SUCCESSFUL CASES
Case of Insurance Law Regarding Stolen Unregistered New Car
【Case Introduction】 A new car without a formal license was stolen, and the insurance company refused to pay. Who should bear the owner's loss? Recently, the Chengdu Qingyang District Court concluded a car insurance dispute case, supporting the owner's claim for compensation because the insurance company did not clearly inform about the exemption clause. 【Case Analysis】 New car stolen the day after returning home, insurance company refuses to pay On January 14, 2014, the plaintiff Hu Tao entrusted a newly purchased CRV small car to a certain insurance company in Chengdu for coverage, with a total theft and robbery loss insurance amount of 240,000 yuan, and no deductible. The insurance period was agreed to be from 00:00 on January 15, 2014 to 2...
[Case Introduction]
A new car without a formal license plate was stolen, and the insurance company refused to pay. Who should bear the owner's loss? Recently, the Chengdu Qingyang District Court concluded a car insurance dispute case, supporting the owner's compensation claim because the insurance company did not clearly inform about the exemption clause.
[Case Analysis]
New car stolen the day after returning home, insurance company refuses to pay.
On January 14, 2014, the plaintiff Hu Tao entrusted a newly purchased CRV car to a certain insurance company in Chengdu for coverage, with a theft and robbery loss insurance amount of 240,000 yuan, and no deductible. The insurance period was agreed to be from 00:00 on January 15, 2014, to 24:00 on January 14, 2015.
On the first day the insurance took effect, Hu Tao parked the car in the community parking lot after bringing it home, but by 7 a.m. on the 16th, he discovered that the new car had been stolen. Hu Tao then applied for insurance compensation. Unexpectedly, the insurance company refused to compensate Hu Tao on the grounds that "the theft insurance does not take effect without a formal license plate." After filing a lawsuit, Hu Tao took the insurance company to court.
The insurance company lost the case due to not clearly informing about the exemption clause.
The focus of the dispute in this case is whether the defendant's insurance liability can be exempted when the insured vehicle does not have a formal license plate at the time of the insurance accident.
The plaintiff believes that the insurance company signed the insurance contract with him knowing that the insured car did not have a formal license plate and collected the premium, thus agreeing to provide coverage. In addition, the defendant did not clearly explain the exemption clause in the contract and the exemption clause in the "Motor Vehicle Theft Insurance Terms," so the special agreement clause and exemption clause do not have legal effect.
During the trial, the defendant argued that the insurance contract stipulates situations where they are not responsible for theft insurance, and that it was explained that the motor vehicle should have all necessary documents. The insurance company has no compensation responsibility before the plaintiff obtains a formal license plate. The plaintiff also signed the application form to confirm this, and even if the signature on the application form is not the plaintiff's own, his payment of the insurance premium can be considered as acknowledgment of the signature by another.
[Case Result]
Lawyer Zhang from Fuzhou learned that the court held that the insurance company did not provide other evidence to prove that it had made relevant reminders and fulfilled its obligation to clearly explain the exemption clause and special agreement to Hu Tao. Therefore, the insurance company should bear the legal consequences of failing to provide evidence, and the exemption clause does not have legal effect. Ultimately, the court ruled that the defendant should pay the plaintiff Hu Tao an insurance compensation of 240,000 yuan.
[Relevant Regulations]
According to Article 17 of the "Insurance Law": "For clauses in insurance contracts that exempt the insurer from liability, the insurer shall make sufficient reminders on the application form, insurance policy, or other insurance documents to attract the attention of the insured, and shall clearly explain the content of the clause to the insured in written or oral form; if no reminder or clear explanation is made, the clause shall not have legal effect."
In this case, although there was a reminder in the special agreement section at the bottom of the application form, the signature "Hu Tao" at the end of the application form was not signed by Hu Tao himself. The act of Hu Tao paying the insurance premium cannot be regarded as his acknowledgment of another person signing the insurance policy on his behalf, thus exempting the insurer from the obligation to provide a clear explanation.
Related cases
-
Telephone:0871-64184225 64189135 64189580
E-mail:info@ynrulawyer.com
Address: No. 703, Block A, Building 1, Central Golden Block, Dianchi Road, Kunming City, Yunnan Province
Mobile website
