Multi-Vehicle Collision Leads to CNY 33,666 Claim in Insurance Dispute
In this case, a transport company sought compensation for property damage arising from a five-vehicle collision. The plaintiff, Central China City Jingcheng Auto Transport Co., Ltd., filed a lawsuit against multiple defendants, including vehicle owners, drivers, and two insurance companies. The court examined the liability apportionment under traffic police findings and the scope of insurance coverage. After a bench trial, the court allocated fault and calculated damages, ultimately ordering partial compensation from the insurers and one vehicle owner.
The accident occurred on June 15, 2011, on a road in a central China region. Mr. Tian, an employee of the plaintiff, parked a semi-trailer truck owned by the plaintiff on the roadway. A vehicle driven by Mr. Zhao, owned by Mr. Wang, struck the parked truck from behind. This triggered a chain reaction involving another truck driven by Mr. Huang and two other passing vehicles. The traffic police determined that Mr. Tian bore primary responsibility (70%), while Mr. Zhao, Mr. Wang, and Mr. Huang each shared minor responsibility (30% collectively). The plaintiff demanded CNY 33,666 in compensation for repair costs, appraisal fees, towing charges, and transport expenses.
During the hearing, the plaintiff submitted a police accident report, a damage appraisal from the People’s Insurance Company of China confirming a repair cost of CNY 57,866 (less salvage value of CNY 564), repair receipts, towing receipts, and insurance policy copies. The defendant Ping An Property Insurance Co., Ltd. Central China City Branch (hereafter Ping An Central) challenged the authenticity of some repair and towing invoices, arguing they were not official receipts, and also contended that appraisal fees fell outside insurance coverage. The other defendants, including Mr. Wang, Mr. Zhao, Mr. Huang, and the second insurance company, did not appear despite proper summons. The plaintiff later withdrew its claim against Mr. Zhao.
The court accepted the traffic police liability determination as correct. It found that Mr. Tian, as the plaintiff’s employee, caused the plaintiff to bear 70% of the total loss. The remaining 30% was equally divided among the three vehicles that shared minor liability. After deducting salvage, the court calculated the plaintiff’s verified losses as CNY 68,602 (repairs of CNY 57,302, appraisal fee of CNY 1,800, and towing of CNY 9,500). The court rejected the CNY 6,000 claim for transporting the damaged truck from the accident site back to the plaintiff’s base, deeming it an unnecessarily expanded loss.
Key legal points included employer vicarious liability: the plaintiff was responsible for its employee Mr. Tian’s driving fault, and Mr. Wang (the employer of Mr. Zhao) was liable for Mr. Zhao’s share. Insurance obligations were triggered under compulsory third-party liability coverage. Ping An Central was required to pay CNY 4,000 under two compulsory policies for Mr. Wang’s vehicle, and the second insurer, Ping An Property Insurance Co., Ltd. Western China City Branch (hereafter Ping An Western), was required to pay CNY 2,000 under one compulsory policy for Mr. Huang’s vehicle. After deducting these compulsory amounts, the remaining loss of CNY 62,602 was apportioned: 70% (CNY 43,821.40) to the plaintiff, and 30% split equally among Ping An Central (CNY 6,260.20 under commercial third-party insurance), Mr. Wang personally (CNY 6,260.20), and Ping An Western (CNY 6,260.20 under commercial third-party insurance).
This ruling clarifies how courts apportion liability in multi-party, multi-vehicle collisions where fault is shared. It reinforces the principle that employers bear responsibility for their drivers’ negligence and that compulsory insurance limits apply first before commercial policies. The decision also underscores the importance of presenting properly documented evidence, as inflated or unsubstantiated claims may be rejected. Parties involved in similar disputes should ensure they retain official receipts and timely police reports to support their damage calculations.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.