It is understood that in recent years, insurance companies have encountered many unexpected claims from non-owners. In this regard, the general principle of insurance companies is to treat commercial third-party liability insurance and compulsory insurance differently. Usually, commercial third-party liability insurance cannot be compensated, and it can only be compensated within the scope of compulsory insurance.
Recently, the Siming District Court heard a car-borrowing traffic accident case. According to the judge, such cases are frequent, and the insured and the insurance company are constantly competing. In view of this dispute, the insured and the insurance company have had a heated debate in court.
At present, it is common for relatives and friends to borrow vehicles, and the owner and driver are not the same person. Therefore, should the insurance company compensate for the accident of borrowing a car? This dispute undoubtedly involves the interests of many policyholders.
The insurance company refused to pay the third party liability insurance.
Li Laohan, a farmer from Wuping County, Longyan, is in his fifties this year. Last year, a sudden disaster not only accidentally took away his health, but also forced him to court.
10,65438+10, 13 or so, Li Laohan rode his bicycle to Shangji Village, Bao Zhong Town, Wuping County. Unexpectedly, a car with Xiamen license plate in the same direction suddenly accelerated behind him, ready to overtake. During overtaking, the bicycle collided with the car.
After the collision, Li Laohan was injured. He lay in bed for 37 days, unable to move. Diagnosed by the hospital, he suffered from hematoma at the top of the left temporal bone, fracture at the top of the left temporal bone and traumatic tooth loss. The judicial authentication institution assessed Li Laohan's disability level as Grade 10, and determined that his ability of daily activities was "slightly limited".
According to the traffic accident, the driver Wang is entirely responsible for the accident, and Li Laohan is not responsible. However, the driver Wang was unwilling to take full responsibility. In this regard, the driver Wang explained that the insurance company does not give compensation. The insurance company said: "The driver Wang is not the owner himself, so he can't pay for it."
In desperation, the victim Li Laohan had to take the driver Wang, the owner Ms. Chen and the insurance company to court. It is understood that the driver Wang is not the owner of the car. The real owner is Ms. Chen, a colleague of the driver Wang. On the day of the incident, the driver Wang borrowed Ms. Chen's car.
According to relevant laws and regulations, the court ruled that the defendant Ms. Chen was not liable, and the defendant insurance company compensated Li Laohan for 2807 1 yuan within 10 of the compulsory insurance compensation amount.
Things seemed to end successfully, but then, a new dispute appeared: Ms. Chen, the owner of the car, filed a complaint with the insurance company, demanding that Xiamen Property Insurance Company compensate the third-party driver 1477 1 yuan within the liability limit of its third-party liability insurance.
It turned out that in addition to compulsory insurance, she also bought third-party liability insurance for her own vehicles. The insurance company refused to pay for the accident on the grounds that the perpetrator was not the owner himself.
Ms. Chen believes that the driver Wang is the legal driver allowed by him, and the accident occurred during the insurance period. It is reasonable to claim compensation according to the legal driver allowed by the insured insured insured by the compulsory insurance.
Non-owner accident claims are usually rejected.
It is understood that in recent years, insurance companies have encountered many claims for such non-owner accidents. In this regard, the general principle of insurance companies is to treat commercial third-party liability insurance and compulsory insurance differently. Usually, commercial third-party liability insurance cannot be compensated, and it can only be compensated within the scope of compulsory insurance.
The staff of the legal department of an insurance company believes that Article 49 of the Tort Liability Law stipulates that "if the owner and user of a motor vehicle are not the same person due to reasons such as leasing or borrowing, and the motor vehicle party is responsible after a traffic accident, the insurance company shall make compensation within the limits of compulsory insurance liability. For the insufficient part, the motor vehicle user shall bear the liability for compensation, and if the motor vehicle owner is at fault for the damage, he shall bear the corresponding liability for compensation. "
Therefore, the insurance company believes that the above provisions indicate that the owner is at fault when renting or lending the vehicle. If there is no fault, there is no responsibility. Article 4 of Motor Vehicle Third Party Liability Insurance stipulates: "The insurer shall be responsible for the damages that should be borne by the insured according to law if the insured or its authorized legal driver has an accident in the process of using the vehicle, causing personal injury or property loss to a third party." Then, the insured, as the lessor and lender of the vehicle, is not liable for compensation according to the Tort Liability Law when there is no fault in the process of leasing and borrowing.
Lawyer confrontation
The owner's no-fault insurance does not compensate.
The legal adviser of an insurance company said that commercial third party insurance usually only pays if the owner is at fault.
The fault of the vehicle owner mainly includes the following situations: failure to reasonably examine whether the borrower and lessee have the corresponding behavioral ability, driving ability and driving qualification; Failing to check whether the motor vehicle is suitable for safe operation; Failure to properly maintain the vehicle to ensure that it is in a safe state; If a traffic accident occurs during the period of vehicle theft or robbery, the owner fails to properly keep the vehicle and fulfill the duty of care, resulting in the vehicle being stolen.
Therefore, from the insurance company's point of view, family members use vehicles with each other: vehicle users usually get the owner's permission. In the event of an accident, the vehicle user is the person liable for compensation, and the owner (insured) will bear the corresponding responsibility only if there is a fault, otherwise it will not bear the responsibility. Similarly, according to the commercial insurance clause, when the insured owner is not responsible, the insurance company should not compensate according to law.
In addition, it is recommended that family members use vehicles with each other. If the user and the vehicle owner (insured) are not the same person, and if the court decides that only the vehicle user is liable for compensation, the vehicle owner can provide proof of his family relationship with the user to claim commercial insurance from the insurance company, which can be confirmed from the perspective of family economy.
If you borrow a car, you must pay accident insurance.
Lawyer Lin Minhui of Fujian Xinhai Law Firm: I think insurance companies should also compensate for car borrowing accidents.
The contents agreed in the insurance contract should follow the principle of fairness, and you can't exempt yourself from liability with standard terms. The basis of the insurance company's refusal to pay compensation is mainly based on Article 49 of Tort Liability Law, but I think the legislative intention of this provision is to deal with traffic accidents and protect the right to life to the maximum extent, and it is not clear that the insurance company does not have to bear the fault liability of the vehicle user.
Third party liability insurance covers vehicles. At present, it is very common that the insured and the vehicle driver are not the same person. In traffic accidents, it is often not the insured or the owner who really needs to bear the liability for compensation to the third party.
Insurance companies limit the scope of application of third party liability insurance in the form of standard clauses, that is, it does not include borrowing vehicles, which leads to some third party liability insurance policyholders having no insurable interest in the subject matter insured, which violates the principle of fairness. This may lead to a situation in which two friends have taken out third party liability insurance in the same insurance company. If these two people lend their cars to each other and there is a traffic accident, neither of them can get compensation from the insurance company.
This is not in line with the purpose of the owner's contract, and it is unfair to the owner. According to the provisions of Article 40 of China's Contract Law, if the party providing the standard clause exempts its liability, aggravates the other party's liability and excludes the other party's main rights, the clause is invalid. So I think the owner can claim that the clause is invalid.
Experts say
Add special agreements to fill the gap in compensation
Huang Jianxiong, a professor at Xiamen University Law School: According to the Tort Liability Law, the lender is not the controlling party of the motor vehicle. Therefore, the borrower bears no-fault liability, and the lender only bears fault liability.
How to take effective measures to make up for the victims' losses when commercial third-party insurance cannot cover them? In this regard, I suggest that when applying for commercial third party insurance, the applicant should add a special agreement clause: "The family members of the insured under this policy are extended to the relationship with the insured." Family members include the spouse, children and parents of the insured ... "When applying for insurance, the insured shall fill in the name of the insured on the application form.
In addition, by developing the additional risks of liability insurance, that is, the driver's personal liability insurance clause, the liability limit can also be consistent with the commercial third-party insurance limit, filling this damage compensation gap. Of course, this may also increase the cost of the insured.
concentrate
Is the insured object a car or a person?
The insurance company believes that the refusal to pay compensation is justified. Because the driver who caused the accident is not the insured and has not established a contractual relationship with the insurance company, he has no right to claim compensation. Moreover, Article 4 of the motor vehicle third-party liability insurance clause stipulates that only the insured herself, that is, Ms. Chen, shall be liable for compensation.
In this regard, Ms. Chen's attorney believes that the insured object of third party liability insurance is "car, not person". The purpose of the plaintiff's insurance is to ensure that he can get compensation in the event of a vehicle accident. The insurance company's terms limit the vehicle to "the insured himself", which is a restriction on the insured's insurance interests and does not conform to the purpose of the new Insurance Law.
"Then if the couple borrows the vehicle and has an accident, won't the insurance company pay for it?" Ms. Chen asked. She believes that this is a "standard clause" of insurance companies, which unilaterally limits the scope of claims for third-party liability insurance, which does not conform to the purpose of the Insurance Law, damages the interests of the insured, and leads to a large number of accidents that cannot be settled. Therefore, according to Article 19 of the Insurance Law, it should be deemed invalid.
However, the insurance company replied that according to the provisions of the Insurance Law, the third party liability insurance, as a kind of liability insurance, covers the risk that the insured may be liable for the loss of others' interests during the insurance period, not the liability that other parties other than the insured may bear, not the vehicle itself.
Further reading: How to buy insurance, which is good, and teach you how to avoid these "pits" of insurance.