Truck fire insurance company tire fire does not calculate in the scope of self ignition

The truck fire insurance company: the tire fire is not in the range of spontaneous combustion, it does not pay. "My family’s truck insurance and business insurance are all handed over. But on the high speed road, the insurance company will not claim it." Just because of this thing, the public has been stuck to Mr. Cao from 2013 this year. However, the reason is not afraid to speak. That Mr. Cao was pleased that the day before the District People’s court accepted the case, and shall protect the rights and interests of the insured.   货车路上起火   保险公司理赔出尔反尔   2013年5月25日3时30分,曹先生驾驶的货车行驶至京沈高速北京方向距离塔山服务区2公里处时突然发生火灾,造成货车和货物及路产损坏。 The insurance company also agreed to pay compensation because he had insured the insurance company with the insurance company and the commercial insurance. However, in October 30, 2013, the insurance company put forward a refusal to compensate the accident on the grounds that the accident was not an insurance liability. Mr. Cao was very puzzled, then the insurance company to Luyuan District People’s court, asked the defendant to fulfill the obligation to pay the insurance compensation and reasonable expenses 88986 yuan. The insurance company that is not in the range of tires on fire risk of spontaneous combustion in the trial the defendant insurance company argued that: according to the Huludao city of Liaoning Province even issued by mountain fire brigade accident can clear the fire area and the fire point is located on the left side of the car left in the truck trailer rear axle side wheel tire, the cause of the Fire Department of the left side of the tire and wheel brake in rear axle shoe friction, high temperature, fire ignited tires. The defendant insurance company according to the insurance contract clause "of" spontaneous combustion spontaneous combustion spontaneous combustion risk definition: no external fire insurance, vehicle collision, no case of capsizing, the car insurance car due to leakage or electrical wires, fuel supply system, carrying the goods such as their own problems caused by fire. The accident caused the fire caused by the friction between the tire and the brake shoe. It is not the scope of self ignition insurance, so the Party of the insurance company does not bear the liability. The two sides live debate court clear accident claims scope Luyuan District People’s court found that: 3:30 on May 25, 2013, the plaintiff Mr. Cao driving the truck because the left side of the tire in the rear axle wheel and the brake shoe friction, high temperature, fire ignited tires, the car, causing the loss of 66086 yuan and 18000 yuan fee, rescue road property loss of 2450 yuan. The vehicles of the plaintiff have been insured against strong and commercial risks, and the commercial risks include fire, explosion, and spontaneous combustion. In the court trial, the plaintiff and the defendant both accepted the evidence, cross examination and debate. They all recognized that the accident was a spontaneous combustion. They were not applicable to the "loss insurance clause of the business vehicle". They should apply the risk clause of fire, explosion and spontaneous combustion in the additional clause. Obey the verdict of the plaintiff ultimately awarded 69718.80 Yuan District People’s court after hearing that: "the provisions of Article 1 of additional clauses" in the fire, explosion, spontaneous loss of insurance clauses, the responsibility of insurance cases include fire, explosion, spontaneous combustion caused by the insured motor vehicle losses. The second rule specifies the exemption from liability: (1) spontaneous combustion only causes losses in electrical, circuit and oil supply systems; (two) the loss of the goods, (three) the loss of tire bursting; (four) the loss caused by artificial direct fuel supply and high temperature baking. The accident in this case does not belong to any item of the insurance company’s deductibles, so the defendant insurance company shall compensate the plaintiff for the loss. The fourth article of the additional insurance clause stipulates that the compensation rate is 20% for each compensation. The vehicle of the plaintiff was insured against compulsory insurance and commercial insurance. In its loss, the vehicle lost 66086 yuan and the vehicle rescue cost was 18000 yuan, which amounted to 84086 yuan, which is the scope of the claim. The defendant insurance company compensated 80% of it, which was 67268.80 yuan. Another loss of the plaintiff is that the loss of road production is 2450 yuan, which belongs to the scope of the third party liability insurance claim, and the defendant insurance company should pay the full amount of compensation. The day before, Luyuan District People’s Court: the defendant insurance companies pay the plaintiff 69718.80 yuan cao. After the declaration, the defendant said that he did not appeal and was subject to the judgment of the first trial. Why should we pay the claim and listen to the chief judge? "In the case, the plaintiff and the defendant dispute focuses on whether the vehicle’s spontaneous combustion belongs to the defendant’s insurance company’s claim range. The defendant quoted the definition of spontaneous combustion in the clause of the spontaneous combustion clause. It is believed that the cause of the fire of the plaintiff in the case is not the case of the definition of spontaneous combustion, so it should not be liable for compensation. But at the same time, the first clause of the clause "fire, explosion and spontaneous combustion loss clause" in the additional clause also stipulates the insurance company’s liability for insurance. Luyuan District People’s court judge Xie Wei said that a range of spontaneous combustion, two provisions made different provisions shall apply in these cases is beneficial to the provisions of the insurance people and the interpretation of the law, so the case should be applied "additional clauses" to resolve the dispute. Xie Wei said that, due to the essential characteristics of the insurance contract, the insured is in the weak position in the insurance contract. The interests of the parties to protect the insurance activities, especially the insured, are one of the purpose and purpose of the legislation of the insurance law in China. The insurance industry in China started late, but in recent years has made great progress, the health insurance industry should in order to safeguard the interests of the insured as the goal and direction, is to protect the interests of the insurer’s health on the development of the insurance industry, is not only an evaluation index, but also its purpose. In the practice of trial, when the case is encountered, the judge should also combine the provisions of the law and consider the purpose and purpose of the legislation to analyze the case and judge the case. Reporter Xu Wei correspondent Zhang Yuzhuo Wang Changan

货车起火 保险公司:轮胎起火不算在自燃险范围不赔   “我家的货车交强险和商业险都交了,可在高速路上起火保险公司咋就不给理赔呢?”就因为这件事,市民曹先生从2013年一直憋屈到今年。不过,有理不怕讲。令曹先生感到欣慰的是,日前绿园区人民法院受理了此案,并依法保护了被保险人权益。   货车路上起火   保险公司理赔出尔反尔   2013年5月25日3时30分,曹先生驾驶的货车行驶至京沈高速北京方向距离塔山服务区2公里处时突然发生火灾,造成货车和货物及路产损坏。因为此前他在某保险公司投保了交强险和商业险,就与该保险公司协商理赔,保险公司亦同意赔偿。然而,2013年10月30日,该保险公司却以本事故不属保险责任赔偿范围为由,提出拒绝赔偿。曹先生非常不解,遂将该保险公司诉至绿园区人民法院,要求被告履行保险义务支付赔偿款及合理费用88986元。   保险公司认为   轮胎起火不在自燃险范围   被告保险公司在庭审中辩称:根据辽宁省葫芦岛市连山区消防大队出具的事故认定书可以明确,起火部位及起火点位于货车挂车车厢左侧左后桥里侧轮胎处,起火原因系左后桥里侧轮胎轮毂与刹车蹄片摩擦,产生高温,引燃轮胎,引发火灾。被告保险公司提出,根据保险合同里《自燃险条款》对自燃的定义:自燃险即没有外界火源,保险车辆也没有发生碰撞、倾覆的情况下,由于保险车辆本车漏油或电器、线路、供油系统、载运的货物等自身发生问题引起的火灾。本次事故为轮胎与刹车蹄片摩擦引起火灾,不属自燃险范围,所以保险公司一方不承担赔偿责任。   双方现场辩论   法院理清事故理赔范围   绿园区人民法院经审理查明:2013年5月25日3时30分,原告曹先生驾驶的货车由于左后桥里侧轮胎轮毂与刹车蹄片摩擦,产生高温,引燃轮胎,引发火灾,造成该车损失66086元及施救费18000元、路产损失2450元。原告的车辆投保了交强险和商业险,商业险中包括了火灾、爆炸、自燃损失险。   在庭审中,原告、被告双方经过举证、质证和辩论,均认可本次事故属于自燃,不适用《营业用汽车损失保险条款》,应适用《附加险条款》中火灾、爆炸、自燃损失险条款。   服从一审判决   原告最终获赔69718.80元   绿园区人民法院经过庭审认为:《附加险条款》中火灾、爆炸、自燃损失险条款的第一条规定,承担保险责任的情况包括火灾、爆炸、自燃造成被保险机动车的损失。第二条规定了责任免除的情形:(一)自燃仅造成电器、线路、供油系统的损失;(二)所载货物自身的损失;(三)轮胎爆裂的损失;(四)人工直接供油、高温烘烤造成的损失。本案中的事故不属于保险公司免赔事项中的任何一项,故被告保险公司应对原告的损失予以赔偿。《附加险条款》第四条规定,每次赔偿实行20%的免赔率。原告的车辆投保了交强险和商业险,在其损失中,自身车辆损失66086元、车辆施救费18000元,共计84086元,属于该条款理赔范围,被告保险公司赔偿其中的80%,计67268.80元。原告的另一项损失即路产损失为2450元,属于商业第三者责任险理赔范围,被告保险公司应全额赔偿。   日前,绿园区人民法院一审判决:被告保险公司给付原告曹先生69718.80元。宣判后,被告表示不上诉,服从一审判决。   为啥要给予理赔   听听主审法官咋说   “本案中原告、被告争议焦点是原告的车辆自燃是否属于被告保险公司理赔范围内。被告援引《自燃险条款》中关于自燃的定义,认为本案中原告的车辆起火原因不属于‘自燃’定义中的情况,因此不应承担赔偿责任。但同时,《附加险条款》中的‘火灾、爆炸、自燃损失险条款’的第一条也对保险公司承担保险责任的情况做出了规定。”绿园区人民法院法官谢薇称,关于自燃的范围,两个条款做出了不同的规定,在这种情况下应适用有利于被保险人的规定和法律解释,所以本案应适用《附加险条款》解决争议。   谢薇表示,由于保险合同的本质特征,被保险人在保险合同中处于弱者地位。保护保险活动的当事人,尤其是被保险人的利益是我国《保险法》的立法宗旨与目的之一。我国保险业起步较晚,但近些年已有了很大的发展,健康的保险业应当以维护被保险人的利益为目标和指向,被保险人的利益保护对保险业的健康发展而言,既是一个评价指标,也是其目的。而在审判实践中,遇到具体个案时,法官也应结合法条规定,综合考虑立法宗旨和目的分析案情,裁判案件。 记者 徐微 通讯员 张玉卓 王长安相关的主题文章: