Stolen vehicles seized not exceeding March insurance company compensation

Abstract: After the vehicle was stolen, the public security organs seized in the field, for various reasons failed to bring back in time.　　At this time, should the insurance company compensate the owner for the loss of "whole vehicle theft rescue"? One of Mr. Wang's cars, November 30, 2003

After the vehicle was stolen, the public security organs seized in the field, for various reasons could not be taken back in time. At this time, should the insurance company compensate the owner for the loss of "whole vehicle theft rescue"?

A black sedan of Mr. Wang was missing on November 30, 2003. In March 2004, when the stolen car was found in Xinjiang, it was easy to master several times.
When it was discovered, the car was high for the natives, and he bought the "black vehicle" without knowing it. When the public security organ sent a member to Xinjiang to lift the car, the high obstruction failed to extract the success in time.

Mr. Wang, who had been waiting for several months, filed a claim against the insurance company because he had insured the whole car theft rescue.

According to the terms of motor insurance: "The insured vehicle was stolen, robbed or robbed for more than three months by the public security organ on the case of an unauthorized person, the insurer shall compensate for its direct economic loss according to the insured amount." Mr. Wang believes that his car has been filed by the public security organs for more than three months, always color platform, he still did not get the car, insurance companies should compensate for economic losses.

But the insurer refused to pay the compensation. They believe that although the stolen vehicle has not yet been recovered, the public security organ has actually mastered the car, and the insurance company should not bear the insurance liability again.

The two sides commented stalemate and finally litigated. The Court considered that the main reason for the differences between the two sides was that there was a discrepancy in the understanding of motor insurance clauses. In the case of the insured, "no-case detection" means that the stolen vehicle is not available and the insurance company considers that it should refer to the public security organ.

According to 31st of the Insurance Law, "the People's Court or the arbitral institution shall make an explanation in favour of the insured and the beneficiary in case of the dispute between the insurer and the insured, the insured or the beneficiary in respect of the terms of the contract." ”

At the same time, 41st of the Contract law stipulates that "if the understanding of the form clause is disputed, it shall be interpreted in accordance with the usual understanding." If there are two or more interpretations of the terms of the format, it shall be interpreted in a way that is detrimental to the provision of the format clause. ”

Therefore, when the insured Mr. Wang and the insurance company on the understanding of the terms of the dispute, it should be in favor of Mr. Wang's explanation.

In this case, the insurance company should pay the indemnity to Mr. Wang first.

Stolen vehicles seized not exceeding March insurance company compensation