Precedent No. 83/2026/AL on the liability for compensation of insurance enterprises when the competent authority has not identified the person causing property damage was adopted by the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court on May 21, 2026, and announced under Decision No. 162/QĐ-CA dated May 29, 2026, of the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court.
1. What is a Precedent?
Precedent refers to the arguments and rulings in legally effective judgments and decisions of the Court regarding a specific case, selected by the Council of Justices of the Supreme People’s Court and announced by the Chief Justice of the Supreme People’s Court as a precedent for Courts to research and apply in adjudication. (Article 1 of Resolution 04/2019/NQ-HĐTP)
Selected precedents must meet the following criteria:
– Clarifies legal provisions that are subject to different interpretations, analyzes and explains legal issues and events, and points out principles, handling guidelines, and legal norms to be applied in a specific case, or demonstrates fairness for issues not yet specifically regulated by law;
– Is exemplary;
– Provides guidance for the uniform application of law in adjudication.
2. Precedent No. 83/2026/AL on the liability for compensation of insurance enterprises when the competent authority has not identified the person causing property damage
2.1. Source of the Precedent
Appellate Judgment No. 73/2023/DS-PT dated August 26, 2023, of the People’s Court of Quang Nam province regarding the civil case “Dispute over motor vehicle insurance contract” between the plaintiff, Mr. Vuong Ngoc A, and the defendant, H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation; the person with related rights and obligations is Ms. Vu Hoang U.
Location of the precedent content:
Paragraphs 10 and 11 of the “Court’s Opinion” section.
2.2. Overview of the Precedent’s Content
– Precedent Situation:
The motor vehicle insurance contract is legally effective. The motor vehicle caught fire, resulting in property damage, which is an insured event. The appraisal agency concluded that the cause of the motor vehicle fire was human-induced. The competent state authority has not yet identified the person who caused the property damage.
– Legal Solution:
In this case, the Court must determine that the insurance enterprise is liable to compensate the insured for property damage, but reserves the right to claim reimbursement or has the right to transfer the claim for reimbursement of compensation money in accordance with the law.
Legal provisions related to the precedent:
Point e, Clause 1, Article 17, Article 49 of the Law on Insurance Business of Vietnam 2000 (amended and supplemented in 2010, 2019); corresponding to Point e, Clause 1, Article 20, Article 54 of the Law on Insurance Business of Vietnam 2022 (amended and supplemented in 2025).
Keywords of the precedent:
“Motor vehicle insurance contract”; “Human-induced damage”; “Undetermined person causing damage”; “Compensation for the insured”.
CASE CONTENT:
According to the statement of claim, during the case resolution process and at the trial, the plaintiff, also the authorized representative of the person with related rights and obligations, Mr. Vuong Ngoc A, presented:
On December 16, 2018, Mr. Vuong Ngoc A signed motor vehicle insurance contract No.: 03186274/F02 (Insurance Contract) with H1 Insurance Company, a subsidiary of H Insurance Corporation (hereinafter referred to as H Insurance). The insured asset was a Ford Ranger automobile with license plate 92C-100.xx, owned by Mr. A. The types of insurance purchased included voluntary automobile insurance and compulsory civil liability insurance for automobile owners, with the following types and coverage limits: Accident insurance for drivers, co-drivers, and passengers, with an insured amount of VND 20,000,000/person/incident, for 05 people; physical damage insurance for the vehicle with an actual value of VND 650,000,000, an insured amount of VND 650,000,000, and an insurance premium of VND 9,966,300. After signing the insurance contract, he paid all insurance premiums and was issued voluntary automobile insurance certificate No.: 001317 dated December 16, 2018, and compulsory civil liability insurance certificate for automobile owners No. 021729 dated December 16, 2018, by H1 Insurance. The insurance period was from 2:00 PM on December 16, 2018, to 4:00 PM on December 16, 2019. After purchasing insurance, during the use of the vehicle, Mr. A performed vehicle inspections as required and periodic maintenance according to the manufacturer’s regulations, Ford Company.
Around 2:00 AM on July 16, 2019, while the vehicle was parked in a parking lot near his home, the front part of the vehicle burst into flames. Residents discovered it, raised an alarm, and proceeded to extinguish the fire. By approximately 2:20 AM on the same day, the fire was put out. As a result, the front part of the vehicle and the engine compartment were affected by heat from the fire, with most plastic and rubber parts burned. There were no human casualties.
After the vehicle caught fire, on July 16, 2019, Mr. A contacted H1 Insurance, the unit that directly signed the insurance contract and issued the insurance certificate. Mr. Nguyen Cong T, an officer of H1 Insurance, came to inspect the scene and guided him in taking initial statements. He also sent a Notice of Accident and a claim for compensation dated July 16, 2019, to H Insurance. Subsequently, on September 22, 2019, October 1, 2019, and December 20, 2019, Mr. A continued to send requests for compensation to H Insurance, but all were rejected with the reason that they had to wait for the investigation conclusion from the Investigating Agency before considering and resolving the compensation. This shows that H Insurance intentionally delayed compensation, violating the terms of the signed insurance contract, violating the regulations in the Combined Motor Vehicle Insurance Rules issued with Decision No. 80/2015/QĐ-BHHK dated May 6, 2015, of H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation (hereinafter referred to as Rule 80), and violating legal provisions, specifically as follows:
Regarding compensation liability: According to the Insurance Contract and Rule 80, the scope of insurance for automobile license plate 92C-100.xx, which caught fire, falls under the risk specified in Point 2, Clause 1, Article 12 within the scope of insurance, and is not an exclusion case under Article 13 of Rule 80 as stated by H Insurance.
Regarding compensation value: According to Clause 2, Article 15 of Rule 80, “VNI compensates for total loss if the vehicle is damaged by more than 75% of its actual value; or if the repair cost is equal to or greater than 75% of the vehicle’s actual value at the time before the loss occurred.” According to the appraisal results of T Appraisal Company, the loss value of automobile license plate 92C-100.xx is VND 724,031,850. This damage value is higher than the actual value of the vehicle when the insurance contract was signed on December 16, 2018, thus it falls under total loss. Clause 2, Article 15 of Rule 80 stipulates “The total loss compensation amount is equal to the actual value of the vehicle before the loss occurred, of the same type and technical specifications, and does not exceed the amount stated on the Insurance Certificate or Insurance Contract.” Thus, H Insurance must settle compensation for the value of VND 650,000,000 as stated on the certificate and insurance contract.
H Insurance stated that “Appraisal Conclusion Notice No. 213/TB-KLGĐ dated September 3, 2019, from the Investigation Police Agency of Nui Thanh District Police is not considered a complete and valid document,” which violates Clause 2, Article 10 of Rule 80. Clause 2, Article 10 of Rule 80 stipulates: Document “5” collected by VNI (H Insurance) in coordination with the vehicle owner upon request in the compensation file includes: Preliminary notice of initial accident investigation results (if any); Accident resolution report (if any); Accident investigation conclusion (if any). The rule states “if any” for required documents, meaning it is not mandatory to have all of them. If the documents are required, the responsibility lies with VNI, not the vehicle owner.
Since the vehicle caught fire, the Investigating Agency has not issued any document requiring the surrender or retention of the vehicle. Mr. A also submitted a request for H Insurance to take the vehicle to a garage for appraisal as a basis for compensation, but H Insurance did not comply. H Insurance’s claim that the asset (the vehicle) is being held for investigation purposes to delay compensation is incorrect. Clause 1, Article 9 of Rule 80 stipulates: “When a loss occurs, H Insurance Joint Stock Company or its authorized representative will conduct an appraisal of the property damage in the presence of the vehicle owner… VNI is responsible for the appraisal costs.” Thus, appraising the damage is the responsibility of H Insurance, but H Insurance failed to fulfill its responsibility while the vehicle was not seized.
Furthermore, H Insurance’s proposal to only proceed with compensation upon an official conclusion from the Investigating Agency is a continued violation of Article 8 of Rule 80. H Insurance’s excuse that it has not yet been determined whether there was sabotage to delay compensation is inappropriate. According to the records and actual circumstances, the scope of insurance falls under H Insurance, the required documents have been fully provided by the vehicle owner, and the compensation period has arrived. H Insurance must compensate the vehicle owner. Upon a final investigation conclusion, if a criminal offense or fault by a third party is identified, H Insurance will be subrogated to claim back the damage amount in accordance with the law.
Considering this, H Insurance’s deliberate refusal to compensate for the stated reasons is contrary to the agreements in the insurance contract signed by H Insurance, contrary to the provisions of Rule 80, and seriously affects his legitimate rights and interests. Therefore, Mr. A filed a lawsuit requesting the Court to rule that H Insurance must compensate for damages including the following costs:
1. Total physical loss of the vehicle with the amount of VND 650,000,000.
2. Late payment interest due to H Insurance’s delay in settling damage compensation, calculated from August 2, 2019, to the date of the first-instance trial, November 9, 2022, which is 03 years, 03 months, with the amount of VND 211,250,000 (10% per annum);
3. Appraisal fee of VND 27,500,000.
Regarding the requests for vehicle rental fees and bank loan interest, Mr. A withdrew his claims and no longer requested the Court to resolve them.
The authorized representative of the defendant, Mr. Thai Van C, presented:
The fact that H Insurance and Mr. Vuong Ngoc A signed motor vehicle insurance contract No.: 03186274/F02, with the insured object being a Ford Ranger automobile with license plate 92C-100.xx, owned by Mr. Vuong Ngoc A through H1 Insurance branch, with the type of insurance purchased, coverage limits, and insurance premiums as presented by Mr. A, is correct. H Insurance affirms that it does not refuse to compensate Mr. A. However, the Ford Ranger automobile with license plate 92C-100.xx, the insured object, caught fire due to external impact, with signs of sabotage, according to the investigation agency’s appraisal conclusion. A decision to prosecute the case has been issued, but there are no results yet, and the saboteur has not been identified. The vehicle fire was not caused by natural disaster or unexpected accident, so it is not within the scope of insurance as stipulated in Article 12 of Insurance Rule 80; furthermore, the Conclusion to Temporarily Suspend Investigation of the case by Quang Nam Provincial Police is not a result of a criminal investigation, and it has not been concluded whether there was an act of sabotage or if it falls under the exclusion of compensation liability. Therefore, H Insurance currently has no basis to compensate Mr. A. When investigation results determine that the cause of the fire was not sabotage and does not fall under the exclusion of compensation obligation, H Insurance will proceed to compensate Mr. A according to the signed Contract. However, in the spirit of accompanying and sharing difficulties with customers, during the case resolution process, H Insurance proposed to advance Mr. A 50% of the compensation value, and upon an official conclusion from the investigating agency, H Insurance would continue to compensate the remaining part, but Mr. A did not agree. Therefore, it is requested that the Court resolve the matter in accordance with the law.
With the above content, Civil First-Instance Judgment No. 125/2022/DS-ST dated November 9, 2022, of the People’s Court of Nui Thanh District, Quang Nam Province, based on Articles 26, 35, 40, 147, 217, 266, 267, 271, and 273 of the Civil Procedure Code; Article 357 and Clause 2, Article 468 of the Civil Code; Articles 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 28, 29, 40, 41, 46, 47, 48, and 49 of the Law on Insurance Business 2000; Resolution No. 326/2016/UBTVQH13 dated December 30, 2016, of the Standing Committee of the National Assembly stipulating the rates, exemptions, reductions, collection, payment, management, and use of court fees and charges. Ruled:
– Partially accepts the plaintiff Mr. Vuong Ngoc A’s claim against the defendant H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation regarding the “Dispute over motor vehicle insurance contract”.
– Compels H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation to compensate Mr. Vuong Ngoc A and Ms. Vu Hoang U for physical damage insurance for the automobile with license plate 92C-100.xx that caught fire on July 16, 2019, with the amount of VND 650,000,000 and late payment interest of VND 199,096,000. Totaling VND 849,096,000;
– Compels H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation to reimburse Mr. Vuong Ngoc A for appraisal costs of VND 27,500,000.
– Rejects the plaintiff Mr. Vuong Ngoc A’s request to compel H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation to pay interest for delayed compensation of VND 12,154,000.
– Suspends the resolution of the plaintiff Mr. Vuong Ngoc A’s requests for vehicle rental fees and bank loan interest.
– Mr. Vuong Ngoc A and Ms. Vu Hoang U are obligated to transfer the automobile registration certificate and ownership of the automobile with license plate 92C-100.xx to H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation immediately after H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation completes the compensation;
– Mr. A and Ms. U are responsible for reserving the right to claim, transferring the right to claim compensation to H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation along with all necessary documents and records, and closely cooperating with H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation in claiming from a third party within the scope of the amount that H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation has compensated, if any;
From the date the judgment takes legal effect or from the date the judgment creditor files an application for enforcement until all amounts are fully enforced, the judgment debtor shall also bear monthly interest on the remaining amount to be enforced at the interest rate stipulated in Clause 2, Article 468 of the Civil Code 2015.
In addition, the first-instance judgment also decided on court fees and the right to appeal for the parties.
After the first-instance trial, on November 17, 2022, the defendant, H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation, filed an appeal against the entire first-instance judgment. On December 6, 2022, the People’s Procuracy of Quang Nam province issued Appellate Protest Decision No. 01/QĐ-VKS-DS, requesting the annulment of Civil First-Instance Judgment No. 125/2022/DS-ST dated November 9, 2022, of the People’s Court of Nui Thanh District, Quang Nam Province.
At the trial, the representative of the People’s Procuracy of Quang Nam province presented their opinion:
– Regarding compliance with law during the resolution of the civil case at the appellate stage: The judge assigned to directly resolve the case correctly followed legal provisions regarding case acceptance, case resolution deadlines, and the transfer of case files to the Procuracy for study to participate in the trial. At the trial, the Trial Panel and the Court Clerk correctly followed the procedures stipulated by law. The parties exercised their rights and obligations correctly according to legal provisions.
– Regarding the resolution of the case: It is requested that the Trial Panel, based on Clause 3, Article 308 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015, accept the defendant’s appeal, accept the protest of the People’s Procuracy of Quang Nam province, and annul Civil First-Instance Judgment No. 125/2022/DS-ST dated November 9, 2022, of the People’s Court of Nui Thanh District, Quang Nam Province.
COURT’S OPINION:
[1] Based on the documents and evidence examined at the trial, the results of the arguments at the trial, and the opinion presented by the representative of the Procuracy, the Appellate Trial Panel opines:
[2] The plaintiff maintained the original claim; the defendant maintained the appeal, requesting the appellate court to review the entire first-instance judgment.
[3] Considering the appeal of the defendant, H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation, it is found that:
[4] Regarding the validity of Motor Vehicle Insurance Contract No.: 03186274/F02 dated December 16, 2018, between Mr. Vuong Ngoc A and H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation, and the time when insurance liability arose:
[5] On December 16, 2018, Mr. Vuong Ngoc A and H1 Insurance Company, a subsidiary of H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation, signed Motor Vehicle Insurance Contract No.: 03186274/F02. The insured asset was a Ford Ranger automobile with license plate 92C-100.xx, owned by Mr. A; physical damage insurance for the vehicle had an actual value of VND 650,000,000, an insured amount of VND 650,000,000, and an insurance premium of VND 9,966,300. After signing the contract, Mr. A paid the insurance premium and was issued Voluntary Automobile Insurance Certificate No.: 001317 by H1 Insurance Company, dated December 16, 2018. The insurance period was 12 months, calculated from 2:00 PM on December 16, 2018, to 4:00 PM on December 16, 2019.
[6] Therefore, the first-instance court, based on Articles 12, 13, and 14 of the Law on Insurance Business 2000, found that Motor Vehicle Insurance Contract No.: 03186274/F02, with the insured asset being a Ford Ranger automobile with license plate 92C-100.xx, signed on December 16, 2018, between Mr. Vuong Ngoc A and H1 Insurance Company, a subsidiary of H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation, is legally effective, binding on the parties, and the time when insurance liability arose for H Insurance, calculated from December 16, 2018, is well-founded.
[7] Regarding the beneficiary of insurance rights: Article 7 of the Insurance Contract dated December 16, 2018, stipulated that the beneficiary of insurance rights was T Bank – Q Branch. However, on June 25, 2020, T Bank – Q Branch confirmed that the credit contract borrowed by Mr. Vuong Ngoc A and Ms. Vu Hoang U from the Bank, with the mortgaged asset securing the loan being the automobile with license plate 92C-100.xx, had been released from mortgage. Therefore, the first-instance court’s determination that Mr. A and Ms. U are the beneficiaries of insurance in the Insurance Contract dated December 16, 2018, is well-founded.
[8] Regarding the insured event: According to the plaintiff Mr. A’s statement, at approximately 2:00 AM on July 16, 2019, while parked in a parking lot, the automobile with license plate 92C-100.xx caught fire; Notice No.: 94/TB-CSĐT dated March 10, 2020, from the Investigation Police Agency – Nui Thanh District Police, Quang Nam Province, and Official Letter No. 685/CSHS-Đ4 dated May 13, 2020, from the Investigation Police Agency – Quang Nam Provincial Police, show that on July 16, 2019, in Hamlet D, N Commune, T District, Quang Nam Province, a Ford Ranger automobile with license plate 92C-100.xx caught fire and is currently under investigation, verification, and clarification. The on-site inspection report dated September 10, 2020, shows that the front part of the Ford Ranger automobile with license plate 92C-100.xx, parked in an empty lot in Hamlet P, N Commune, T District, Quang Nam Province, was charred at the front; the defendant’s representative admitted knowing about the vehicle fire. Therefore, the first-instance court’s determination that the automobile with license plate 92C-100.xx, the object of the motor vehicle insurance contract, catching fire, is an insured event that has occurred, is correct.
[9] Regarding insurance exclusions:
[10] Clause 1, Article 13 of Rule 80 of H Insurance stipulates: H Insurance is not liable for insurance compensation in certain cases, including: “Intentional acts causing damage by the vehicle owner, driver, and those with interests related to the ownership, operation, and use of the vehicle.”.
[11] According to Appraisal Conclusion No. 788/C09C (Đ3, Đ4) dated August 14, 2019, of the Forensic Science Sub-Institute in Da Nang City, and Re-appraisal Conclusion No. 6995/C09 – P2 dated December 6, 2019, of the Forensic Science Institute of the Ministry of Public Security, the Ford Ranger automobile with license plate 92C-100.xx caught fire due to human action. Therefore, on December 20, 2019, the Investigation Police Agency of Nui Thanh District Police issued Decision No. 03/QĐ to initiate a criminal case of “Property Destruction” for the incident, and simultaneously transferred the entire case file to the Investigation Police Agency of Quang Nam Province Police for investigation and handling according to its jurisdiction. As the person who caused the fire has not been identified, the Investigation Police Agency of Quang Nam Province Police issued a decision to temporarily suspend the criminal investigation. To date, the Investigation Police Agency – Quang Nam Province Police has not issued an investigation conclusion regarding the vehicle fire and has not identified the saboteur, thus there is no basis to determine whether there was “Intentional acts causing damage by the vehicle owner, driver, and those with interests related to the ownership, operation, and use of the vehicle” as stipulated in Clause 1, Article 13 of Rule 80; furthermore, Clause 8, Article 7 of Rule 80, Point e, Clause 1, Article 17, and Article 49 of the Law on Insurance Business clearly stipulate the reservation of the right to claim and the transfer of the right to claim compensation to H Insurance in cases related to the liability of a third party or to demand the compensated person to return the received compensation and compensate for damages if they were at fault in the occurrence of the insured event in accordance with the law. Therefore, it can be seen that the interests of H Insurance are always guaranteed even if, after paying compensation to Mr. A, the Investigating Agency concludes and identifies a third party or Mr. A himself was at fault in the vehicle fire. Thus, Mr. A’s case does not fall under the insurance exclusion stipulated in Clause 1, Article 13 of Rule 80.”.
[12] Regarding the extent and value of damage: According to the Automobile Damage Appraisal Report dated April 7, 2022, by T Appraisal Company, headquartered at 110 N Street, T City, Quang Nam Province, the appraised value of the automobile damage is VND 724,031,851. These values were communicated by the first-instance court to H Insurance, and H Insurance responded in writing, disagreeing with the quoted price and the reported value of the damaged automobile. However, H Insurance did not conduct an appraisal as required nor did it request an independent appraisal. At the first-instance trial, H Insurance’s representative admitted that the vehicle’s damage exceeded 75%, which is correct. Therefore, the first-instance court, based on the Automobile Damage Appraisal Report dated April 7, 2022, provided by the plaintiff from T Appraisal Company, determined that the extent of damage to the automobile with license plate 92C-100.xx was 100% compared to the vehicle’s value at the time of signing the insurance contract, which was VND 650,000,000, is well-founded.
[13] Considering the plaintiff Mr. Vuong Ngoc A’s request to compel H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation to compensate the full value of the Ford Ranger automobile with license plate 92C-100.xx that caught fire, according to the motor vehicle insurance contract signed on December 16, 2018, with the amount of VND 650,000,000, it is found that:
[14] Based on the Insurance Contract dated December 16, 2018, and the Insurance Certificate, the time the automobile caught fire was within the insured period; immediately after the insured event occurred on July 16, 2019, Mr. A performed the procedures in accordance with Article 6 of the Contract and Article 18 of the Law on Insurance Business and was guided by H1 Insurance staff to take statements, preserve the fire scene, notify the authorities, and submit the application along with the claim for compensation.
[15] After receiving Mr. A’s application and claim for compensation, Official Letters No.: 99/BHHK-VNI ĐN dated September 26, 2019, No.: 2192/BHHK-GĐBT dated October 11, 2019, and No.: 2671/BHHK-GĐBT dated December 25, 2019, from H1 Insurance and H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation, responding to Mr. A regarding the settlement of compensation related to the loss of vehicle 92C-100.xx, did not contain any content indicating that Mr. A’s claim file was incomplete or instructing or requesting Mr. A to supplement documents or files, but only stated “Wait for the investigation results from the investigating agency”; furthermore, based on the evidence and documents in the file, it shows that after the incident occurred, Mr. A had fully provided the documents and claim file to H Insurance in accordance with Clause 1, Article 10 of Rule 80, which stipulates compensation files. Therefore, H Insurance’s assertion that Mr. A’s claim file was “incomplete” is inappropriate.
[16] From the above grounds, it is evident that H Insurance’s reasons: Mr. A’s claim file is incomplete or waiting for the investigation conclusion from the Investigation Police Agency – Quang Nam Provincial Police to determine who caused the fire of automobile license plate 92C-100.xx before considering compensation, are unfounded, especially since the Investigating Agency has already issued a decision to temporarily suspend the investigation; Mr. A has submitted a complete application and claim file within the stipulated period. The documents in the file contain no evidence proving that the vehicle fire was due to “Intentional acts causing damage by the vehicle owner, driver, and those with interests related to the ownership, operation, and use of the vehicle,” which would fall under the exclusion of compensation liability.
[17] Therefore, Mr. A’s request for H Insurance to compensate for the physical damage to the automobile according to the motor vehicle insurance contract signed on December 16, 2018, is well-founded and accepted. Since the vehicle’s damage value, as stated, is 100%, which is greater than the 75% damage value stipulated in Rule 80, H Insurance must compensate Mr. A 100% of the insured amount according to the insurance contract, equivalent to VND 650,000,000.
[18] Regarding the request for late payment interest:
[19] The Trial Panel finds that: After the insured event occurred, Mr. A submitted the application and claim for compensation, fulfilling his obligations correctly and completely. H Insurance was aware of the vehicle fire, knew that the insured event had occurred, and had received Mr. A’s application and claim for compensation, acknowledging that the vehicle’s damage after the fire was over 75%, but failed to pay compensation to Mr. A within the stipulated period, which is contrary to Article 6 of the Insurance Contract, contrary to Articles 8, 9, 12, and 15 of Rule 80, Point c, Clause 2, Article 17 of the Law on Insurance Business, and the principle that damages must be compensated quickly and promptly as stipulated by the Civil Code 2015. Therefore, Mr. A’s request for H Insurance to pay late payment interest at a rate of 10% per annum is well-founded and consistent with Article 357 and Clause 2, Article 468 of the Civil Code, and is therefore accepted.
[20] However, regarding the late payment interest calculation period: Clause 2, Article 8 of Rule 80 stipulates: “H Insurance is responsible for payment within 15 days from the date of receiving a complete and valid claim file; not exceeding 30 days if VNI has to verify the file. If VNI does not have sufficient authority to verify the elements in the file, the compensation file is considered complete and valid after an official conclusion from the competent authority. After 90 days from the date VNI sends an official letter requesting the competent authority to conduct verification without verification results, VNI must proactively verify, consider, and compensate.” Thus, the period for H Insurance to make insurance payments in cases where VNI sends an official letter requesting the competent authority to conduct verification without verification results, and VNI must proactively verify, consider, and compensate, is 90 days from the date VNI sends the official letter requesting the competent authority to conduct verification. In this case, H Insurance Joint Stock Company issued Official Letter No. 100/BHHK-VNI ĐN dated September 26, 2019, sent to Nui Thanh District Police Agency and the Investigation Police Agency, which is identified as the first official letter requesting the competent authority to conduct verification. Therefore, the interest calculation period is from December 26, 2019, to the date of the first-instance trial, November 9, 2022, which is 02 years, 10 months, and 14 days, with an insured amount of VND 650,000,000 and an interest rate of 10% per annum. Thus, the interest that H Insurance Company must pay Mr. A is VND 186,808,219. The first-instance court’s calculation of interest from 90 days after H Insurance received Mr. A’s application with the claim file on July 16, 2019, meaning calculating interest from October 16, 2019, is incorrect according to Clause 2, Article 8 of Decision No. 80/2015/QĐ-BHHK dated May 6, 2015, of H Insurance Company.
[21] Therefore, the appellate court partially accepts the appeal of H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation and amends the late payment interest calculation part of the first-instance judgment.
[22] Considering the protest of the People’s Procuracy of Quang Nam province: Requesting the annulment of Civil First-Instance Judgment No. 125/2022/DS-ST dated November 9, 2022, of the People’s Court of Nui Thanh District, Quang Nam Province.
[23] The Trial Panel finds that:
[24] The People’s Court of Nui Thanh District accepting and resolving the case regarding “Dispute over Motor Vehicle Insurance Contract” between Mr. Vuong Ngoc A and H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation is within its jurisdiction according to Clause 3, Article 26 of the Civil Procedure Code 2015. The legal basis for Mr. Vuong Ngoc A’s lawsuit is Motor Vehicle Insurance Contract No.: 03186274/F02 dated December 16, 2018, signed between H1 Company, a subsidiary of H Insurance Corporation (VNI), and Mr. Vuong Ngoc A. Regarding the provision in Article 30 of the Criminal Procedure Code 2015, resolving civil matters in a criminal case is conducted concurrently with resolving the criminal case, which pertains to non-contractual damage compensation. Therefore, the automobile fire incident, which was criminally prosecuted by the Investigation Police Agency of Nui Thanh District Police and whose file was transferred to the Investigation Police Agency of Quang Nam Provincial Police, and for which the Investigation Police Agency of Quang Nam Provincial Police issued Decision No. 14/TB-CSHS dated December 22, 2020, to temporarily suspend the investigation due to the expiration of the investigation period without identifying the accused, does not affect the resolution of the case regarding “Dispute over Motor Vehicle Insurance Contract” between Mr. Vuong Ngoc A and H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation.
[25] Regarding the first-instance court’s incorrect calculation of the interest accrual period for damage compensation due to delayed insurance payment by H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation, this has been accepted and noted by the Trial Panel in sections [18], [19], [20], [21].
[26] Regarding the first-instance court’s ruling: “The plaintiff is responsible for reserving the right to claim, transferring the right to claim compensation to the defendant along with all necessary documents and records, and closely cooperating with the defendant in claiming from a third party within the scope of the amount the defendant has compensated, if any,” this is in accordance with legal provisions as analyzed in sections [9], [10], [11].
[27] From the above analysis, the appellate trial panel partially accepts the appeal of the defendant, H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation, and partially accepts the protest of the People’s Procuracy of Quang Nam province, amending First-Instance Judgment No. 125/2022/DS-ST dated November 9, 2022, of the People’s Court of Nui Thanh District.
[28] Regarding litigation costs:
[29] During the resolution of the case, Mr. Vuong Ngoc A requested T Appraisal Co., Ltd. to appraise the damaged asset, which is the automobile with license plate 92C-100.xx, with an appraisal fee of VND 27,500,000. Mr. A requested H Insurance to reimburse him. Considering this, since the plaintiff’s request to compel H Insurance to compensate for the physical damage to the automobile under the insurance contract was accepted, the defendant H Insurance must bear the appraisal costs. Currently, these appraisal costs have been paid by the plaintiff Mr. A to T Appraisal Co., Ltd., so H Insurance must reimburse the said amount to Mr. Vuong Ngoc A in accordance with legal provisions.
[30] Regarding court fees:
[31] First-instance civil court fees: Since the plaintiff’s request was partially accepted, the defendant H Insurance Company must bear the first-instance civil court fees for the accepted part of the plaintiff’s request; the defendant must bear the first-instance civil court fees for the unaccepted part of the request as stipulated.
[32] Appellate civil court fees: Since H Insurance Company’s appeal was partially accepted, the plaintiff Mr. Vuong Ngoc A must bear the court fees according to legal provisions.
For the above reasons,
DECISION:
Based on Clause 2, Article 308 of the Civil Procedure Code.
Partially accepts the appeal of the defendant H Insurance Company and partially accepts the protest of the People’s Procuracy of Quang Nam province, amending Civil First-Instance Judgment No. 125/2022/DS-ST dated November 9, 2022, of the People’s Court of Nui Thanh District, Quang Nam Province.
Based on Articles 26, 35, 40, 147, 217, 266, 267, 271, and 273 of the Civil Procedure Code; Article 357 and Clause 2, Article 468 of the Civil Code; Articles 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 18, 28, 29, 40, 41, 46, 47, 48, and 49 of the Law on Insurance Business 2000; Resolution No. 326/2016/UBTVQH13 dated December 30, 2016, of the Standing Committee of the National Assembly stipulating the rates, exemptions, reductions, collection, payment, management, and use of court fees and charges.
Rules:
Compels H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation to compensate Mr. Vuong Ngoc A and Ms. Vu Hoang U for physical damage insurance for the automobile with license plate 92C-100.xx that caught fire on July 16, 2019, according to Motor Vehicle Insurance Contract No.: 03186274/F02 dated December 16, 2018, signed between H1 Insurance Company, a subsidiary of H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation, and Mr. Vuong Ngoc A, with the amount of VND 650,000,000 (Six hundred fifty million dong) and late payment interest of VND 186,808,219 (One hundred eighty-six million, eight hundred eight thousand, two hundred nineteen dong). Totaling VND 836,808,219 (Eight hundred thirty-six million, eight hundred eight thousand, two hundred nineteen dong);
Compels H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation to reimburse Mr. Vuong Ngoc A for appraisal costs of VND 27,500,000 (Twenty-seven million, five hundred thousand dong).
Rejects the plaintiff Mr. Vuong Ngoc A’s request to compel H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation to pay interest for delayed compensation of VND 24,441,781 (Twenty-four million, four hundred forty-one thousand, seven hundred eighty-one dong).
Suspends the resolution of the plaintiff Mr. Vuong Ngoc A’s requests for vehicle rental fees and bank loan interest.
Mr. Vuong Ngoc A and Ms. Vu Hoang U are obligated to transfer the automobile registration certificate and ownership of the automobile with license plate 92C-100.xx to H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation immediately after H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation completes the compensation;
Mr. A and Ms. U are responsible for reserving the right to claim, transferring the right to claim compensation to H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation along with all necessary documents and records, and closely cooperating with H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation in claiming from a third party within the scope of the amount that H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation has compensated, if any;
First-instance civil court fees to be borne by H Insurance Joint Stock Corporation are VND 37,104,000 (Thirty-seven million, one hundred four thousand dong).
First-instance civil court fees to be borne by Mr. Vuong Ngoc A are VND 1,222,000, which shall be deducted from the provisional court fee already paid. Reimburse Mr. A VND 15,086,000 (Fifteen million, eighty-six thousand dong) according to receipt No. 0004605 dated February 12, 2020, of the Civil Judgment Enforcement Sub-Department of Nui Thanh District, Quang Nam.
Appellate civil court fees: Mr. Vuong Ngoc A must bear VND 300,000 (Three hundred thousand dong) in appellate civil court fees. Reimburse the defendant H Insurance the provisional court fee already paid, VND 300,000 (Three hundred thousand dong), at the Civil Judgment Enforcement Sub-Department of Nui Thanh District, Quang Nam, according to receipt No. 0011469 dated November 30, 2022.
From the date the judgment takes legal effect or from the date the judgment creditor files an application for enforcement until all amounts are fully enforced, the judgment debtor shall also bear monthly interest on the remaining amount to be enforced at the interest rate stipulated in Clause 2, Article 468 of the Civil Code 2015.
In cases where the judgment is enforced according to Article 2 of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement, the civil judgment creditor and civil judgment debtor have the right to agree on enforcement, the right to request enforcement, voluntarily enforce, or be compelled to enforce according to Articles 6, 7, and 9 of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement; the statute of limitations for judgment enforcement shall be implemented according to Article 30 of the Law on Civil Judgment Enforcement.
The appellate judgment takes legal effect from the date of pronouncement (August 26, 2023).
PRECEDENT CONTENT
“[10] Clause 1, Article 13 of Rule 80 of H Insurance stipulates: H Insurance is not liable for insurance compensation in certain cases, including: “Intentional acts causing damage by the vehicle owner, driver, and those with interests related to the ownership, operation, and use of the vehicle.”.
[11] According to Appraisal Conclusion No. 788/C09C (Đ3, Đ4) dated August 14, 2019, of the Forensic Science Sub-Institute in Da Nang City, and Re-appraisal Conclusion No. 6995/C09 – P2 dated December 6, 2019, of the Forensic Science Institute of the Ministry of Public Security, the Ford Ranger automobile with license plate 92C-100.xx caught fire due to human action. Therefore, on December 20, 2019, the Investigation Police Agency of Nui Thanh District Police issued Decision No. 03/QĐ to initiate a criminal case of “Property Destruction” for the incident, and simultaneously transferred the entire case file to the Investigation Police Agency of Quang Nam Province Police for investigation and handling according to its jurisdiction. As the person who caused the fire has not been identified, the Investigation Police Agency of Quang Nam Province Police issued a decision to temporarily suspend the criminal investigation. To date, the Investigation Police Agency – Quang Nam Province Police has not issued an investigation conclusion regarding the vehicle fire and has not identified the saboteur, thus there is no basis to determine whether there was “Intentional acts causing damage by the vehicle owner, driver, and those with interests related to the ownership, operation, and use of the vehicle” as stipulated in Clause 1, Article 13 of Rule 80; furthermore, Clause 8, Article 7 of Rule 80, Point e, Clause 1, Article 17, and Article 49 of the Law on Insurance Business clearly stipulate the reservation of the right to claim and the transfer of the right to claim compensation to H Insurance in cases related to the liability of a third party or to demand the compensated person to return the received compensation and compensate for damages if they were at fault in the occurrence of the insured event in accordance with the law. Therefore, it can be seen that the interests of H Insurance are always guaranteed even if, after paying compensation to Mr. A, the Investigating Agency concludes and identifies a third party or Mr. A himself was at fault in the vehicle fire. Thus, Mr. A’s case does not fall under the insurance exclusion stipulated in Clause 1, Article 13 of Rule 80.”.
_____________________
* This precedent was proposed by the People’s Court of Da Nang City.
