A young nonresident man with other ethnic background than Danish will guarantee the wish that he had kept his mouth shut.
Last summer he was out and cruise in his fat brugtvogn, which was bought on hire purchase for a quarter of a million. kr., when suddenly came the smoke and flames from the bonnet.
the Car, which was inexpensive insured in the mother's and father's name, and was totalled – and the same was the young man's personal finances.
For when he in a panic, called Alm. Fire Insurance and notified to the injury, he came to admit that he was the real owner and user of the car. Again and again in the conversation he called the ’my car’.
As the skadeinspektøren said that the car was improperly registered with the insurer, he tried to lie faster than a tuned BMW can be leaked.
Now he claimed that it was not his car, but the parents, who also raised to be the users of the vehicle.
’It's all due to a misunderstanding, as I have misunderstood,’ he wrote and harcelerede against the company:
’... you take the ass on me...’
’Now I can see that you will develop the case dramatically.’
He claimed that the Danish was so bad that he just had to call and report the injury on behalf of the father and speaking in the first person, on behalf of his father. Therefore, claimed the boy, that when he said 'my car', then it was on behalf of the danger, he spoke.
’If it is so important for you (to talk with the father, red.) I will ask you to provide an interpreter for him, and take the talk with him,’ wrote the man to the company as pure rejected him.
Alm. Fire, for example, had lurked his Facebook profile, where the cover image was a photograph of the car, which according to the young man was 'slammed with the equipment’.
Facebook-praleriet indicated according to the company who the car's real owner and user was.
’So all the young people have cool pictures of the cars inside on their social accounts, and I then chose my parents ' car, when I found the car appealing,’ attempted car owner.
’Is it now not allowed to share one's parents ' car on the social media on the basis of that you find it attractive,’ he said to the company.
in Vain. The insurer had also recorded the conversation, where the man notified the damage to his car.
He had paid a kaskopræmie on 4.207 kr. instead of the correct amount of 18.309 kr.
So instead of getting replaced throughout the car's value at 225.000 kr., he was just 51.700 kr. plus revenue from skrotdele on 77.020, in all 128.720. But the money was sent to the bank, where he had recorded billånet, and which therefore had the mortgage in the cart.
the Board gave the insurer the right
'After a review of the matter finds the tribunal it is proved that the complainant's child was the user of the car, and that the company would have taken out the insurance with a higher premium, if the right brugerforhold had been enlightened by the drawing of the insurance,' writes the Board of appeal for Insurance.
'the Board has, among other things laid emphasis on the fact that all communication is taking place between the company and the complainant's child, that the child in the phone conversation the 27/6 2019 indicated that the child's use of the car and running in the car on a daily basis, that it was the child who was the driver of the car at the time of the facts, that the child used the car as cover picture on his Facebook profile, and that the complainant has a second car.'