You drive the passer-by was hit by another car, full responsibility for each other, you look at my car into a pile of rotten iron, go to your claim with the insurance company, the insurance company should decline, make sense to you?

The insurer's refusal is based on the vehicle damage insurance in a attracted widespread controversy "without responsibility not to pay" clause, usually expressed as: insurance vehicle road traffic accident, the insurance company according to the proportion of liability accident drivers have corresponding negative in the traffic accident liability. The vehicle without accident liability insurance, the insurance company does not assume liability to pay compensation.

There are two basic insurance vehicle insurance, one is the third party liability insurance, one is the vehicle damage insurance. The so-called third party liability insurance, I drove the others, I shall bear the responsibility of compensation for others. If I have to buy insurance, that I should bear the responsibility for compensation to the third, from the insurance company to compensate. This insurance is clearly associated with the traffic accident liability ratio, and I take full responsibility, full responsibility for the insurance company, I bear equal responsibility, the insurance company will pay half, I have no responsibility, insurance is not lost. This is reasonable, the original meaning is liability insurance.

But for the loss of vehicle insurance, the situation is completely different. The risk of loss, is set to those non intentional, non predictable, non controllable risk caused by the loss of property or the interests of the insurance. This and the insured has no responsibility is completely irrelevant, have no relevance. The vehicle damage insurance with the general loss of property insurance property insurance is the same, the house accidental fire, no responsibility is not responsible to compensate,; in the process of handling of goods damaged, no responsibility is not responsible, to compensate; vehicles parked in residential downstairs, upstairs to fall by pot hit, no responsibility is not responsibility, to compensate; normal vehicle parked on the roadside, was hit by another car have no eyes, no responsibility is not responsible, to compensate; car on the road, opposite the car more lines coming hit me, I shall compensate losses the insurance company? This is the unexpected loss, of course, must pay! This and I have no responsibility? Completely irrelevant.

Why should the insurance company provides the vehicle damage insurance also according to relative responsibility to pay? Because the insurance company to avoid recourse to the third trouble, with their dominant position, make provision for this kind of unreasonable. Such as an accident, your vehicle loss of ten thousand yuan, the police found you no responsibility, it should be ten thousand yuan by the accident compensation, but the party if you buy insurance, should be made by the party's Insurance Company compensation. Because of this, your insurance company will want to, anyway you can find the accident insurance company compensation to you, then I wouldn't have lost it, eventually you would not have lost! In terms of insurance in the insurance company before, direct regulation, in this case, you should first find the accident damages, claims not to sue, Sue also claims not to, your insurance company responsible for compensation. The provisions of the insurance companies to shirk its psychological exposed. But this provision is obviously unreasonable, estimated later criticism is too much, do not go out, change. But to now according to relative responsibility to compensate, but no responsibility not to compensate, the result is go beyond.

This small dark insurance company heart is serious illegal draw further apart, and property damage insurance basic spirit. Property damage insurance aims to compensate for the loss of the accident cause impaired people, regardless of the cause of the accident is natural or third party liability. The law specifically for the third loss situation set the subrogation of insurance companies. Insurance law, "because the third of insurance symptom damage caused by the accident insurance, the insurance people paid indemnities to the insured, the amount of compensation, the scope of subrogation insured indemnity against the third party rights". That is to say, the insurance company shall not ask the reasons for you first, and then to the third claim to the insurance company. In this way, the loss of the victims can get compensation in time, the damage caused by the responsibility can not be spared, the victim can not get double compensation. To the satisfaction of all, very reasonable.

The funny thing is, the insurance company shall have no responsibility in do not lose, and retained the right of subrogation provisions. But this caused stultify oneself insurance clause. In peace 07 edition vehicle damage insurance clause as an example (other insurance companies are the same, are idiotic CIRC approved over), the provisions of article tenth compensation according to the proportion of traffic accident responsibility, no responsibility without compensation. The provisions of article twelfth, "shall be composed of third person responsible for compensation and did not find the third, 30% tax deductible franchise". This is funny, if take full responsibility should the did not find the third, the insurance company can according to the tenth shall not lose it, how to implement the 30% absolute 免赔率? This free 30% where free? Look at the following twenty-third, "because third of the insurance vehicle damage insurance accident, the company to the insured for the date, the amount of compensation scope subrogation insured indemnity against the third party rights". Take full responsibility for the third, insurance company can according to tenth shall not compensate, since not lose, how about subrogation to the third claim?

Perhaps some people will say, the insurance company is the traffic accidents and other accidents differently. Deductible not the responsibility of the traffic accident, but other accident would not have this one. For example, your car parked on the roadside was hit, hit the man ran, this does not belong to the traffic accident, not applicable no responsibility can not lose, if you drive on the road was hit, hit the man ran, this belongs to the accident, but no responsibility not to compensate for. However, the difference between old people can understand it, there is significance in fact, legal basis, the actuary insurance companies have to consider these differences?

About this without responsibility without compensation terms, nation-wide debate for a long time. Many people the car with the courts, and the judgment, the court also is insurance company should compensate. As for the specific application of the law, can refer to "insurance law" nineteenth, "the terms of format terms the use of insurers to provide the insurance contract is invalid: (in a) from insurance should bear the duty according to law or increase the policyholder, insured liability; (two) exclude policyholders, insured or the beneficiary rights in accordance with the law". According to this article, the insurance company is not responsible decision not to lose the clause is invalid, the owner's interests can be guaranteed.

In short, every car, you are the next encounter it, don't even think about it, tell him before the insurance company, they will win. If you cannot win, also make some contribution to the progress of the rule of law China.