If an injury has occurred because of a third party act. The insurer has to use the amount of compensation. The insurer inherits the rights of the insured and the beneficiary to the third party.

If the insurer has used the compensation, but only some. You do not allow the insurer to use their rights to defame the rights of the insured. Or beneficiary In order to claim compensation from a third party for a fraction of the amount.

Section 881 if the anger arises because the insurance is insured as insurance. When the insured or beneficiary knows the anger. Notify the insurer without delay.

If the provisions referred to in the preceding paragraph The insurer may claim compensation for any damage that may occur. Unless the other party can prove that they can not do it.

Section 882 of the Claim. You are not allowed to file a lawsuit after two years from the date of the disaster.

To call or to return the premium. You may not file a lawsuit after two years from the date on which the right to claim or reimburse the premium is due.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8789/2559.

The defendant's 1 car crashed into another car causing damage to another three cars, it is a direct result of the negligence of the defendant, who was driving at high speed while drunk. According to the insurance policy at the end of the insurance policy, Article 7 states that the insurance does not cover liability arising from 7.6. Clause 8, paragraph two, states that the conditions of 7.6 companies shall not be taken as a defense against third parties to refuse liability. When the plaintiff to pay compensation to third parties under the terms of the insurance policy Article 8, paragraph three, the plaintiff has the right to claim from the insured.

The terms of the policy. The insured person who is to be called back from the insurer means the insured person who committed the offense to a third party. But at the moment of this case, the defendant is not the insured. The plaintiff has no right to claim compensation from the defendant, 2, although the defendant did not raise the problem. But the problem is the law of public order. The Supreme Court deems it appropriate to raise the matter under Section 142 (5)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6914/2559.

When the defendant driving a car that the plaintiff insured with the consent of the insured while drunk. And then the car accident that the driver was damaged. As a defendant, the insured caused damage to the property of third parties. According to the insurance policy, the protection of third party liability Article 8 requires the plaintiff as the recipient of the liability to third parties without the possibility of exclusion of the exclusion of the protection of driving cases by persons who have not had alcohol in the drive. More than 150 mg. To refuse the indemnity And when the plaintiff indemnified the claim. The defendant has the right to pay the plaintiff to pay back to the plaintiff in accordance with the terms of the policy. Section 8, Clause 3, Third Party Liability. In such case, the insurer shall pay the indemnity to the third party for return from the insured under the insurance contract. Unlike the claim for compensation under Section 882 paragraph one and the absence of specific law provisions. So it is 10 years under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30, when the plaintiff sued the case within 10 years from the date the plaintiff indemnified the plaintiff to a third party. Plaintiff's case is not terminated.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6758/2559.

Even the plaintiff sued the defendant both because of the cause of the truck driver and the son of the plaintiff's cause for the death of the plaintiff. Claims by the plaintiff's indemnity is the exercise as the insured. Both claim to the defendant as compensation for the insurance of the victims of the car 2 years from the date of the accident under Section 882 is not the case in the criminal case.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 732/2559.

Dispute Resolution No. 3, where both applicants request the claimant to pay the same car. The claimant under the same policy. Cause the same case. The two dissidents are equally wounded with the two opposing parties presenting the dispute in accordance with the first and second plaintiffs. Therefore, the third disputed claim is the only one claiming the indemnity to the claimant. Two objections Therefore, it is against the Dispute Settlement No. 1 and No. 2.

The insurance company for the passenger car insurance with the first claimant and the company is the second insurance company, so the claimant is liable for the injury before the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 870, paragraph three, when a disaster. Beneficiaries like to receive compensation only a real amount of damage. According to Section 870 paragraph one, although the company will pay the primary damages to victims of the car accident victims. Car 2835, but it appears that the two parties to the compromise agreement with the MPs, it is not the company to compensate the two defendants are cool. However, the two parties who are the beneficiaries of the waiver of the rights of the insurer will not hurt the rights and obligations of other insurers under Section 871 when the arbitrator determines the actual damages to the person. Both parties pay 25,000 baht each, but the sole claimant must pay the claim by the amount. Does not take into account that those two objections received compensation from the company. And how many. The objections to the two will be paid in excess of the actual amount. It is a violation of the law. Acceptance or enforcement of the award will be contrary to public order or morality. The court shall have the power to revoke the award. Arbitration Act, 2002, Section 40, paragraph three (2) (b)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 13071/2558.

The plaintiff hired a car from a finance company. The plaintiff has only the right to use and use in the car. When the plaintiff sells a used car to the bank. The agreement to pay the remaining hire purchase, the transfer of leasing rights by the finance company A. Not agreed. It is the wrong transfer of lease. And no capital company. A. The plaintiff is still liable to the capital company A. under the lease. And if the lease payment is complete. The hire of the plaintiff under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 572, the plaintiff can transfer the car to the registration of the car to the car under the lease is the only possession of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is also a stakeholder in the leasing car while the insurance contract. Insurance between the plaintiff and the defendant is bound by law. When the car that the plaintiff's insurance against the defendant lost. The plaintiff has the power to sue the defendant.

The car was leased without locking the car. Then walk to smoke away from the car for about 20 minutes without seeing the car park. Car parked in a careless manner. And do not care if the car accident or not. When the car is insured lost. The circumstance is considered serious negligence of the car, which is the occupant of the car leasing instead of the plaintiff. The defendant as the insurer is not liable for the loss of hire-purchase cars that are guaranteed to the plaintiff under Section 879 paragraph one.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 10260/2558.

The Act on the Protection of the Victims of Vehicle, BE 2535 (1992), Section 4 requires medical treatment as a preliminary remedy. As part of the compensation paid by the Civil and Commercial Code as provided for in Section 25, paragraph two, and when the insurance company paid the initial damages, how much. Section 31 stipulates that it has recourse to third parties. Or from the owner of the car, the driver in the car. Or victims If caused by the intention or negligence of such serious negligence, Section 22 will not disqualify the plaintiff's claim to claim additional compensation under the Civil and Commercial Code, but it does not mean that the plaintiff's right to. Get paid to receive medical expenses again. The plaintiff's money has already been received under the insurance policy to protect victims from the car deducted from the medical expenses paid by the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2122/2559.

Get motorcycle insurance with the plaintiff. It is insured. Section 7 obliges car owners who use cars or cars to use to provide insurance for the victims. If the damage to the victims of the car that the plaintiff insured. The plaintiff must pay the victim to the initial completion within 7 days from the receipt of the request without waiting for proof of the offense as provided in Section 20 and 25 when the victim was paid to the victim. How much The plaintiff has the right to recourse to the third party who caused damage under Section 31, which is the right to occur by the law. It is not the plaintiff's rights to the plaintiff sued the plaintiff sued the plaintiff, the plaintiff did not take the plaintiff to be entitled to the plaintiff under Section 880 because the victims are not insured by the original Act. Protection of car accident victims, 1992, Section 31, Second paragraph, as amended by Section 12 of the Act on the Protection of the Victims of Motor Vehicles, BE 2535 (No.3), BE 2540 (1997). Act In the first year after realizing. Those who are liable However, it must not exceed 5 years from the date of payment of compensation to the victims, but later the Act on the Protection of the Victims of Car 1992 (No. 4) BE. 2007, Section 11, which is in force at the time of the accident. Paragraph two of Section 31 of the Motor Vehicle Accident Act, BE 2535 as amended by The Act on the Protection of Motor Vehicle Accidents (No. 3), BE 2540 (1997), without any amendment, shall be replaced with the following:

There is no law specifically regulating the age of recruitment. It must be 10 years old, according to Civil and Commercial Code, Section 193/30, since the plaintiff paid the initial damage to the victims on November 6, 2009 until the plaintiff sued. It has not expired for 10 years, the claim of the plaintiff is not terminated.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 12849/2558.

The owner of the shopping mall is to arrange a parking lot for the shop and the customers of the shop to park the car while visiting the shop that rents the space in the shopping mall and gives it to the company. The manager provides all utilities, including indoor and outdoor security, with the benefit of revenue from the storage. The two defendant and the defendant company is a subsidiary of the same company and the purpose of commercial business is to benefit from the use of the shopping center together with the defendant. The service fee for the utilities. The company entered into a security contract with the defendant to arrange security staff. The security of the shopping center building is therefore useful for the use of the shopping center building. The defendant, the owner of the shopping center building, has the security guard of the defendant, who will keep the security of the shopping center building. The shopping center understands that the second defendant assigned the defendant to represent the security of the child. Repeat The circumstances of the company with the defendant 2, which together trade. It is considered that the company with the defendant 2 together in the contract to hire a defendant to secure the shopping center. When the plaintiff's insurance is lost due to the negligence of the employee of the defendant, the two defendants must be liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff's insurer.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 12622/2558.

The claimant is the insurer of the defendant, an employee of the plaintiff, the employer during the performance of the defendant to receive payment from the customer and then not to send the plaintiff and not return the plaintiff. Terms of insurance coverage. The applicant claims the plaintiff. The claimant can claim the plaintiff's claim for damages from the two defendants (the defendant is a guarantor of the liability of the defendant to the plaintiff) under Section 880 paragraph one and section. 226, paragraph one, which refers to the right to file a lawsuit to the court by the plaintiff, the plaintiff sued the insurer on behalf of the insured. It is not the right of the insured to execute the case.

According to Civil Code Section 271, the enforcement of the case is the right of the parties to win cases or creditors only. When there is no law, the insurer can take over the rights of the insured. The third party is not entitled to enforce the case under the judgment of the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 10461/2558.

When the plaintiff insured the insured to the insurance. It enters the rights of the insured, the creditor, and the right to use all the creditors in the debt. Including debt insurance on behalf of their own under Section 226 and Section 880, meaning that the creditor is entitled. The franchisor is always entitled to the same damage.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 11044/2558.

The couple will get that. The contract between the company and the defendant is leased by the message specified in the copy of the letter requesting the rental price and the receipt of the lease. But the driver of the crane accident scene is the employee. The defendant company controls the crane to lift the machine. The staff of the company is the only one who determines the location of the machine. A. No authority to determine how to use equipment or mold. The defendant is a supplier of cranes. The contract between the company and the defendant is a contract of employment under Section 587 because it focuses on the success of the work is important. A lease agreement under Section 537 of the defendant, including employees of the defendant did not take care to check the cranes crane in the scene before being used for employment. Cause the machine to swipe down, hit the ground was damaged. As a consequence of the negligence of the defendant and the driver of the defendant company. The defendant is liable to indemnify the company.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 10260/2558.

The Act on the Protection of the Victims of Vehicle, BE 2535 (1992), Section 4 requires medical treatment as a preliminary remedy. As part of the compensation paid by the Civil and Commercial Code as provided for in Section 25, paragraph two, and when the insurance company paid the initial damages, how much. Section 31 stipulates that it has recourse to third parties. Or from the owner of the car, the driver in the car. Or victims If caused by the intention or negligence of such serious negligence, Section 22 will not disqualify the plaintiff's claim to claim additional compensation under the Civil and Commercial Code, but it does not mean that the plaintiff's right to. Get paid to receive medical expenses again. The plaintiff's money has already been received under the insurance policy to protect victims from the car deducted from the medical expenses paid by the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 10154/2558.

The defendant in the hotel business is obliged to keep the security of the property of the traveler or guest if brought. The defendant's hotel has 48 rooms, with one entrance and exit. There are two staff members. A. Serves as a security guard and opens the guest room to the exit of the hotel. No car There is only a guard. This shows that while the room is open, guests will have no security guard or patrol. There is only one cashier at the check-in counter. It is evident that such individuals can not maintain security for their customers. It is only convenient to stay. Driving in and out of the hotel can be easily done without a barrier, and the defendant does not provide any means of safeguarding the villain in the guest room. Even the police sergeant and the r. Will only lock the door knob without locking bolts and locked U-shaped device with the device installed. It is not uncommon for people to stay. It can not be considered a fault of the traveler or the guest. If the defendant's hotel has adequate security. It is difficult for the villains to enter the customer's room. Defendant is liable under Section 674 of the plaintiff, the plaintiff to pay compensation to the beneficiary under the insurance contract. The right to claim from the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 10008/2558.

Defendant 1, the defendant's second child, the third driver of the car crashed at the driver, who was insured with the plaintiff. Cause the car was damaged. The investigating officer made a record in the daily report on the case that he was not interested in claiming damages from the defendant, but either way, the parties signed the evidence. The dispute is settled. A compromise agreement under Section 850 as a result of the defendant has no right to claim damages from the defendant to the plaintiff to compensate for damage to the contract in the insurance policy. The contract in the insurance policy is not limited to the defendant or the injured to enter into a compromise agreement with the consent of the plaintiff. The plaintiff is not entitled to the rights of the insured due to the suspended debt.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4966/2558.

The plaintiff sued by the defendant to the defendant to a third party under Section 880 paragraph one claims of the plaintiff, the insurer is equal to the claim of the insured, the existing debt to the plaintiff. According to Section 226, paragraph one, so when the insured must file a defendant within one year under Section 448 paragraph one, the plaintiff must sue the defendant. In the period as well.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4888/2558.

Defendant 1 is a violation of the plaintiff and the insured by the insurance contract with the defendant to protect the third party liability, including damage to the life, body or health and property of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 887, paragraph one. That "insurance" is the insurance contract, which the insurer agrees to use the insurance on behalf of the insured. If a person is injured, he or she will be entitled to compensation directly from the insurer. But such claims may be considered too much than the amount of insurers will be required under the contract is not ... "means that the injured person has the right to claim for the loss of his insured from the insurer. Direct and indemnity is the responsibility of the insured. The total amount of compensation received by the plaintiff and Section 877 states that "the insurer will need to take the following claims: (1) for the actual amount of casualty ..." The word "accident occurred and the insured will be responsible. "So that means When a disaster occurs. The insurer is liable for all damages incurred for the actual amount of the death, but not exceeding the amount specified in the Policy. The insured is responsible for all damages to the plaintiff in accordance with Section 420 of Section 438. If the plaintiff and the defendant to a compromise agreement to make the debt between the plaintiff and the defendant to a new debt. Under the compromise agreement under Section 850 and 852 is between the plaintiff and the defendant, which is a contract. When the second defendant is not a compromise contractor with the plaintiff, the defendant is also liable under the existing insurance policy. The plaintiff has the power to sue the defendant, the plaintiff should be liable for damages to the rest.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4075/2558.

Plaintiff's first handwriting in the document, knowing what the text in the document means. When the text in the document clearly states that the plaintiff's claim to waive the right to claim the defendant's plaintiff, the plaintiff may be sued to the first defendant, claiming that the defendant is not liable to the defendant, even if the insurer in the motorcycle. The child of the first plaintiff is the driver, the defendant is liable to the plaintiff in the first insurance policy. But because the plaintiff has made a record of waiving the right to claim compensation from the defendant and a compromise agreement with the violator, the defendant is unable to access the rights of the insured under the Civil and Commercial Code. Section 880 in recourse to the defendant 1 or plaintiff, the plaintiff has the right to sue the defendant is liable for the second defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3568/2558.

The contract for the security services between the employer and the group of contractors with the defendant as a representative of Clause 9.1 specified that the defendant is liable only if the employer is the property. It is the property that the employer is responsible for the damage. But under the contract to hire a wheelchair luggage between the employer and the company, the employer who insured the plaintiff. The trolley is therefore not a property of the company or property that the company is responsible for. The case does not meet the conditions for the defendant to be liable.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3397/2558.

This fact can be heard. Defendant is a victim. The plaintiff as the insurer has paid compensation to the insured. The plaintiff is entitled to the rights of the insured under Section 880, the plaintiff has the power to sue the defendant to indemnify the indemnity.

The compensation claim is only an agreement between the insured and the defendant. Yes, the compromise agreement to settle disputes between the plaintiff and the defendant. Even if the debt is violated between the insured and the defendant will be suspended. According to the records of the indemnity. But the plaintiff is not binding, which is not the contract. The plaintiff is entitled to the rights of the insured under Section 880 paragraph one, but the plaintiff's rights equal to the rights of the existing insured by the debt to the defendant under Section 226. Paragraph one

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2821/2558.

Non-life insurance is a contract that the insurer agrees to use the insurance. Or use a certain amount in the event of a disaster, if any. Or in any other future event as specified in the contract. In this regard, another person agreed to send money, which is called a premium, which under Section 869 provides a definition of a disaster that includes any damage. Those are estimated to be as follows: The plaintiff pays a premium to the defendant under the contract. The defendant agreed to pay the premium. Defendant as the insurer will promise to use the insurance or the amount of a case if the accident to the plaintiff's car insurance. Except for liability insurance policy. According to the insurance policy Article 2 on the damage or loss of cars in Article 2.1 In the case of lost cars will not determine that the car lost due to fraud. The defendant must pay a claim. The insurance is responsible for the loss or damage from any disaster. It is difficult to complete all cases. Except for exceptions that are not responsible. The terms and conditions of coverage under Clause 5 state that this insurance does not cover the loss caused by theft. Or misappropriation The person assigned or occupied the car under the lease. Or pledge agreement Or by the parties to the contract mentioned above. The defendant petitioned that the car lost as a result of fraud. In case of non-exclusion, the terms of liability and coverage of such policy. When not in the liability exception. Other casualties, even if not specified in the policy. Such as the loss of cars caused by fraud as the defendant petitioned. The defendant, the insurer, is no longer covered by liability insurance policy. This is not the defendant's complaint.

Terms and conditions of car insurance. Section 4 General Provisions Article 4: Liability of the Company When a claim is denied, it shall be determined when the claim is made to the Company and if the Company denied the liability for any reason whatsoever, causing the Insured Person or the injured party to take the case. Court If the court judges the company loses the case. The company will be liable to the insured or the injured person. By indemnifying the indemnity of the defendant in the event that the insurer refuses to pay, the insured shall be liable to the third party and The insured has paid the debt to a third party and will be entitled to interest under this contract. The defendant petitioned. When the contract is a pre-determined damage in the case of a breach of contract, which is a fine, the court may reduce it as it deems appropriate. The plaintiff has the right to charge interest from the date of default. Not to force the defendant to pay damages beyond the liability of the defendant as the defendant. The Court of Appeal ruled that the damages are pledged to the plaintiff's interest at the rate of 7.5 percent per year, the Supreme Court agreed in effect. The Supreme Court did not hear the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2460/2558.

The damage assessment of the car is the cost of the insurance, which the plaintiff must pay the insurer. The plaintiff as the recipient of the insured can not claim the money under Section 878

Judgment of the Supreme Court 16386/2557.

The plaintiff as the insurer is obliged under the insurance contract to pay medical expenses to the passenger car that the plaintiff's insurance. Then take the right of recourse to recourse from the person responsible for the car collide. When the car collided due to the negligence of the driver's car, the plaintiff's guarantee and the defendant is not less than the defendant, the defendant is liable for only half of the amount of medical expenses 50,000 baht. The plaintiff's claims to the defendant to claim this part of the defendant half of 25,000 baht in this case does not apply the provisions of Section 442 to apply. Boise. But somehow

Judgment of the Supreme Court 15977/2557.

Claims of the plaintiff as a car insurer damaged. To pay the claim to the beneficiary and to be the subject of the rights of the insured in the amount of debt to third parties under Section 880, Section 226, paragraph one. To count the age of the plaintiff. Must be counted according to the insured's rights. This case, when the insured's right to sue for one year from the date of knowledge of the violation and aware of the need to use the compensation under Section 448 paragraph one of the plaintiff as the underwriter. It is the same as the insured must be sued within 1 year from the date the insured or the insured person knows the violation and know the person who will need to take the same compensation as well. Yes From the date the plaintiff is aware that the claimant will not use. When was that? The plaintiff car driver. Which is the representative of the insured was aware of the other driver on April 3, 2003, which is the date the investigator appointed the driver of the insured to agree with the defendant and the date of the driver. The insurer first encountered the plaintiff's accident investigator, so when the plaintiff sued the case on December 8, 2005, more than a year after April 3, 254. 6, the plaintiff's case is terminated.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 13383-13386/2557.

The tenant fraudulently deceived the defendant that the first delivery of the car to the tenant by the false statement that the carrier engaged in transportation business with importers and exporters. And want to rent a car from the defendant to use in business. The defendant believes that it is true to deliver three cars to the tenant, but the fact that the tenant did not intend to rent a car in any way. Although it will pay some rent, but in order to make the defendant to believe and to further fraudulent cars from the plaintiff as further contact. There is no real car rental. Even later, the defendant will have a criminal case with the authority to act on behalf of tenants in this matter. And the Prakhanong District Court has a verdict of misdemeanor misdemeanor by the defendant to join the plaintiff. But this case is not a civil case related to the above criminal case. It is not in force. According to the PS. Section 46, which must hold the facts in accordance with the judgment. Based on the facts, according to the above evidence, it can be considered that the actions of the lessee are fraudulent. The misdemeanor, as the two lower courts did not. When the plaintiff can not track the car that is rented back, it can be considered that the car has been lost because of the fraud. And when the insurance contract is a contract that the insurer agrees to use the insurance. Or use a certain amount in the event of a disaster, if any. Or in any other future event as specified in the contract. In this regard, another person agrees to send money, which is called a premium, which according to Section 869 has defined the term "disaster" means any damage. Those who will be estimated as follows: the defendant, the insured to pay a premium to the defendant under the contract. Defendant agreed to pay premium. Defendant jointly as the insurer will promise to use the insurance or the amount of a case of casualty if the car to the defendant, the insurance, unless the insurance policy except for liability. Subject to the terms and conditions in Section 5, this insurance does not cover the loss caused by theft. Or misappropriation The person assigned or occupied the car under the lease. Hire Purchase Or pledge agreement Or by the person who makes the above contract. But the lawsuit says that all three cars lost due to fraud. In case of loss of or damage to a car in Article 2.1, in case of lost car, it is not specified that the car lost due to fault. fraudulent The defendant must pay a claim. It is the responsibility of the insurer to take responsibility for the loss or damage of any kind of disaster. It is difficult to complete all cases. Except for exceptions that are not responsible. When not excluded as diagnosed. Other casualties, even if not specified in the policy. For example, the loss of all three cars caused by this fraudulent case. The co-defendant, the insurer, is no longer covered by liability under the policy. The defendant is responsible for compensation for the full amount of insurance. And under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy, Clause 2, in which the defendant stated that the defendant must transfer the car to the defendant immediately, and the car protection is deemed to be terminated, so even after the defendant that the first. I have to track down the lost one car, but the defendant has a letter to the defendant called for compensation. If vehicles lost three cars. And to pick up the car remains tracked back. The show that the defendant has exercised the right under clause 2.1.2 under the terms and coverage of the insurance policy waived the right to get a car. The defendant must pay the compensation in this car to the defendant.

Even if the car is lost, the hire contract between the plaintiff and the defendant to suspend the car from the date of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 567, but it appears that the hire purchase agreement clause 6 and clause 6.2.3. The hire purchase in the event that the lease is lost. If the car is lost. The lease is terminated. And the plaintiff may accept the termination of the contract immediately or at any time thereafter. When the contract is terminated, the plaintiff must pay damages to the plaintiff, including the damages that the parties agreed to calculate the annuity and interest arrears. Overheads and total expenses of the plaintiff in the search, retention, repairs, collection and settlement of damages, as agreed by the parties, shall be calculated from all payments to be paid in the remaining lease term. As well as other damages as the defendant will agree to pay damages to the plaintiff in this case with the defendant is liable to the plaintiff under the agreement. But the determination of liability for the defendant does not pay debts in advance such an agreement. Have a look at penalties. The court may consider a reasonable amount under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 383, paragraph one, the rent paid by the defendant for each payment is not the only payment of the car. There are also hire-purchase and value added taxes. After deducting hire purchase and VAT, the rental fee has been paid. The two lower court to the defendants 1, 2 and 3 are jointly liable to the plaintiff.

In this case, the court shall review and adjudicate the four cases together. The case is from a car dispute 3 cars first defendant as a car insured. Defend the co-defendant as the insurer liable under the contract of car loss. The second expression to the fourth expression. The plaintiff as the above car hire to sue the three defendants. As a hire-purchase and a guarantor, the liability under hire purchase contract. And the Court of First Instance has summoned the defendant to join the defendant in the second case to the fourth phrase. In the second phrase, the fourth phrase. The court has the power to judge the defendant jointly used the defendant's liability to the plaintiff in the second phrase to the fourth phrase. Therefore, when the court has ruled in the first sentence, the defendant jointly liable to defendant 1 to the plaintiff in the second phrase. Fourth phrase For the benefit of the lawsuit, the money that the defendant must pay to the first defendant in the first phrase, which is more than already. To pay the plaintiff on behalf of the defendant in the second phrase to the fourth phrase. How much to pay the defendant to pay the defendant when the defendant must pay the defendant to pay 3,450,000 baht and the defendant must jointly with the defendant 1 to 3 to pay the plaintiff is 1,441,000 baht when deducted. The same as the diagnosis above. The remaining compensation to the defendant must pay to the defendant 1 is 2,009,000 baht, the defendant to the third to the plaintiff's liability to the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7362/2557.

The car that the defendant lost the insurance from the act of driving a car to park to the bathroom without turning off the engine until someone took the car. Which does not matter. Is it just negligence or negligence that is negligently negligent? It is not the act of the insured or the beneficiary directly under the insurance contract. Is not the defendant insurer is not liable under Section 879 paragraph one and when the beneficiary bank to use the plaintiff to force the plaintiff to return or use the price of the car to pay damages under the lease without it. The right to a beneficiary under the insurance contract. The plaintiff is still damaged without compensation under the insurance contract with the defendant as follows: The plaintiff as a party to the defendant under the insurance contract will be sued to force the defendant to pay compensation directly to the plaintiff claims on the insurance contract.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2418/2557.

Get the parking ticket from the mall security officer and place the card at the console in the car. Even if it is done without the care of keeping the parking card. The fact is that before the purchase of the car had locked the car door without having plugged the engine into the car. And parked car only 30 minutes, which is not too soon. The facts can not be heard that the car that the defendant has lost due to serious negligence. Defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff under the insurance contract.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 588/2557.

The medical expenses of 666,385 baht paid by Thai Life Assurance Co., Ltd. and Muang Thai Life Assurance Co., Ltd. paid to the plaintiffs in the amount of money the two companies would use under the life insurance agreement between the two companies and the plaintiff. The life or death of a person under Section 889, although the plight of the plaintiff suffered from the violation of the second defendant in the hiring of the defendant, the two insurers may be affected. Claims for compensation from the defendants 1 and 2, which is liable to the plaintiff. Because under the provisions on life insurance does not give the insurer the right to claim as the case of non-life insurance under Section 880, so even the plaintiff was paid medical expenses 666,385 baht from both companies insurer. Then The plaintiff's claim to medical expenses on the defendant No. 1 and No. 2 suspended.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 19985/2556.

Although the insurance policy that the plaintiff issued to the insured will have only one plaintiff's authorized signatory and the plaintiff's seal. It is not complete as stated in the certificate. The case is between the plaintiff and the plaintiff when the parties have complied with the policy. And the plaintiff, the insurer has paid damages to the plaintiffs to complete the right. There are no arguments about the insurance policy that has been made. So the plaintiff as the insurer. The defendant was entitled to claim the right to claim the defendant in the plaintiff to claim damages from the defendant and the defendant under Section 880 when the plaintiff took the right to sue the defendant. The law was signed by the insurance policy. It does not make the defendant and the defendant jointly free of liability.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3724/2555.

The plaintiff insured the goods from the insured by the sum insured higher than the price of goods, including transportation and other expenses increased by 10 percent to 110 percent of the price of the goods. Even with the principle of marine insurance, which results in the payment of insurance payments to the insured will be based on the amount of insurance that the plaintiff insured. In such cases, it is the insurance and the insurance claims to be insured by the insurer under the insurance agreement between the plaintiff and the insured. The defendant is not a party to the obligation or liability of the plaintiff under the insurance contract. The defendant is the only carrier under the contract. If the goods are damaged or lost in transit while the goods are in the care of the defendant. The defendant is liable to the carrier or the consignee or the person entitled to receive the goods under the bill of lading. The liability of the transport contract. A. The plaintiff refers to the reason that the defendant is liable to the company. A. The buyer and the goods from the defendant, the carrier because of the negligence of the defendant caused damage to the cargo and the company. plaintiff And the plaintiff has paid compensation to the company A. the insured. The plaintiff took the rights of the company A. to sue the defendant liability under the transport contract. The defendant as the carrier is liable for damage as a result of the goods or goods that the defendant received from the shipper damaged in accordance. Act of Carriage of Sea 1991, Section 39, paragraph one, and when it is deemed that the goods are fully damaged as the plaintiff claims. All products have CROR prices. The seller has charged the transportation to Bangkok Port included into the price already. It can be considered that the damage of the product is the only number. When selling goods. Remaining of the actual goods. The plaintiff has the right to claim the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 10624/2554.

The next insurer, the next, the first insurer. The payer claims to the insured because they do not know that the same injury has the same as the insurer. The case is to pay compensation in spite of the fact that the petitioner has no obligation to pay the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 870, paragraph three. It can be said that the payment of the claimant. It is the benefit of the objection, which is the body and must be the true purpose of the body. Or a presumptive wish According to the application, it falls under the management of the work outside the order, causing the debt binding the opponent to be liable for compensation claims that the applicant has advanced to handle the objection to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 401.

The arbitration is ruling. It does not appear that the first insurer, the first insurer, has used the claim. Not worth the amount of disaster. The claimant, the next insurer, is not waiting to pay for the missing part, but if it has paid to pay for damage to it. The claimant must pay the insured to the insured without duty. Where there is no law in this case, the claimant will demand that the person who objected to the refund be paid. The payer is folded to the singer. And the decision to lift the dispute of the petitioner. The arbitral award is unlawful and it is the case that the acceptance or enforcement of the arbitral award will be contrary to the public order or the good morals of the people, which the court would like to revoke the arbitration. Arbitration Act, 1979, Section 40, paragraph three (2) (b)

Judgment of the Supreme Court 536/2554.

Compromise under Section 850 is a contract where both parties settle a dispute that exists. Or will be up to complete with the waivers to each other. But a copy of the daily report on the case is just that. "Damages to this. The two parties agreed to each other and will take care of themselves. "There is no evidence that the defendant negotiated with the six-wheel truck driver that the plaintiff insured on the payment of any damages. There is no legal compromise. The debt is not suspended when the plaintiff as the insurer brought the six-wheeled car to repair it with good condition. The plaintiff is entitled to the defendant's claims to the defendant, who violated the damages to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 374/2551.

Defendant 1 entered into a contract with a second defendant to secure the inside and outside of the building, including the parking lot of the third defendant, requiring theft security. In practice, the first defendant will have regular staff at the entrance to the parking lot to keep the ticket through the parking lot and the car. Write a registration number before giving it to the car park. When driving a car, the driver must return the parking ticket and pay the parking fee. A. and the Insured brought the car to the plaintiff to the car parked in the parking lot of the building and received the ticket through the parking lot of employees. The first defendant, however, did not write a car registration number, so the disputed car leader came out of the parking lot, where the ticket through the parking lot and evidence of ownership of the car remained. The Insured The insured lost his car caused by the negligence of the employees of the defendant, who did not write the car registration number in the ticket through the parking lot and did not check the main. Make sure that you have the right one. To refrain from performing the duties specified on the back of the parking pass, it is considered that the employee of the 1st defendant acts negligently without any care in performing his duty as a cause for the loss of the insured car. It can be assumed that the employee of the defendant committed a violation of the employment of the defendant, so the defendant is liable for damages to the plaintiff.

The conditions listed on the back of the car park pass. The issuance of this card is not a car deposit, the company will not be responsible for loss or damage to any car as a condition that the defendant set up a defendant to be liable to the conditions set by the defendant. one Does not affect the liability of the employee of the defendant, so that the defendant to the second and third defendants liable for damages to the plaintiff as a recipient of the right.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 298/2551.

Memorandum of agreement on the defendant to commit a violation of misconduct. The driver of the car that the plaintiff insured that the car will be. Damage to repair in good condition. Although the defendant will be responsible for the costs of the injured. But there is no agreement to waive the right to claim other damages to you. The car has the right to claim from the defendant 1. The other agreement does not have one of the existing dispute settlement. Or will be up to complete with the waivers to each other. Is not a compromise agreement under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 850.

Defendant 1 driving a truck accident to contact the business to the defendant, the second violation of the defendant, so it is the offense of the defendant's second employment.

The plaintiff brought the car to the scene to repair the car was in the original condition. And the plaintiff issued a car insurance claim with the receipt and debt forgiveness. The insured car accident scene to get paid. The plaintiff has paid the car repair fee to the garage. The plaintiff is the recipient of the right to claim damages from the two defendants.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6012/2550.

Defendant 3 car insurance accident scene from the defendant that the defendant will claim the third defendant, which will be responsible for the third person. It is an insurance under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 887, paragraph one company has hired a defendant to carry a cargo of the company, which was insured with the plaintiff by the truck. Although the plaintiff is not a party to the third defendant and the policy does not specify the plaintiff as the beneficiary third defendant, the insurer shall be liable on behalf of the defendant, the insured for the disaster to the company that the defendant will be insured. Be responsible The plaintiff, who is the recipient of the right of the company. H like to receive compensation from the third defendant directly under Section 887

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3665/2550.

Therefore, the defendant is not obliged to maintain his car under the contract, the security staff of the defendant does not supervise and have a child. Take your car away from the allocated housing so it is not a breach of contract or violation of the defendant is not liable to the contract and abuse. The plaintiff, the car insurer's insurer, can not claim the right to claim the defendant's liability if the car lost.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 824/2550.

The plaintiff sued the defendant claim 1 by the debt of the car was plaintiff's car from the car park in the defendant's first hotel and then stay in the hotel. Later, the car lost a defendant in the title of the hotel was responsible for the loss of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 674, which is 6 months from the date the traveler or the resident out of the place under Section 678. Even the plaintiff will claim. Employee or agent of the defendant ignored the performance of the contract and requested a refund of the car, but the plaintiff asked the defendant to be liable only as the hotel. It is not a lawsuit on the one-year-old when the car lost. On August 2, 1997, the plaintiff took the right of the insured under Section 880 to claim for the loss of the plaintiff's car insurance from the defendant. On 3 August 1998 exceeded the 6-month period from August 2, 1997, the date of departure from the hotel of the defendant, then lack of eyes. the

Judgment of the Supreme Court 386/2550.

The plaintiff sued the defendant 2 as a violation of the first defendant as an employer, the second defendant is a violation of the employment. And the third defendant jointly liable as the recipient of the indemnity liability of the defendant to the 1st and the third defendant is different. For the defendants 1 and 2 are one year from the date the injured know of the violation and realize the need to pay compensation instead of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 448, paragraph one, the defendant is 2 years old. From the day of the death under Section 882 paragraph one, the age of the defendant, the first defendant 2 and the third defendant can be separated under Section 295, the age of the offense or penalty to the defendant. The age of 3 can not be raised under Article 448, paragraph one more battle.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1802/2549.

Insurance under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 887 is a non-life insurance. Section 3 of Section 2 of the Age of Liability, the insured liability. Must comply with Section 882, which is a general chapter in part 1 of the same category. The age specified by the specific. It can not be compared to life insurance, which is provided in another category and can not be taken. General age under Section 193/30 shall apply to the case of insurance.

The claim to the insurance claimant, the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 887, paragraph two states that "the person who is injured, like to receive compensation as they should be from. Direct insurer ... etc. "The plaintiff has the right to sue the defendant 4, the liability of the defendant without the need to show the intention to take advantage of the contract before the age of prosecution under Section 882 paragraph one, which prohibits the lawsuit. Two years from the date of the disaster. Especially since the date of the disaster. Can not apply the general principle of age under Section 193/12 to apply to this case or be interpreted otherwise, so when the plaintiff sued the case two years from the date of the case of the plaintiff in the defendant. The 4th is out.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3914/2548.

Although the plaintiff's case was terminated in the claim for damages caused by the violation of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 448, first paragraph, but the defendant 1 to 3 lack of appointment to file a statement and absence of consideration. The Court of Appeal 2 can not claim the age of the cause for dismissal of defendants 1 to 3 under Section 193/29, the plaintiff sued the plaintiff as a liability under the provisions of Section 882 of the first paragraph. 2 years when the plaintiff sued the defendant 4 within the age limit. The plaintiff sued the defendant 4 is not terminated.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8010/2548.

The plaintiff as the insurer has paid for the car accident scene lost. To the insured. I get the right to claim only. Can not claim the defendant returned the car accident to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4731/2548.

The plaintiff, the insurer, the damage of goods during transportation from Thailand. The Republic of Vietnam is the employer and pay the check. Damage to the company that inspected the damage directly. Such expenses are not the damage paid to the plaintiff. To the insured. It does not appear that the plaintiff paid for the insured because it took. Insurance has the duty or the need to pay this amount, so the plaintiff has the right to claim damages only to subrogate the damages. Goods that the plaintiff paid directly to the insured. There is no claim for damage check.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6519/2548.

The plaintiff is the insurer of rice products from the company. When the disputed goods are damaged during transportation. The plaintiff is obliged to pay compensation to the insured under Section 877, which is a legal debt. And the result of the indemnity for the plaintiff as the recipient. The right of the insured to claim damages from the defendant. Dispatcher of rice dispute on behalf of the plaintiff itself under Section 880 paragraph one, and the subrogation of the plaintiff's right is caused by the power of law. Yes, the agreement of the parties in the insurance contract. Although the document is sub-license, there is no director authorized to act on behalf of the Company. It does not affect the right of the plaintiff to terminate the right to terminate or terminate.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4273/2548.

The plaintiff's car rental accident caused by the down payment and payment of installments, the down payment is part of the price of the car hire when the violation is causing the car to fail, the plaintiff has the right to call. The price of the plaintiff's car from the abuser and the defendant's second car accident victims. The first cars will pay for the rest to those who purchase it. It is only a payment equal to the rent that is absent, the plaintiff has the right to claim from the infringer and the defendant, the insurer of the infringer only. The downside is a direct damage in the result of the violation. The damage and violation of the insurance contract. It is not a damage that is far more than the cause and not a duplicate of the damages that the lender received from the company A. The price of cars in each.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4256/2548.

Defendant 1, an employee of the defendant, driving the truck of the second defendant in the employment with negligence. Caused the rear end of the truck of the plaintiff damaged 561,070 baht, and the property of the company that carried the truck with the plaintiff's truck damaged 350,000 baht, the third defendant, the insurance of the truck. Defendant 2 in the amount of not more than 500,000 baht has paid compensation to the company 350,000 baht and the company, which is the insurer of the car. The plaintiff has paid the repair of the money to 200,000 baht, and although the third defendant with the company will have a mutual agreement that if there is a car accident between the third defendant and the company as the insurer. Each party will be responsible for repair and compensation for the car. Insurance without compensation from the other party. But the agreement is only binding on the parties, not affect the right. Claims caused by violation of the insured, so that the company to compensate the plaintiff's claim is not complete, even if the third defendant to pay compensation to the company already, but when not yet full amount of funds to 150,000 baht According to the plaintiff's defendant, the third defendant must be wrong with the first and second defendant compensation to the plaintiff 150,000 baht, according to the amount of money. With

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4045/2548.

Accused motorcycle driver collided with a pickup truck that was insured with the plaintiff. Cause both cars are damaged. According to daily reports on the lawsuit. In addition, the investigating officer will make a record of the accused, the defendant is a criminal case and a comparable fine. The criminal case is dissolved. The investigator also made a note about the damages. The parties voluntarily agreed by both parties not to plead for damages. Agreed to be satisfied, then the MP and the defendant signed as evidence. The show that the MP and the defendant agreed not to indulge in damages. The settlement of disputes to be completed by the different waiver to each other with a different. Repair the damaged car. This agreement is a compromise agreement under Section 850 of the Civil and Commercial Code has no right to claim damages from the defendant. The plaintiff, the car's insurer, will be entitled to the MPs only as the insured, but the defendant will only record the agreement with the defendant without the consent of the plaintiff. Damage case was a car accident defendant. I have the right to settle the dispute with the defendant by the contract. Compromise does not entice claim damages. To waive the right to claim compensation without the consent of the plaintiff when the insured has no right to claim damages from the defendant as the plaintiff may not be entitled to the rights of the defendant to claim compensation from the defendant. The plaintiff insured the damages to the Insured to comply with the terms of the plaintiff's policy to the plaintiff only.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4044/2548.

Defendant 1 is a forest gardener does not have the duty to drive or power to use the car alone. I did not appear that on the day of the case, the supervisor of the defendant assigned or allowed the defendant to use the car 1, the defendant did not have the right to take the truck accident scene of the defendant 2 out without permission from the supervisor. Forests, which are the bosses of the villagers who are members of the forest village. Non-worker or employee of the defendant 2 to seek help from the defendant because of the diarrhea to the hospital, the defendant to drive a car that is used in the business of the defendant to the second. Without the permission of the supervisor, the car crashed. The plaintiff insured was damaged. The defendant's first act by the personal court of the defendant and the arbitrarily done outside the scope of the work of the defendant is not in the employment of the defendant, the second defendant is not liable. In violation of the defendant's claim to the plaintiff. When the second defendant is not liable, then the third defendant, the insurer shall not be liable.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4712/2546.

According to the marine insurance policy at and from Laem Chabang. Thailand to Ho Chi Minh in Vietnam. The word at and from Laem Chabang is. As a result, the marine insurance policy covers goods at the time of shipment. At Laem Chabang Port, while waiting for cargo, the cargo was protected in the warehouse. Item 5 of the defendant at the Laem Chabang port before the cargo into the boat. When the goods have been lost while in the warehouse of the defendant, plaintiff 5, the plaintiff, the goods, which paid compensation for lost goods. To the consignee according to the commitment in the marine insurance policy. Get the right to recuse the damages from the defendant at the 5th and 6 defendants as the defendant's fourth defendant to the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 204/2545.

The f. Takes the defendant's car at the scene of the accident and then not returned within the time to borrow the defendant used to assume that the car was leased. The action of f. Fraud or misappropriation of property that the defendant will be required to notify the plaintiff without delay, but the defendant has just returned to the notice after the car was used for up to 6 months. May cause damage to the defendant, a 3-car insurers such. Hold it not that the defendant. 1 has complied with the terms and conditions of the insurance policy provided to the insured. To notify the police without delay, the defendant claims that the defendant did not claim compensation for the beneficiary.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2667/2544.

Both plaintiff and the plaintiff sued the plaintiff. The defendant pledged to the plaintiff's truck, the plaintiff's first defendant to the defendant to the car to the plaintiff's truck, the defendant shall be liable for damages to plaintiffs 1, the plaintiff and the plaintiff. The second is a third party. Both plaintiffs have sent a copy of the insurance policy, which is considered part. One of the indictments The defendant will use the plaintiff's claim that the defendant will be liable for damage to property of third parties on behalf of the plaintiff. The condition of the plaintiff in the case of the plaintiff is that the defendant does not comply with the provisions of the insurance policy to pay compensation. The plaintiff is a third person on behalf of the plaintiff, the first claim is based on the defendant. The plaintiff's insurance to the defendant hit the truck of the plaintiff and the second defendant to force the defendant to pay for repairs to the plaintiff. The second plaintiff's plaintiff sued the second paragraph of Section 172 of the Civil Code. Sue

The plaintiff and the plaintiff jointly sued the two defendants liable for damages to the plaintiff in accordance with the two. Insurance that the plaintiff made to the defendant. Both plaintiffs have a common interest in the merits of the case. Procedure considered by the plaintiff is considered by the plaintiff as the second plaintiff under Section 59 (1)

The word "garbage" by the Royal Institute Dictionary 2525 meaning that. "At the repair or repair of a car or boat." The plaintiff's first pickup truck to paint it and sprayed to rust, so it is not to repair it.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2658/2544.

The insurance policy states that in the case of lost cars caused by theft. The plaintiff and defendant plaintiff, the defendant will pay a compensation when the car was stolen by the defendant, the defendant did not share with the defendant that the car will be pledged to the casino in Klongton. When the defendant can not return the car. It can be considered that the car was lost due to the burglary required. Of the insurance policy. The defendant, the insurer, must pay compensation to the plaintiff. The beneficiary of the insurance policy.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6874/2543.

Although the insurance policy will determine the conditions of liability for the plaintiff took. Insurance notice in writing to the carrier within 3 days from the date of delivery. But the plaintiff informed about the loss of goods delayed several months due to the process. Check whether the item has been lost or not. When checking that the goods have been lost, the plaintiff notified the carrier and the defendant. Insurance The defendant never denied liability by claiming that the plaintiff did not report the damage. Lost in the determination in any way. Defendant will not pay for lost goods, just because the plaintiff has no evidence. Lost product The defendant can not take over the rights of the offender. From such a circumstance. The defendant did not meet the terms and conditions of the insurance contract is. Essence for the plaintiff to comply.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1950/2543.

The plaintiff brought the car lost the insurance against the defendant, the company identified the capital A. A contract for the benefit of a third party. The right of third parties to occur when the intention to the debtor is considered. Contract benefits As long as it has not shown such intent. The parties may change or suspend the rights under the contract. When the securities company A filed with the plaintiff to pay the outstanding debt. Show that the intention to take advantage of the contract. The plaintiff and the defendant are parties to the right to benefit from the contract and. General And the plaintiff has the right to change the terms of the agreement as a beneficiary under the insurance contract itself has the power to sue.

The plaintiff rented the place of the temple as a parking lot and garage. The area has one entrance door. Although there is no security guard, but there is a caretaker, the plaintiff is considered. Be careful in the preservation of property, such as the man should behave in accordance with the circumstances. Lost car insurance is not due to the negligent negligence of the plaintiff, and when the plaintiff informed the phone, the defendant and the police immediately notify the police but lack of evidence of authorization from the finance company. A. Delayed written notice The plaintiff does not comply with the terms of the policy. The defendant is also liable.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6886/2542.

The purpose of the insurance contract between the plaintiff and the defendant is intended to. Car insurance that the plaintiff is a hire purchase throughout the lease period. More important than the start date of the letter of insurance contract. policy Although the lease agreement specifies the start date of the contract after the start date of the insurance contract for 9 days, it is a period of overlap. The interpretation of the insurance contract must be focused on the true intent. The parties are more than words, expressions and letters of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 171 of this case must be interpreted as the insurance contract between the plaintiff and the defendant was made on the first day that the plaintiff has the status of a car lease that the plaintiff insured the defendant. Such interpretation is consistent with the principle of contract interpretation in case of doubt. Civil and Commercial Code Section 11 shall be interpreted in a way that is to you, the plaintiff, the parties to the parties. In that case, it can be considered that the plaintiff is the insured. In the insurance contract with the defendant. Insurance between the plaintiff and the defendant therefore bound both parties. When it is not shown that the company has the intention to take advantage of the insurance contract. The plaintiff is still a stakeholder and has the right to be reimbursed. Claims under the insurance contract of the defendant when the insured in accordance with the contract, the plaintiff has the power to sue for compensation from the defendant. The insurance policy will specify when the insurance policy. Insurance has transferred cars to other people. But the plaintiff's contract to transfer the lease contract to the plaintiff's wife because the need for a car card to use the shortcut through the army. Air only But after the transfer of the lease. The plaintiff is still the owner of the car that is insured and paid for the purchase of the whole is that the plaintiff and the wife of the plaintiff did not intend to transfer the lease. The transfer is intended only for the purpose of acquiring a car pass for a shortcut. Only air force. The contract of transfer of the right to lease is therefore void. Civil and Commercial Section 155, paragraph one, the plaintiff still has. It is a real tenant and continues to have claims under the insurance policy. The disaster is the same. And even if the plaintiff has the right to transfer the lease. But the transfer of leasing rights is not the transfer of ownership of cars to hire. Other persons as specified in the policy. The assignee still has the right to claim under the policy, so the policy is not enforced.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4133/2542.

Insurance Policy. Insurance policy ends when the insured transfer the car to another person, the defendant, the car insured and the third defendant is a car hire from the company. D. The company is the owner of the car. The defendant 1 just transferred leasehold rights under the lease. The ownership of the car is still owned by the Company. Hire Purchase The case is not the insured person transferring the insured vehicle to another person. policy So do not force it. The plaintiff sued the defendant as a defendant in a car accident scene with the defendant, 3 S, the driver of the car accident was a violation of the plaintiff by the defendant. Commercial partnership with the defendant 1 MP and the defendant is the occupied and used cars and MP as a defendant, the first defendant must be jointly liable in violation of the S and the third defendant as a recipient. Insurance car accident scene must be jointly liable to the defendant, but the indictment does not claim that the third defendant is liable for the car accident. One of the defendants insured The plaintiff's claim that the defendant to the third defendant must be jointly liable to the defendant because the defendant, the defendant must be jointly liable in violation. When the Court of First Instance ruled that the defendant is not liable to the plaintiff, the third defendant will not be liable for damages on behalf of the defendant. 1 insured for the plaintiff's death, the defendant is responsible for any one of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 887, paragraph one.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1955/2542.

Defendant 1 driving a car accident scene with the consent of the MP. The defendant's second, even if the defendant will have two rules. Any car It may not apply to the plaintiff. The third defendant was responsible for the results. Violations under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 427 when the plaintiff, the insurer was indemnified. Insured that the defendant violated the right to take the right. The claimant to the second defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4449/2541.

Carrier insurance has a unique approach, which is different from conventional insurance. Because the price of insurance or Equity for insurance in carriage under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 884, paragraph one, not only the price of goods only. It may also include Freight and other expenses, as the case may be. Printers dispensers are priced at 71,681 pounds C & F. The price paid by the plaintiff to the insurer amounted to 78,849 pounds sterling. It is calculated that the price of the insurance is 110 percent of the price. The 10% increase in the price of such goods is the total cost of insurance. This is normal practice for cargo insurance. The amount of 187,610 baht that the plaintiff called. The "claim" is 10% of the price of a damaged printer, amounting to 1,876,100 baht, so that the claim is that. Expenditure that is part of the insurance is a loss that the petitioner was insured with the plaintiff under Section 884 paragraph one.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4086/2541.

The plaintiff transferred the right under the car hire and insurance contract. I have informed the lender. And the lender has notified the defendant that the plaintiff can be held that the plaintiff. The defendant informed the transfer of rights under the lease and insurance contract. When the transfer in this case, the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 875 does not force the book and the defendant did not dispute the transfer of rights. Anyway The insurance contract is transferred to the plaintiff.

Only transfer the leasing rights under the car lease agreement to the plaintiff. The ownership of the car belongs to the lessor of the company, which did not change to the plaintiff. It is not the case that the insured person transfers the car to another person as stated in the insurance policy.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 5344/2540.

Insurance policy provides an exception to the defendant's indemnity does not indemnify. Damage or loss caused by theft or misappropriation by the person Car lease is not covered. The fact is that Lt. and B. car lease contract from the plaintiff to the insured. But when it comes to renting, the two of them do not bring their cars back because they do not want to rent them. The contract to lease property is a trick to sell cars in Burma, then the Lt. car and the car using the trick to lease such as this is no exception to the defendant. To be liable under the insurance contract. Defendant is liable to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2639/2540.

The first court ruled that only one dispute Defendant is liable for damages to the plaintiff by the suit or not by the plaintiff to the defendant. The plaintiff witnesses the plaintiff's receipt of the fact that the plaintiff has insured the car. Dispute to the defendant under the insurance policy at the end of the defendant's statement. The insured driver does not renew his driver's license for more than 180 days and asks for a ruling on the problem. According to the facts, the exception to the provisions of insurance policies 1.10 and 3.9.2 cause the defendant is not liable to the plaintiff. The plaintiff and the defendant did not testify. The Court of First Instance has heard the verdict as follows. The plaintiff and the defendant have to fight the other arguments, both the defendant's testimony. The defendant did not claim that. The driver is insured as negligence. So the fact that the driver of the car is not driving the car under negligence, the case is in accordance with the plaintiff's complaint. The Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal heard the facts. It is preferable that the procedure is considered and is not diagnosed too well. Above the indictment no. According to Schedule 1.10, there is the statement that "the Company may not be liable for any claims under this policy. Unless the insured has properly acted under the insurance contract. The terms and conditions of this policy include all terms and conditions of the contract, including clause 3.9, at the end and clause 3.9.2, which reads "Driving without a driver's license. Any or all of the following, but no extension beyond 180 days, etc., at the time of the accident, "and at the end of Article 3.9, the words" 3.9 will not be used in the event of damage to the car or otherwise. The negligence of motorists insured under this policy ". The driver who insured the vehicle even if the driver's license was not renewed in excess of 180, but in case of damage to the vehicle and not the negligence of the driver. The defendant is liable under the insurance policy, which is subject to the policy. According to Schedule 1.10 to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2383/2539.

The term "disability" refers to the ability to work normally. The plaintiff engaged in repairing motorcycle and motorcycle parts. The plaintiff will need to listen to the engine to repair the motorcycle. And to talk to customers to buy motorcycle parts. Both of the plaintiff's ear. I can not heard The plaintiff is less able to perform a normal job forever. Hold the plaintiff's permanent disability completely. Insurance policy. "Claims to insured persons must inform the company of the disability. This is in writing within 180 days of the date of disability, unless proven otherwise. May the company know. "The message is not strictly defined that the plaintiff will be insured. Must notify the defendant in writing within 180 days from the date of any disability. In case of reasonable cause. The plaintiff may not have to follow it. The plaintiff to contact the defendant, but not in writing, because the plaintiff hand. Can not write The defendant was notified of the plaintiff's consideration. The defendant is not interested in the plaintiff must be notified in writing within 180 days from the date of the disability as prescribed, the plaintiff has the right to claim. Instead of the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8292/2538.

The plaintiff said in the suit. Plaintiff's insurance from the insured and reinsurance through the defendant, which is. Instead of a non-life insurance company in a disaster and the plaintiff. The claim was made. The defendant claims to be liable under the insurance contract like this. The liability of the defendant as the plaintiff sued as a guarantor. In this case, it must be 2 years from the date of the accident. According to the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 882, paragraph one.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9245/2538.

The plaintiffs 1 and 2 have jointly agreed to the plaintiff's insurance, the plaintiffs 1 and 2 will be liable for compensation of 60% and 40% of all damages, respectively. When the contract expires and the two plaintiffs jointly compensate for damages. Insured to the insured under the insured. The right of the insured to join the plaintiff sued the defendant. The employer or the violator of the joint liability to use the two plaintiffs as follows: The calculation of the amount of the dispute in the Supreme Court must hold the capital of each plaintiff separate. Separate This case appeals to the fact that The defendant is not the employer or the driver of the offending truck driver. Defendant is not liable as follows: The plaintiffs 1 and 2 petition the Supreme Court to determine. Even the plaintiffs will not have the witness that the truck driver is an employee. Agent of the defendant. The testimony of the defendant is not weighed up as a petition to dispute the discretion to listen to evidence, which is a petition in the facts. When it appears This case, the amount of the dispute in the petition of each plaintiff does not exceed 200,000 baht, so the petition is prohibited. According to the Code of Civil Procedure, Section 248 paragraph one

Judgment of the Supreme Court 2807/2537.

The land and commercial buildings are of the professor, who had mortgaged the bank and insured the defendant. The bank is a beneficiary under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 231 mortgage rights cover the right to claim the insurer. The meaning of the claim that the mortgagee will be called by the defendant. The insurer is in the same position as the mortgaged property. If there is a fire in the commercial building during the mortgage. The bank will have the right to claim insurance policy instead of the commercial building. Defendant directly It is in the case of the bank as a mortgage creditor, ie the claim of the insured debtor with the defendant as the insurer in accordance with Section 226, paragraph 2, when the building was not fire during the mortgage and Professor. The mortgage was pledged by the plaintiff to pay the debt to the bank instead of the prof. And then registered transfer to the plaintiff by the mortgage. The mortgage is suspended and the mortgagee is no longer entitled to receive. The defendant claims that the defendant's insurance policy to the defendant under Section 231 claims in the insurance policy is back to the old insured. After the fire, the plaintiff can not claim that the plaintiff has been granted the right. The law of mortgage banks because the plaintiff is the person who has the real estate. Property and the purchase price to the mortgagee of property completed under Section 229 (2) The transfer of the plaintiff to the plaintiff. Claims of insurance claims in the insurance will be transferred to the plaintiff's or not, it must be enforced under Section 875 paragraph two, when the insured did not notify the transfer to the defendant because the condition is unknown. Until the fire. The insurance contract is not transfered under the insurance policy and stated that. Insurance contracts will be terminated when the property has been insured. The insured has changed his / her hands from the insured person by means other than the will. By the provisions of the law. The plaintiff is not entitled to claim insurance policy.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 512/2537.

Insured truck registration number 80-1287 Sisaket with the third defendant, namely, R. by the insurance contract on January 24, 2528 with the insurance period from January 25, 2528 to January 25, 1986, under the insurance contract Sisaket Limited Partnership. Charoen is a car owner and used the car ownership of the truck, the defendant has just transferred ownership and use the car. On July 1, 1985, after ownership of the truck insurance contract and no transfer of rights. The defendant to the defendant that the first defendant has a truck with the third defendant to the plaintiff has no right to sue the third defendant liability insurance policy with the defendant 1 and 2.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1769/2521.

The insured person during the trip insured with a company and then postponed the date the company has not approved. I have been insured with another company that has not accepted. The insurance company with the defendant again. A message that has never been accidentally covered with another company. The defendant may refuse to sign. But this insurance is different from the time before the disapproval. I can not afford to insure myself with another company.

To tell the void to follow. Civil and Commercial Code, Section 865 must be done within 1 month after the company knows the truth of the cover. After that, no effect.

In-flight accident insurance offers conditions to pay in case of death. The injury. In regards to the use of death money. Life insurance under Section 889 must pay in full. There is no payer in the order of the insurer prior to Section 870.

The plaintiff extends money to others to take life insurance by the plaintiff as a beneficiary. It is not enough that the plaintiff is the life insurance of the other. It is the insured person who has a stake in life insurance.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1603/2518.

Insurance factory buildings, which during construction and raw materials with the defendant. The benefit of the plaintiff's policy. Terms of the policy. If the commercial or industrial life of the insured is changed, Way to increase the risk of injury. The insured must get permission from the defendant before a casualty occurs. Otherwise, the insurance contract immediately suspended. And there is agreement. Interest rates will increase when the plant is completed as the defendant has called. The insurance premiums increase when the plant is completed and the original machinery is made. The intention of the defendant is just to claim the premiums increase as the. Okay. Find out about the problem that running a machine produces a risk. Increased risk of violating the terms of insurance policy.

When the defendant called for payment of premiums as mentioned above, the defendant has the letter that the request. Because of this, I have insurance for raw materials to other companies, I want to insure machinery used in production. It has not been insured. The insurance policy of the machine is the same as the intention of the meaning of the proposed changes to the original policy. It will insure machinery instead of raw materials. The insurance company has moved to another company. The termination of the contract and the intention to submit the offer to the defendant, which is separated by distance. When the fire accident before the book will go to the defendant. Original insurance policy is also binding on the defendant.

Section 877 of the Civil and Commercial Code prescribes to you the insured. In case the insured property is completely destroyed. The Insured would like to claim the full sum insured unless the insurer proves irreversible damage to property. Amount of insurance

Insurance of raw materials with the defendant. The raw materials are then insured with other companies. Even when the fire damage. A. Acceptance of damages from other insurance companies to some extent, then it does not. The defendant's rights and obligations under the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 871, and the defendant is the first insurer shall be liable when the first. To be liable than one insurer under Section 870, the defendant is liable for the actual amount of life insurance that is not used.

A cooling air conditioner installed on the outside wall of an insured building is only a piece of equipment. No, the building's fittings are not. When the fire burns, the building and the air conditioner go. The insured will not be compensated for air conditioning.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 890/2500.

According to the automobile insurance policy. The guarantor will accept the money in case of accident. The word "accident" is caused by unexpected or accidental events. This means that it is caused or not intentionally, so it is also caused by negligence.

Posted in: