Drivers buy vehicle insurance to spread risk. In the event of an accident, will the insurance company really pay for it?Not necessarily. No, the driver Wang bought vehicle insurance but suffered "no compensation", just because he did such a thing after the car accident!
After the driver took the initiative to compensate for the car accident, the claim for "insurance" was refused
Insurance company: "hit-and-run" does not pay!
In October 2020, when Wang was driving a car on a certain section of a road in a city in Guangxi, he collided with a motorcycle traveling in the opposite direction, resulting in the death of the motorcycle driver Zhao on the spot and the injury of the motorcycle passenger Li. After the incident, Wang abandoned the car and left the scene, and Li died after being rescued, and the local traffic police brigade determined that Wang bore full responsibility for the accident.
After mediation by the local road traffic accident dispute mediation committee, Wang negotiated a mediation agreement with the families of the two deceased on loss compensation, and Wang compensated the family members for death compensation, funeral expenses, and mental injury solatium totaling 740,000 yuan. Previously, Wang purchased compulsory traffic accident liability insurance and 500,000 yuan of commercial third-party liability insurance from an insurance company for the car. After the accident, the insurance company has paid compensation within the scope of compulsory traffic insurance, but Wang believes that the insurance company should also pay 500,000 yuan in compensation for commercial insurance. In this regard, the insurance company refused to compensate on the grounds that Wang's "hit-and-run" was a deductible.
Wang believes that even if he escapes, he only needs to bear the corresponding administrative or criminal liability in accordance with the law, but does not include the insurance compensation that he is exempted from, and the insurance company should perform the compensation obligation in accordance with the insurance contract. Moreover, the exemption clause in the insurance contract was a standard clause, and he did not sign and confirm the exemption clause, and the insurance company failed to fulfill its obligation to prompt and explain. Therefore, the insurance company's refusal to pay is unjustified.
The insurance company argued that the insurance company had compensated Wang 18. within the limit of the compulsory traffic insuranceMore than 80,000 yuan. Moreover, Wang's "abandonment of the car and escape" after the incident is a deductible in commercial insurance, and the insurance company has also made a reminder of the exemption clause in the policy. At the same time, Wang's economic compensation for the victim's family is the consideration he paid to reduce the punishment, and if the illegal act can still be compensated within the scope of commercial insurance, it is tantamount to encouraging illegal and criminal acts, so the insurance company's refusal to compensate for commercial insurance is legal and justified.
After trial, the Guangzhou Tianhe Court held that the plaintiff Wang's abandonment of the vehicle and leaving the scene without taking measures in accordance with the law after the accident constituted the circumstances stipulated in the exemption clause, and the insurance company had fully reminded the reasons for the exemption, the exemption clause was legal and valid, and rejected all of Wang's claims in accordance with the law.
Highlight it!The judge said: whether to pay or not, look at two points
In this case, Mr. Wang applied for insurance from the insurance company, and the insurance company agreed to underwrite and issued an insurance policy, and the insurance contract was legal and valid, and both Mr. Wang and the insurance company should perform according to the contract.
The focus of the dispute in the case is whether the insured's "hit-and-run" is a cause of exemptionHas the insurance company fulfilled its obligation to prompt and explain the insurance exclusion clauses?
Article 70 of China's Road Traffic Safety Law stipulates that drivers have the legal obligation to protect the scene and rescue the injured after a traffic accident. The Commercial Insurance Contract involved in the case was based on the driver's legal obligations, specifically stipulating that "hit-and-run from the accident" was one of the reasons for the deductible, and did not increase the liability burden of the insured, so the exemption clause was legal and valid.
At the same time, judging from the insurance contract provided by the insurance company, the exemption clause is marked in bold, and the "Important Notice" column of the insurance policy also reminds the policyholder to read the exemption clause in detail, and the insurance company has fulfilled the insurer's obligation to prompt.
The evidence in the case shows that Wang was fully responsible for the traffic accident in this case and escaped after the accident, and his behavior was a prohibited act stipulated by laws and administrative regulations, which met the exemption circumstances in the insurance contract. Therefore, the insurance company is not liable for compensation.
In addition, a traffic hit-and-run accident will cause serious consequences such as affecting the determination of accident liability, delaying the rescue of the injured or causing a secondary accident, which is an illegal act expressly prohibited by law. As a driver, Wang should be familiar with the provisions of the Road Traffic Safety Law, and be clear about the meaning and legal consequences of the act of causing and fleeing. If Wang's traffic hit-and-run illegal behavior can be compensated by insurance, it is also contrary to social order and good customs. Therefore, the court ruled in accordance with the law to reject all of Wang's claims.
The judge reminded that in the event of a traffic accident, do not leave it to chance
The policyholder buys insurance in the hope of passing on the risk and reducing property damage in the event of an accident, but each insurance has a scope of "insurance" and "non-insurance", and also indicates the situation of "compensation" and "non-compensation".
In this case, the driver abandoned the car and fled the scene without taking any emergency rescue measures after the traffic accident, and his act of hitting and fleeing after the accident was extremely irresponsible to both others and himself, which violated both legal provisions and social morality. In the case that the insurance company has fulfilled the obligation to remind the disclaimer clause, the driver shall bear the corresponding legal consequences.
The judge hereby reminded that drivers should improve their awareness of traffic safety when driving on the road, strictly abide by road traffic rules, and in the event of an accident, they should take emergency rescue measures such as calling the police and rescuing the injured in a timely manner, and do not leave it to chance. Insurance companies should also be legal and reasonable in formulating insurance contract terms, and remind, inform and explain special agreements such as exemption clauses to avoid disputes as much as possible.
Text Guangzhou** New Flower City Reporter: Articles of Association Correspondents: Wei Bihu, Zhong Xiaodan.
Picture Guangzhou** New Flower City Reporter: Mo Weinong.