Recently, the Shizong County People's Court heard an insurance dispute case, and the party responsible for the accident tried to find someone to "top the bag" to evade responsibility, and as a result, the insurance claim was ......
Case review. A drove a car registered in the name of her husband B and a car driven by C collided and caused an accident, resulting in a traffic accident in which the two cars were damaged to varying degrees.
The accident was determined by the traffic police department, and A bore the primary responsibility for the road traffic accident, and B bore the secondary responsibility for the road traffic accident. During this period, A and C sent the vehicles involved in the accident to the repair shop for repair, and A and C respectively paid the corresponding repair fees to the repair shop.
After the vehicle involved in the accident is repaired, A and C negotiate with the relevant insurance institution to settle part of the losses of C and A, and for the remaining part of A's losses, A claims compensation with the insurance institution that they have insured (through electronic insurance), and the insurance institution they have insured refuses to pay compensation on the grounds of "hit-and-run". A filed a lawsuit with the Shizong Court, demanding that the insurance institution he had insured compensate for his relevant losses within the scope of compulsory traffic insurance and commercial insurance.
The focus of the controversy. The key focus in the trial of this case is whether A's conduct constitutes a hit-and-run, whether the insurance institution insured by A has fulfilled its obligation to prompt and clearly explain, and whether the insurance institution bears its responsibility.
What the judge said. After the traffic accident, the motor vehicle driver as the main object of the traffic police department's accident investigation and on-site investigation, belongs to an important part of the accident scene, although the actual driver did not leave the scene of the accident, but the substitution behavior makes the traffic police's on-site investigation object pointing to the wrong, the perpetrator himself is no longer a part of the accident scene, the substitution behavior has played a role in falsifying the accident scene, may make the actual driver achieve the purpose of evading legal prosecution.
A's conduct was proved by the accident determination of the traffic police department, and although he objected to the determination, he did not provide evidence to the contrary sufficient to overturn the accident determination to substantiate it, so A's conduct met the basic characteristics of hit-and-run and should be found to be "hit-and-run".
In the end, the court ruled that the insurance institution should compensate the repair cost of the vehicle involved in a period of 2,000 yuan within the limit of the compulsory liability insurance for motor vehicles, and rejected the other claims.