Can the infringer and the insurance beneficiary be the same person to refuse compensation?

At the end of last year, Xiao Yang drove her 1 year-old daughter to work. After parking, he got off with her. Because the car didn't stop well, he put his daughter in the back of the car, got on the bus again and backed up. In this way, the tragedy happened, and Xiao Yang personally ran the car over her daughter's body. After the treatment, Xiao Yang went to the insurance company to negotiate compensation, but the insurance company pointed out that Xiao Yang's insurance agreement stipulated that the insurer was not responsible for compensation for personal injury or death of the insured or the driver and his family. Xiao Yang, 25, originally had a lovely daughter, beautiful and lovely. Only four months ago, the one-year-old child left Xiao Yang forever because of his reversing.

After the accident, Xiao Yang was naturally very sad. After dealing with his daughter's affairs, he went to the insurance company. Unexpectedly, the insurance company refused to compensate Xiao Yang on the grounds that the infringer and the insurance beneficiary were the same person. After mediation by the judge, the insurance company finally agreed to pay Xiao Yang insurance money of 225,000 yuan.

Dad reversed his car and knocked down his daughter.

Xiao Yang, 25, from Anhui, is young and grumpy. A few years ago, he came to work in Ningbo, settled here, married his wife, and soon had a lovely daughter named Lan Lan (a pseudonym)

Xiao Yang likes this daughter very much.

Last year, in February of 65438 and July of 65438, Xiao Yang drove a minivan to work. Naturally, he can't forget to bring light light blue. When he arrived at his destination, the car stopped and he got off with Light Light. Just before leaving, he felt that the car had not stopped yet, so he put his daughter on the ground and told her to stand still, so he got on the bus again and wanted to get on it again.

After getting on the bus, some careless Xiao Yang forgot that Lan Lan was still standing behind the car waiting for him.

He put on reverse gear and released the brake. At this moment, light light blue is standing behind the van. Clever, she only remembers what her father said: stand still. One-year-olds don't realize the danger of cars backing up slowly.

Xiao Yang's pickup truck has no reversing radar, and the car is slowly reversing. He never realized what went wrong.

In this way, the tragedy happened. As a father, Xiao Yang personally drove over his daughter's young body.

Xiao Yang felt as if he had hit something, and then he suddenly realized that he had to get off the bus to check. At this point, light light blue lying motionless on the ground, covered in blood.

Panicked Xiao Yang picked up her daughter's young body and ran to the hospital like crazy, but Lan Lan died because of the rescue.

Insurance company: Killing family members is not covered by compensation.

After the grief, Xiao Yang remembered to negotiate compensation with the insurance company.

What he didn't expect was that the insurance company pointed out that there was a clause in the insurance agreement that Xiao Yang signed with the company in April, 20 1 1, stipulating that the insurer would not be responsible for compensation for personal injury or death of the insured or driver and their families.

Therefore, the insurance company is not responsible for the death of Xiao Yang's daughter.

This made Xiao Yang unable to accept that her daughter was gone and she could not get compensation. The negotiation failed. In desperation, Xiao Yang had to sue the insurance company to the People's Court of Yinzhou District, Ningbo City, demanding that the insurance company pay more than 240,000 yuan.

The two sides finally reached a mediation agreement.

The two sides went to court. Xiao Yang did not appear in court and entrusted a lawyer to represent him.

According to the insurance company, the above terms are clearly stipulated in the insurance contract. Xiao Yang chose insurance, so he should be bound by the terms.

? This clause is set up to avoid moral hazard: when a person kills his family, the infringer and the insurance beneficiary are the same person, and he cannot benefit from his tort. ?

Xiao Yang's attorney has different opinions on the insurance company's statement, because Xiao Yang didn't know this exemption clause at the time of signing the contract. In other words, the insurance company failed to fulfill its reasonable obligation of reminding, so this clause is unreasonable and should be considered invalid.

In the end, the judge decided that this clause could not be applied to this case unless the insurance company had evidence to prove that Xiao Yang had intentionally committed the infringement of his daughter. In other words, the insurance company should compensate Xiao Yang for his losses.

On the other hand, Xiao Yang, as the father of the child, did not fulfill his guardianship responsibility, but also took the initiative to carry out the tort, which was a big fault, so the compensation fee he claimed should be appropriately reduced or exempted.

In the end, the judge organized the parties to mediate and reached an agreement, and the insurance company paid Xiao Yang insurance money of 225,000 yuan.