Case:Mr. Sun for vehicle insure their compulsory insurance, car insurance, third party liability insurance and other insurance. One day Mr. Sun driving down the road with a retrograde vehicle traffic accident happened, identified by the traffic police retrograde traffic accident responsibility is negative, Mr. Sun is not negative accident responsibility. In the traffic accident, retrograde driver of the vehicle by the traffic police on the spot to escape, and to determine the vehicle clone car retrograde, nor any insurance. Mr. Sun in repair vehicle, unable toThe driver responsible for claiming compensation retrograde vehicles, to insure yourself car damage insurance company for car damage insurance claims. The insurance company for Mr Sun's claim to be rejected, the insurance company is not responsible for: Mr. Sun in this accident, since no Liability Insurance Company should not bear the loss of vehicle Mr. sun.

    CounselAnalysis of:The focus of the case in dispute lies in the car accident, if the insured has no responsibility for the accident, the insurance company can according to refuse payment. Firstly, the insurance company according to the insured persons in the accident in the proportion of the responsibility to bear the liability for compensation, this is the actual liability insurance, and liability insurance to determine the insured liability basis, insurance and liability and automobile physical damage insurance belongs to the nature of the liability insurance compensation are different, the insurance company directly applicable provisions of liability insurance, to determine the scope of compensation Che Sunxian, itself is the problem. Secondly, there is no direct relationship between the vehicle insurance and liability ratio, even though the insured does not take responsibility for the accident, but the vehicle loss is very serious situation. If the insured has paid the premiums, the insurance contract to fulfill the obligations, and in driving the vehicle to comply with traffic rules, the insurance accident completely irresponsible case, the loss is not the compensation of insurance company, the articles belonging to exclude the insured in accordance with law, enjoy the rights provisions, contrary to the legislative purpose of this clause and the "insurance law", should be invalid. Finally, there has been a case of escape is the other side of the driver in this case, Mr. Sun has been unable to claim the rights, in the car insurance contract on the unable to find the offending party, insurance companies have to pay duties, the liability for damages, legal right subrogation rights. Based on the above three points, the insurance company is not correct for Mr. Sun's refusal. The case to the people's court, the people's court according to the law of insurance contract that, in the case of the insured "no responsibility, no pay" clause to exclude the insured rights provisions, shall be deemed invalid clause, the insurer's refusal to support without basis, Mr. Sun's claim.

   (August 19, 2011, Qingdao traffic radio "insurance." show case)