"Traffic Accident Compulsory Insurance Regulations' Understanding And Application Of Article 22

As a mandatory liability insurance, to pay compulsory insurance is different from the commercial motor vehicle third party liability insurance. As liability insurance, to pay compulsory insurance policy is also different from the social security and insurance. "Traffic Insurance Ordinance," the legislative purpose is to protect the motor vehicle road traffic accident victims receive compensation according to law and to promote road safety. The implementation of strong narrow purpose is to protect the victims of personal injury, property damage can be promptly filled. Play set in the insurance risk of loss of this tradition spread the basic functions of liability insurance at the same time pay high insurance more special protection of the interests of third parties to ensure traffic safety, and other social benefits to maximize the value function. "Road Traffic Safety Law", "Insurance Law" are "Traffic Insurance Regulations" basis and the development of higher-level laws. "Tort Law" in the provisions of Chapter VI of the motor vehicle accident liability. "Tort Liability Act," to prevail over "Traffic Insurance Regulations." In addition to "Traffic Insurance Regulations", the Traffic Insurance should also accept the "Road Traffic Safety Law", "Insurance Law", "Tort Law" adjustments. From the context of view, the insured person deliberately creating road traffic accidents and other four cases, the insurance company should bear the responsibility to advance, rather than the finality of compensation insurance liability. Such as "Traffic Insurance Regulations" in Article 22 for the insurance company's responsibility to understand the responsibility to pay compensation insurance, contrary to the "Insurance Law" Article 27 paragraph 2 of the established principles. The deliberate creation of the insured person in road traffic accidents and other four cases, the insurance company to advance the scope of liability should not be limited to the victim's rescue costs. "Traffic Insurance Ordinance," Article 22, paragraph 1, does not specify the victim's other insurance companies for personal injury damages. "Traffic Insurance Ordinance," Article 21, Article 22 there are contradictions between the "Traffic Insurance Ordinance," Article 22, paragraph 1, paragraph 2, also exist between the incomplete or contradictory, should be expansion of the integrated use of purpose, system explanations of legal loopholes compensation or legal interpretation to be addressed, namely, the insurance company for disability compensation, death compensation, compensation for moral damage and other losses of victims of personal injury within the limits of liability should be borne in advance responsibility. "Traffic Insurance Ordinance," Article 22, paragraph 2, the victim's insurance company for property damages, inconsistent with the "Traffic Insurance Ordinance," the legislative purpose, in violation of the "Road Traffic Safety Law" Article 76 of the requirements. National People's Congress State Council shall revoke or modify the provisions of that paragraph before the deal with "Traffic Insurance Ordinance," Article 22, paragraph 2 of the "property damage" to a narrower interpretation that the insurance company only for the victim property rights have been violated and the occurrence property damages. At the same time, a measure based on considerations such as interest, insurance companies assume the responsibility to advance, it should be entitled to recover the actual virulence.