Insurance cases
Two years ago, a car repair and maintenance centre at wanhua road in haikou, hainan province, burned down vehicles such as mercedes and lexus, which were maintained in the shop. As insurance compensation was not negotiated, mr. Liu, the owner of the mercedes, brought the insurance company before the court to claim damages. On 13 january 2015, the haigu city intermediate court handed down its final judgement and the insurance company awarded mr. Liu more than $720,000。
The dispute in this case focused on whether the vehicles in question had been burned by fire during the maintenance of the maintenance centre and were covered by insurance。
In the first instance proceedings, one of the temporal concepts of the terms of the insurance contract gave rise to a different interpretation between the insurance company and mr. Liu, the owner of the vehicle. In the clause “insurers are not entitled to compensation for damage caused by accidents during repair or maintenance of motor vehicles at operational repair and maintenance sites”, does the phrase “in the course of repair or maintenance” cover the entire period during which the vehicle was placed in the centre? According to mr. Liu, insurance companies are exempt from liability only if the vehicle is under repair and maintenance. However, the insurance company considered that the vehicle involved would be exempt from liability in the event of an accident between entry and departure from the maintenance and maintenance centre。
In response, the court held that the above-mentioned provision was a form clause provided by the insurance company, which, if disputed by the parties, should be interpreted in favour of mr. Liu under the provisions of the insurance law. As a result, only accidents involving damage to vehicles by repairers, maintenance personnel, etc., during the operation of the vehicles involved are exempt from liability by insurance companies. Mr. Liu's insured vehicle was damaged when it was parked in the maintenance centre, as a result of an accidental fire at the maintenance centre, rather than being repaired and maintained. Under the terms of the mutual insurance agreement, the fire was covered by the insurer's compensation, so mr. Liu's insured vehicle was damaged and the insurance company was liable. On this basis, the court of first instance found the insurance company liable. The insurance company appealed the decision。
During the second hearing, mr. Liu's dispute with the insurance company focused on the understanding in the insurance contract that “the insurance motor vehicle was in use during the insurance period and that the insurance motor vehicle was in the process of being used by the insured person or his authorized lawful driver, and that the insurer was liable for compensation under the terms of the insurance contract for “the course of use”. According to the insurer, the mercedes involved was burned by fire in the parking state, was not damaged during use and was not covered by the insurance liability and the insurer should not be liable. On the question of whether the suspension was “in the course of use”, the haiguchi intermediate court held that the insurance company's interpretation was to confuse the driving status with the concept of the use process and was not in line with the usual understanding of the provision and was not accepted by the court。
Li xindi ho hui yong
Financial investment report http://jrtzb. Com. Cn/
Twenty-two years, growing up with chinese capital markets; precision, authoritative interpretation, thorough analysis; and the financial investment journal, helping you to add value to wealth
Mailing code: 61-146 ( weekend securities) 61-102 (sichuan region, full set)
