Article 1
On June 5438+1October 65438+May 2009, the applicant Guangzhou Haizhu Fengyang Hengfa Textile and Weaving Co., Ltd. insured the plaintiff's building with a value of 300,000 yuan and warehouse with a value of 7 million yuan located in Lekang Xiyue New District, Haizhu District, Guangzhou. On February 2, 2009, the plaintiff issued the property all risks insurance policy to the applicant, and the insurance period was from 0: 00 on February 3, 2009 to 20 10.
On February 9, 2009, the insured found that the insurance subject matter on the second floor of No.23 Erheng Lane, Lekang Xiyue New District, Haizhu District, Guangzhou was wet by the water leakage on the third floor, and reported the case to the plaintiff while eliminating the accumulated water to reduce the loss, requesting on-site investigation and claiming compensation. Plaintiff sent personnel to inspect the site on February 10, 2009, and paid the insurance compensation of 25,446.438+03 yuan to Cai Xiaoming, the first indemnified, on April 28, 2009. The loss of the subject matter of the insured was caused by water leakage on the third floor, and the owner of the house on the third floor was the defendant, so the plaintiff sued for: 1, and the defendant paid the principal of insurance compensation of 254,246.13 yuan, and paid the plaintiff interest according to the loan interest rate stipulated by the People's Bank of China during the same period from April 29, 2009 to the actual settlement date; The legal costs of this case shall be borne by the defendant.
Insurance subrogation dispute case 2
20 12 March, a textile company in Shanghai entrusted a freight forwarding company in Shanghai to import a batch of cotton, which was underwritten by an insurance company in Shanghai. After the goods arrive at Shanghai Port, the freight forwarding company is responsible for arranging to store the goods in a bonded warehouse in Shanghai. At the beginning of August of the same year, the bonded warehouse company left the scene because of rent arrears. The owner of the warehouse, Shanghai A Warehouse Company, took over the warehouse, pried open the originally blocked warehouse door and arranged for elevator company B to repair the elevators in the warehouse. Elevator Company B illegally welded the warehouse during the construction, which caused a fire and the cotton in the warehouse was burned.
After compensation, an insurance company filed a lawsuit in court, demanding that A storage company and B elevator company bear tort liability for all goods losses. Company A argues that it is not the custodian of the goods and should not be liable for compensation. Elevator Company B raised an objection to the fixed loss amount.
The court held that in the process of exercising the right of claim on behalf of the insurer, the insurer can choose to claim rights from the other party based on the contractual relationship between the insured and the third party, or directly claim rights from the infringer based on the tort relationship. The amount of loss of goods should be comprehensively determined by combining trade contracts, customs declarations and transport documents. The illegal welding behavior of elevator company B constitutes infringement and should be liable for tort compensation. When the fire broke out, storage company A was actually in charge of the goods, and the loss of the goods was jointly and severally liable with company B within 30%.
Insurance subrogation dispute case 3
On June 1 1, Huatai Property Insurance Co., Ltd. Beijing Branch (hereinafter referred to as Huatai Insurance Company) signed a motor vehicle insurance contract with Beijing Yada Jindu Catering Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Yada Jindu Catering Company). The license plate number of the insured vehicle is Beijing A82368, and the insurance period starts from June 20 1 1. 2011118+00, when Chen was driving the insured vehicle to the airport expressway in Chaoyang district, Beijing, he had a traffic accident with the vehicle with the license plate number of Ji GA9 120, causing damage to the insured vehicle. As determined by the traffic control department, _ _ you are fully responsible for the accident. After the accident, Huatai Insurance Company compensated the insured Yada Jindu Catering Company for 83,878 yuan according to the insurance contract, and obtained the right of subrogation according to law. Based on the fact that the vehicle involved in the accident was insured in Zhangjiakou Branch of Tianan Property Insurance Co., Ltd. Hebei Branch (Tianan Insurance Company for short), Huatai Insurance Company appealed to the Dongcheng District People's Court in Beijing on 20 12+00, requesting that the defendant driver Gui and Tianan Insurance Company pay 83,878 yuan and bear the litigation costs.
The defendant _ _ Gui's domicile is Shacheng Town, Huailai County, Zhangjiakou City, Hebei Province, and the defendant Tianan Insurance Company's domicile is Yanjing East Road 108, Shacheng Town, Huailai County, Zhangjiakou City. The insurance accident occurred on the airport expressway in Chaoyang District, Beijing. The owner's address recorded in the driving license of the insured vehicle is No.8 Xinzhong West Street, Gongti North Road, Dongcheng District, Beijing.
Insurance subrogation dispute case 4
Since June, 2004, Ms. Chen has purchased a series of additional risks in an insurance company in Shanghai for five consecutive years, such as vehicle collision insurance (with a coverage of 250,000 yuan) and personal injury accident liability insurance. In March 2008, a Mercedes-Benz driven by Ms. Chen killed a man who was crossing the expressway for speeding. The transportation department determined that Ms. Chen had a secondary responsibility, that is, to bear 30% of the losses. According to the assessment of the insurance company, Ms. Chen has spent a total of 6.5438+0.5 million yuan on repairs due to car damage. At the same time, because Ms. Chen also bought personal injury accident liability insurance, the insurance company needs to compensate for the death of A. * * * 654.38+0.20 thousand yuan
Ms. Chen believes that according to the relevant provisions of the Insurance Law and the insurance contract signed with the insurance company, the insurance company should pay the insured a loss of 6.5438+0.5 million yuan in advance, and the insurance company has the right of subrogation, so it can claim compensation from a family member. Insurance company's opinion: according to the principle of "compensation according to responsibility", the insurance company only needs to compensate Ms. Chen for the car damage within 30%. In this case, the third party caused an accident while crossing the road and eventually died, and no longer has the ability to compensate. Therefore, the remaining 70% loss is claimed by the insured himself from the third party.
Relevant search contents of insurance subrogation dispute cases;
1. 10 Good typical case
2. Case analysis of automobile insurance
3. Cases of carriage of goods by sea
4. What is the legal effect of the arbitration or trial clause?
5.20 16 latest provisions on the cause of action of civil cases