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.