(a), if the support of insurance companies to "cross strong insurance regulations" article twenty-second as a plea for third person damage deductible, violates the establishment of China's insurance to pay strong purpose.

   From "pay strong risk" first (in order to protect the motor vehicle road traffic accident victims to receive compensation, promote road traffic safety, according to "the people's Republic of China Road Traffic Safety Law of the people's Republic of China", "insurance law", the enactment of this Ordinance.) Article third (called the motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance, this Regulation refers to the insurance company to the insured motor vehicle road traffic accidents caused by the vehicle, the insured other than the victim of personal injury, property loss, within the limit of liability for compensation of compulsory liability insurance.) Can be seen, "the legislative purpose of the compulsory insurance" --

   Cross strong insurance is legal, is China's first mandatory insurance, insurance system implemented through national mandatory motor vehicle owner or the manager to purchase the corresponding liability insurance, in order to improve the surface of three party insurance, provide the greatest degree of traffic accident victims and and basic guarantee.

   Compulsory insurance has the public welfare, have more social management functions, the establishment of motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance system, its main purpose is not to help alleviate traffic accident parties but is conducive to the economic burden of road traffic accident victims to obtain timely and effective economic security and medical treatment.

   The protection object of compulsory insurance has a specific, cross strong insurance protection is the specific interests of the third person, from the provisions of the watch, which is the vehicle damage insurance instead of the driver's insurance, as long as the insured vehicle and causing third damage (third people did not intentionally), regardless of driving under what conditions, the insurance company should compensate. Starting from the concept of a harmonious society point of view, the damage to the victim can get basic compensation of fast and effective, should be the ordinances of the original intention, because if the insurance company for insurance to pay strong 22 to defense, the perpetrators without compensation or compensation capacity is not enough passion under paragraph, will undoubtedly make the victim's rights and interests can not be adequately protected, contrary to the original intention of legislation of compulsory insurance.

   People should enjoy the victims of road traffic safety law of the system of compulsory insurance protection of the rights and interests. The foundation of insurance companies bear the responsibility does not lie in whether the injurer has fault, but in the insured vehicle traffic accident happened and whether the victim intentionally causing traffic accidents, if the victim is not intentionally causing traffic accidents, even in the presence of "cross strong insurance regulations" twenty-second article of the cases, the insurance company should be in accordance with the law on the victim's personal liability in insurance payment limits.

    (two), if the support of insurance companies to "cross strong insurance" twenty-second as a plea for third person damage deductible, it will violate the compulsory third party liability insurance liability basis.

   The third party liability compulsory insurance liability is based on legal provisions of the state.

   "Road traffic safety law" provisions of article seventy-sixth, motor vehicle traffic accidents caused casualties, property loss, the insurance company in motor vehicle compulsory third party liability insurance liability limits the scope of compensation. More than some of the limits of liability, shall bear the liability for compensation in accordance with the following methods: (a) the traffic accidents between motor vehicles, the faulty party shall bear the liability; if both parties are at fault, in accordance with their respective proportion of fault responsibility. (two) motor vehicle and non motor vehicle traffic accidents, between the pedestrian, the motor vehicle shall bear the liabilities; however, there is evidence of non motor vehicle drivers, pedestrians in violation of road traffic safety laws and regulations, motor vehicle drivers have to take the necessary measures to reduce the disposal, motor vehicle liability side. The losses of the traffic accident is caused intentionally by the non motor vehicle drivers, pedestrians, motor vehicle shall not bear liability. Thus: motor vehicle traffic accidents caused casualties, the insurance company liability in the compulsory third party insurance liability limits the scope of compensation, regardless of whether there is fault of motor vehicles, motor vehicle party even if no fault, as long as the traffic accident is not deliberately caused by the victim, the insurance company should be paid to the victim still.

   The "tort liability act" provisions of article forty-eighth, motor vehicle traffic accident damage, assume liability to pay compensation in accordance with the relevant provisions of the road traffic safety law.

   "Road traffic safety law" provisions of article seventy-sixth and "tort liability law" article forty-eighth: the principle of compensation insurance companies that third were caused by damage to the motor vehicle road traffic accident in cross strong insurance limit range, is a kind of not considering the infringement damage accident injures fault principle of compensation, the compensation without liability principle, the compulsory third party liability insurance in case, the insurance company shall bear the liability for compensation according to the law of the insured is not responsible for the accident, the insurance company liability and liability between the size of the insured is not necessarily linked with.

   Some people think that, if the "road traffic safety law" the provisions of article seventy-sixth of the compulsory third party liability insurance if understood as the insurance company is not responsible for the accident of words, so will the current "insurance law" the provisions about liability insurance of conflict. In fact, the two are not contradictory, because the compulsory third party liability insurance are two insurance system is completely different from the commercial liability insurance property, should receive the legal adjustment of different, in accordance with the "road traffic safety law" in article seventeenth, national implementation of the motor vehicle third party liability insurance system, and set up social rescue fund for road traffic accidents. The specific measures shall be formulated by the State Council, this also shows that the special traffic accident compulsory insurance, compulsory insurance is compulsory insurance, statutory insurance, public insurance, social assistance insurance, is entirely to humanism and based on the public interest.

   The principle of compensation "road traffic safety law" on the cross strong insurance compensation without liability principle and the "insurance law" does not conflict:

   First of all, "insurance law" second stipulates clearly the law called the insurance is a commercial insurance, namely, the specification of the fiftieth liability insurance belongs to category of commercial insurance. Commercial liability insurance insurance required to assume liability to pay compensation to the Insured undertakes to the third party liability as a premise, the commercial insurance does not apply to the liability of the third party liability compulsory insurance. The third party liability compulsory liability insurance belongs to the establishment of "road traffic safety law" is a liability compulsory insurance, does not belong to the category of commercial insurance. The State Council "motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations" provisions of article third, said motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance Ordinance, refers to the insurance company to the insured motor vehicle road traffic accidents caused by the insured vehicle, other than the victim casualties, property losses, shall be compulsory liability insurance in the liability of compensation limit, combined with the "traffic law" Article 76, can be seen, cross strong insurance is not a commercial insurance, but the compulsory insurance, statutory insurance, public insurance, social assistance insurance, is the need of humanism and based on the public interest by the laws and regulations established, therefore, cross strong insurance payment principle and general business insurance compensation principle is obviously different in nature.

   Secondly, "insurance law" in article fiftieth, the insurer of liability insurance of the insured to third party damage, in accordance with the law or the agreement in the contract, directly to the third party compensation insurance. From this stipulation can be seen, the insurer to third party compensation as long as it is based on the regulations of law, is a law of insurance, the compulsory insurance is based on the law of compensation without liability does not violate the "insurance law" provisions.

   To sum up, the imputation principle of compulsory insurance is no responsibility for payment, if the support of insurance companies to "cross strong insurance" twenty-second as a plea for third person damage deductible, it will violate the compulsory third party liability insurance liability basis.

    (three), if the support of insurance companies to "cross strong insurance" twenty-second as a plea for third person damage deductible, is the legal provisions of the interpret out of context.

   "Motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations" article twenty-second should not be understood as the insurance company in insurance within the scope of the franchise.

   1, according to "road traffic safety law" provisions of article seventy-sixth, motor vehicle traffic accidents caused casualties, the insurance company liability in the compulsory third party insurance liability limits the scope of compensation, regardless of whether the fault of motor vehicles, the cross strong insurance to the victim rights protection and insurance company in compulsory insurance of the third person of compensation without liability principle.

   2, "tort liability law" the forty-eighth regulation, motor vehicle traffic accident damage compensation in accordance with the relevant provisions of bear, the road traffic safety law. Therefore, "road traffic accident responsibility of the tort liability law" the bear is the application of the "road traffic safety law" provisions of article seventy-sixth, the establishment of "tort liability law" is still the insurance company in insurance of the third person of compensation without liability principle.

   3, according to the State Council "motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations" provisions of article twenty-first, the insured motor vehicle traffic accidents 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. It is only in the victim intentionally causes the traffic accident, the victim's personal injury compensation insurance company was not, in other cases, the victims of traffic accidents caused personal injury, insurance company should compensate.

   4, "the provisions of article twenty-second of motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations", did not obtain a driver's driving qualifications or drunken accident; the insured motor vehicle stolen during the accident; the insured deliberately made the road traffic accident, the insurance company in motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance liability limit range pays rescue expenses and to the right of recovery against the injurer, causes loss to the property of the victim, the insurance company does not assume liability to pay compensation. This article only provides the driver without obtaining qualification or drunk driving accident; the insured motor vehicle stolen during the accident; the insured intentionally caused by road traffic accident, the victim's property loss, the insurance company does not assume liability to pay compensation, and no provisions did not obtain a driver's driving qualifications or drunken accident, the insured motor vehicle stolen during the traffic accident, the insured deliberately made the road traffic accident victims of personal injury may be exempted from the insurance company insurance liability. Therefore, the insurance company can not invoke "pay strong risk" of 22 as the third person damage deductible defense.

   5, even if the "motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations" provisions in the circumstances prescribed in Article 22, the insurance company will not compensate for the third party personal injury, this provision is . Because the effectiveness of "" legislation law of the people's Republic of China seventy-ninth law than administrative regulations, local regulations, rules and regulations. "Motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations" belongs to administrative regulations, and the "road traffic safety law" and "tort liability act", which belongs to the law, as mentioned before, "road traffic safety law" and "tort liability law" have established the principle of compensation without liability compulsory insurance, therefore, should be used "the principle of compensation without liability on road traffic safety law" provisions of article seventy-sixth, exclude the application of "motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations" provisions in Article 22 under the provisions of the franchise.

   6, if the CIRC this agreement appeared in the insurance clauses, the agreement does not meet the "road traffic safety law" provisions of article seventy-sixth of the State Council and the "motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations" provisions of article twenty-first, according to the "contract law" Provisions (mandatory violates any law, administrative regulations of the contract is invalid), L. invalid clause, can not be deductible basis.

   To sum up, since "no duty compensate principle of traffic law" and "tort liability law" established in cross strong insurance insurance company, and "cross strong insurance" rule 21 and rule, only in the victim intentionally caused the traffic accident, the victim's personal insurance companies to not damage compensation, on the other case, the victims of traffic accidents caused personal injury, whether the offender has no fault, the insurance company shall make compensation in the insurance to pay strong limit, "pay strong risk" 22 exempt from just three cases deductible, the loss to the property of the victim so, "motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations" article twenty-second should not be understood as the insurance company in insurance within the scope of the franchise, the victim did not intentionally circumstances, no matter what kind of situation, the insurance company shall be compulsory insurance limit to third person personal damages shall be paid.

    (four) the author: the insured deliberately made the road traffic accident, the insurance company is not in insurance liability within the scope of the third person personal injury free.

   Some people think that, insurance just on accident risk and burden, if the insurance company to assume liability for damage caused by the intentional act of the insured person, a clear violation of insurance diversification risk purpose, therefore, of the insured deliberately damage liability insurance should be restricted. Academics generally believe that liability insurance function is to disperse the risks, losses, to try to prevent the occurrence of moral hazard, the applicant (the insured) intentional behavior caused by hazards or accidents, the insurer does not assume insurance responsibility, the compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance is no exception.

   The author thinks that the legislative intent, "road traffic safety law" and the compulsory third party motor vehicle insurance is to protect the victims of the third party interests, the social vulnerable groups are relatively timely compensation, therefore, in road traffic accidents has been on the public safety of life and property constitute a serious threat in the background, the road traffic accident compulsory third party liability insurance is mandatory, every car on the road driving motor vehicles are in accordance with the law of liability insurance of motor vehicle road traffic accident, cause third people (the victim) can obtain the basic compensation timely and efficient, the design of the traffic accident compulsory insurance system focusing on the public interest of the whole society, public welfare society. Therefore, in the public interest, "traffic law" and "tort liability act" on the basic principles of cross strong insurance to establish compensation without liability, as long as the road traffic accident, as long as the intent to cause traffic accident is not the victim, the victim should get compensation, regardless of whether the compensation is determined by the caused by the intentional act or negligence of the insured, as mentioned before, "pay strong risk" 21 and 22 did not stipulate insurant intentionally harmful behavior caused by the third party personal injury insurance deductible, therefore, in the third person damage to insured it intends to send damage caused by the behavior circumstances, the insurance company should be in the cross strong insurance compensation within the limit of third person personal injury compensation.

   Although people from the insurance point of view, is the scope of insurance people intentionally harmful behavior is incorporated into the insurance liability insurance will obviously increase the underwriting risk, and compensate the insured intentionally harmful behavior caused damage may indirectly condone the insured intentionally damage behavior, easily lead to moral crisis. However, these negative effects with respect to the compulsory liability insurance to safeguard public interests, to ensure that the fundamental purpose of the traffic accident victims can obtain basic compensation are of secondary importance, and the insured intentionally caused by the victim damage cases rarely occur. National legislation on compulsory insurance system in payment problems focus is to protect the interests of victims, rather than insurance companies operating benefit or social moral risk, after all, compulsory insurance system and arbitrary liability insurance is essentially different. But for the insured intentionally caused by the victim damage, national legislation also has the corresponding punishment, namely in the "criminal law" in the crime of intentional homicide and crimes of traffic accident, at the same time in the civil law, the legislation also can give the insurer the right of recourse to this situation to balance the interests of the insured, compensate for the losses. Therefore, the principle of compensation for compulsory insurance system under the victim's still must embark from the motor vehicle third party liability compulsory insurance to maximize the protection of victims of the purpose of legislation, will be the scope of insurance people intentionally harmful behavior into the insurance liability.

    (five) the author: "tort liability law" article fifty-second of the (theft, robbery and snatch the motor vehicle traffic accident damage, the thief, robbed or stolen liability) does not exempt the insurance company in insurance within the quota payment.

   "Tort liability law" article forty-eighth (motor vehicle traffic accident causes any harm, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the road traffic safety law liability) established the road traffic accident tort laws applicable principles, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the road traffic safety law shall bear the responsibility for compensation, and as mentioned before, according to "road traffic safety law" Regulations "and" cross strong insurance, the insurance company to the insured motor vehicle stolen during the accident case, still have to road traffic accidents caused by third party personal injury shall be paid in the insurance to pay strong limit.

   If the insured motor vehicle stolen during the accident, including a strong insurance limits to pay compensation by theft, robbery or snatcher shall assume the compensatory liability, then, in the theft, robbery and snatch people who are unable to compensate, the victim will lack the most basic compensation, and motor vehicle theft and robbery. How many people have the ability to pay? Therefore, in this case, the insurance company franchise in the insurance to pay strong limit in direct violation of the legislative purpose and spirit of compulsory insurance, contrary to the "road traffic safety law" provisions of the insurance companies compensation without liability principle, also in direct violation of the "traffic law" 76, "" the tort liability law "forty-eighth, and" cross strong insurance "the 21, the provisions of article 22.

   "Tort liability law" article fifty-second of the (theft, robbery and snatch the motor vehicle traffic accident damage, the thief, robbed or stolen bear the liability of compensation) is not intended to be exempted from the insurance company in insurance limit compensation, but to avoid the legitimate owners of motor vehicle theft, robbery or seizure occurred during traffic accidents caused by damage compensation, legal owner liability, if the "tort liability act" fifty-second is intended to be exempt from the insurance company in insurance limit compensation, so the article 52, the provisions of the provisions of Article 48 clearly.

    Three, the conclusion

   Motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance is mandatory by law to buy insurance, mandatory, public welfare, the protection of the interests of victims in particular, which aims at the road traffic accident is a serious threat to the public safety of life and property in the background, the maximum extent for the traffic accident victims to provide basic guarantee timely, convenient, promote social harmony, realize social justice, safeguarding the citizen's health right, because if the insurance company for insurance to pay strong 22 to support the defense of the franchise, the accidents are not compensation or compensation ability shortage of money, will undoubtedly make the rights of the victims are not fully violation of the principle of protection, legislative purpose, cross strong insurance against "traffic law" the provisions of compensation without liability compulsory insurance. Therefore, on the basis of "the people's Republic of China Road Traffic Safety Law" article seventy-sixth , "tort liability law" article forty-eighth, "motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations" as specified in article 21/22, no matter what the cause of motor vehicle third party personal injury in the road traffic accident, as long as the intentionally causing traffic accidents is not the victim, even: 1, did not obtain a driver's driving qualifications or drunk; 2, the insured motor vehicle stolen during the accident; 3, the insured deliberately causes a traffic accident; the insurance company is not in insurance liability within the scope of the third person personal injury free.