The statute of limitations for the exercise of insurance subrogation claims after the insurer pays insurance compensation in batches.
Published:
2021-12-15
[brief case]] In 2012, a Tianjin Beverage Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Tianjin Beverage Company") signed a one-year house lease contract with a scientific research institute in Chengde (now "Chengde Academy of Sciences"), agreeing that the company would lease the warehouse of the institute to store products and equipment. In December of the same year, a beverage company in Tianjin insured all risks to the Beijing branch of an insurance company. On April 20, 2013, an electrician of a scientific research institute in Chengde illegally operated, causing a fire in the warehouse, and the items stored in the warehouse of a beverage company in Tianjin were burned. Later, the Higher People's Court of Hebei Province determined in a separate civil judgment that the electrician's behavior was an act of duty, and the institute was mainly liable for compensation for the accident. After the accident, a beverage company in Tianjin applied for a claim to the Beijing branch of an insurance company for the loss of the accident. Beijing Branch of an insurance company paid insurance compensation of 2.5 million yuan and more than 1.92 million yuan to a beverage company in Tianjin on June 9, 2013 and November 11, 2014 respectively according to the insurance contract. On November 9, 2016, the Beijing branch of an insurance company filed a subrogation lawsuit with the People's Court of Shuangqiao District, Chengde City, Hebei Province. The first-instance judgment found that the first insurance compensation of 2.5 million yuan had passed the statute of limitations for subrogation. The claim for the insurance money was not supported. Later, the company appealed to the Intermediate People's Court of Chengde City, Hebei Province, and the original judgment was upheld in the second instance. In 2018, the company applied for a retrial, and the Hebei Provincial higher people's Court made a retrial judgment on November 29, 2018, finding that the first insurance compensation of 2.5 million yuan did not exceed the statute of limitations, and decided to revoke the 1. judgment of second instance. A scientific research institute in Chengde should pay compensation for fire losses to the Beijing branch of an insurance company within the scope of full insurance compensation in accordance with the proportion of fire accident liability. focus of controversy] Whether the insurance compensation claimed by the insurance company exceeds the statute of limitations. The court of first instance held that] According to the first paragraph of Article 60 of the the People's Republic of China Insurance Law, the insurance company must meet the following conditions to exercise the right of recovery: first, the insurance company has compensated the insured for the insurance money; second, the loss of the subject matter of the insurance is caused by the damage of a third party. In this case, the insurance contract relationship between a Tianjin beverage co., ltd. and the plaintiff is legal and valid. the plaintiff has paid compensation for the actual losses of a Tianjin company caused by the accident according to the insurance contract between the two parties. therefore, the plaintiff has the right to claim subrogation from a certain academy of sciences in Chengde city for 60% of the insurance premium payable. According to the provisions of Article 16, paragraph 2, of the (II) of the Supreme People's Court on the Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Application of the the People's Republic of China Insurance Law, the limitation period for the insurer's right of subrogation shall be calculated from the date on which it obtains the right of subrogation. According to the first paragraph of Article 60 of the Insurance Law, the insurer shall, from the date of compensation to the insured, exercise the right of the insured to claim compensation from a third party within the scope of the amount of compensation. Therefore, the date on which the insurer obtains the subrogation claim is the date on which its insurance is paid. In this case, the plaintiff paid insurance compensation of RMB 2500000 yuan and RMB 1920296.79 yuan to a company in Tianjin on June 9, 2013 and November 11, 2014 respectively. On June 9, 2013, the plaintiff's first insurance compensation of RMB 2500000 yuan obtained the right of subrogation against an academy of sciences in Chengde City. On November 11, 2014, the plaintiff's second insurance compensation of RMB 1920296.79 yuan obtained the right of subrogation against an academy of sciences in Chengde City. This case is a dispute over damages between the plaintiff, a Beijing branch of an insurance company, acting on behalf of a company in Tianjin, and the defendant. It is a lawsuit based on the debt of infringement. The limitation period of action should be two years. The limitation period for the plaintiff's first insurance compensation is from June 10, 2013 to June 9, 2015. According to Article 140 of the General Principles of Civil Law, the limitation of action is interrupted by the initiation of a lawsuit, the request of one of the parties or the consent to perform the obligation. The limitation period is recalculated from the time of the interruption. Article 10 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Limitation of Action System in the Trial of Civil Cases stipulates that under any of the following circumstances, it shall be deemed as "a request by one of the parties" stipulated in Article 140 of the General Principles of Civil Law, which shall have the effect of interruption of the limitation of action: (2) One of the parties claims its rights by sending letters or data messages, and the letters or data messages arrive or data messages should arrive or reach the other parties. In this case, a law firm in Beijing sent a lawyer's letter EMS on claiming compensation to a scientific research institute in Chengde City on June 9, 2015. The lawyer's letter did not attach the plaintiff's authorization document. In combination with a law firm in Beijing as the agent of the insurer and the insured in the warehouse fire series case, it could not be determined that it claimed the right to a certain person in Chengde City based on the authorization act. In addition, the EMS did not arrive at the defendant on June 9, 2015, and could not interrupt the statute of limitations for the first insurance compensation. The statute of limitations for the first insurance compensation of 2500000 yuan has passed for the past two years. In this case, the limitation period of action for the second insurance compensation of 1920296.79 yuan was calculated from November 11, 2014 to November 9, 2016. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit with Chengde intermediate people's court, and the limitation period of action for the second insurance compensation of 1920296.79 yuan was not expired. According to the provisions of Article 60 of the Insurance Law, the scope of the insurer's exercise of the right of subrogation is limited to the insurance compensation paid, and the loss of interest after the insurer pays the compensation shall not be claimed to a third party. In accordance with Article 60 of the the People's Republic of China Insurance Law, Article 16 of the Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the the People's Republic of China Insurance Law, Article 140 of the General Principles of the Civil Law, Item (II) of Article 10 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Limitation of Action System in the Trial of Civil Cases, and Article 144 of the the People's Republic of China Civil Procedure Law, the judgment: the 1. defendant, a scientific academy of sciences in Chengde city, shall compensate the plaintiff for 1152178.07 yuan (1920296.79 X60%) of the Beijing branch of an insurance company within 15 days after the judgment comes into effect. The 2. defendant, a trading co., ltd. in Chengde city, shall not be liable for compensation; The 3. rejected other claims of the plaintiff's Beijing branch of an insurance company. The court of second instance held that] After the insurance accident occurred, the Beijing branch of an insurance company paid insurance compensation of RMB 2500000.00 yuan and RMB 1920296.79 yuan to a company in Tianjin on June 9, 2013 and November 11, 2014 respectively according to the insurance compensation request of the insured company in Tianjin and the relevant accident materials provided, indicating that the Beijing branch of an insurance company should know the infringer and infringement when paying the first insurance compensation, and an insurance company Beijing branch did not provide evidence to prove that the two insurance compensation payment methods are agreed by both parties or the legal provisions of the installment payment method, so the two insurance compensation statute of limitations should be calculated separately. The limitation period for the first insurance compensation is from June 10, 2013 to June 9, 2015. Although a law firm in Beijing sent a lawyer's letter claiming compensation to a scientific research institute in Chengde City through EMS on June 9, 2015, the lawyer's letter did not attach the authorization document of a Beijing branch of an insurance company, and it cannot be determined that it claimed rights from a certain company in Chengde City based on the authorization act, and the lawyer's letter did not arrive on June 9, 2015, there is no interruption of the statute of limitations for the first insurance compensation. The judgment of the original court that after the Beijing branch of an insurance company paid the first insurance compensation of 2500000 yuan to a Tianjin company, it claimed this right to a scientific research institute in Chengde city after two years of limitation of action was found to be not improper. The scope of the Beijing branch of an insurance company exercising the right of subrogation as an insurer is limited to the insurance compensation paid in accordance with the provisions of Article 60 of the Insurance Law. The judgment of the court of first instance against the claim of interest of an insurance company Beijing Branch was not supported, and there was nothing improper. In summary, the appellant's appeal request from the Beijing branch of an insurance company cannot be established and should be rejected. The first-instance judgment has clear facts and the applicable law is correct and should be maintained. The retrial court held that] On the question of whether an insurance company's Beijing branch claimed to a Chengde academy of sciences whether the 2500000 yuan insurance compensation exceeded the statute of limitations. The Supreme People's Court on the application
[brief case]]
In 2012, a Tianjin Beverage Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Tianjin Beverage Company") signed a one-year house lease contract with a scientific research institute in Chengde (now "Chengde Academy of Sciences"), agreeing that the company would lease the warehouse of the institute to store products and equipment. In December of the same year, a beverage company in Tianjin insured all risks to the Beijing branch of an insurance company. On April 20, 2013, an electrician of a scientific research institute in Chengde illegally operated, causing a fire in the warehouse, and the items stored in the warehouse of a beverage company in Tianjin were burned. Later, the Higher People's Court of Hebei Province determined in a separate civil judgment that the electrician's behavior was an act of duty, and the institute was mainly liable for compensation for the accident. After the accident, a beverage company in Tianjin applied for a claim to the Beijing branch of an insurance company for the loss of the accident. Beijing Branch of an insurance company paid insurance compensation of 2.5 million yuan and more than 1.92 million yuan to a beverage company in Tianjin on June 9, 2013 and November 11, 2014 respectively according to the insurance contract.
On November 9, 2016, the Beijing branch of an insurance company filed a subrogation lawsuit with the People's Court of Shuangqiao District, Chengde City, Hebei Province,The first-instance judgment found that the first insurance compensation of 2.5 million yuan had passed the statute of limitations for subrogation.The claim for the insurance premium was not supported. The company later appealed to the Intermediate People's Court of Chengde City, Hebei Province,The second trial upheld the original verdict.In 2018, the company applied for a retrial, which was made by the Hebei Higher People's Court on November 29, 2018.The retrial judgment found that the first insurance compensation of 2.5 million yuan did not exceed the limitation of action, and the judgment revoked the 1. second-instance judgment. A scientific research institute in Chengde should pay compensation for fire losses to the Beijing branch of an insurance company within the scope of full insurance compensation according to the proportion of fire accident liability.
focus of controversy]
Whether the insurance compensation claimed by the insurance company exceeds the statute of limitations.
The court of first instance held that]
According to the first paragraph of Article 60 of the the People's Republic of China Insurance Law,The insurance company must meet the following conditions to exercise the right of recovery, first, the insurance company has compensated the insured for the insurance premium, and second, the loss of the subject matter of the insurance is caused by the damage of a third party.In this case, the insurance contract relationship between a Tianjin beverage co., ltd. and the plaintiff is legal and valid. the plaintiff has paid compensation for the actual losses of a Tianjin company caused by the accident according to the insurance contract between the two parties. therefore, the plaintiff has the right to claim subrogation from a certain academy of sciences in Chengde city for 60% of the insurance premium payable. According to the provisions of Article 16, paragraph 2, of the (II) of the Supreme People's Court on the Interpretation of Several Issues Concerning the Application of the the People's Republic of China Insurance Law, the limitation period for the insurer's right of subrogation shall be calculated from the date on which it obtains the right of subrogation. According to the first paragraph of Article 60 of the Insurance Law, the insurer shall, from the date of compensation to the insured, exercise the right of the insured to claim compensation from a third party within the scope of the amount of compensation.Therefore, the date on which the insurer obtains the subrogation claim is the date on which its insurance is paid.In this case, the plaintiff paid insurance compensation of RMB 2500000 yuan and RMB 1920296.79 yuan to a company in Tianjin on June 9, 2013 and November 11, 2014 respectively. On June 9, 2013, the plaintiff's first insurance compensation of RMB 2500000 yuan obtained the right of subrogation against an academy of sciences in Chengde City. On November 11, 2014, the plaintiff's second insurance compensation of RMB 1920296.79 yuan obtained the right of subrogation against an academy of sciences in Chengde City. This case is a dispute over damages between the plaintiff, a Beijing branch of an insurance company, acting on behalf of a company in Tianjin, and the defendant. It is a lawsuit based on the debt of infringement. The limitation period of action should be two years. The limitation period for the plaintiff's first insurance compensation is from June 10, 2013 to June 9, 2015. According to Article 140 of the General Principles of Civil Law, the limitation of action is interrupted by the initiation of a lawsuit, the request of one of the parties or the consent to perform the obligation. The limitation period is recalculated from the time of the interruption. Article 10 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Limitation of Action System in the Trial of Civil Cases stipulates that under any of the following circumstances, it shall be deemed as "a request by one of the parties" stipulated in Article 140 of the General Principles of Civil Law, which shall have the effect of interruption of the limitation of action: (2) One of the parties claims its rights by sending letters or data messages, and the letters or data messages arrive or data messages should arrive or reach the other parties. In this case, a law firm in Beijing sent a lawyer's letter EMS on claiming compensation to a scientific research institute in Chengde City on June 9, 2015. The lawyer's letter did not attach the plaintiff's authorization document. In combination with a law firm in Beijing as the agent of the insurer and the insured in the warehouse fire series case, it could not be determined that it claimed the right to a certain person in Chengde City based on the authorization act.In addition, the EMS did not arrive at the defendant on June 9, 2015, and could not interrupt the statute of limitations for the first insurance compensation. The statute of limitations for the first insurance compensation of 2500000 yuan has passed for the past two years.
In this case, the limitation period of action for the second insurance compensation of 1920296.79 yuan was calculated from November 11, 2014 to November 9, 2016. The plaintiff filed a lawsuit with Chengde intermediate people's court, and the limitation period of action for the second insurance compensation of 1920296.79 yuan was not expired. According to Article 60 of the Insurance Law,The scope of the insurer's right of subrogation is limited to the insurance compensation paid, and the loss of interest after the insurer pays the compensation shall not be claimed to a third party.In accordance with Article 60 of the the People's Republic of China Insurance Law, Article 16 of the Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the the People's Republic of China Insurance Law, Article 140 of the General Principles of the Civil Law, Item (II) of Article 10 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Limitation of Action System in the Trial of Civil Cases, and Article 144 of the the People's Republic of China Civil Procedure Law, the judgment: the 1. defendant, a scientific academy of sciences in Chengde city, shall compensate the plaintiff for 1152178.07 yuan (1920296.79 X60%) of the Beijing branch of an insurance company within 15 days after the judgment comes into effect. The 2. defendant, a trading co., ltd. in Chengde city, shall not be liable for compensation; The 3. rejected other claims of the plaintiff's Beijing branch of an insurance company.
The court of second instance held that]
After the insurance accident occurred, the Beijing branch of an insurance company paid insurance compensation of RMB 2500000.00 yuan and RMB 1920296.79 yuan to a company in Tianjin on June 9, 2013 and November 11, 2014 respectively according to the insurance compensation request of the insured company in Tianjin and the relevant accident materials provided, indicating that the Beijing branch of an insurance company should know the infringer and infringement when paying the first insurance compensation, and an insurance company Beijing branch did not provide evidence to prove that the two insurance compensation payment methods are agreed by both parties or the legal provisions of the installment payment method, so the two insurance compensation statute of limitations should be calculated separately. The limitation period for the first insurance compensation is from June 10, 2013 to June 9, 2015. Although a law firm in Beijing sent a lawyer's letter claiming compensation to a scientific research institute in Chengde City through EMS on June 9, 2015, the lawyer's letter did not attach the authorization document of a Beijing branch of an insurance company, and it cannot be determined that it claimed rights from a certain company in Chengde City based on the authorization act, and the lawyer's letter did not arrive on June 9, 2015, there is no interruption of the statute of limitations for the first insurance compensation. The judgment of the original court that after the Beijing branch of an insurance company paid the first insurance compensation of 2500000 yuan to a Tianjin company, it claimed this right to a scientific research institute in Chengde city after two years of limitation of action was found to be not improper. The scope of the Beijing branch of an insurance company exercising the right of subrogation as an insurer is limited to the insurance compensation paid in accordance with the provisions of Article 60 of the Insurance Law. The judgment of the court of first instance against the claim of interest of an insurance company Beijing Branch was not supported, and there was nothing improper. In summary, the appellant's appeal request from the Beijing branch of an insurance company cannot be established and should be rejected. The first-instance judgment has clear facts and the applicable law is correct and should be maintained.
The retrial court held that]
On the question of whether an insurance company's Beijing branch claimed to a Chengde academy of sciences whether the 2500000 yuan insurance compensation exceeded the statute of limitations. The Supreme People's Court on the application<中华人民共和国保险法〉若干问题的解释（二）》第十六条第二款的规定，保险人代位求偿权的诉讼时效期间应自取得代位求偿权之日起算。本案中，某保险公司北京分公司分别于2013年6月9日、2014年11月11日向天津某公司支付保险赔偿金25000000元、1920296.79元。Although the Beijing branch of an insurance company pays insurance compensation in two payments, the two insurance compensation is the same debt to the same company, so after the Beijing branch of an insurance company has paid the last insurance compensation, it has obtained a complete subrogation claim against the infringer, a certain academy of sciences in Chengde City.
With reference to the provisions of Article 5 of the Provisions of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Limitation of Action System in the Trial of Civil Cases,The period of limitation of action in this case shall be calculated from the date of the last payment of insurance compensation,That is, two years from November 11, 2014. Therefore, an insurance company Beijing Branch filed a lawsuit with the court on November 9, 2016, which did not exceed the statute of limitations. The original trial found that the first insurance compensation paid by the Beijing branch of an insurance company had exceeded the statute of limitations when it sued, which was an error of applicable law. The question of whether the corresponding interest losses incurred by the Beijing branch of an insurance company from the date of payment of insurance compensation should be supported. In accordance with the provisions of Article 60 of the Insurance Law,The scope of the exercise of subrogation rights by an insurance company's Beijing branch as an insurer is limited to the insurance compensation paid.Therefore, the court of first instance did not support the claim that an insurance company's Beijing branch should bear the corresponding interest loss arising from the date of payment of insurance compensation. In summary, the reasons for the retrial application of an insurance company's Beijing branch are partially established and should be supported.
comment]
In claims practice, insurance companies, as insurers, often pay insurance compensation to the insured in batches. China's current laws and judicial interpretations do not clearly stipulate the limitation of action for insurance subrogation claims for the payment of insurance compensation in batches, whether it starts from the date on which the insurer pays each insurance compensation, or from the date on which the insurer pays all the insurance compensation. In this case, the court decided that the limitation period for insurance compensation should be calculated from the date of the last payment of insurance compensation, which is a reasonable determination of the focus of the above-mentioned dispute in accordance with the law and has important guiding significance for the insurer to safeguard its own rights and interests.
Key words:
Related News
Zhongcheng Qingtai Jinan Region
Address: Floor 55-57, Jinan China Resources Center, 11111 Jingshi Road, Lixia District, Jinan City, Shandong Province
