The Kursk company was denied an insurance payment for the livestock withdrawn due to ASF

The Moscow Arbitration COURT denied Fatezhsky a claim against Soglasiya for the recovery of 138.4 million rubles. insurance compensation. The decision was made back in November, but the court published the reasoning part the other day.

In December 2019, Fatezhsky entered into voluntary insurance contracts for pigs for 258 million rubles. At the same time, since August 2019, the animals have been transferred to the local Reut LLC under a lease agreement. The insured events under the policy were death, excluding "forced slaughter" in case of ASF and other diseases or an accident. Other cases of forced slaughter, including those related to the orders of specialists from the state veterinary service, were considered an insured event.

In November 2020, an outbreak of ASF was detected at the Reuta site. The administration of the Kursk region published decrees on the withdrawal of animals from nursery and fattening sites; Fatezhsky sent a notification to the insurance company. By the end of December 2020, 46.8 thousand pigs at the enterprise (including 33.1 thousand heads belonging to Fatezhsky) were alienated and bloodless slaughtered to prevent the spread of the disease. In total, according to the acts of the regional veterinary administration, Reut lost 66.2 thousand heads (including those killed from ASF at two sites of the enterprise). Based on the difference of 19.7 thousand heads between the data in different veterinary documents, Reut stated that these animals died from the disease, which entails the payment of compensation of 138.4 million rubles.

The court found that the risk of mandatory "requisition" under the insurance contracts was not insured, so the company can only count on compensation for animals that died before the introduction of quarantine. Only 20 goals could confirm such. The circumstances of the death of the remaining 19 thousand remained unclear (the court leaned towards the version of their alienation), but the key point for the outcome of the proceedings was precisely the time of death - it occurred after the introduction of quarantine by veterinarians. The loss from the loss of 20 heads of pigs was estimated at 147.9 thousand rubles, which falls under the franchise under the insurance contract of 5% (12.9 million rubles) - Fatezhsky did not receive an insurance payment.

The court also added that Reut demanded in arbitration from the veterinary department payment of compensation for the seized animals in the amount of 158 million rubles; "Fatezhsky" was involved in the proceedings as a person making independent claims. “The decisions of the authorized bodies on the alienation of animals are binding on all citizens and legal entities,” the court emphasized. “The acts providing for the seizure and destruction of animals belonging to the Fatezhsky APC were mandatory for execution, followed by an appeal to the state body for compensation for the losses incurred” . The court emphasized that "Fatezhsky" can refer to the state as "responsible for the damage."

Fatezhsky has not yet appealed the decision of the first instance. Yury Fedyukin, managing partner at Enterprise Legal Solutions, believes that the court's decision “looks reasonable and balanced”: “The insurance contract provides for the death of livestock as a result of ASF infection as an insured event. But the same agreement establishes that the insurer is not responsible if the compensation is paid by state, public or other organizations. In a particular case, the plaintiff's pig population was requisitioned. The plaintiff makes claims against the wrong defendant, since he must reimburse the cost of the lost property from the budget (or other sources of funding provided for this case).

The probability of satisfying the claims of the plaintiff against the insurer in the event of an appeal will be low, believes the appraiser, forensic expert of the Veta group Alexander Terentyev: introduction of quarantine and withdrawal from the owner of animals. Even if the requisitioned animals die as a result of infection, at the time of their death they no longer belong to the insured, and therefore, his damage is formed not as a result of their death, but as a result of their removal, which insurance does not cover. The contract drawn up in this way - without taking into account the current mechanism for combating ASF - initially did not meet the goals and interests of the insured.