Interpretation of the law by case. The determination of the application of the exemption clause in the insurance contract is not replaced in time.

In September 2019, the plaintiff purchased motor vehicle commercial insurance (including motor vehicle loss insurance, theft and third party liability insurance) from the defendant's insurance company for all Mercedes-Benz BJ7204HE cars. The insurance period is from October 2019 to October 2020, and the insurance amount of motor vehicle loss insurance is 240000 yuan. The plaintiff had a traffic accident while driving on the road in November 2019. The traffic police department determined that the plaintiff assumed full responsibility for the accident. After the accident, the plaintiff reported the case to the defendant in a timely manner. After the defendant company dispatched personnel to inspect the scene of the accident, the plaintiff's vehicle was sent to the repair shop to fix the damage and repair. The total amount of fixed damage to the vehicle was over 60000 yuan. After the vehicle was repaired, the defendant refused to pay compensation on the grounds that the driving license of the vehicle involved in the accident was not examined in accordance with the regulations, and the defendant should not bear the insurance liability according to the insurance terms. The plaintiff then took the report to court and demanded that he bear the cost of repairing the car.

The court held that in September 2019, the defendant issued a motor vehicle commercial insurance policy, stipulating that the insured (the insured) is the plaintiff, the insured vehicle is a Mercedes-Benz BJ7204HE car, the initial registration date is October 2017, the applicable nature of family-owned cars, the contracted type of motor vehicle loss insurance, the insurance amount is 240364.8 yuan, the insurance period is from October 2019 to October 2020, and the special agreement is "5. Dear customers, please check the driving license according to the regulations, in the event of an insurance accident, the driving license of the subject matter of this insurance is not inspected or the inspection is not qualified, the insurer shall not be liable for compensation."

In November 2019, the plaintiff had a traffic accident with others while driving an insured vehicle. The Huaiyin District Brigade of the Traffic Police Detachment of the Jinan Public Security Bureau determined that the plaintiff was fully responsible for the accident. After the accident, the plaintiff reported the case to the defendant and went to the damage fixing point designated by the defendant to fix the damage. The fixed damage amount of the vehicle was 60798.34 yuan.

It was also found out that when the traffic accident occurred on November 9, 2019, the inspection stated in the motor vehicle driving license of the vehicle involved was valid until October 2019. The hearing in this case is that the vehicle involved has obtained the motor vehicle inspection pass mark, and the inspection is valid until October 2021.

The People's Court of Lixia District of Jinan City held that the focus of the dispute in this case is: the insurance policy involved specifically stipulates that "the driving license of the subject of this insurance is not inspected or the inspection is unqualified, and the insurer does not bear the liability for compensation." Can the People's Insurance Jinan Company be exempted from liability in this case.

The plaintiff insures the defendant, the defendant agrees to underwrite and issue an insurance policy, and the insurance contract signed by both parties is legal and valid and should be strictly performed. First of all, from the perspective of the annual inspection policy, in 2014, the Ministry of Public Security and the General Administration of Quality Supervision, Inspection and Quarantine jointly issued Article 11 of the "Opinions on Strengthening and Improving Motor Vehicle Inspection Work", which stipulates that "Starting from September 1, 2014, the trial will be 6 years. Non-operating cars and other small and micro passenger cars are exempt from inspection. For non-operating cars and other small and mini passenger vehicles that have been registered for less than 6 years, when regular inspections are required every 2 years, the owner of the motor vehicle can directly provide the compulsory liability insurance certificate for traffic accidents, the vehicle and vessel tax payment or exemption certificate. The traffic management department of the public security organ applies for the inspection mark, and there is no need to go to the inspection agency for safety technical inspection." In this case, the plaintiff's vehicle was first registered in 2017 and was a non-operating car. The annual examination at the time of the traffic accident did not require safety technical inspection, but only required to apply for inspection marks as required. Secondly, from the interpretation of the intention of the contract, the reason why it is agreed that the insurer is not liable for compensation is that the insurance contract is a lucky contract, and if there is a safety hazard in the insured vehicle, it will increase the probability of an insurance accident, which is obviously unfair to the insurer. There is a certain fault in the plaintiff's failure to apply for the inspection mark in time, but it does not necessarily lead to the reduction of vehicle safety performance, thus increasing the risk of insurance accidents. The plaintiff's failure to apply for the inspection mark on time does not constitute a proximate cause of insurance. Thirdly, judging from the contents recorded in the road traffic accident identification book, the accident was caused by the driver's improper operation, not the potential safety hazard of the vehicle, and the insured vehicle had obtained the inspection mark at the time of the trial, which means that the safety performance of the vehicle has been approved by the department. Therefore, the insurance company cannot refuse compensation according to the above exemption clause.

(1) From the form of the insurance contract, an explanation that is not conducive to the insurance company should be made.

An insurance contract is a standard contract, and according to Article 30 of the the People's Republic of China Insurance Law, "In the event of a dispute between the insurer and the insured, the insured or the beneficiary over the terms of the contract, the terms of the contract shall be interpreted in accordance with the usual understanding. If there are two or more interpretations of the terms of the contract, the people's court or arbitration institution shall make an interpretation in favor of the insured and the beneficiary." and Article 41 of the the People's Republic of China Contract Law, "If there is a dispute over the understanding of the format clause, it shall be interpreted in accordance with the usual understanding. If there are two or more interpretations of the format clause, an interpretation that is not conducive to the party providing the format clause shall be made. If the format clause and the non-format clause are inconsistent, the non-format clause shall be adopted." of the provisions. In this case, the electronic policy is a form contract. When there are two interpretations of a format contract, an interpretation that is detrimental to the provider of the format contract should be made. The two parties agree in the electronic insurance policy that "if the driving license of the subject matter of this insurance fails to be inspected or fails to pass the inspection in accordance with the regulations in the event of an insurance accident, the insurer shall not be liable for compensation". The defendant here does not define it, and the relevant laws and regulations do not define it. When the usual explanation cannot be determined, an explanation unfavorable to the defendant should be made, the "inspection" here only refers to the "safety technical inspection", that is, when the vehicle involved in the case fails to comply with the required safety technical inspection, the defendant shall not be liable.

Secondly, the motor vehicle should be in accordance with the relevant provisions of the safety technical inspection of the purpose is to confirm that the vehicle can drive safely. According to Article 11 of the opinions on strengthening and improving motor vehicle inspection issued by the Ministry of public security and the General Administration of quality supervision, inspection and Quarantine of the people's Republic of China, in this case, the "motor vehicle information query result sheet" issued by the vehicle management office of Jinan traffic police detachment can confirm that the vehicle involved in the case was registered on October 26, 2017, and was a non operating car exempted from safety technical inspection within six years. At the same time, the "motor vehicle information query result sheet" states that the vehicle involved in the case has passed the inspection, and the inspection is valid until October 31, 2021. The safety performance of the vehicle involved has been approved by the vehicle management office of Jinan traffic police detachment.

Therefore, the exemption clause in the electronic insurance policy should be interpreted as "if the driving license of the subject matter of this insurance fails to be inspected or fails to pass the inspection in accordance with the regulations in the event of an insurance accident, the insurer shall not be liable for compensation" as "if the vehicle involved fails to be inspected in accordance with the provisions of safety technology, the defendant shall not be liable for compensation". Because the vehicle involved in the case is a non-operating car that is exempt from safety technical inspection within 6 years, the defendant's reason that the vehicle involved in the case has not been inspected in accordance with the regulations is not valid.

(2) The insurance company shall fulfill the obligation to prompt the exemption clause.

First of all, according to the provisions of Article 17 of the the People's Republic of China Insurance Law, "if an insurance contract is concluded and the standard terms provided by the insurer are adopted, the insurance policy provided by the insurer to the policyholder shall be accompanied by the standard terms, and the insurer shall explain the contents of the contract to the policyholder. For the clause in the insurance contract that exempts the insurer from liability, the insurer shall, when concluding the contract, make a prompt sufficient to attract the attention of the applicant on the insurance policy, insurance policy or other insurance certificate, and make a clear explanation to the applicant in written or oral form on the content of the clause; if there is no prompt or clear explanation, the clause shall not be effective." Article 11 of the (II) of Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the the People's Republic of China Insurance Law: "When an insurance contract is concluded, the insurer shall exempt the insurer from liability in the insurance contract on other insurance documents such as the application form or insurance policy. The clause is prompted by words, fonts, symbols or other obvious signs sufficient to attract the attention of the applicant, the people's court shall determine that it has fulfilled the reminder obligation stipulated in the second paragraph of Article 17 of the Insurance Law. If the insurer makes a written or oral explanation to the insured of the concept, content and legal consequences of the clause in the insurance contract concerning the exemption of the insurer's liability, the people's court shall determine that the insurer has fulfilled the obligation of clear explanation stipulated in the second paragraph of Article 17 of the Insurance Law.", In this case, the defendant only issued an electronic insurance policy to the plaintiff, without the format clause of commercial insurance. In the electronic insurance policy, only the exemption clause is simply listed. The font and font size of the exemption clause in the electronic insurance policy are not significantly different from other clauses, and it is difficult to clearly distinguish between the non-exemption clause and the non-exemption clause in terms of identification. Careful identification is required to see the clause, the visual effect is far from enough to attract the attention of the policyholder, that is to say, the defendant did not make a prompt enough to attract the attention of the policyholder to the exemption clause in the electronic policy.

Secondly, according to Article 13 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, "the insurer shall bear the burden of proof for its performance of the obligation of clear explanation. If the applicant has fulfilled the obligation of clear explanation to the insurer in accordance with the requirements of the second paragraph of Article 11 of this interpretation and signed, sealed or confirmed in other forms on the relevant documents, the insurer shall be deemed to have fulfilled the obligation. Except where there is other evidence that the insurer has failed to perform the obligation to expressly state.", The defendant shall bear the burden of proof that he has fulfilled his obligation to make a clear statement. In this case, the defendant did not prove that he fulfilled the obligation of clear explanation of the exemption clause in the electronic policy, and should bear the adverse legal consequences of the inability to prove.

(3) There is no causal relationship between the occurrence of this insurance accident and the failure of the vehicle involved in the annual inspection as required.

As the court determined, although the vehicle involved in the case was not inspected on time as required, the vehicle involved in the case was exempted from safety technical inspection within 6 years, and there was no potential safety hazard. In other words, the failure of the vehicle involved in the annual inspection will not increase the probability of the insured accident of the vehicle involved in the case. This behavior has no causal relationship with the occurrence of the insured accident and does not constitute a proximate cause in the insurance law.