On Enlargement Of The Proper Litigants' Scope In The Civil Contract Litigation

In recent years,while motor vehicles are often being borrowed,scholars and practitioners have no unified opinions on the borrower`s status in the liability insurance contract litigation.The research whether the borrower is the proper litigant and whether the proper litigant`s scope is enlarging in the litigation is not only theoretical,but also practical.This article takes the case of a liability insurance contract to analyze the problem above in order to provide a legal support for dealing with similar cases.Except the introduction and conclusion,this article is divided into four parts.The first part,introducing the case simply.The case about liability insurance contract among the owner,the borrower and the Pacific Property Insurance Limited by Share Ltd Wuhu branch is introduced.The claim of this case is requiring the insurance company to pay compulsory insurance money and commercial third party insurance money.The focus of the dispute in this case is whether the borrower is the proper litigant and whether the proper litigant`s scope is enlarging in the litigation.The second part,analyzing the controversial issues in this case theoretically.According to the traditional litigant theory "direct interest",about the compulsory insurance claims,due to compulsory insurance liability insurance contract having given the borrower the right of claim,so the borrower is the subject of litigation,as an essence of the proper litigant.But the "direct interest" theory is incapable of the commercial third party insurance claims.Among "management right theory","dispute management right theory","the interest of litigation theory","the dualism of management rights and interests of litigation",the author finds that "management right theory" can be used as an identification to judge it.Therefore,according to the theory,when the owner gives the vehicle to the borrower,the risk of traffic accident is transferred to the borrower.Basing on the relevant provisions of "the tort liability law","the contract law","the insurance law" and giving some compensation to the victims,the borrower gains the management right of the object of litigation.The third part,coming to a conclusion of this case and commenting on relevant opinions.According to the "management right theory",the vehicle borrower who gained the management right of the object of litigation,becomes a proper litigant,and the phenomenon of the enlargement of the proper litigant`s scope in the litigation happens.Although the trialcourts maintain that the vehicle borrower is the proper litigant,the reason is not sufficient,and it is a defect that the vehicle owner`s qualification to begin a suit can not be rejected in the case.Some mistakes that the vehicle borrower`s status is not correct have appeared in the relevant cases of the insurance contract while the vehicle is being borrowed.The fourth part,the inspiration of this case.The phenomenon that the enlargement of the proper litigant`s scope in the civil contract litigation is very common,and the purpose of the enlargement is to safeguard the social public interests.This article suggests that "the company law","the bankruptcy law","the contract law","the insurance law" to be revised directly give the vehicle borrower,the bankruptcy administrator the independent qualification to begin a suit.