Driving without a license, insurance company can be based on "motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations" provisions of article twenty-second, refused to compensate?

Quanzhou lawyer lawyer in Licheng Fengze law lawyer in Jinjiang, Shishi lawyers lawyers in Nanan 13959718271
Traffic accident, accident, medical accident compensation for employees injured, a professional lawyer

Tel 13959718271
Blog: kulong2562.blog.tianya.cn
QQ; 1377640765
Hello. I am Quanzhou Jinjiang lawyer Wang Jinlong my legal advisory telephone number is 13959718271

Welcome to the Advisory

Address: Fujian Quanzhou Jinjiang Qingyang city standard (bus station)

"Driving caused the accident, the insurance company can be based on" motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations "provisions of article twenty-second, refused to compensate?

7Driving without a license, insurance company can be based on "Motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance Ordinance"The twenty-second regulation, refused to compensate?

The thing is that:

2008 April was a driving license driving a motorcycle Zhang Chen motorcycle collided, causing Zhang wounded after rescue invalid traffic accident two car damaged to varying degrees of death. The accident is identified by the traffic police department, applying a negative full responsibility for the accident, Zhang does not negative accident responsibility. Application of a driving a motorcycle owner Wang, when the accident occurred, to a use. Find out the other, a driving a motorcycle in the zone, covering the compulsory traffic accident liability insurance (hereinafter referred to as cross strong insurance). 　　

The accident compensation issues the parties fail to reach an agreement, then to the court, the court of first instance that the traffic police department, made the accident responsibility identification accuracy, be adopted. Shimou should compensate the plaintiff party for all reasonable loss caused by the accident. Wang Department of road vehicles and the vehicle to a use, shall be jointly and severally liable. Cross strong insurance is an insurance company to the insured motor vehicle, road traffic accident caused by the vehicle, be casualties, property loss insurance victims except the people, compulsory liability insurance compensation within the limit of liability. It is to safeguard the interests of the public, to the laws and regulations in the form of mandatory insurance, its purpose is to guarantee the traffic accident victims can obtain the basic guarantee, but our country law had not stipulated did not obtain a driver's driving qualifications of traffic accidents, the insurance company may be exempted from the indemnity obligations, so the zone, proposed a series of driving without a license, the insurance company is not liable for civil compensation claims can not be established, it shall bear the liability of compensation in insurance liability limit.

Bao company verdict of the first trial appeal, the case of traffic accidents is the appellant Shimou unlicensed driving, according to the "Motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance Ordinance"The related stipulation, the insurer pays rescue expenses only assume responsibility, should not assume liability to pay compensation. Request the second instance court for revocation of the original judgment shall be amended.

Trial court that, cross strong insurance is the insurance company to the insured motor vehicle road traffic accidents caused by the vehicle, be casualties, property loss insurance victims except the people, be compulsory liability insurance compensation within the limit of liability. It is different from the commercial third party liability insurance, is based on public policy, in order to safeguard the interests of the public, in the form of laws and regulations mandatory insurance, its main purpose is to guarantee the traffic accident victims can obtain basic security, has the social attribute. In insurance, no fault liability insurance company assumes, as long as the insured motor vehicle compulsory insurance accident occurred, causing third casualties, the insurance company shall be liable for compensation within the liability limit, regardless of traffic accident parties whether the fault and the fault degree. And, according to the "Motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance Ordinance"Article twenty-secondTo the provisions, and road traffic accident for a motor vehicle driving license, insurance company is the only loss to the property of the victim shall not bear the responsibility for compensation, does not provide for the victim's personal insurance company does not assume liability to pay compensation for personal injury. Therefore, the appellant zone, grounds of appeal can not be established, the second instance court shall not support the claim. Dismiss the appeal decision, upheld the.

Lawyer online:

Driving without a license, drunk driving, accident is a serious violation of well known to the public, because this kind of behavior occurrence of traffic accidents, the insurance claims are generally difficult. The commercial third party liability insurance is not compensable is almost a foregone conclusion. But in cross strong insurance is controversial. The court also has the different decision system. Some people think thatIf driving without a license and drunk driving motor vehicle after the accident, the insurance company still unconditional compensation, is undoubtedly encourage driving without a license and drunken driving motor vehicles. The driver will secure to rely on, the destruction of public security and social order, to the people's life threat, will be more fierce.
For this result, beg to differ. The reason is that:

1, if the insurance company on behalf of the insured (drinking and driving without a license) to pay the victims of third people, will cause the flood insurance people driving without a license and drunken driving behavior? Just imagine the conclusion. There is no definitive data? Or according to this logic, we can draw such a conclusion: increase the insurance company will cause traffic accident! The reason is that the insurance company has the responsibility in the vehicle (such as improper operation), also on behalf of the motor vehicle damages. Not only the compensation, but also without recourse, not endanger more intense?
    2, the third party liability insurance is not indemnify the insured, but in the limit (note limit) compensation to innocent third party, if the third died on the spot, no salvage charges, the insurance company refused to compensate. The insured has no money to pay much more innocent, innocent people?
    3, drunk and driving without a license person accident, serious consequences will be severe criminal penalties in accordance with the law, not punishment is more effective than money? To stop the drinking and driving without a license.
    4, to be drunk and driving without a license and theft of motor vehicle accidents and intentional crime case distinction. Some people think that drinking and driving without a license is the deliberate violation, should be severely punished. Earlier analysis, punish not by economic punishment (in the non money compensation case, the actual no punishment) Secondly, the premise of motor vehicle liability is illegal, in addition to drinking and driving without a license violation, there are many, but they have one thing in common: both negligence crime and non crime.

The establishment of the compulsory third party liability insurance legislation purpose is what? It is worth our consideration. Will "Motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance Ordinance"Understanding the meaning of article twenty-second for driving without a license insurance company may refuse to third party compensation is not legal.

First, cross strong insurance, compulsory liability insurance. The insurance is the subject of third damage caused by the insured motor vehicle drivers, rather than personal infringement damage. Common ground says, the car is not insured.

Second, cross strong insurance of social public welfare attribute. It is the need of national public policy, in order to safeguard the interests of the public, in the form of laws and regulations mandatory insurance, its main purpose is to protect the car accident victims can obtain the basic guarantee, "road traffic safety law" seventy-sixth and "motor vehicle traffic accident responsibility compulsory insurance regulations," the first paragraph of article twenty-first the establishment of the insurance company to assume the basic principles no fault liability insurance accident.

Third, as the statutory mandatory insurance compulsory insurance, only in the law case, insurance companies can be exempt. According to the "Regulations of motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations" article twenty-first: the reason of impunity in the insurance is intentionally caused by the victim, the only road traffic accident, the insurance company can exemption. As long as not deliberately caused by the victim, in general case, the insurance company should be the property loss and personal injury compensation.

Fourth, "motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations" twenty-second not the insurance company in the case of exemption clause can reference. The provisions of the insurance company for the loss to the property of the victim shall be exempt, at the same time the rescue expenses paid in advance by insurance companies, but may recover, but for victims of personal casualty losses were not the provisions of the insurance companies disclaimer. No prohibition should apply the "traffic law" and "Regulations" article seventy-sixth of the first paragraph of article twenty-first, shall compensate. Needs to be pointed out is, personal casualty and property loss are two concepts, the provisions did not exempt from the insurance company for personal injury compensation obligation. Even if the rescue expenses stipulated that insurance company to advance, its essence is also the first compensation instead of exemption. Because the insurance company is entitled to enjoy the medical expenses of the perpetrators, not the victims have the right to recover.

Fifth, from the understanding of the legislative intent, "compulsory insurance regulations" the provisions of article twenty-second -- driving without a license, drunk, vehicle theft and robbery, during the insured deliberately cause an accident, should not be set for the victim. It should be understood as in this case, the insurance company can recover from the responsibility of compensation. If the regulations listed in the deductible clause as the insurance company is not to the victims compensation, then, in fact not the unbearable: traffic accident of motor vehicles in the general fault or no fault cases, the victim can be based on the regulations of law and directly from the insurance company for compensation, and the motor vehicle party in there is a serious fault (driving without a license, drunk and so on) case of damages caused by the victim, but can not receive compensation from insurance companies, rights and interests are not guaranteed! Obviously, this is not the legislative intent of "traffic law" and "cross strong insurance regulations". The legislature is not this meaning.

Legal norms:

Motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance Ordinance

Article twenty-first the insured motor vehicle road traffic accident caused by the victim, the personnel casualty, loss of property insurance of people outside, by insurance companies in accordance with the law in the motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance liability limits the scope of compensation.

The road traffic accident damage was deliberately caused by the victim, the insurance company shall not compensate.

Article twenty-second in any of the following circumstances, the insurance company compulsory insurance liability limit range pays rescue expenses in motor vehicle traffic accident responsibility, and shall have the right to recover the injurer:

(a) did not obtain a driver's driving qualifications or drunk;

(two) the insured motor vehicle theft and robbery of the period;

(three) the insured deliberately causes a traffic accident.

One of the circumstances listed in the preceding paragraph, the occurrence of road traffic accidents, causing loss to the property of the victim, the insurance company does not assume liability to pay compensation.

Experts explain:

"Motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations" article twenty-second substance of the four special cases of claims made special provisions, make two points: 1, the insurance company does not assume responsibility for the loss of property; 2, the insurance company pays rescue expenses and compensation. But the provisions of this section to salvage charges outside of personal injury losses do not explicitly, resulting in two kinds of understanding in judicial practice.

One view is that the insurance company on the other person damage loss shall be deductible. Reason: four special cases, the provisions of article twenty-second of the 1 car accidents, related accident should become the focus of the punishment and against the object, if borne by the insurance company claims responsibility, a sense that the people avoid legal responsibility. 2, to rescue a cost of medical expenses, since the law only list the rescue expenses, and insurance companies can also recover, other people loss cross strong insurance is not compensable intention should be obvious. 3, if the insurance company shall claim for the loss of other people, also should understand in advance, and the insurance company should have the right of recourse, especially the insured intentionally making traffic accident case, all compensation costs ultimately implemented by the insured person is consistent with the axioms. Since twenty-second is not on their loss compensation and the compensation made specific provision, it means legal intention does not require the insurance company to assume responsibility.

Another view is that the insurance company to other personal injury losses should be compensation. 1, the state set up the essence of compulsory insurance is for the insurance company to the victim (third) social responsibility, the person's behavior is not a major consideration. No motor vehicle driver is driving, victims have no responsibility, no guard, as long as this accident is incidental to the victim, unpredictable, they should be regarded as insurance accident. The aggrieved drivers generally negligent behavior still can request the insurance company to pay, but the driver has the serious negligence of driving without a license, insurance companies deal with the victims of personal casualty losses shall be paid in accordance with the principle of insurance, the social and public interests of the cross strong insurance and public welfare nature of compulsory insurance. 2, according to the analysis of the intrinsic logical relation law, insurance companies can claim responsibility. "The relationship between motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations" between twenty-first first and twenty-first second, twenty-second essentially has the general provisions and special clauses. Relative to twenty-first, twenty-second to belong to the special clause. General provisions, the insurance company to the insured vehicle accident victims (third) assume human casualties, property loss is fully liable for the compulsory insurance liability limits. According to the theory of law, unless special provision expressly excludes the situation, will be applied in general terms. Now 22 of the four cases listed as special provisions, only the provisions of the insurance companies from liability for loss of property, and the obligation pays rescue expenses, but not specifically to the loss of other people exemption, the insurance company should be in accordance with the provisions of general clauses, bear the loss claims responsibility for other people. 3, from the legislative purpose of article twenty-second, the insurance company to all exemption. The legislative purpose of the provisions of the insurance company is due to the driver license to drive motor vehicles and other specific circumstances when a traffic accident occurs, should remain in the insurance compensation limits undertakes the responsibility to advance to save costs, the better to get timely medical treatment, insurance citizens' lives, this article is not exempt from the insurance company for the victim liability provisions in four cases, and therefore cannot be the constitution of insurance company all exemption reasons.

At present, in the judicial practice, the mainstream view is second.