Facts
The case concerns an individual, X., who took out comprehensive casco insurance for a vehicle in May 2014. In August 2014, he reported a claim for damage caused by hail, although the damage already existed at the time of the vehicle's purchase in March 2013. The court of first instance convicted X. of attempted fraud and sentenced him to a pecuniary penalty. The decision was confirmed by the cantonal court.
The applicant filed a criminal appeal with the SCC, arguing that the claim report was not cunning and that the insurer had contributed to the attempted fraud by not inspecting the vehicle before concluding the insurance.
Considerations
The SCC examined the question of whether the claim report was cunning and whether the insurer had contributed to the attempted fraud. It considered that the claim report was a qualified deception, as it aimed to deceive the insurer about the cause of the damage.
The SCC also examined the question of the insurer's co-responsibility, considering that the insurer had not inspected the vehicle before concluding the insurance. However, it considered that this omission did not constitute a serious fault on the part of the insurer, as it was not required to carry out such an inspection in the context of comprehensive casco insurance.
The SCC concluded that the claim report…