Ying zi's evening news service (journalist kwok ipeng) "did anyone know that the vehicle was completely damaged and paid for its security or market value?" in recent days, some netizens have been asking for help on social networking platforms, claiming that they are now claiming to pay the premium, but the insurance company has said that the car is now worth less in the market than it is, and that they are unwilling to pay more. So, in a situation like this one, which way should we pay
Yang zi zhu zhu cow reporter noted that there had been cases of convictions on the chinese tribune website. On 30 november 2024, at approximately 1705 hours, a road traffic accident that caused damage to the vehicle resulted from an improper operation to enter the pond. The traffic squads of the public security bureaus of each city concluded that they were responsible for the accident and that they were fully responsible for it. It was also determined that the vehicle was insured under commercial motor vehicle insurance at one of the companies, which covered the period from 26 april 2024 to 25 april 2025, of which the amount of insurance for motor vehicle loss insurance was $150,400. During the hearing, a company was commissioned to assess that the vehicle was no longer necessary for repair, and the assessment was that the vehicle had lost $144,400 as a result of a traffic accident and that the vehicle had a total residual value of $6,000 after the accident. To this end, one sausing company prepaid $12028 in assessment fees。
The court of first instance held that the vehicle had been insured for motor vehicle losses at one of the companies, and that the insurance contract was a true expression of the intention of the parties that the insured had paid the agreed premium and that the insurance contract was valid; a company was liable for compensation in the event of a traffic accident in the insured vehicle. The fact that the vehicle was damaged in the accident was clear, and that one of the companies agreed to deduct the entire vehicle's residual value of $6,000 in the present case, and that the vehicle's residual value was the same as that of the other, so that one of the companies was liable for damages of $144,400 ($150,400-$6,000). The court did not accept the argument of one sausing company that the value of the vehicle prior to the accident should be determined. In the first instance, it was decided that a sausing company should pay $144,400 for a weekly settlement。
In an appeal, one saushing company stated that the case involved the physical repair of the vehicle, that the price of the same type of used car was around 670,000 based on market inquiries and that the residual value of the vehicle after the accident was $6,000, even if, on the assumption of total loss, the value of the vehicle at the time of the accident should be determined by deduction of the residual value instead of the amount of the insurance, which was not the insured value。
The court of second instance held that, in the event that both parties agreed that the vehicle's residual value should be given to each week, the court of first instance, on the basis of a forensic finding, established that the case involved the loss of the vehicle in question and confirmed that it had been paid by a sausing companyInsurance claimsThis is $144,400. Upon review, the insurance policy for vehicles clearly stated that the amount of the insurance was us$ 150,400 and that one company charged the corresponding insurance fee on the basis of that amount, and the commercial insurance policy for motor vehicles clearly stated that the initial registration date for the insured vehicle was 15 april 2007, stating that the insured person had taken full account of the age of the vehicle in which the insurance was established, among other factors, and that the claim should be paid in accordance with the deduction of the residual value prior to the accident, which was not accepted by the court. The appeal was ultimately dismissed and the sentence upheld。
According to the information received, article 55 of the law of the people's republic of china on insurance provides that the insured person and the insurer agree on the insured value of the subject matter of the insurance and that the subject matter of the insurance is included in the contract, and that the agreed value is the basis for calculating compensation in the event of loss. If the insured person and the insurer do not agree on the value of the insurance subject matter, the loss of the subject matter is calculated on the basis of the actual value of the subject matter at the time of the insurance incident. The amount of the insurance may not exceed the value of the insurance. If the value of the insurance exceeds the value of the insurance, the insurance provider shall refund the corresponding premium. If the amount of the insurance is less than the value of the insurance, unless otherwise agreed in the contract, the insurer is liable for compensation of the insurance contributions in proportion to the value of the insurance。
Thus, insurance coverage for vehicle losses should be based on factors such as the actual value of the vehicle, the number of years of use and the financial situation of the vehicle, so as to avoid over-insured or insufficiently insured. The contract terms should also be carefully read to see whether there is a clear agreement on the “insurance value” of the vehicle. In the absence of an agreement, this would mean that the amount of compensation would be determined on the basis of the actual value of the vehicle at the time of the accident, which could result in a “high-security, low-cost compensation” phenomenon, a clear understanding of the rules governing the settlement of claims, help to reduce the occurrence of disputes and better safeguard their legitimate interests。
Colonel juaper
