Traffic Accident Dispute Results in CNY 91704.60 Judgment
The Eastern China City People’s Court ruled on a motor vehicle accident liability dispute between Mr. Cao and Ms. Guo, along with an insurance company. The court ordered the insurer to pay Mr. Cao CNY 91,704.60 for injuries and losses from a collision where both drivers shared equal fault. The judgment clarified the scope of compulsory insurance coverage and the allocation of costs between the parties.
On December 2, 2011, Ms. Guo was driving her sedan eastbound through an intersection in Eastern China City when she collided with a light motorcycle operated by Mr. Cao, who was traveling northbound. The impact injured Mr. Cao and damaged both vehicles. Traffic police determined that Ms. Guo failed to slow down and did not yield properly, while Mr. Cao improperly used a designated lane. Both drivers were assigned equal responsibility. Ms. Guo held a compulsory motor vehicle insurance policy with the defendant insurance company. After the accident, Ms. Guo paid CNY 23,500 and the insurer paid CNY 10,000 toward Mr. Cao’s medical expenses. Unable to reach a settlement, Mr. Cao filed a lawsuit seeking CNY 107,853.95 in damages. During trial, he revised his claim to CNY 127,339.20 in medical costs plus CNY 1,070 in property preservation fees, minus the amounts already received, leaving a demand of CNY 94,909.20.
At the hearing, Mr. Cao submitted a traffic accident report, driver and vehicle documents, insurance policy records, medical records, invoices totaling CNY 127,339.20, and a receipt for the preservation fee. Ms. Guo challenged the police fault determination but provided no contrary evidence. The insurance company argued that non-reimbursable medical expenses should be deducted and that the preservation fee fell outside its coverage. Both defendants accepted the authenticity of most documents but disputed the relevance of certain medical invoices. The court reviewed the evidence and admitted all submissions, finding no grounds to exclude the medical costs or the preservation fee.
The court found that Ms. Guo and Mr. Cao each contributed to the accident through negligent driving. Under Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law, the insurance company must first pay compensation within the compulsory insurance limit of CNY 122,000. The court rejected the insurer’s argument that coverage should be divided into sub-limits, holding that such a division contradicts the legislative purpose of compulsory insurance. For losses exceeding the insurance cap, Ms. Guo must bear 50% of the remaining damages based on her degree of fault. The court approved the full medical expense claim of CNY 127,339.20, noting that Mr. Cao did not separately seek hospitalization subsidies even though the invoices included meal costs. The preservation fee of CNY 1,070 was deemed a direct loss, but it is not covered by compulsory insurance and thus must be shared equally by the parties.
A key legal point in this case is the interpretation of compulsory insurance liability. The court emphasized that the primary goal of compulsory motor vehicle insurance is to provide prompt and adequate compensation to accident victims. Splitting the coverage into separate caps for medical expenses, property damage, and death or injury would undermine this objective. Furthermore, the court held that the insurer cannot deduct non-reimbursable medical expenses because the injured party has no control over medication choices in emergency treatment. The preservation fee, while a legitimate litigation cost, falls outside the scope of compulsory insurance and must be apportioned according to fault.
This ruling reinforces the principle that compulsory insurance coverage in China operates as a unified fund up to the statutory limit. Victims of traffic accidents with shared fault can still recover the full medical and other compensable losses from the insurer before turning to the at-fault driver for the remainder. The decision also clarifies that litigation preservation fees are not part of the insurance payout but are recoverable from the negligent party. For practitioners, this case underscores the importance of presenting complete medical documentation and challenging insurer attempts to impose sub-limits or exclude non-reimbursable drugs. The court’s approach reflects a victim-friendly interpretation designed to ensure fair compensation without procedural delays.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.