>>>welcome 河南大学, You have logged in.
Logout History Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Feng Yueshun v. Sun Life Everbright Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Case of Dispute over Insurance Contract)
冯跃顺诉光大永明人寿保险有限公司保险合同纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Feng Yueshun v. Sun Life Everbright Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (Case of Dispute over Insurance Contract)
(Case of Dispute over Insurance Contract)
冯跃顺诉光大永明人寿保险有限公司保险合同纠纷案

Feng Yueshun v. Sun Life Everbright Life Insurance Co., Ltd.
(Case of Dispute over Insurance Contract)

 

冯跃顺诉光大永明人寿保险有限公司保险合同纠纷案

[Judgment Abstract]

 【裁判摘要】
Under Paragraph 2, Article 92 of the Insurance Law,accidental injury insurance belongs to personal insurance, and shall not applythe “compensationfor loss”principle under property insurance. Where aninsuredor beneficiary obtained tort damages froma third partyinjurer, he or she can stillclaim against the insurer for compensation under the insurance contract, andthe insurer shall not refuse to pay theinsurance claimson the ground that the insured or the beneficiary has obtained the tort damages. 根据保险法九十二条第二款的规定,意外伤害保险属于人身保险,不适用财产保险中的“损失补偿原则”。被保险人或者受益人从实施致害行为的第三者处获得侵权赔偿后,仍然可以向保险人主张保险理赔,保险人不得以被保险人或者受益人已经获得侵权赔偿为由拒绝履行保险理赔责任。
BASIC FACTS 

Plaintiff: Feng Yueshun, male, 37-year-old, employee of Tianjin Netcom Company, resides at Xiufengli, Zhulin Road of Hexi District, Tianjin Municipality.

 原告:冯跃顺,男,37岁,天津市网通公司职员,住天津市河西区竹林路秀峰里。
Defendant: Sun Life Everbright Life Insurance Co., Ltd., located at International Building, No. 75 of Nanjing Road of Heping District, Tianjin Municipality. 被告:光大永明人寿保险有限公司,住所地:天津市和平区南京路75号国际大厦。
For the dispute over insurance contract with Sun Life Everbright Life Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Sun Life), Feng Yueshun filed a lawsuit with Heping District People's Court of Tianjin Municipality. 原告冯跃顺因与被告光大永明人寿保险有限公司(以下简称光大永明)发生保险合同纠纷,向天津市和平区人民法院提起诉讼。
Feng Yueshun claimed that: on January 25th, 2005, Feng concluded an individual accidental injury insurance contract with Sun Life. In June 2005, he was injured in a traffic accident, and the expenses on medical treatment totaled 7200 yuan. The plaintiff thus made an insurance claim against the defendant, which refused to pay the insurance money on the ground that the plaintiff failed to provide the traffic accident mediation paper and the relevant original invoices and that the plaintiff had accepted the compensation made by the driver causing the traffic accident. The plaintiff believed that: he could not provide the mediation paper because it was not issued to the plaintiff pursuant to the rules of the public security and traffic control departments; it lacked legal basis for the defendant to take the plaintiff's provision of the related original voices and other papers as the precondition for settling the insurance claim; the plaintiff has sufficiently proved the related facts in the traffic accident, in addition, the plaintiff has provided all original documents to the defendant when he firstly made the insurance claim, yet the defendant said that “the insurance claim will be settled after the driver causing the accident makes compensation,” but after the driver causing the accident made compensation, the defendant still refused to settle, obviously, the defendant had no good faith; the individual accidental injury insurance contract concluded between the two parties did not say that ”if the insurant gets injured as a result of the act of a third party and the third party shall assume the liability for compensation pursuant to law, the insurer shall be exempted from liability,” so the defendant shall settle the insurance claim in accordance with the insurance contract. The defendant's refusal to make compensation has violated the provision of Article 68 of the Insurance Law of the People's Republic of China (hereinafter referred to as Insurance Law), therefore, the plaintiff pleas the court to order the defendant to pay 5000 yuan for the plaintiff's medical expenses. 原告冯跃顺诉称:2005年1月25日,原告与被告光大永明签订个人意外伤害保险合同。2005年6月,原告因交通事故受到意外伤害,经住院治疗,花费各项治疗费用共计7200元。原告就此向被告申请保险理赔,被告以原告没有提交交通事故调解书及相关原始发票,且原告已接受交通事故肇事司机赔偿为由,拒绝赔偿原告保险金。原告认为,根据公安交通管理部门的规定,交通事故调解书并不发放给原告,原告无法提供;被告以原告提交相关原始发票等单据的原件作为保险理赔的前提条件没有法律依据,原告已经向被告充分证明了涉案交通事故的相关事实,且原告最初曾持全部原始单据向被告理赔,但被告提出“应先由肇事司机赔偿后再进行保险理赔”。而原告从肇事司机处获得赔偿后,被告又以此为由拒赔,显然缺乏诚信。原告与被告之间订立的个人意外伤害保险合同中并没有载明“被保险人由于第三者伤害,依法应由第三者承担赔偿责任时,保险人免责”的内容,故被告应当依照保险合同进行保险理赔。被告此举违反了《中华人民共和国保险法》(以下简称保险法)第六十八条装完逼就跑的规定,请求依法判令被告赔偿原告医疗费5000元。
Feng submitted the individual accidental injury insurance contract involved in this case, witnesses' testimonies, the insurance settlement notice issued to the plaintiff by the defendant on November 7th, 2005, the mediation paper over compensation for damage, material related to the compensation and other evidence involved in this case to back up his claim. 原告冯跃顺提交了涉案个人意外伤害保险合同、证人证言材料、被告光大永明于 2005年11月7日向原告出具的保险理赔通知书、涉案交通事故损害赔偿调解书、交通事故损害赔偿相关材料等证据,用以证明其诉讼主张。
Sun Life defended that: when claiming for compensation, Feng did not provide the related original documents as required by the individual accidental injury insurance contract, the lack of such documents caused it impossible for the defendant to make a decision thereon; the defendant has paid insurance indemnity to the plaintiff for the plaintiff's medical expenses and the plaintiff has accepted the compensation made by the driver causing the accident, the plaintiff's losses from the traffic accidence involved in this case have been necessarily and sufficiently recovered, so he shall not make an insurance claim against the defendant for the losses for which compensation has been made by the obligor of compensation for damage of the traffic accident involved in this case, otherwise, the principle of loss compensation would be violated. Therefore, the defendant requests the court to dismiss the plaintiff's claim. 被告光大永明辩称:原告冯跃顺未依照涉案个人意外伤害保险合同的约定向被告提供办理保险理赔的相关原始单据材料,被告无法做出保险理赔决定;被告对原告的医疗费用已经做出保险理赔,原告也已经获得交通事故肇事司机的赔偿,原告因涉案交通事故发生的损失已经得到必要、充分的填补,不应就涉案交通事故损害赔偿义务人已经给予赔偿的损失再次要求被告进行保险理赔,否则将违背损失补偿原则。请求判令驳回原告的诉讼请求。
To back up its defense, Sun Life submitted the insurance policy of Feng, the individual accidental injury insurance contract involved in this case, the application form for settling the insurance claim submitted by the plaintiff to the defendant on August 1st, 2005, the Traffic Accident Report No. 384 [2005] issued by Hexi Detachment of the Public Security and Traffic Administration of Tianjin Municipality on July 13th, 2005, an announcement on documents required for settling insurance claim which was issued by the plaintiff on September 14th, 2005, the insurance settlement notice issued by the defendant to the plaintiff on September 26th, 2005, and the insurance settlement document issued by the defendant to the plaintiff on October 24th, 2005, etc. 被告光大永明为证明其诉讼主张,提交了原告冯跃顺的投保书、涉案个人意外伤害保险合同、原告于2005年8月1日向被告提交的保险理赔给付申请书、天津市公安交通管理局河西支队于2005年7月 13日出具的公交西(2005)第384号《交通事故认定书》、原告于2005年9月14日就保险理赔资料事项出具的声明、被告于 2005年9月26日向原告出具的保险理赔通知书、被告于2005年10月24日向原告出具的保险理赔批单等证据。
Heping District People's Court of Tianjin Municipality verified in the first instance that: 天津市和平区人民法院一审查明:
On January 20th, 2005, Feng submitted an application form to Sun Life for “Yongning Kangshun Comprehensive Individual Accidental Injury Insurance (Elite Program)”, and paid 388 yuan in advance as the insurance premium. Sun Life issued a policy to Feng on January 27th, 2005, confirming that: Sun Life undertakes to provide “Yongning Kangshun Comprehensive Individual Accidental Injury Insurance (Elite Program)” to Feng from January 26th, 2005 to January 25th, 2006, the insurance money for medical treatment of accidental injury is 5000 yuan, and the amount to be paid for hospitalization is 20 yuan per day. It is stipulated in Article 15 (7) (i) of the Insurance Contract that: “If the insurant has any accident admitted by this Contract and needs to be hospitalized for necessary medical treatment, this company shall pay insurance money for medical treatment of accidental injury for the part over 100 yuan of the actual inevitable and reasonable medical expenses spent by the insurant within 180 days since the date of occurrence of the accident. The payment of insurance money for medical treatment of the insurant's accidental injury shall be in the limit of the amount of insurance money for medical treatment of the insurant's accidental injury as indicated in the insurance policy. ” 2005年1月20日,原告冯跃顺向被告光大永明提交投保书,申请投保光大永明“永宁康顺综合个人意外伤害保险(精英计划)”,并预交了保险费388元。光大永明于2005年1月27日向冯跃顺出具保单,确定:光大永明承保冯跃顺投保的“永宁康顺综合个人意外伤害保险(精英计划)”,保险期间自2005年1月26日至2006年1月25日,意外伤害医疗保险金为5000元,每日住院给付金额为每天20元。该保险合同第十五条第七项第一款规定:“被保险人因遭受本合同认定的意外事故,需经医院进行必要的治疗,本公司对其自事故发生之日起180日内支出的必须且合理的实际医疗费用100元以上部分向被保险人给付意外伤害医疗保险金。被保险人意外伤害医疗保险金的累计给付以保险单载明的意外伤害医疗保险金金额为限。”
On June 24th, 2005, Feng was hospitalized for injury suffered in a traffic accident and was discharged on July 28th, 2005, the total hospitalization costs during that period are 6690.41 yuan and the clinic cost is 491.6 yuan. Hexi Detachment of the Public Security and Traffic Administration of Tianjin Municipality issued the Traffic Accident Report No.384 [2005] for this accident on July 13th, 2005, which determined that Huang Baoqi, the driver causing the accident, shall assume all responsibility for this accident, and that Feng shall not assume any responsibility. 2005年6月24日,原告冯跃顺因交通事故受伤住院治疗,至同年7月28日出院,其间共计发生住院医疗费用6690.41元,门诊医疗费用491.6元。天津市公安交通管理局河西支队于2005年7月13日就此次交通事故出具公交西(2005)第384号《交通事故认定书》,认定肇事司机黄宝岐对此次交通事故负全部责任,冯跃顺不负责任。
Feng submitted an application form for insurance settlement to Sun Life on August 1st, 2005, and issued an announcement on insurance settlement material on September 14th, 2005, stating that he could not provide the mediation agreement on compensation for traffic accident injury concluded with the driver causing the accident, receipts, diagnosis certificate and the amount of compensation made by the driver causing the accident. Sun Life issued two notices of insurance settlement to Feng on September 21st, 2005 and November 7th, 2005, respectively, expressly indicating that Feng must submit the original medication agreement on compensation for traffic accident injury and the original documents about his medical treatment, otherwise, the insurance settlement would be suspended. Sun Life issued an insurance settlement document to Feng on October 24th, 2005, stating that Sun Life had paid 600 yuan for each day Feng spent in hospital. 原告冯跃顺于2005年8月1日向被告光大永明提交保险理赔给付申请书以申请保险理赔,并于2005年9月14日就保险理赔资料事项出具声明,表示不能提供其与肇事司机签订的交通事故损害赔偿调解协议、费用收据和诊断证明,也不能提供肇事司机赔偿的金额。光大永明分别于 2005年9月21日、11月7日两次向冯跃顺出具保险理赔通知书,明确表示冯跃顺需提供涉案交通事故损害赔偿调解书以及相关治疗费的原件,否则暂不予保险理赔。光大永明于2005年10月24日向冯跃顺出具保险理赔批单,表明光大永明已赔付冯跃顺每日住院给付金额600元。
On December 7th, 2005, upon the mediation of Hexi Detachment, Feng and Huang Baoqi reached a mediation agreement on traffic accident injury compensation, which stipulated that: the medical expenses (upon the strength of corresponding bills and receipts) spent by Feng in the early days of treatment for his injury from this traffic accident shall be paid by Huang Baoqi, Huang Baoqi shall pay for Feng's loss of working time of six month (upon the strength of the corresponding certificate), nursing fees of two persons in the first month and one person in the second month (upon the strength of the corresponding certificates), as well as medical treatment costs, travel costs, traffic costs and nutrition costs for later days inevitable for curing his injury suffered from this traffic accident, totaling 18,500 yuan, once and for all. The 18,500 yuan had been paid off already. 2005年12月7日,经天津市公安交通管理局河西支队主持调解,原告冯跃顺与肇事司机黄宝岐达成交通事故损害赔偿调解协议,该调解协议约定:冯跃顺因涉案交通事故受伤所花费的前期治疗费(凭票据)由黄宝岐承担,黄宝岐一次性赔偿冯跃顺误工6个月(凭证明)、陪伴第1个月2人、第2个月1人(凭证明)的相关经济损失,以及冯跃顺因涉案交通事故受伤所必需的后期治疗费、交通费、车款费、营养费等所有损失,以上共计18 500元。该款项黄宝岐已给付冯跃顺。
The above-mentioned facts can be proved by the evidence submitted by Feng and Sun Life and cross-examined in court as well as the statements of both parties. 上述事实,有原告冯跃顺、被告光大永明提交的、业经当庭质证的各项证据,以及双方当事人的陈述在案为证。
The focus of this case shall be: whether Feng can, after accepting the compensation made by the driver causing the traffic accident for his injury suffered from the accident, make an insurance claim against Sun Life, and whether Sun Life shall settle his insurance claim. 本案要解决的争议焦点问题是:原告冯跃顺因涉案交通事故受伤后,在已经获得交通事故肇事司机赔偿损失的情况下,能否再向被告光大永明进行保险理赔,被告应否给予保险理赔。
JUDGMENT'S REASONING 
Heping District People's Court of Tianjin Municipality held in the first instance that: 天津市和平区人民法院一审认为:
The individual accidental injury insurance contract concluded by Feng and Sun Life is legal and valid, and shall be under the protection of law. After accepting the compensation made by the driver causing the traffic accident for his injury suffered from the accident, Feng can still make an insurance claim against Sun Life, and Sun Life is required to settle the claim. 原告冯跃顺与被告光大永明之间签订的个人意外伤害保险合同合法有效,应受国家法律保护。冯跃顺因涉案交通事故受伤后,在已经获得交通事故肇事司机赔偿损失的情况下,仍然可以再向光大永明主张保险理赔,光大永明应当给予保险理赔。
First, the “Yongning Kangshun Comprehensive Individual Accidental Injury Insurance (Elite Program)” applied by Feng and accepted by Sun Life is of a nature of personal insurance instead of property insurance. 首先,被告光大永明承保、原告冯跃顺投保的“永宁康顺综合个人意外伤害保险 (精英计划)”属于人身保险,不属于财产保险的性质。
Personal insurance refers to a type of insurance under which human's life or body is taken as the insurance object and the underwriter shall pay insurance money for the insurant's death, injury, sickness, old age or other accident occurs during the insurance term. Property insurance refers to a type of insurance under which property and the interests thereof are taken as the insurance object and the underwriter shall make compensation if losses occur to the insurant's property and the interests thereof due to special damage or accidents covered by the insurance liability. Accidental injury insurance refers to a type of insurance under which the underwriter shall pay insurance money when the insurant gets injured by accident. Accidental injury insurance has some characters of property insurance, for example, medical expenses for accidental injury are economic losses, the amount of which is determinable, etc. But, fundamentally, accidental injury insurance is based on people's injury by accident, we can't belong it to property insurance on the sole ground that it involves property losses. It is provided in Article 92 (2) of the Insurance Law that: “Personal insurance includes life insurance, health insurance and accidental injury insurance,” which expressly bring accidental injury insurance into the scope of personal insurance. Sun Life has no legal basis to bring the individual accidental injury insurance into property insurance. 人身保险,是指以人的生命或身体为保险标的,当被保险人在保险期限内发生死亡、伤残、疾病、年老等事故或生存至保险期满时,由保险人给付保险金的保险。财产保险,是指以财产及其有关利益为保险标的,当被保险人的财产及其有关利益因发生保险责任范围内的灾害事故而遭受经济损失时由保险人给予补偿的保险。意外伤害保险,是指当被保险人由于遭受意外伤害时,保险人给予保险金的保险。意外伤害保险具有一些类似于财产保险的特点,例如意外伤害造成医疗费用的支出是一种经济损失,这种损失的数额可以确定,等等。但是,意外伤害保险从根本上讲是基于人身发生意外伤害而形成的保险,不能仅因涉及财产损失而将其归属于财产性质的保险。保险法九十二条第二款规定:“人身保险业务,包括人寿保险、健康保险、意外伤害保险等保险业务。”该条款非常明确的把意外伤害保险划分在人身保险中。因此,意外伤害保险应属于人身保险范畴。被告光大永明将涉案个人意外伤害保险归属于财产保险,并无法律上的依据。
Second, the principle of loss compensation is not applicable for accidental injury insurance which is a kind of personal insurance. Feng, after being injured in the traffic accident involved in this case, has the right to make insurance claim against Sun Life after accepting the compensation made by the driver causing the accident, and Sun Life shall settle the claim pursuant to the insurance contract. 其次,作为人身保险的个人意外伤害保险不适用损失补偿原则。原告冯跃顺因涉案交通事故受伤后,在已经获得交通事故肇事司机赔偿损失的情况下,可以再向被告光大永明主张保险理赔,光大永明应依照保险合同给予保险理赔。
The “principle of loss compensation” is an important principle for property insurance. It means that when an insured accident occurs and injures the insurant, the underwriter must fulfill the contractual obligation within the amount of the insurance money and pay for the actual losses suffered by the insurant. The underwriter's payment obligation aims at making up the benefits lost by the insurant due to the insured accident, so the insurant shall not gain additional benefits from the fulfillment of insurance payment obligation. It is stipulated in Article 44 of the Insurance Law that: “If an insured risk occurs due to the damage to the insured object caused by a third party, the insurer shall, starting from the date of paying the indemnities, subrogate the insured to exercise the right to indemnities from the liable third party.” The insurer's right of subrogation as vested by law is also an embodiment of the “principle of loss compensation” for property insurance, it purposes preventing the insurant from obtaining illegitimate benefits from purchasing insurance. At the same time, Article 40 of the Insurance Law places limits on multiple insurance of property, which provides that if the total insured amount of multiple insurance of property exceeds the insured value, the total amount of compensation made by all insurers shall not exceed the insured value. Except otherwise stipulated by the parties concerned, each insurer shall undertake the liability for compensation according to the proportion of its insured amount in the total insured amount. But for personal insurance, it is provided in Article 68 of the Insurance Law that: “If a person covered by life insurance dies, is injured or sick due to the acts of any third party, the insurer shall not be entitled to recover from the third party after paying insurance to the insured or beneficiaries. But the insured or the beneficiaries shall have the right to claim compensation against the third party.” This Article expressly restricts the insurer's exercise of right of subrogation and also vests the insurant or the beneficiary the right to claim for infringement damage compensation against the third party which commits the damaging act. Moreover, the Insurance Law does not include restrictive provisions on multiple insurance of personal insurance. Therefore, the “principle of loss compensation” is not applicable to personal insurance, as the individual accidental injury insurance of this case is a kind of personal insurance, the principle is not applicable to the latter either. “损失补偿原则”是适用于财产保险的一项重要原则,即当保险事故发生并使被保险人遭受损失时,保险人必须在其承担的保险金给付义务范围内履行合同义务,对被保险人所受实际损失进行填补。保险人履行给付义务旨在弥补被保险人因承保危险发生所失去的利益,被保险人不能因保险给付义务的履行而获得额外利益。保险法四十四条规定:“因第三者对保险标的的损害而造成保险事故的,保险人自向被保险人赔偿保险金之日起,在赔偿金额范围内代位行使被保险人对第三者请求赔偿的权利。”法律赋予保险人行使代位追偿权也是财产保险中“损失补偿原则”的体现,其目的就是防止被保险人通过购买保险而获取不当利益。同时,保险法四十条好饿但是不想动限制了财产保险的重复投保,规定在财产保险中重复保险的保险金额总和超过保险价值的,各保险公司的赔偿金额的总和不得超过保险价值。除当事人另有约定外,各保险公司按其保险金额与保险金额总和的比例承担赔偿责任。但是对于人身保险,保险法六十八条规定:“人身保险的被保险人因第三者的行为而发生死亡、伤残或者疾病等保险事故的,保险人向被保险人或者受益人给付保险金后,不得享有向第三者追偿的权利。但被保险人或者受益人仍有权向第三者请求赔偿。”明确限制保险人行使代位追偿权,同时赋予被保险人或者受益人另外向实施致害行为的第三者主张侵权赔偿的权利。而且,保险法对人身保险并无重复投保的限制。因此,“损失补偿原则”不适用于人身保险,当然也不适用于本案中属于人身保险的个人意外伤害保险。
The insurant or beneficiary of accidental injury insurance obtains compensation in accordance with the insurance contract, which is based on the contractual relationship, while the insurant, as a victim, obtains compensation from the infringer, which is based on a legal relationship other than contractual relationship. So the insurer may not refuse to settle the insurance claim under the pretext that the third party committing the damaging act has made compensation to the insurant or beneficiary. The compensation made by Huang Baoqi, the obligor of compensation for traffic accident injury, was compensation for tort liability generated on the basis of tortious act. Sun Life has no right to refuse to fulfill its contractual obligation of insurance indemnity to Feng Yueshun on that ground. This case is about a dispute over the individual accidental injury insurance contract concluded by Feng Yueshun and Sun Life, the traffic accident involved in this case is one of the insured accidents as stipulated in the clauses of the insurance product, to which Sun Life has no objection, so Sun Life shall undertake corresponding insurance liability and pay the insurance money to Feng Yueshun. 意外伤害保险的被保险人或受益人依保险合同取得赔偿系基于保险合同关系,这与意外伤害保险的被保险人作为受害人,因侵害人的过错获取赔偿属于不同的法律关系。因此,保险人不能以实施致害行为的第三人已经向被保险人、受益人给予赔偿为由拒绝保险理赔。交通事故损害赔偿义务人黄宝岐对原告冯跃顺所支付的赔偿,是基于侵权行为的发生而产生的侵权责任赔偿,被告光大永明不得因此拒绝向冯跃顺履行保险赔偿的合同义务。本案是基于冯跃顺与光大永明签订的个人意外伤害保险合同所发生的纠纷,涉案交通事故属于该险种保险条款所规定的保险事故,光大永明对此也不存异议,故光大永明应承担相应的保险责任,给付冯跃顺保险金。
In conclusion, Sun Life's pleading ground that “Feng has accepted the compensation made by the driver causing the traffic accident, his losses from the accident have been necessarily and sufficiently covered, so he shall not make insurance claim against Sun Life over the losses for which compensation has been made, otherwise, the principle of loss compensation will be violated” shall not be upheld. According to the facts of this case, the medical expenses spent by Feng for his injury from the traffic accident involved in this case are over 7000 yuan, but the top limit for compensation as stipulated in the individual accidental injury insurance contract involved in this case is 5000 yuan, so Sun Life shall pay insurance money of 5000 yuan to Feng Yueshun. 综上,被告光大永明关于“原告冯跃顺已经获得交通事故肇事司机的赔偿,冯跃顺因涉案交通事故发生的损失已经得到必要、充分的填补,不应就涉案交通事故损害赔偿义务人已经给予赔偿的损失再次向光大永明主张保险理赔,否则将违背损失补偿原则”的抗辩理由不能成立。根据本案事实,冯跃顺因涉案交通事故住院治疗发生的治疗费用已逾7000元,而涉案个人意外伤害保险合同规定赔偿的最高限额为 5000元,故光大永明应给付冯跃顺保险金 5000元。
JUDGMENT 
Therefore, in accordance with the provisions of Article 106 (1) of the General Rules of the Civil Law of the People's Republic of China and the provisions of Article 24 (1), Article 52 and Article 68 of the Insurance Law, Heping District People's Court of Tianjin Municipality decided in June 2006 that: 据此,天津市和平区人民法院依照《中华人民共和国民法通则》第一百零六条第一款、保险法二十四条第一款、第五十二条、第六十八条的规定,于2006年6月判决:
Sun Life shall pay off 5000 yuan of insurance money to Feng Yueshun within 10 days from the date when this judgment becomes effective. 被告光大永明给付原告冯跃顺保险金 5000元,于判决生效后十日内付清。
The case acceptance fee of the first instance of 210 yuan shall be paid by Sun Life. 一审案件受理费210元,由被告光大永明负担。
After the first judgment was announced, neither party appealed within the statutory period, the first judgment has become effective.

 一审宣判后,双方当事人在法定期间内均未提出上诉,一审判决已经发生法律效力。
 

     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese