Court Orders Insurance Payout of CNY 112,000 for Fatal Crash
In this case, the court addressed a dispute arising from a fatal traffic accident involving a hit-and-run driver. The plaintiffs, the family members of the deceased, sought compensation from the defendant insurance company under the compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance policy. The court ruled that the insurer must pay a total of CNY 112,000, covering death compensation and property damage, within the policy limits.
The accident occurred on November 10, 2011, at approximately 5:52 p.m. The deceased, Mr. Yang, was driving a battery-powered three-wheeled motorcycle along a road in Eastern China City when a car rear-ended his vehicle. Mr. Yang suffered fatal injuries and died after rescue efforts. The traffic police determined that the fleeing driver of the car bore full responsibility, while Mr. Yang had no fault. The car was insured with the defendant, Pacific Insurance Company (Eastern China City Branch), under a compulsory insurance policy. The plaintiffs, comprising Mr. Yang’s spouse Ms. Hu, his son Mr. Yang, and his two daughters Ms. Yang and Ms. Yang, filed a claim for CNY 268,502, including death compensation of CNY 199,654, funeral expenses, mental distress damages, and vehicle repair costs.
The court held two hearings in March 2012. The plaintiffs presented several pieces of evidence: a death certificate, cremation certificate, and autopsy report to prove Mr. Yang’s death; an accident determination letter showing no fault on the deceased’s part and the defendant’s insurance coverage; a receipt for the purchase of the motorcycle; family registration documents; and a vehicle damage assessment agreement along with a repair invoice for CNY 2,300. The defendant raised no objection to most evidence but disputed the receipt for the motorcycle purchase, arguing it did not prove repair costs. The court accepted the undisputed evidence as authentic and relevant but rejected the purchase receipt as proof of vehicle repair expenses.
The court found that the deceased Mr. Yang bore no responsibility for the accident, and the fleeing driver was entirely at fault. Under the applicable law, the insurer must first compensate within the compulsory insurance limits. For death and injury, the maximum liability was CNY 110,000, and for property damage, CNY 2,000. The court calculated the death compensation based on local rural per capita income and Mr. Yang’s age, confirming the claimed amount of CNY 199,654 as reasonable. However, the court did not award mental distress damages, as they fell outside the compulsory insurance scope. The vehicle repair invoice of CNY 2,300 was not fully accepted; the court limited property loss to the assessed amount of CNY 2,000.
According to relevant law, specifically Article 76 of the Traffic Safety Law, Article 16 of the Tort Law, and related judicial interpretations, when a motor vehicle accident causes harm, the insurance company must pay from the compulsory insurance fund first. The court noted that the fleeing driver’s identity was unknown, but this did not affect the insurer’s obligation under the policy. The defendant had argued it might have a right of recourse if the driver lacked a valid license, but the court’s ruling focused solely on the immediate compensation owed to the plaintiffs. The judgment did not address whether the insurance company could later seek reimbursement from the unidentified driver.
This case highlights the role of compulsory motor vehicle insurance in providing swift compensation to victims of hit-and-run accidents. The court ordered the insurer to pay CNY 112,000 within ten days of the judgment, comprising CNY 110,000 for death compensation and CNY 2,000 for property damage. The defendant also bore half of the court costs. The decision underscores that even when the responsible driver is unknown, the insurance company must fulfill its statutory duty to compensate the victims’ family. Parties retained the right to appeal within 15 days.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.