Insurance.

Section 861 of the insurance contract. This is a contract where a person agrees to take a claim. Or use a certain amount in the event of a disaster, if any. In the future, as stated in the contract. And in this regard, another person agrees to send money, which is called. premium

Section 862 in this manner.

The word "insurer" means The parties agree to use the compensation. Or use a certain amount.

The word "insured" means The parties agree to send premiums.

The word "beneficiary" means The person who will receive the claim or receive the money.

The insured and the beneficiary. It is one person.

Section 863 of the insurance. If the Insured has no interest in the cause of the insurance. You do not bind the parties, but one way.

Section 864 When a party pays particular insurance, it is considered to determine the amount of insurance premium. And such a disaster is not over. You said that before. The insurer would like to reduce the premium under the section.

Section 865 if at the time of insurance contract. Insured. Or in case of life insurance The person who uses the money to live his life or death is good. I know already ignore the real message, which may have motivated the insurer to call for a higher premium or refuse to sign a contract. I know that the message is a lie. That contract is void.

If not exercise the right to clean within a month from the date the insurer knows the information will be clear. Or exercise that right within five years from the date of the contract. You have the right to stop it.

Section 866 if the insurer has knowledge of the actual message in Section 865, it is good to know that the statement is false. Should be aware of such, if the caution is expected, but it is good. You have heard that the contract is complete.

Section 867 of the contract. If there is no written evidence, either the signature of the party liable or the signature of the representative of that party. You will not be prosecuted.

To deliver a contractual insurance policy to the insured.

policy The signature of the insurer and the following items.
(1) the insured object
(2) any threat to the insurer.
(3) the price of insurance If it is set.
(4) Amount insured
(5) premium amount And how to send premium.
(6) If the insurance contract is scheduled. Time and start time must be set.
(7) name or brand of insurer
(8) the name or brand of the insured
(9) The name of the beneficiary, if any.
(10) Insurance Policy Date
(11) place and date of insurance policy

Section 868 of the Marine Accord You shall comply with the provisions of the Law of the Sea.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 10099/2559.
Both defendants said that a group of people tricked with the defendant to rent a car disputes, and did not deliver the car back. I have to admit to complain to the prosecutors in charge of mutual misappropriation. The prosecutor's opinion is that the circumstances of the case are jointly used in the trick to jointly steal the victim's car. Attached car lease and copy of the prosecutor's office book at the end of the statement. The two defendants did not testify that they and the circumstances of the trick to jointly steal the car even though the car was rented out in the knowledge of the defendant. Send a copy of the criminal case and a copy of the insurance policy statement to the Court of First Instance that the person asked to rent and not bring back the car. There is a lawsuit against the person until the court has finally judged that the person committed the crime of burglary. A copy of the judgment The Court of First Instance adjudicated that the offense under Section 335 (7) of the first paragraph of Section 83, but the fact that they together with the three cars. Other criminal cases that have been requested for imprisonment are guilty. The defendant jointly testified that the witness interrogated the defendant 1 according to the memo. When considering the copy of the car rental contract, the final document shows that the origin of the contract with the defendant has a real identity is not impersonating or other people present as a contact car rental. The fact remains that only a car rental from the defendant in accordance with the copy of the lease together with the car to take the case is not covered by insurance because of damage or loss caused by theft or misappropriation of property. The person assigned or occupied the car under the lease. The insurance policy. Section 5.1. The defendant is not responsible for the loss of the car to the defendant, the insured and the plaintiff the beneficiary. The defendant jointly requested the two defendants liable to the plaintiff. This case, although the court first determined that the defendants are liable to the plaintiff. But after that, the defendant was jointly liable for the two defendants. When the defendant is liable for the two defendants in full. The defendants are not liable to the plaintiff anymore. Judge the defendant joint liability. Appeal to the plaintiff for the two defendants. If the plaintiff also wants the defendant to both defend the suit. The plaintiff must appeal. It is not a matter of the defendant to appeal to the two defendants liable to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff does not appeal. The plaintiff's case for the two defendants will terminate according to the Court of First Instance. The Supreme Court can not judge the two defendants liable to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6686/2559.
The insurer determines the conditions in the insurance policy, so to be fair to the insured. Conditions that exclude liability of the insurer must be strictly interpreted. If any doubt is to be interpreted to benefit the insured. According to the coverage of the car insurance policy. The insurer will pay compensation when the car is lost. In the case of car lost due to theft, robbery, robbery and misappropriation. The insurer will pay the full amount of insurance money. And there is an exception to the liability that 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. Except for the liability of the insurer, it must be strictly interpreted as meaning the loss caused by theft. Or misappropriation By the person who is assigned or occupied by the lease. Hire Purchase Or pledge agreement only because of burglary. This can be easily done with high risk. The policy can not be protected. The fact is that the car was lost because of the misappropriation of the car was a hire-purchase from the defendant, the second person to act on behalf of the defendant to sell the case is not subject to liability exclusion conditions. The coverage of such car insurance. The co-defendant, the insurer, is not liable under the policy.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 3246 - 3250/2559.
Insurance is a contract that requires good faith or trust between the parties. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the insured to disclose the actual message to the insurer, while the insurance contract with the five defendants are insured with dozens of other insurers are dozens of policyholders. The sum insured is over 47 million baht, it is considered that the MP is a high risk person. The insurance claim is high. There is no proof that the suit or occupation of the MP or not. And may be wrong in the way. The insurance with the other insurer is a matter that must be disclosed to the five defendants. It may encourage the five defendants to raise premiums or refuse to insure one. As the five defendants agree to insure the lawsuit against the MPs, resulting from the dishonesty of MPs who do not disclose the actual message substantive. Insurance under the law will be void under Section 865, paragraph one, when the five defendants were cleared by law. The insurance is void.

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 5085/2558.
There are exceptions to the policy. "This insurance policy does not cover ... 2. Loss or damage caused by physical injury occurring in the following ... D. While insured persons engage in quarrels or provoke controversy, "not explicitly mentioning death or homicide Except as expressly provided herein, no liability is express or implied, including but not limited to, the loss or damage resulting from physical injury to the Insured Person's death. The death of the victim was not the exception to the liability of the defendant in the policy. Defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 18403/2557.
A copy of the temporary payment statement stating that the insurance "Payment of this provisional payment together with the application for insurance ... The company will consider issuing the policy ... Within 30 days from the day following the date on which the head office or branch office is authorized to act, the application for insurance, or request and receive payment. If the company does not issue a policy ... within the time limit. Or refuse to take out insurance or report an accident in the insurance. The Company agrees to accept the contract or request that the Company uses in the latter. To be effective from the end of the 30-day period mentioned above. "Although the defendant will be promulgated the life insurance regulations. Battle. 2-137 / 2542 Comply with the insurance claim manual. The branch office of the defendant has no authority to consider the life insurance of the deceased and the branch office of the defendant must be sent to the head office for approval and issuance of policy. But the regulation is internal management between the branch office and the defendant's headquarters. Therefore, 30 days for the defendant to consider the policy or refuse to request insurance or report the failure of the warranty must start from the day following the date of the branch office. The defendant received a request for insurance and insurance premiums. The defendant's insurance company received the insurance claim and the insurance premium from the deceased on August 31, 2002. The defendant will have to consider the policy or refuse the insurance claim or report the failure within the warranty within 30 days from the date. Next day Within September 30, 2002, even though the defendant had a letter dated September 19, 2002 informing the deceased. Currently, life insurance of the deceased is in the process of considering the company. If done successfully, the dead person will be notified again. The dead person received the letter on September 27, 2002, which is within 30 days, but the text in the letter does not look like a refusal of insurance claims or warranty notice. Can not hear that the defendant has denied the request for insurance or notified the failure to guarantee the dead within the 30-day period of life insurance agreement between the defendant and the deceased shall come into force at the end of 30 days from the date. Sawatakorn Branch Office of the defendant received a request for insurance and insurance premiums from the deceased. Is effective from October 1, 2002 at 0100 hours onwards. The defendant has another letter dated October 10, 2002, refusing warranty and refund of insurance premium to the deceased. The period after the effective date of the life insurance contract will not result in the guarantee of the resulting life. When the deceased died in an accident, drowned on October 1, 2002, at 23 o'clock, within the period when the life insurance agreement came into force. Defendant is liable to pay 500,000 baht in life insurance policy to the plaintiff, the beneficiary.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 16999/2557.
The Supreme Court ruled that. Although the plaintiff's first life insurance contract and the pledge agreement were made on the same date and included in the same policy. It is a separate contract because there is no law to provide a special life insurance contract in this case is a contract of insurance equipment in the previous case. Each life insurance contract is self-contained. The contract is separate and separate terms. The plaintiff sued this case is not the same as the case. The issue of lawsuits that the court has to judge both cases is that. The insured knew already ignored the real message and the defendant said the contract will be the same. It is a separate life insurance contract with separate terms and conditions. The facts in the case are not binding in this case.

Go to the doctor at the clinic for cough and fever. The lungs and bronchial tubes are found to have bacterial bronchitis. The patients are required to undergo hospital treatment because of the need for injection and symptoms. The bacterium that causes bronchitis is not a bacterial disease that causes serious illnesses that require hospitalization. The scars and lung area is very long, then the female doctor is not confirmed as tuberculosis. The sputum was not found. There is no lung examination for scars and lung tumors. Serious harm to life? Death with blood poisoning and low blood pressure. It is not a result of scars and lumps in the lungs. I do not know that while the insurance contract with the defendant knew that the defendant ignored the truth, which may motivate the defendant to raise the premium or refuse to sign the contract or know the false statement of false. Section 865, paragraph one.

The Registrar's order No. 13/2541, Clause 1 states that the attachment attached to the insurance policy supplemented by this order shall include the insured person who has been insured before the date this order comes into force, so the endorsement shall be inscribed at the end of the insurance policy under The order is applicable to the life insurance contract before the date the order comes into force.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 13043/2557.
The insurance policy provides for the exclusion of liability for the loss of a car caused by theft or embezzlement. The person was assigned or occupied the car under the lease when the police were issued a warrant for misappropriation and fraudulent motorcycle of the lender before the accident in this case only 4 months, and the car rented from the plaintiff for a period of 2 days. The car had to be returned on April 29, 2004, but had to leave the hotel since April 27, 2004, the day of arrival in Ubon Ratchathani. I do not want to rent a car from the beginning. The fraudulent intent to deceive the plaintiff by a false statement that the car to rent from the plaintiff, the plaintiff's first car to give the car to the action of fraud is a fraud. Are you guilty of theft or misappropriation? Not exempt under the terms of the policy. Defendant is liable to pay compensation to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1137/2557.
The insurance contract within 1 month from the date of the information to be cleared under Section 865, paragraph two, when the defendant, the defendant reimbursed the defendant and the defendant claimed that the defendant has cleared the life insurance. The void The defendant has a duty to confirm that. The defendant will know when to wash. I have been clearing the contract within a month since the information is clear. When the defendant's attorney did not hear that the plaintiff informed the defendant to pay compensation when. And the defendant will know when to wash it. Defendant can be assured that the defendant has a letter of guarantee within 2 years from the date of renewal of the contract. I can not defend the defendant said that the defendant told the insurance within a month from the date of the information to be cleared under Section 865, paragraph two as follows: the defendant is liable to pay the life insurance contract to the beneficiary.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 8518/2555.
The Ministerial Regulation No. 11 (BE 2540) issued in accordance with the Article 3 states that in cases where a victim is a driver and the victim is a party who is liable under the law. No one is legally liable to the injured driver. The amount of insurance is reduced to the amount of preliminary damages as prescribed in the Ministerial Regulations. Article 2.3 states that the victim is a motorcyclist who is insured and is responsible for the accident. No one is legally liable to the victim. The company will be liable for damages not exceeding the initial damages only ... The text in the ministerial regulations and in the policy. It is the case that the victim is the driver and the victim himself is legally responsible for the accident or no party is legally liable. When the facts are heard, it ends. The victim, the victim and the driver, is not the party liable and the person liable for the deceased by law. Only the police officer can follow the person who is liable to prosecute the law. It is not the case that no party is legally liable to the victim. The text can not be interpreted in accordance with the terms of the policy, including the case can not follow the liable. Because the message is clear in the body that there must be no legal liability. The defendant, as the insurer, is liable for the full amount of compensation to cover the victims of the car accident in the accident victims.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6423 - 6424/2555.
Act of 1992 did not define the term life insurance business. The insurance provisions of the Civil and Commercial Code must be introduced. The defendant agreed to spend 60,000 baht in case the member died. And in the case of illness, not exceeding 5,000 baht a year, members must send the defendant an annual payment of 12,000 baht insurance policy under Section 861, which states that. An insurance contract is a contract whereby a person agrees to take a claim or use a certain amount in the event of an accident, if any, or in any other event in the future, as specified in the contract. And in this regard, another person agrees to send money, which is called. premium The regulations of the defendant used the word donated to the defendant. But the real meaning is that the money that the member must send to the defendant is a condition for the defendant to use the money in the event of future events as stated in the regulations, as well as the submission of premiums. Even according to the rules of the defendant, use the word donation instead of premium. It does not affect the money that the member must send to the defendant is not a premium. The defendant is the insurer. Members are insured. And members or members specified in the case of death. Is the beneficiary under Section 862 and the regulation that the condition. In case of death The defendant will use the amount of 60,000 baht, which is used by the living or death of the person. Life insurance under Section 889 of the money received from members in accordance with the provisions of Article 14. At the end of the accounting year, if there is money left, it is considered the income of the defendant. If any money is not enough. The amount of money that is missing as the defendant, the defendant acted in accordance with the rules, with 350 members are engaged in the life insurance business. Even individuals who are members must be members or families and employees of the defendant. It does not make the action not a business. When the defendant is not allowed to engage in the life insurance business of the Cabinet under the Act of Life Insurance 1992, Section 7, paragraph one, the defendant is guilty. Section 18 of the Life Insurance Act 1992

Judgment of the Supreme Court 11711 - 11712/2554.
Life insurance premiums sent to the 4th defendant, the insurer, is the proceeds of the offense. However, when the 4th objection is accepted in good faith and the compensation under the terms of the insurance policy, it is protected under The Anti-Money Laundering Act 1999, Section 50, Paragraph 1 (2), is vested in the 4th Defendant. The 4th Defendant can not take the wrong source. With the insurance premiums received from the m as an excuse that will cause the life insurance between the 4 and veto the objections of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 156.

The premium paid by the insured to the Company and the 4th Defendant is the proceeds of the offense which constitute a property related to the offense as defined in Money Laundering Act BE 2542 (1999), Section 3 (old). The money paid to the company A. and the opposition 4 is the premium. And then the money paid for the insurance policy. The money is the money or property derived from the transfer of any transfer. The money or property derived from the act is a fundamental offense, regardless of whether the property will be sold, transferred or changed many times. And whether in possession of any person. Transfer to any person Or appears to be registered as a person. Claims and Monetary Disputes The property is related to the offense. The petitioner is entitled to file a petition to the court to order compensation and the value of insurance surrender to the State.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 7332/2555.
The plaintiff's purchase of cars from the car seller, which has entered into insurance contracts with the defendant before the plaintiff to pay for the car. The dealership of the car seller is paying the premium. And the name of the plaintiff is insured in accordance with the agreement in the car dealership between the plaintiff and the car seller. Defendant will know that the plaintiff is a party to the defendant under the policy. The plaintiff is a stakeholder in the insured car. So have the power to sue.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 9135/2554.
The plaintiff owns the ship Chrysanthemum. Insurance with the defendant that the boat is in good condition ready to travel. The defendant agrees to be insured under the insurance policy, stating the essential terms and exclusions of liability in several respects, namely, the insurance shall be governed by the laws and traditions of the United Kingdom. The insurer has the duty to disclose all facts to the insurer. The Insured shall certify that the vessel is fully licensed and registered by the Department of Water and Maritime Transportation throughout the term of the policy of the Insured Person, and the Insured Person shall give the Insured Person a copy of the Insured Person's Certificate of Incorporation. It is important to ensure that the vessel is properly installed in accordance with the regulations of the Department of Water and Marine Transport (WARRENTED VESSEL BE PROPERLY EQUIPPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE HARBOR DEPARTMENT). The company reports that the ship was sinking. The reason is that the boat and the machine has been used for a long time. And not enough repair. In the insurance is not suitable for the sea. There is no evidence that the vessel collided underwater or suffered severe weather. By checking the registration of the boat. It does not appear that the ship was registered by the government because the documents that the plaintiff claimed to have been granted a temporary license. Not a document issued by the Department of Water Transportation and Maritime Commerce. It is not the case that the terms in the insurance policy are not fulfilled. The case can be heard that the plaintiff's conditions under the insurance policy in the statement that the ship must be licensed and registered by the water transport and commercial maritime. And the boat must have the right equipment and equipment in accordance with the conditions of the Department of Water and Marine (Breach of the insurance on the ship), resulting in the insurer immediately discharge from liability, so the insurance policy does not cover. Whether the threat to the ship will occur because the plaintiff claims. Defendant insurer is not liable to pay damages to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 10421/2551.
If you do not have a car insurance policy, you will need to have a car insurance policy with you. Although the lease agreement will specify the starting date of the contract after the start date of the insurance contract. Interpretation of the insurance contract will focus on the true intent of the parties than the words, expressions or letters of the Civil and Commercial Code, Section 171 is considered as the insured as a cause of insured while the insurance contract with the plaintiff. When the rented car disappears in the parking lot of the defendant's hotel. And the plaintiff as the insurer has paid the claim to the beneficiary company under the insurance contract will be entitled to claims for compensation and interest from the date the plaintiff to pay compensation to the company from the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1333/2551.
The insurance agent is responsible for persuading others to enter into an insurance contract. Life with the defendant Not representative of the defendant's life insurance under Section 5 and Section 71 is not a representative of the defendant under the Civil and Commercial Code that the CH knew or should know the truth when making a health certificate. Have been suffering from hepatitis and have chest tightness due to drinking lots of alcohol. Living at the hospital The defendant was aware of such a fact with no.

I know that he has hepatitis, but not the real message that may be encouraging. The defendant refused to make a contract or higher premiums will make life insurance agreement between the defendant and the defendant is void under Section 865 paragraph one.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 6337/2550.
The right to contract is governed by the law. When entering any style must use such characteristics. Will the provisions on ownership transfer to the buyer or not in the process. The commercial and commercial law is a ruling on the right of the seller. But insurance is not. The rights of the insured, but the insurance contract will only be. The insurance contract. When the plaintiff 1 (seller) and the defendant (the insurer) has agreed to all types of insurance that may occur throughout the carrier. Products from Bangkok to destinations in the United States. Protection under the terms of the policy is not terminated when the plaintiff delivers the goods to the carrier under the conditions of trading. However, the protection will be available at all times from the Bangkok Metropolitan. Destinations in United States When goods are lost during transit. The defendant is liable for compensation under the contract.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1922/2550.
The plaintiff brought 10-wheel truck to the defendant. During the term of the insurance contract. Employee of the plaintiff driving the car with a trailer with a trailer. Accident collision card lane coronation causes the lane and car lane card. Damaged car has been damaged. Under the insurance contract, the liability of the contract. But there are many exceptions to the liability. One contract does not cover liability arising from the use of tug or push. Unless the car is towed or driven to the insurance company. show that According to the insurance policy, the defendant does not wish to cover the case of using cars. Insurance to push or push. This causes more risk. If the insured wishes to protect the towing, it must notify. The intention is clear for insurers to set premiums in proportion to. More risk. The plaintiff brought the car to the towing trailer to another, it is action. Except the defendant's liability. Defendant is not liable to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 462/2550.
The mortgage contract clause 5 states that ... If the mortgagor does not manage the fire insurance and the mortgage is managed by the fire insurance itself, the mortgagor agrees to pay the insurance premiums paid by the mortgagee to complete. Within 1 month from the date the mortgagee informs ... According to the contract, it shows that the plaintiff has the right to call the defendant to pay the defendant. Insurance is only when the advance payment of premiums only. No right to the defendant to pay future insurance premiums that are not yet due.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4819/2549.
Under the lease agreement. The car was stolen. The defendant will be liable for two types of compensation by the plaintiff, the lessee and the insurance company. Excessive damage to the defendant. When the plaintiff is a premium and the defendant is a beneficiary. The plaintiff will not have to pay the car to the defendant to pay the premium. And the defendant has the intention of claiming the insurance company. Until the insurance company approved to pay the defendant. The defendant received the remaining rent from the plaintiff after the hire purchase. It was stolen as a dishonest exercise. To pay the rent to the plaintiff.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1550/2548.
Exemption of liability of the third defendant under the insurance policy clause 3.8.4 agreed. Insurance does not cover car use by the person of the garage. When the car was given to the garage to repair it. It means that if the car was insured for the car. Later, the car was used by a person of the garage. In this case, the garage of the defendant did not receive the car of the plaintiff, the defendant is the only employee of the defendant in the second car to the garage of the second defendant, so it can not be used as a car by the people of the garage. The defendant's second defendant is liable to the plaintiff under the insurance contract.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 4556/2547.
The plaintiff sued the defendant four defendants delivered the dispute to the plaintiff. If the return is not provided, share the vehicle price dispute. The four defendants said that. Dispute car lost The defendant can not return the dispute to the plaintiff. If the four defendants must pay the price of a dispute to the defendant plaintiff as the defendant to the car with the defendant and the defendant 2 to 4 as the guarantor to be with the defendant to pay the car dispute. plaintiff I have the right to recourse for damages for the defendant's car dispute. Co-insured car cars. The four defendants are called to join the defendant in the case in accordance with Section 57 (3), and the Court of First Instance has a subpoena accused the defendant as a couple in the case. The four defendants asked. The court will have the power to judge the defendant jointly compensate the defendant jointly liable. The insurance contract for the plaintiff. It is not considered too judgmental or except in the case.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1404/2546.
Even the defendant is obliged under the loan agreement to insure mortgaged buildings. To the plaintiff. By agreeing to the plaintiff to insure himself and the defendant to pay the plaintiff's insurance premiums, but when the defendant will have to pay a premium after the debt. The debt is not yet due in the future. It is considered that the defendant failed to pay his debt is not yet. There is no dispute about the rights or obligations of the plaintiff to the defendant by law. To file a defendant to pay the debt.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 64/2546.
Truck of the defendant, which was insured with a second defendant to hit the motorcycle, causing the death of three people after the accident. The second defendant agreed on the value of the death of the deceased to his heirs. Dead three Motorcycle repair fees can not be agreed again. Without any message, the two sides agreed to settle the dispute by waiving the right. Other claims Both parties are willing to agree on the value of the crib. Other damages are not included. The text in the book is not a compromise agreement.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 10325/2546.
The car is guaranteed by the plaintiff. Mr. August is a hire purchase, with the boss as a guarantor of leasing. Under the hire purchase contract, the lender will be solely responsible for those. Accidents caused by the use of cars. Part of the guarantee. The guarantor shall be liable to the lender as a joint debtor, the guarantor of the car, so the interest in the damage of the car. It can be considered as a stakeholder in the insurance under the guarantee. The insurance between the plaintiff and the plaintiff is bound by law. When the plaintiff as the insurer has paid damages to the insured, then the right to claim the insured of the claim. The plaintiff sued.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1112/2545.
Insurance contract with the insurer insured. Plaintiff is the insurer. The defendant is insured by the third party is the beneficiary is a contract for the benefit of third parties. D. The right to receive compensation as a beneficiary. D. The intention to take advantage of the insurance contract with the plaintiff. Section 374 not only has the name of the beneficiary will have the right to benefit immediately.

According to the plaintiff's indictment, the plaintiff has expressed intention to become a beneficiary under the insurance policy before the plaintiff to pay compensation to the defendant, so d., So there is no right under the insurance policy. When the beneficiary's rights are not legal. Defendant as a contractual party to the plaintiff is. The beneficiary will receive a claim for damages to the property. Insurance by the CPS. Section 861 of the defendant received compensation from the plaintiff is not legally accepted as not a good fortune under Section 406

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1822/2544.
The plaintiff is the defendant's car with the defendant. According to the insurance policy, the plaintiff has personal accident insurance to waste. The life of a person who drives an insured car without identifying the beneficiary even if it is a life insurance. But it is not the case that the deceased took life insurance. It shows the intent of the parties that want to make this claim fall. The plaintiff's direct insurance. Yes, it is an asset of the estate of the deceased. The plaintiff as the contractor shall have the right to claim for the death of. The death of the driver of the plaintiff at the scene of the defendant.

Judgment of the Supreme Court 1060/2543.
The plaintiff's attested by the original hire purchase contract witnesses 1 and 2 to the defendant that the first contract of car hire truck from the plaintiff. The defendant was summoned to the case without a fight that the lease documents fake. Not perfect The defendant jointly referred to the testimony of the authority of the first defendant or other witnesses to offset the change in the lease agreement, which states that the defendant is a hire purchase. Prohibited under Civil and Commercial Code, Section 572 and Civil Procedure Code, Section 94 (b)

When the defendant is a car hire truck, the defendant will have the right to hire cars to use and have the right to ownership. When paying the leasing fee, you must pay the leasing fee. The loss or damage to the car that the defendant is a defendant in the object of insurance. Even if you let other people use the car or pay the insurance premium, instead of doing it. To lose or to be released from liability under the contract, not the defendant must be bound by. Insurance policy with the defendant and be liable to the plaintiff, which is the beneficiary of the policy.

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More