Court Awards CNY 91,704.60 in Traffic Accident Dispute
A court in Eastern China City ruled that an insurance company must pay a plaintiff CNY 91,704.60 for injuries sustained in a traffic accident. The case involved a collision between a car and a motorcycle, with both drivers found equally at fault. The court held that the compulsory insurance policy must cover the full amount within its liability limit, rejecting arguments for sub-limits. The judgment also addressed medical expenses, property preservation fees, and prior payments made by the defendants.
The accident occurred on December 2, 2011, at around 7:50 a.m. at an intersection in Eastern China City. The defendant, Ms. Guo, was driving her car westbound when she collided with a motorcycle ridden by the plaintiff, Mr. Cao, who was heading north. The police determined that both drivers contributed to the accident: Ms. Guo failed to slow down at the intersection and did not yield as required, while Mr. Cao failed to stay in the designated lane. Each was assigned 50 percent fault. Mr. Cao suffered injuries and incurred medical expenses totaling CNY 127,339.20. Ms. Guo had already paid CNY 23,500, and the insurance company had paid CNY 10,000. After negotiations failed, Mr. Cao sued both Ms. Guo and the insurance company seeking additional compensation.
At trial, Mr. Cao presented the traffic accident report, driving licenses, vehicle registration, insurance policy, medical records, hospital discharge summaries, and receipts for medical expenses and property preservation fees totaling CNY 1,070. Ms. Guo disputed the fault allocation, arguing she should bear only secondary liability. The insurance company argued that non-medical drug costs should be deducted and that the property preservation fee was outside its coverage. The court examined all evidence. The traffic report was accepted as valid because Ms. Guo did not provide contrary proof. The medical expense receipts were accepted despite objections, as no counter-evidence or expert review was offered.
The court found that both drivers shared equal fault and that Ms. Guo was liable for her share. Under the Road Traffic Safety Law, the insurance company must first compensate within the compulsory insurance limit of CNY 122,000. The court rejected the insurance company’s request to divide the limit into sub-categories (medical, death, property), stating that such a division contradicts the legislative purpose of compulsory insurance. Therefore, the insurance company was ordered to pay the remaining medical expenses and other covered losses up to the limit. The court also ruled that the property preservation fee of CNY 1,070 was a direct loss from the accident but was not covered by compulsory insurance; instead, it was to be shared equally by the parties based on fault.
The court emphasized that victims should not be forced to choose medications, so non-medical drug costs were not deducted from medical expenses. It also noted that the property preservation fee was a litigation cost, not an insurance-covered loss. After calculating, the total compensable loss was determined to be the medical expenses of CNY 127,339.20 plus the property preservation fee of CNY 1,070, totaling CNY 128,409.20. From this, the insurance company’s prior payment of CNY 10,000 and Ms. Guo’s payment of CNY 23,500 were deducted, leaving CNY 94,909.20. However, the compulsory insurance limit is CNY 122,000, and the court ordered the insurance company to pay the remaining amount after deducting Ms. Guo’s payment and the property preservation fee (which is outside insurance coverage). The court calculated that the insurance company should pay CNY 91,704.60, with the remainder of the medical expenses (beyond the insurance limit) to be paid by Ms. Guo at 50 percent. Since the total medical expenses were within the compulsory limit after deducting prior payments, the insurance company bore the entire remaining medical amount.
The court ordered the insurance company to pay Mr. Cao CNY 91,704.60 within ten days of the judgment taking effect. The case costs were split, with Mr. Cao bearing CNY 36.50 and Ms. Guo bearing CNY 1,050. This case illustrates that compulsory insurance policies in China must be applied as a single limit, not divided into sub-limits, ensuring full compensation to accident victims. It also clarifies that litigation-related expenses such as property preservation fees are not covered by compulsory insurance and must be allocated according to fault.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.