is 1 yuan "stick" insurance? What is the likelihood of a premature death?

~ Wen/Zhao occupy Liu Fuyin


spend 1 yuan to pay less than 100 yuan vehicle parking fines?


Yes, recently mobile phone app "OK Insurance" launched a special "stick insurance" service, owners need only mobile phone registration, fill in the license plate, car owners and other information, and spend 1 yuan to buy the service, when the vehicle parking illegally, through the app to pay fines, can be reduced by 100 yuan.


This service once launched, unusually hot, the author also deliberately buy an experience. According to Zishi, the owner, the app now has more than 200,000 users. However, this kind of service is popular at the same time also quickly aroused the widespread controversy of the society. Is the so-called "stick insurance" legal? Is the software enterprise an illegal business? Will it encourage illegal parking? Should it be regulated? Such questions and arguments continue.


the core of these arguments is whether the so-called "stick insurance" is insurance. If it is an insurance product, it is obviously illegal to launch the software platform on its own; if it is not an insurance product, it is an Internet value-added service.

Is "
" insurance?


according to the provisions of the insurance law, the so-called insurance, refers to the insured according to the contract, to pay insurance premiums to the insurer, the insurer for the contract may occur due to the occurrence of the accident caused by the loss of property to bear the liability for compensation, or when the insured death, disability, disease or reach the contract agreed to the age, The Commercial Insurance Act of paying the insurance liability when the time limit is equal to the condition.

There is a logical flaw in this provision of
. According to the logic law defined by concept, the definition of the term = differential + proximity is a concept. Differential reflects the characteristic essential attribute of the defined item, and the common essential attribute is reflected by the concept. For example, to "commodity" under the definition of goods used in exchange for labor products. Among them, "to Exchange" is a unique intrinsic attribute, and "Labor products" is a common essential attribute.

The core of the concept definition of insurance in
is that "insurance is a commercial Insurance Act", which is obviously wrong. Moreover, in the premise of the concept of insurance is not clearly defined, the use of "commercial insurance", "insurer", "insured", "insurance" and so on a series of words containing the word to define what is insurance, into a logical paradox.


The author has used so many jerky terms to illustrate that the concept of insurance is inaccurate and does not reflect the most essential thing in insurance law. This leads to the problem that a large number of contracts in practice may be wrongly regarded as insurance contracts. For example, I have a housing, temporarily not live, to a friend to keep, and pay a certain fee, the two sides of the contract agreed to custody during the period of damage caused property loss, friends should pay a certain amount of compensation. It should be said that this conforms to the "insurance" concept of the unique intrinsic attributes. But if I say this is an insurance contract, I pay the premium, I'm afraid no one will believe such a ridiculous statement.


now, let's look at the so-called "patch insurance", "OK Car Insurance" app only uses the name of "Patch Insurance", service guarantee, purchase method, use method and precautions, etc. are used in terms of "user", "User price", "illegal treatment of 100 yuan" and other statements. These are changed to "policyholders", "insurance premiums", "insurance premiums", the so-called "stick insurance" can be classified as insurance? Or, "Patch insurance" instead of "patch subsidy", is not classified as insurance? With the changes in the form of several words, the essential attribute of "stick insurance" is changed correspondingly? The author thinks, according to "Insurance law" to judge whether "stick insurance" belongs to insurance is difficult to get accurate conclusion, even difficult to draw a conclusion.

Can
insurance object be illegal?

One of the many points of view of
about "sticking to a risk" seems to be a consensus. That is, illegal parking is an offence, the provision of insurance or subsidies for such acts will encourage illegal parking, but also an offence.


as to whether it will encourage illegal parking, I think not to generalize. In many places, parking fines are higher than 100 yuan, bought a "stick insurance" on the wayward parking many times is not worth the candle. Even if the penalty amount is $100, how many car owners deliberately stop illegally because someone has posted the money? More car owners in order to reduce the unintentional parking violation of the loss, access to psychological comfort.


As for illegal parking, there is no doubt that a violation of traffic regulations. If the nature of "stick Insurance" belongs to insurance, is it illegal to stop illegally for insurance? In fact, our laws do not prohibit the person outside of my own illegal behavior to pay. For example, the owner bought a third party liability insurance, because of violations of traffic regulations, insurance vehicles accident, resulting in a third person suffered personal injury or property loss, according to law by the insured economic responsibility, insurance company is responsible for compensation. Therefore, can not say that illegal acts as an insurance object must be illegal.


If the "stick insurance" qualitative does not belong to insurance, but represents a common civil contract, the owner of illegal parking, others willing to pay a certain amount, both of you love me, belong to the scope of autonomy, do not violate the mandatory provisions of existing laws. This so-called "stick insurance" is actually a name of the Internet value-added services, the illegal said that the lack of evidence.

Will the
"patch insurance" be regulated?


insurance industry is a regulatory industry, only the insurance companies and insurance organizations established by law can operate insurance business, other units or individuals may not operate. In accordance with the interim measures for the regulation of Internet insurance business (draft for soliciting opinions), the third party network platform participates in the insurance Services of Internet insurance business, such as underwriting, settlement, surrender, complaint and customer service, and the corresponding insurance business qualification should also be obtained.


So, if the "patch Insurance" qualitative insurance products, then "OK Insurance" app operators should have insurance qualifications, if there is no insurance qualification, taking into account the establishment of insurance companies are very high threshold, I am afraid can only cooperate with the insurance company.


has two ways to approve and record insurance company's insurance. According to the insurance clauses and insurance rate management measures of property insurance companies, there are two kinds of types of insurance for approval: One is to carry out compulsory insurance in accordance with law, and the other is the Insurance Regulatory Commission to identify other related social public interests. In addition, the other need only report to the CIRC for filing. At present, there are very few kinds of insurance in the form of filing, because the existence of the fallback clause, which is identified by the CIRC as other relations of the public interest, can be said to be basically approved.


comprehensive view, "patch insurance" facing the biggest regulatory risk is that the insurance Law on the concept of the definition of inaccurate, too wide, do not exclude the CIRC will "stick insurance" identified as the possibility of insurance. Once done this cognizance, "OK insurance" NET can only cooperate with insurance company, by insurance company launches, and insurance company launches "stick a risk" also very likely need to obtain approval of CIRC rather than record, the CIRC may also consider whether it will encourage illegal parking and affect traffic order in the examination and approval. Therefore, "stick a risk" in the future may face a lot of regulatory obstacles, there is the possibility of premature death.


However, innovation in the Internet often seeks space in the gap between policies, if the "stick Insurance" is covered by the CIRC, Internet enterprises can change their marketing methods, no longer use the "insurance" gimmick, the "stick Insurance" also changed to "patch subsidy" or other name, or even modify product rules, reduce the amount of subsidy, Change the subsidy condition, the user can obtain the strip subsidy without paying. In this way, it may be that "patch risk" will eventually break through regulatory barriers.


Author Introduction: Zhao Occupation, well-known it and intellectual property lawyers, China Internet Association Credit Evaluation Center Legal advisor, China University of Political Science and technology, intellectual Property Center special researcher, Economic sound and legal daily special commentator. Email:zhaozhanling123@163.com. Welcome to subscribe to micro-letter public number: It-law, pay attention to the law of IT industry, reviews hot events and cases, interpretation of the latest legal policy.