[Introduction to the case] On October 9, 2017, A insured all his vehicles with compulsory traffic insurance and motor vehicle third party liability insurance with the insurance company. Article 3 of the insurance clause of the third party insurance stipulated: Property damage cau

[Introduction to the case]

On October 9, 2017, A insured all his vehicles with compulsory traffic insurance and motor vehicle third party liability insurance with the insurance company. Article 3 of the insurance clause of the third party insurance stipulates: The insured motor vehicle causes property damage In case of loss, the insured vehicle shall not be liable for compensation if the following circumstances occur: (5) The insured motor vehicle did not undergo annual inspection as required when the insured accident occurred.

In March 2018, A collided with a motor vehicle driven by B while driving, causing serious damage to B's vehicle. The transportation department determined that A was driving to maintain a safe distance and rear-ended the traffic accident, and A assumed full responsibility for the accident. . After that, B sued the court, demanding that the insurance company insured by A and A compensate for its losses.

[Points of Dispute]

If the insured vehicle exceeds the annual inspection validity period when an insured accident occurs, does this constitute an exemption from insurance liability?

[Both parties’ views]

Plaintiff: If an insurance accident insured by an insurance company occurs, the insurance company should bear the insurance liability.

Insurance company: The insurance clause uses the prohibitive provisions of the law as a reason for exemption in the insurance contract, and a reminder has been given to this clause. Therefore, the insurance company should not be liable for compensation.

[Court’s View]

The court held that: 1) According to the traffic accident determination document, the insured accident in this case occurred because the insured vehicle did not maintain a safe distance and rear-ended, and was not caused by the safety performance of the insured vehicle. The occurrence of the accident was related to the insured vehicle. There is no causal relationship between the overdue annual inspection of the insured vehicle; 2) The insured vehicle has exceeded the annual inspection validity period when applying for insurance. The vehicle driving license is the basic information that must be provided to the insurer when applying for insurance. For the inspection validity period stated on the supplementary page of the driving license, the insurance company It should be fully understood; 3) Failure to conduct annual inspections as required is an exemption clause, and the insurer should fulfill its obligation to remind and clearly explain. The insurer has no evidence to prove that it has fulfilled this obligation and should bear the adverse consequences.

[Lawyer’s Interpretation]

In real life, many insured vehicles do not undergo annual inspections as required for various reasons. After a traffic accident occurs, insurance companies often refuse compensation on the grounds that the vehicles have not undergone annual inspections. In this case, the traffic accident There is no causal relationship between the occurrence of the accident and the failure of the insured vehicle to undergo annual inspections. The court mainly determined that the insurance company should bear the liability for compensation based on this. Whether the insurance company's denial of compensation can be established in such a situation must be analyzed based on the specific circumstances of the case.

Dear friends, if you encounter insurance legal issues, you are welcome to consult me.