Father killed his 2-year-old son and received insurance claims of 1.11 million unreasonable but legal
The insurance claim in this case is not an exemption from the illegal liability of the father who caused the accident, nor is it an illegal gain of economic benefits.
Legally, one yard goes to one yard.
The father accidentally overwhelmed his two-year-old son by reversing the car, causing his son's death. Should the insurance company compensate?
A few days ago, the People's Court of Qingpu District of Shanghai issued a case concerning liability for a motor vehicle accident, which is worrying.
When his father, Mr. Wu, accidentally overwhelmed his 2-year-old son Xiao Wu, who was playing next to him, when he was reversing at the start, Xiao Wu Jing died after the rescue failed.
According to the certificate issued by the public security organ, Mr. Wu assumed full responsibility for the traffic accident, and Xiao Wu was not responsible.
Mr. Wu and his wife believed that the insurance company should be liable for insurance compensation, and the negotiation between the two parties failed. Mr. Wu sued the insurance company to the court.
The court held that, as Xiao Wu’s parents, the court held that Mr. and Mrs. Wu had the right to file a lawsuit as the right holder of compensation.
The insurance company used Xiao Wu as a member of the driver’s family as an excuse to refuse compensation without factual and legal basis.
As the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident, the insurance company shall bear the liability for compensation in accordance with the law and agreement.
The court finally ruled that the insurance company should pay the plaintiff 110,000 yuan within the compulsory traffic insurance limit and 1 million yuan within the commercial three-tier insurance limit for 80% of the liability.
The reason for the widespread controversy in this case is that the father of the person who caused the fault and the instigator instead acted as the claimant for compensation and received more than one million in compensation. This seems to be transferred to the "fault", and the traditional and simple emotions. Contradictory.
Some netizens even worry that such judicial judgments may induce fraudulent behaviors and create new moral hazards.
From a legal point of view, according to Article 10 of my country’s Insurance Law: “An insurance contract is an agreement between the insurant and the insurer to agree on the relationship of insurance rights and obligations.” Since the establishment of the insurance contract, the insured should pay the premium according to the agreement, which corresponds to The insurer shall bear the insurance liability in accordance with the agreed content.
Article 13 of the “Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Laws in the Trial of Road Traffic Accident Damage Compensation Cases” amended in 2020 provides: In the event of a traffic accident causing damage, and the parties sue the infringer and the insurance company at the same time, the people’s court shall determine the liability for compensation in accordance with the provisions of Article 1213 of the Civil Code."
Article 1213 of the "Civil Code" stipulates: "If a motor vehicle is involved in a traffic accident that causes damage, which is the responsibility of the motor vehicle, the insurer who first underwrites the compulsory motor vehicle insurance shall be within the scope of the compulsory insurance liability limit. Compensation shall be made; the insufficiency shall be compensated by the insurer who underwrites commercial motor vehicle insurance in accordance with the insurance contract; if there is still insufficient or no commercial motor vehicle insurance, the infringer shall compensate."
Since Mr. Wu did not make the above-mentioned actions such as “not obtaining driving qualification, drunk, taking psychotropic drugs, deliberately causing traffic accidents”, the insurance company cannot claim the right of recourse against the infringer within the scope of compensation.
Therefore, the court made a judgment that the insurance company shall bear the liability for compensation.
However, the court also stated in the judgment: "The main fault lies in Mr. Wu's improper operation. Mr. Wu and his wife's negligence of guardianship has a certain causal relationship with the accident."
Based on the facts of the case, the judicial decision finally determined that the motor vehicle party should bear 80% of the compensation liability.
Indeed, the party who originally belonged to the offending party was finally compensated. In terms of reason, such a judgment is quite controversial.
However, insurance assumes that the policyholder pays premiums and forms a contract based on the agreed rights and obligations. Its function is to transfer or share risks and protect the interests of policyholders.
The insurance claim in this case is not an exemption from the illegal liability of the father who caused the accident, nor is it an illegal gain of economic benefits.
Legally, one yard goes to one yard.
Of course, although Mr. Wu, the perpetrator of this case, is not involved in a deliberate crime, it is likely to be a crime of negligence. The insurance company cannot prevent the criminal liability that he has to bear. There is a precedent in this regard.
In March 2018, Xiaoshu of Fanchang, Anhui, backed up at his door and accidentally run over his 1-year-old son to death.
After investigation, the Traffic Management Brigade of the Public Security Bureau determined that Xiao Shu was fully responsible for the traffic accident.
The court heard that the defendant Xiaoshu’s actions constituted the crime of causing death by negligence. However, considering that the defendant and the victim were father-son relationship, the mother of the victim also expressed her understanding for the negligent behavior of the defendant. It was determined that the defendant had a relatively minor crime.
Coupled with surrender and other circumstances, in the end, the defendant Xiaoshu was sentenced to one year's imprisonment and one year's probation for committing the crime of negligence causing death.
The negligent crime of the perpetrator is not a reason for the insurance company’s refusal to compensate. On the contrary, most traffic accidents involve negligent crimes, but the handling of the case requires consideration of whether the perpetrator Wu should bear criminal responsibility.
Chengdu Commercial Daily-Red Star News Special Commentator Jin Zegang (Professor of Law, Tongji University)