May 31, 2010
---------------------
Monday
>>>Welcome visitor, you're not logged in.
Login   Subscribe Now!
Home User Management About Us Chinese
  Bookmark   Download   Print
Search:  serch "Fabao" Window Font Size: Home PageHome PageHome Page
 
Suzhou Center Subsidiary of Tianping Auto Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Wang Kezhong (Dispute over Right of Recovery)
天平汽车保险股份有限公司苏州中心支公司诉王克忠追偿权纠纷案
【法宝引证码】
 
  
Suzhou Center Subsidiary of Tianping Auto Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Wang Kezhong (Dispute over Right of Recovery) 

天平汽车保险股份有限公司苏州中心支公司诉王克忠追偿权纠纷案

[Summary] [裁判摘要]
Article 22 of the Regulation on Compulsory Auto Liability Insurance (hereinafter referred to as the “Regulation”) provides that, under any of the following circumstances, an insurance company shall advance rescue expenses within the limit of indemnity of compulsory auto liability insurance, and be entitled to recover such expenses from the tortfeasor: (1) The driver fails to obtain a qualification for driving or drives under the influence of alcohol. (2) The insured motor vehicle causing the accident is a stolen one. (3) The insured creates a road traffic accident on purpose. A motor vehicle driver in a hit and run accident are not covered by the aforesaid provisions, and the Regulation shall not apply to the resolution. 机动车交通事故责任强制保险条例》(以下简称交强险条例)第二十二条规定,以下三种情形造成的道路交通事故,由保险公司在交强险责任限额内承担垫付责任,并有权向致害人追偿,即:(一)驾驶人未取得驾驶资格或者醉酒的;(二)被保险机动车被盗抢期间肇事的;(三)被保险人故意制造道路交通事故的。机动车驾驶人肇事逃逸未包括在上述条款范围内,不应适用该规定予以处理。
Plaintiff: Suzhou Center Subsidiary of Tianping Auto Insurance Co. Ltd. domiciled at Donghuan Road, Suzhou Industrial Park, Jiangsu province. 原告:天平汽车保险股份有限公司苏州中心支公司
Defendant: Wang Kezhong, male, Han, 42 years of age, residing in Suzhou City, Jiangsu province. 被告:王克忠
The Suzhou Center Subsidiary of Tianping Auto Insurance Co. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Suzhou Company") brought an action in the People's Court of Wujiang District, Suzhou City, Jiangsu province for a dispute over the right of recovery with Wang Kezhong. 天平汽车保险股份有限公司苏州中心支公司(以下简称天平保险苏州公司)因与王克忠发生追偿权纠纷,向江苏省苏州市吴江区人民法院提起诉讼。
Plaintiff Suzhou Company alleged that defendant Wang Kezhong bought compulsory auto liability insurance for a car with registration of Su EUXX86 at Suzhou Company. On April 28, 2012, Wang Kezhong caused injury to a person in a traffic accident and escaped, and the victim brought an action in the court to claim compensation. The People's Court of Wujiang District, Suzhou City entered the Civil Judgment No. 0007 [2013], First, Civil Division, Kai, Wujiang, ordering Suzhou Company to pay the victim CNY76,700 in compensation within the limit of indemnity of compulsory auto liability insurance, and Suzhou Company paid the aforesaid sum of money under the effective judgment on April 2, 2013. According to the law, Suzhou Company has the right of recovery against the party causing the accident after covering relevant expenses within the limit of indemnity of compulsory auto liability insurance. Because Wang Kezhong refused to make reimbursement, it brought an action in the court, requiring Wang Kezhong to reimburse the advance payment of compensation in the amount of CNY76,700 to Suzhou Company. 原告天平保险苏州公司诉称:被告王克忠为苏EUXX86小型轿车在天平保险苏州公司处投保交强险。2012年4月28日,王克忠因交通肇事致人受伤并逃逸,受害人诉至法院主张赔偿。苏州市吴江区人民法院作出(2013)吴江开民初字第0007号民事判决书,判决天平保险苏州公司在交强险范围内赔偿受害人76 700元,天平保险苏州公司根据生效判决于2013年4月2日支付了上述款项。根据法律规定,天平保险苏州公司在交强险范围内垫付相关费用后,有权向肇事方追偿。因王克忠拒绝付款,故诉至法院要求王克忠向天平保险苏州公司返还垫付的赔偿款76 700元。
...... 被告王克忠辩称:原告天平保险苏州公司并无追偿的权利。《机动车交通事故责任强制保险条例》及最高人民法院《关于审理道路交通事故损害赔偿案件适用法律若干问题的解释》并未将驾车肇事逃逸行为列为保险公司可以追偿的情形,故本案交通事故属于保险公司理赔范围,因此天平保险苏州公司在支付赔偿款后不享有对王克忠的追偿权。综上,请求驳回天平保险苏州公司的诉讼请求。
 苏州市吴江区人民法院一审查明:被告王克忠为其所有的苏EUXX86小型轿车在原告天平保险苏州公司处投保了交强险,保险期间自2011年9月21日零时起至2012年9月20日二十四时止。2012年4月28日16时25分左右,王克忠驾驶苏EUXX86小型轿车在苏州市吴江区松陵镇笠泽路、吴模路路口与张怀华驾驶的号牌为AOXXX33电动自行车发生碰撞,造成张怀华受伤、车辆损坏的交通事故。根据交警大队出具交通事故责任认定书,王克忠负该起事故的全部责任,张怀华无责任。同时,交通事故责任认定书中还对事故经过作了以下描述:“事故发生后,王克忠驾车离开现场。次日下午王克忠到公安机关投案”。2012年12月21日,张怀华向法院提起诉讼,要求王克忠、天平保险苏州公司赔偿其因交通事故造成的各项损失。吴江区人民法院作出的(2013)吴江开民初字第0007号民事判决,判令天平保险苏州公司在交强险范围内赔偿张怀华医疗费等各项损失共计76 700元。后天平保险苏州公司向张怀华履行了该赔付义务。
 另查明,2012年6月5日,苏州市吴江区公安局交警巡逻警察大队向被告王克忠作出行政处罚决定书一份,对王克忠造成交通事故后逃逸,尚不构成犯罪的违法行为,决定给予其罚款1000元的处罚。王克忠在规定的期限内未对该行政处罚申请行政复议或者提起行政诉讼。
 以上事实,有原告天平保险苏州公司提供的保险单、道路交通事故责任认定书、(2013)吴江开民初字第0007号民事判决书、支付凭证,法院调取的公安交通管理行政处罚决定书(吴公交决字[2012]第 320584-2200091154)和告知笔录、张怀华询问笔录、王克忠询问笔录、潘宏亮询问笔录,以及双方当事人的当庭陈述等证据予以证实。
 吴江区人民法院一审认为:被告王克忠在肇事后逃逸,违反了我国相关法律的规定,导致部分事故证据灭失,致使公安机关对王克忠事故发生时的精神、生理状态无法查证。该行为的危险性质较之未取得驾驶资格、醉酒驾车等情形,其主观恶性更大,对社会的危害后果更甚。国家设立交强险的目的系为了使受害人依法得到赔偿,促进道路交通安全,并非让存在违法行为的事故责任人免于承担责任。《中华人民共和国侵权责任法》及《机动车交通事故责任强制保险条例》都已明确,机动车肇事后逃逸的,由社会救助基金对受害人人身伤亡的抢救、丧葬等费用先行垫付,然后向道路事故责任人追偿。故对于肇事后逃逸行为,应参照《机动车交通事故责任强制保险条例》第二十二条的规定,保险公司对抢救费用等承担先行垫付责任后,有权向致害人进行追偿,由致害人承担终局赔偿责任。综上,双方当事人之间的交通事故责任强制保险合同关系依法成立并有效,原告天平保险苏州公司已按照法院生效判决在交强险责任限额内向受害人予以赔付。在王克忠肇事后逃逸的情形下,天平保险苏州公司有权就其垫付的款项向王克忠进行追偿。
 ......



Dear visitor,you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases . If you are not a subscriber, please subscribe . You can purchase a single article through Online Pay to immediately view and download this document. Should you have any questions, please contact us at:
+86 (10) 8268-9699 or +86 (10) 8266-8266 (ext. 153)
Mobile: +86 133-1157-0712
Fax: +86 (10) 8266-8268
database@chinalawinfo.com


 


您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区,如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户,请注册并交纳相应费用成为我们的英文会员 ;您也可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇案例 。如有问题请来电咨询;
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com


     
     
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝www.lawinfochina.com
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code!
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials.
 
Home | Products and Services | FAQ | Disclaimer | Chinese | Site Map
©2012 Chinalawinfo Co., Ltd.    database@chinalawinfo.com  Tel: +86 (10) 8268-9699  京ICP证010230-8