A Study On The Object Of The Insurer's Right Of Recourse In Compulsory Traffic Insurance

The incidence of automobile traffic accidents in China is increasing year by year,and the deductible causes of compulsory automobile traffic accident liability insurance(hereinafter referred to as compulsory traffic insurance)are strictly limited.In addition to the traffic accidents caused by the victims themselves,the compulsory traffic insurance will pay.In order to balance the interests of all parties to the insurance contract and guide safe driving,the regulations on compulsory insurance of motor vehicle traffic accident liability(hereinafter referred to as the regulations on compulsory insurance)and the interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues concerning the application of law in the trial of road traffic accident damage compensation cases(hereinafter referred to as the interpretation on traffic accident damage compensation)stipulate that the traffic insurance insurers shall have five categories The special subject has the right of recourse.However,due to the deviation of legal provisions and the connection between compulsory insurance and tort liability,there are different judgments for the same case in the scope of recovery object,the way of multiple recovery objects to repay compulsory insurance claims,and the proportion of recovery objects to repay the insurer's compulsory insurance claims.Starting from these three aspects,this paper enumerates different ways of dealing with the problems in practice,then analyzes the causes of the problems,discusses the standards of identifying each problem,and puts forward countermeasures and suggestions.First of all,through case analysis,this paper lists three common disputes about the object of recovery in judicial practice: first,whether the object of recovery should be the "perpetrator" or the "infringer",the core of the dispute is whether the object of recovery is only the direct implementer of the tort or the subject of object liability including the tort law,and whether the infringer should be extended Release to themotor vehicle driver or pedestrian who is at fault of the other party.Second,the object of recovery is related to the subject of traffic accident liability.When the owner and the user of the motor vehicle are separated,the way of bearing the liability between multiple subjects is controversial,that is,the liability should be paid by share,joint and several or supplementary.Third,the dispute about the proportion of the recovery object to repay the insurance benefits to the insurer is whether to repay all the insurance benefits paid by the insurer or to repay the insurance benefits according to the proportion of the liability for tort of the responsible person.Secondly,the reasons for the above disputes are as follows: first,there are disputes about the nature of the right of recourse of the insurer in the theory and judicial practice.The nature of the insurer's right of recourse determines the source of the right of recourse and the nature of the relevant legal relationship.The insurer's right of recourse comes from the victim's right of claim for tort damages,which has many similarities with the insurer's right of subrogation,both of which are subrogation in nature.By clarifying the source and nature of the insurer's right of recourse,the legal basis is laid for the following discussion.Secondly,there are disputes on the relationship between compensation liability and tort liability within the scope of compulsory traffic insurance in theory and judicial practice.This paper claims that the liability of compulsory insurance and tort liability belong to the combination relationship,that is,the insurer pays within the legal limit of liability,and the object of recovery pays within the scope of tort liability.Thirdly,there are disputes on the way of bearing the liability to repay the insurance money when the vehicle subjects are separated in theory and judicial practice.In this paper,through the legal interpretation to exclude the possibility of joint and supplementary liability and the practical significance of adopting the liability by share,the author concludes that "corresponding liability for compensation" is the liability by share.Finally,based on the above theoretical analysis,combined with the case and legal provisions,this paper analyzes how to identify the object of recovery in some special cases,including the separation of the owner and the user of the motor vehicle,the situation where the victim is the policyholder,and the situation where the victim is exempt from the liability of the infringer.As well as the analysis of whether the subject of infringement can constitute the object of recovery in some cases,such asthe situation of traffic accident caused by driving suicide,the situation of the driver's hit and run,the situation of temporary suspension of driver's license.Based on the analysis of the recoverable and non recoverable objects in special cases,this paper puts forward some reasonable suggestions to improve the objects of the insurer's right of recourse.