The Lithuanian Supreme Court (LAT) recently addressed a dispute concerning a reduced KASKO insurance payment. In the case reviewed, the insurer had lowered the payout by 50%, contending that the vehicle owner was responsible for the theft because they had lost the car key beforehand and failed to implement additional security measures or notify the insurer. However, the courts determined that such specific obligations were not explicitly detailed within the individual insurance contract terms, nor were the general insurance rules adequately provided to the consumer.
Mantas Baigys, an attorney, commented on the LAT’s recent ruling, emphasizing its significance for consumer protection. He stated that an insurer cannot enforce duties that the consumer was not clearly apprised of when entering into the agreement. According to Baigys, if the consumer is not properly informed regarding specific obligations, the insurer cannot hold the policyholder liable for resulting breaches of contract.
This decision underscores the requirement for clarity and transparency in the insurance sector. The ruling suggests that for an insurer to legitimately adjust a payment, the contract must clearly outline the specific responsibilities of the policyholder. If the terms governing the required actions are not clearly communicated, the insurer’s claim for reduced coverage may be challenged.
The focus remains on ensuring that policyholders fully understand their rights and obligations under the insurance agreement.
Topics: #not #insurance #payment
