Insurance Ordered to Pay CNY 31,600 for Car Accident

A court in Eastern China City has ordered an insurance company to pay CNY 31,600 in full to a car owner whose vehicle was damaged in a two-car collision. The plaintiff, Mr. Liu, sought compensation for repair costs and towing fees after his car was hit by a vehicle owned by Mr. Zhao (father) and driven by Mr. Zhao (son). The insurer argued that the compulsory insurance policy’s property damage limit should apply separately, but the court rejected that position and held the company liable for the entire amount within the total policy limit.

The accident occurred on 1 December 2011 at an intersection in Eastern China City. A third-party driver, Mr. Wu, collided with the left side of a car driven by Mr. Zhao (son), which was owned by his father, Mr. Zhao (father). The traffic police determined that Mr. Wu bore primary responsibility for the collision, while Mr. Zhao (son) bore secondary responsibility. Mr. Liu’s vehicle was towed to a repair shop and incurred repair costs of CNY 30,600 and towing fees of CNY 1,000, totaling CNY 31,600. The vehicle was insured under a compulsory motor vehicle insurance policy issued by the defendant insurance company.

During the court hearing, Mr. Liu submitted several pieces of evidence, including the traffic accident report, driving and vehicle registration documents, a copy of the compulsory insurance policy, the insurer’s damage assessment report (CNY 30,600), two towing fee invoices totaling CNY 1,000, and three repair invoices totaling CNY 30,845. The insurance company raised objections, arguing that the property damage should be compensated only within the sub-limit of the compulsory policy and that the towing fee of CNY 1,000 was excessive. The defendants, Mr. Zhao (father) and Mr. Zhao (son), supported the insurer’s position. The court reviewed all evidence and found it admissible, noting that the towing fee of CNY 1,000 was reasonable under the circumstances.

The court found that Mr. Zhao (son) was at fault for the accident as the secondary party, but because the vehicle was covered by compulsory insurance, the insurer bore the primary liability. The court explicitly rejected the insurer’s argument that the compulsory insurance policy required compensation to be split into separate sub-limits for property damage, stating that such a division would violate the principle of fairness and the legislative purpose of ensuring that victims receive timely compensation. The court further noted that Mr. Zhao (father), as the owner, was not negligent and thus bore no personal liability.

Legally, the