Insurance Direct, by it be hospitalized, the noncompliant insured stayed with the insurance company, she is obliged it pay the direct insurance of life to the beneficiaries even being the debit in open. The decision, of the 4ª Group of the Upper Court of Justice, manteve the condemnation of the Association of the Liberal Professionals university Students of Brazil imposed by the Justice of him Will Dine.
The entity had denied it pay the bond to the woman and to the two daughters of the insured that had direct insurance. It alleged insolvency of three installments. Of those, barely an it had defeated before of he die. The installment defeated when the insured already was interned in the hospital. He died two weeks afterwards.
In first instance, the association was condemned it pay R$ 60 thousand, more correction, to the family of the insured, discounted the value of the installment defeated, also corrected. The insurance company also was condemned it deal with the procedural expenses, set in 10% about the value of the condemnation.
In the court of origin, the understanding adopted was the of that the delay of a simple installment does not imply automatic suspension of the contract, since exists the need of the insured to be notified for that be considered “in lives”.
To APLUB appealed to the Court of Justice of him Will Dine. The resource was supplied barely partially for that the value of the condemnation did not surpass what was asked to beginning.
By that, the insurance company entered with Special Resource in the STJ. In the resource, alleged that, upon legitimizing the payment powders-death, the state court subvewas the contract, violating the article 21 of the Law 6.435/77, as well like the articles 10 of the Law 6.435/88 and 12 of the LAW 73/66, since the rules of the private insurance require the payment of the prize before of the sinister one. [2]
In the STJ, the minister Luis Felipe Salomão, reporter of the trial, agreed that the automatic cancellation of the insurance, on account of delay in the payment of a monthly installment, is abusive act of the insurance company itself will not have prior notification. He understood that the analysis of the violation of the norms cited by the insurance company would imply the reexame of facts and tests, what is not possible in the STJ, due to the express impediment of the Súmula 7. Like this, voted for the not knowledge of the resource and was followed by the too ministers of unanimous form. With information of the advisory Board of Press of the STJ.