Therefore, excellent auto insurance staff specially consulted the major insurance companies, and got the feedback that AXA Tian Ping Property Insurance Company has compensation for animal damage in its car damage insurance, and the vehicle damage caused by animal damage belongs to the scope of compensation. Other insurance companies have not explicitly agreed that vehicle losses caused by animals are within the scope of liability exemption.
Although it is accidental for animals to damage vehicles, it is by no means a case. 2065438+041654381October, Mr. Wang's car, who lives in Jiangning, Nanjing, was also bitten by wild dogs. At that time, the insurance company he insured did not pay for it.
Should the insurance company pay for the car damage caused by animals?
Guangdong Mr. Lu's car engine was damaged by rats, and it cost 16883 yuan to repair it. Unexpectedly, the insurance company refused to pay compensation on the grounds that the mouse entered the damaged engine because of the vehicle design defect. Mr. Lu sued the court, and the First People's Court of Dongguan held that the insurance company's claim did not provide any evidence to prove it, and sentenced the insurance company to pay Mr. Lu's vehicle maintenance fee in full 16883 yuan.
The mouse damaged the car insurance company and refused to pay.
At about 4: 30 pm on February 5 last year, when Mr. Lu was driving the vehicle involved to the section of Baisha Wucun in Humen, Dongguan, he suddenly heard an abnormal sound and the car stopped immediately. Mr. Lu got off the bus and opened the hood, and found nothing unusual. So I called Dongguan Hong Jun Automobile Trading Co., Ltd., and the company sent personnel to the scene to check and found a mouse stuck on the engine belt, and then towed the vehicle back to Dongguan Hong Jun Automobile Trading Co., Ltd.
After inspection, it was found that the vehicle engine was seriously damaged, and Lu reported the case to the insurance company on the same day. After the insurance company sent personnel to Dongguan Hong Jun Automobile Trading Co., Ltd. for investigation, they thought that the damage was caused by rats and refused to pay for it.
The two sides were at loggerheads, and Mr. Lu sued the insurance company to the First People's Court of Dongguan.
The court ordered the insurance company to pay in full.
During the trial, Mr. Lu and the insurance company confirmed that the vehicle involved was damaged because the mouse was stuck on the belt of the engine of the vehicle involved.
The insurance company believes that due to the design defects of the vehicle involved, the mouse entered the damaged engine, and Mr. Lu should claim compensation from the relevant responsible party.
However, Mr. Lu said that he paid a repair fee of 16883 yuan for the vehicle involved in the maintenance case, and provided a maintenance list and maintenance invoice to prove it. The insurance company argued that the accident loss claimed by Lu did not fall within the scope of vehicle loss insurance.
The court held that both Mr. Lu and the insurance company confirmed that the vehicle involved was damaged because the mouse was stuck on the belt of the engine of the vehicle involved. The insurance company's claim did not provide any evidence to prove it, and the court refused to accept it according to law.
The court held that Mr. Lu provided an invoice to prove that his vehicle maintenance fee was 16883 yuan, and the insurance company had no evidence to the contrary to refute it, and the court adopted it according to law. Therefore, Lu sued the insurance company to pay the vehicle maintenance fee of 16883 yuan, which was well-founded in law and supported by the court according to law. Finally, the court ruled that the insurance company paid Lu's vehicle maintenance fee 16883 yuan.
The losses caused by animals cannot be exempted.
It is understood that this case is the first compensation case concluded by the First People's Court of Dongguan for an animal crashing into a car. The presiding judge believes that the focus of such cases lies in whether the insurance company should compensate for the damage caused by animals when the insurance clause does not specify that the damage caused by animals belongs to the insurance liability and the exemption clause does not stipulate the damage caused by animals.
The judge said that Articles 3 to 6 of the vehicle loss insurance are about the exemption of liability, but there is no clear agreement that the vehicle loss caused by animal causes belongs to the scope of exemption of liability.
Secondly, in the first article of vehicle loss insurance, the insurance company adopts the method of listing to agree on the reasons for the loss of the insured vehicle. However, as we all know, there are many reasons for vehicle damage, and there are many possibilities besides those listed in the insurance contract terms by the insurance company. As a provider of standard terms, an insurance company should follow the principle of fairness to determine the rights and obligations of both parties.
Thirdly, since the liability of rats or animals for vehicle loss is not clearly stipulated in the insurance clauses, the party providing the standard clauses should be given an unfavorable explanation. The purpose of vehicle loss insurance is to make up for the loss of the insured vehicle. If the vehicle involved is indeed damaged, the insurance company should pay for it.