The court denied the insurer's claim for 260,000 UAH because the driver's guilt in the traffic accident case was not proven

The Khmelnytskyi Court of Appeal upheld the decision to deny the insurance company's claim to recover 260,000 UAH of insurance compensation from the driver of the insured vehicle by way of recourse.

Case circumstances

When applying to the court, the insurer stated that the defendant – the driver of a Dodge Sprinter – hit a woman at a pedestrian crossing in Khmelnytskyi and left the scene. As a result of the accident, the pedestrian sustained bodily injuries.

The proceedings in the administrative offense case under Article 124 of the Code of Administrative Offenses were closed due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for imposing an administrative penalty.

At the time of the accident, the vehicle was insured by the insurance company. In accordance with the insurance contract, the company paid the injured party 260 thousand UAH in insurance compensation.

Believing that the defendant voluntarily left the scene, the insurer requested the court to recover the paid insurance compensation from him by way of recourse. The claim was based on the provisions of the Law of Ukraine "On Compulsory Insurance of Civil Liability of Owners of Land Vehicles," which under such circumstances grants the insurer the right to a recourse claim.

The Khmelnytskyi City District Court of Khmelnytskyi region denied the claim. The insurance company appealed this decision to the appellate court.

At its request, the appellate court obtained and examined the materials of the administrative offense case, which the insurer cited as evidence for its claims.

According to the injured party's explanations, while crossing the road, she argued with the driver of the Dodge Sprinter – he moved off, lightly hitting her with the vehicle. Later, she felt a deterioration in her health and sought medical help. The driver denied the fact of the collision. The video recording examined by the court also did not allow establishing whether there was a collision. Other evidence, including the accident site diagram, witness statements, or the forensic medical expert's conclusion, were absent from the case materials.

The police drew up two protocols against the driver for administrative offenses: under Article 124 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (Violation of traffic rules causing damage to vehicles, cargo, roads, streets, railway crossings, road structures, or other property) and under Article 122-4 of the Code of Administrative Offenses (Leaving the scene of a road traffic accident).

The proceedings under Article 124 of the Code of Administrative Offenses were closed due to the expiration of the statute of limitations for imposing an administrative penalty, and no decision was made regarding the offense under Article 122-4 of the Code of Administrative Offenses.

Court decision

The appellate court considered that this ruling does not confirm the driver's guilt in voluntarily leaving the scene of the accident.

Also, the panel of judges in case No. 686/29130/25 noted that the insurer did not prove the causal link between the accident and all the treatment expenses of the injured party that were compensated. In particular, no proper evidence was provided that the treatment of the woman three years after the accident, costing 195,000 UAH, was a direct consequence of the injuries sustained in this road traffic accident.

The appellate court agreed with the first instance court's conclusion: the insurer did not prove either the fact of the defendant's offense under Article 122-4 of the Code of Administrative Offenses or that the paid insurance compensation was exclusively related to the treatment of injuries sustained in the accident. Therefore, the court left the decision unchanged and dismissed the appeal.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp pages, and follow us on Facebook and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.