Liabilities Of Compensations About Malicious Accidents In Compulsory Insurance For Traffic Accident Of Motor-Driven Vehicle

Malicious accident is not rare in real life which has brought great influence to the victims and the social public order. When referring to the responsibility of malicious accident beared by the insurer, the relevant law including the Article 76 of < Road traffic safety law of the People's Republic of China >, the Article 21 and Article 22 of< Motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations >,and Article 9 of< Motor vehicle compulsory liability insurance clauses>.and just because the difference in the contents and effectiveness grade gave rise to same case with different sentence in insurance judicial practice. Different courts have different verdict and argument, with regarded to how to take responsibility for their own actions by the insurer and the insured in malicious accidents, there has bring a big dispute in judicial practice and also give rise to a mass perplex, however the key point of this matter is totally about the problem of how we apply the Article 22 of< Motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations >.There exist a variety of views as refer to how to take responsibility by the insurance in malicious accident stipulate by the Article 22 of< Motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations >, and is mainly revolve the insurance and the court. Almost all the insurance think they only need undertake the liabilities of compensations of rescue cast, and need not to take any other compensate duty, just because its stipulation of the Article 22 of< Motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations >, but however, the courts in various regions did not agree, and mainly includes the following three point of view. Firstly, the Article 76 of < Road traffic safety law of the People's Republic of China >has established the No-fault liability principle in compulsory insurance for traffic accident of motor-driven vehicle, that is, when the traffic accident happened, the insurance should take the compensation responsibility, not the payment on account, the Article 22 of< Motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations >became void cause it has a conflict with the host law, therefore, when regarded to the case of malicious accident, the Article 76 of < Road traffic safety law of the People's Republic of China >should be directly applied and let the insurance undertake the compensate responsibility. Secendly, the Article 22 of< Motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations >did not mention the personal damage compensation explicitly, then for the sake of the public transportation safety and to protect the victims which in the weak position, the insurance should not only pay the rescue cast but also take the responsibility of the personal damage, but not include the property damage. Thirdly, the insurance should only take responsibility of the rescue cast, and not include the other damage, as it were, the last point is the sentence the most inflexible application of the Article 22 of< Motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations >,and also is the most disputable sentence in the practice.On account of different point of view and the controversy in the practice above, I consider that the root cause which give rise to the ambiguous point in the practice is different people have different standpoint and the conflict and obscure in the stipulation of such related laws. With regard to the former, the different standpoint including: first, protect the innocent victim and stabilize the social order. With regard to the latter, the conflict and the obscure stipulate in related laws including: first, the range of the responsibility undertaking by the insurance stipulates in the Article 76 of < Road traffic safety law of the People's Republic of China >, the Article 22 of< Motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations >, and Article 9 of< Motor vehicle compulsory liability insurance clauses>are different and conflicted. Second, the Article 22 of< Motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations >has an obscure expression that did not mention the property damage and whether to pay the personal damage or not. This text will concentrate on some important questions about the analysis and perfection of the Article 22 of< Motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations >, by means of introducing some concentrate cases, analyze the root causes of such different sentences, straighten up the relationship between the related laws and regulations, by means of various interpretative approaches, in order to present what the Article 22 of< Motor vehicle traffic accident liability compulsory insurance regulations >really want to say. Last and most important, the text will bring up some perfecting suggestions through above analysis including: take responsibility of the personal concentration, not pay the property damage, conform the “payment on account” responsibility and endow the insurance with the first to the right of defense, set up the afterwards recovery mechanism.