Shifang Changhe Hotel

202 1 12 14 A car accident happened in the street of shifang city, Deyang, Sichuan this morning. A Porsche ran a red light and collided with two taxis, killing 1 person, injuring four people and damaging three cars. After the incident, Porsche driver Liu abandoned the car and fled. In June 2022, the Shifang court sentenced the defendant Liu to six years in prison for traffic accidents.

It is understood that this Porsche was rented by Liu. Porsche was also damaged in the accident. Afterwards, Chengdu Changyuan Media Co., Ltd., a subsidiary of Porsche, took China Life Insurance Co., Ltd. Chengdu Qingyang Branch to court. However, the insurance company believes that the driver escapes after a traffic accident caused by driving, and the company does not bear the responsibility of commercial insurance.

Accident scene Image source: Red Star News

The Shifang Court held in the first instance that the reason for refusing compensation of Qingyang Branch of Life Insurance Company was not established, and the company failed to make an exemption reminder, so it should be liable for compensation according to the motor vehicle property loss insurance, and finally the insurance company was awarded compensation of more than 355,000 yuan. In this regard, the insurance company refused to accept and appealed to Deyang Intermediate People's Court.

165438+1On October 27th, the Red Star journalist learned that Deyang Intermediate People's Court had heard the case and made a judgment: the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld.

Case replay: Porsche ran a red light for speeding and hit two cars in a row.

1 4 people were killed and injured, and the driver was sentenced to 6 years in the first instance.

202 1 12 14 This morning, an overloaded and speeding Porsche ran a red light and collided with two taxis, resulting in 1 death, 4 injuries and 3 car damages.

the scene of an accident

After the incident, Porsche driver Liu abandoned the car and fled. The injured brother Jiang was taken to the hospital and died after being rescued. After escaping for more than 30 hours, the suspect Liu was criminally detained by the Shifang police. Afterwards, the traffic police brigade of shifang city Public Security Bureau identified the responsibility of the accident, and Liu took full responsibility for the accident.

In May and June of 2022, the case was heard twice in Shifang Court. The Shifang court held that in the early morning114, Liu drunk and drove a small car, carrying two people, from a barbecue shop in shifang city, along the northern section of Huashan Road, from Shifang Square to Changhe Center. Go to the intersection of the northern section of Huashan Road and Zhan Tong East Road, and pass when the light control status is red. After colliding with a small car driven by Jiang Moumou, it collided with a small car driven by Huang Moumou, causing three cars to be damaged, causing Zhang Moumou and other four people to be injured. The victim Jiang Moumou was sent to the hospital for rescue and died. After the accident, the defendant Liu abandoned the car and fled. At about 0/5 o'clock the next day, the defendant Liu surrendered himself accompanied by his relatives.

It was identified that the speed of the car that Liu was driving before the accident was greater than 105km/h and less than11/km/h. Liu violated traffic regulations, caused one death in a traffic accident, and escaped after the traffic accident, which constituted a traffic accident crime.

On June 28th, Shifang Court sentenced the defendant Liu to six years' imprisonment for traffic accident.

Controversy focus:

Porsche was damaged and the insurance company refused to pay compensation.

Is the reason for refusing to pay compensation when the car rental company sues?

In this accident, the Porsche A42XXX rented by Liu was also damaged. Afterwards, Changyuan Company, to which the vehicle belongs, applied to Qingyang Branch of Life Insurance for claim settlement, which was rejected. In March, 2022, Changyuan Company took Qingyang Branch of Life Insurance to court and asked the court to order the defendant to pay the vehicle maintenance fee.

During the trial, Qingyang Branch, a life insurance company, proposed to appraise the maintenance cost of Sichuan A42XXX, and Shifang Court entrusted Sichuan Jianguo Motor Vehicle Appraisal and Evaluation Company to appraise it, and found that the maintenance cost of the car was more than 355,000 yuan. Previously, Sichuan Rongcheng Motor Vehicle Appraisal and Evaluation Company was entrusted by shifang city Public Security Bureau to appraise the maintenance cost of Sichuan A42XXX for more than 405,000 yuan.

The focus of the case dispute is: 1. Whether the reasons for refusing compensation of Qingyang Branch of life insurance company are established; Second, if the company is liable for compensation, how to determine the amount of compensation.

Qingyang branch of life insurance company refused to pay compensation for the following reasons: the insured motor vehicle was transferred, modified, installed or changed in nature, which led to a significant increase in the risk of the insured motor vehicle and failed to notify the insurer in time; The insurer is not responsible for the losses and expenses caused by the traffic accident of the insured motor vehicle.

Network pictures/graphics have nothing to do.

As for the reason why the insurance company refused to pay compensation, Changyuan Company believed that it paid the premium to the insurance company and the insurance contract relationship between the two parties was established. Qingyang Branch of Life Insurance Company did not deliver or serve the exemption clauses involved in the case to Changyuan Company, nor did it fully explain and prompt its obligations, nor did any personnel inform this case of the exemption clauses of the insurance contract in writing or orally. After the appellee paid the premium, he received the electronic insurance policy submitted by the appellant.

The court ruled that:

The reason for refusing compensation is untenable.

If the exemption prompt is not fulfilled, the insurance company should bear the compensation.

The Shifang court held in the first instance that according to the Insurance Law and relevant judicial interpretations, the insurer takes the prohibitive provisions in laws and administrative regulations as the exemption reason of the exemption clause of the insurance contract, and the insurer needs to prompt the clause when concluding the contract.

Liu, the driver of the vehicle involved, hit and run, which violated the prohibition of laws and administrative regulations. Qingyang branch of life insurance should prompt this part of the exemption clause. Although the exemption clauses in the commercial insurance clauses submitted by Qingyang Branch of life insurance company are indicated in bold type, it cannot be proved that it delivered the commercial insurance clauses to Changyuan Company.

There is an important reminder in the policy that "if the insured motor vehicle is transferred, modified, installed or changes the nature of use, resulting in a significant increase in the risk of the insured motor vehicle, the insurer should be informed in time". This article does not mean that the legal consequence of the insured's breach of the agreement is to exempt the insurer from liability for compensation. Even if this record is an exemption clause, it can't prove that Qingyang Branch of life insurance company has prompted Changyuan Company to explain this exemption clause, and this record can't reach the reason why Qingyang Branch of life insurance company is exempted.

Shifang Court held that Qingyang Branch, a life insurance company, had no reason to refuse compensation and should be liable for compensation according to motor vehicle property damage insurance.

In the end, the court ruled that the insurance company compensated Changyuan Company for more than 355,000 yuan. The insurance company refused to accept the appeal.

165438+1October 27th, the reporter contacted Li Xi, the director of Sichuan Yang Di Law Firm, the plaintiff's attorney in this case. He said that Deyang Intermediate People's Court has made a second-instance judgment on this case. The judgment provided by Deyang Intermediate People's Court shows that on June 3 1, 1, Deyang Intermediate People's Court made a judgment after hearing: the appeal was rejected and the original judgment was upheld.

Editor | Cheng Peng Yi Qijiang Gai Yuanyuan

Proofreading | Wang Yuelong

Cover image source: Red Star News