>>>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
 
He Shengchang v. Shenze Branch of People's Insurance Company of China (A case about disputes over a property insurance contract)
何省昌与中国人民保险公司深泽县支公司财产保险合同纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

He Shengchang v. Shenze Branch of People’s Insurance Company of China (A case about disputes over a property insurance contract)
(A case about disputes over a property insurance contract)
何省昌与中国人民保险公司深泽县支公司财产保险合同纠纷案

He Shengchang v. Shenze Branch of People's Insurance Company of China
(A case about disputes over a property insurance contract)

 

何省昌与中国人民保险公司深泽县支公司

 财 产 保 险 合 同 纠 纷 案
BASIC FACTS 
Plaintiff: He Shengchang, male, 33 years old, native of Shenze County, Hebei Province, officer of Xihe Township of Shenze County. 原告人:何省昌,男,三十三岁,河北省深泽县人,系该县西河乡干部。
Defendant: Shenze Branch of People's Insurance Company of China, (formerly known as Shenze Agency of People's Insurance Company of China, hereinafter referred to as “Shenze Branch”). 被告人:中国人民保险公司深泽县支公司(原名中国人民保险公司深泽县代理处,以下简称深泽县支公司)。
In 1984, the defendant, Shenze Branch, initiated the business of insurance for summer grain fire on wheat ground. On June 3, 1984, He Shengchang and Shenze Branch entered into an insurance contract against summer grain fire on wheat ground, in respect of 7.38 mu of wheat of He Shengchang. The yield was estimated to be 560 jin per mu, and if the unit price was 0.20 yuan per jin, the insured amount for a total of 4,133 jin of the insured wheat should be 826.60 yuan. This contract provided that: the insurer, Shenze Branch, should insure the wheat on the wheat ground of He Shengchang against fire from the entry of wheat into the ground on June 10, 1984 to July 9, 1984. Within this period, if a fire took place on the wheat ground and caused any loss of the insured wheat, the insurer should be liable for compensation. However, if the loss of the insured wheat was caused by a fire taking place for an intentional act of the policy holder or its family member, a natural disaster or accident other than fire or a fire taking place for the policy holder's threshing of wheat on the road in violation of the provisions of the traffic authorities, the insurer should not be liable for compensation. Meanwhile, the contract provided for the policy holder's obligations: the insurance premium should be paid in a lump sum at a rate of 1‰ of the insured amount before the date of commencement of insurance; the policy holder should observe the provisions of the fire control department of the public security authorities and other relevant authorities, accept the insurer's suggestions on safety, and do a good job in the fire prevention and safety; in case of fire on the wheat ground, the policy holder should actively save the wheat, and try his best to minimize losses; after an insurance accident took place, the policy holder should do a good job in protecting the scene, timely report it to the relevant authorities, and notify the insurer within two days. 被告人深泽县支公司一九八四年首次开办麦场夏粮火灾保险业务。同年六月三日,原告人何省昌与深择县支公司就何省昌投保的七点三八亩小麦,以预测承保亩产五百六十斤,每斤二角计价,共计承保小麦四千一百三十三斤,保险金额八百二十六元六角,签订麦场夏粮火灾保险合同一份。合同规定:保险方深泽县支公司自一九八四年六月十日小麦入场时起至同年七月九日止,对投保方何省昌麦场上的小麦实行火灾保险。在此期间,麦场如发生火灾造成保险小麦的损失,由保险方负赔偿责任。但是,如果是由于投保方及家属的故意行为造成火灾,火灾以外的自然灾害和意外事故,投保方违反交通部门的规定在公路上碾打小麦发生火灾三种情况,造成保险小麦的损失时,保险方不负赔偿责任。同时,合同规定了投保方的义务:在起保日前,按保险金额千分之一的比例,一次交清保险费;遵守公安消防及有关部门的规定,接受保险方对安全情况提出的建议,做好防火安全工作;麦场发生火灾,应积极施救,尽量减少损失;出险后做好现场保护工作,及时报告有关部门并在两天内通知保险方。
On the day of signing of the contract, He Shengchang paid a lump sum of the insurance premium of 0.83 yuan to Shenze Branch, and the contract took effect. A few days later, He Shengchang harvested the wheat, and put the wheat on the wheat ground. On June 16, He Shengchang went to work a night shift in the township, and asked his brother, He Huichang, to watch the wheat ground. At the supper time, He Huichang went home for dinner, and went out to handle some affairs after supper. Nobody was watching the wheat ground. At about 10 p.m., a fire occurred on the wheat ground, and the fire was extinguished by the people. However, because there was no water source around the wheat ground, only one of the three stacks of insured wheat was unscathed, and the other two stacks were almost burned up. A total of 430 jin of wheat survived. On the next day, He Shengchang notified Shenze Branch of the fire. Shenze Branch, together with the Fire Control Division of the Public Security Bureau of this county and relevant entities, investigated the fire scene, and the conclusion of the Fire Control Division of the Public Security Bureau of this county was that: the cause of fire was unclear. After the event, because Shenze Branch could not claim any liability exception as set out in the contract, He Shengchang required Shenze Branch to fully compensate for the fire losses, as per the insured amount prescribed in the insurance contract minus the estimated value of the remaining 430 jin of wheat. Shenze Branch refused to calculate the compensation amount as per the insured amount, on the grounds that the actual yield of wheat of He Shengchang was lower than the forecasted yield at the time of acceptance of insurance, the fire losses were not so high, and Shenze Branch could only compensate him for losses as per the actual yield. Disputes continued between them, and on September 3, 1984, He Shengchang brought an action in the People's Court of Shenze County, Hebei Province. 合同签订当天,何省昌向深泽县支公司一次交清保险费八角三分,合同生效。何省昌几天后将小麦收割入场。六月十六日,何省昌到乡里所在单位值班,让其弟何会昌看守麦场。何会昌晚饭时回家吃饭,饭后外出办事,麦场无人看守。晚十时许,麦场发生火灾,经群众抢救扑灭,但因麦场四周无水源,三垛投保的小麦除一垛麦种外,其余两垛基本烧毁,共剩小麦四百三十斤。次日,何省昌将发生火灾的情况通知了深泽县支公司。深泽县支公司同县公安局消防股及有关单位对火灾现场作了勘验,县公安局消防股的结论是:失火原因不明。事后,由于深泽县支公司提不出合同中规定的除外责任的根据,何省昌要求深泽县支公司对火灾损失,按保险合同规定的保险金额扣除所剩四百三十斤小麦的折款后,全部予以赔偿;深泽县支公司则以何省昌的小麦实际产量低于承保时的预测产量,火灾损失没有那么大,只能按实际产量的损失赔偿为理由,拒绝按保险金额计算赔偿。双方争执不下,何省昌于一九八四年九月三日向河北省深泽县人民法院起诉。
The People's Court of Shenze County accepted the case according to law, and no agreement was reached between the two parties after conciliation. Hence, according to Article 46 of the Economic Contract Law of the People's Republic of China光宗耀祖支撑着我去教室, on November 24, 1984, the People's Court of Shenze County ruled that: the amount of fire losses should be 740.60 yuan, which was calculated as per the insured amount of 826.60 yuan in the insurance contract minus the estimated amount of 86 yuan of the remaining 430 jin of wheat, and the defendant, Shenze Branch, should compensate for 80% of the fire losses, i.e. 592.48 yuan; the plaintiff, He Shengchang, should be liable for 20% of the fire losses himself, i.e. 148.12 yuan. After announcement of this judgment, neither He Shengchang nor Shenze Branch was satisfied with it. They respectively appealed to the Intermediate People's Court of Shijiazhuang Prefecture, Hebei Province, on the same grounds in the original action. 深泽县人民法院依法受理此案。经调解双方不能达成协议,故参照《中华人民共和国经济合同法》第四十六条土豪我们做朋友好不好的规定,于一九八四年十一月二十四日判决:按保险合同规定的保险金额八百二十六元六角减去剩余小麦四百三十斤的折款八十六元,余下的七百四十元六角为火灾损失金额,由被告人深泽县支公司负责赔偿百分之八十。计人民币五百九十二元四角八分;原告人何省昌自负百分之二十,计人民币一百四十八元一角二分。宣判后,何省昌和深泽县支公司均不服,先后以原诉理由向河北省石家庄地区中级人民法院提出上诉。
JUDGMENT 
Upon the trial of second instance, the Intermediate People's Court of Shijiazhuang Prefecture found that: (1) The insurance contract against summer grain fire on the wheat ground signed by He Shengchang and Shenze Branch was legal and valid, and both parties should perform it earnestly. Because the fire took place within the insurance period, and Shenze Branch could not prove any liability exception on the fire, the insurer, Shenze Branch, should be liable for the fire losses. (2) The insured amount in the contract was determined by the forecast of the insured yield per mu before the wheat was harvest and put on the wheat ground, and Shenze Branch accepted the insurance premium calculated according to the insured amount. Because the forecasted insured yield per mu was merely an estimated value, it was, in fact, impossible to be fully consistent with the actual yield. In the several investigations after the event, although the yield per mu of the wheat field of He Shengchang in the year estimated by the farmers neighboring the wheat field of He Shengchang varied slightly, it was substantially near the forecasted yield at the time of acceptance of insurance. Meanwhile, when the wheat on the wheat ground was burn up, it was impossible to exactly determine the actual amount of the burned wheat. Accordingly, there were no sufficient reasons and no reliable basis for Shenze Branch to claim that the actual yield of wheat of He Shengchang was lower than the forecasted yield at the time of acceptance of insurance and the compensate for losses should be made as per the actual yield, and such claims should not be supported. The compensation amount should be calculated according to the insured amount in the contract. (3) Before the fire took place, He Shengchang prepared a vat for fire prevention, but did not fill the vat with water. The people had to extinguish the fire with sand and stones after the fire took place, and the losses were not effectively reduced. Moreover, when the fire took place, He Huichang, younger brother of He Shengchang, went home for supper, and did not return to watch the wheat ground after supper. The flame was not found in time, and the fire took place. Accordingly, He Shengchang should be partly liable for the fire losses. Hence, the Intermediate People's Court of Shijiazhuang Prefecture held that: the judgment of first instance of the People's Court of Shenze County on this case was clear in the fact finding and correct in the application of law; it was not improper for it to calculate the compensation based on the insured amount and decide that Shenze Branch should compensate for 80% and He Shengchang himself should be liable for 20% of the balance after deduction of the estimated amount of the surviving 430 Jin of wheat from the insured amount. According to Article 151 (a) of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China (for Trial Implementation)画风不对,如何相爱, on March 30, 1985, the Intermediate People's Court of Shijiazhuang Prefecture ruled to reject the appeals of He Shengchang and Shenze Branch and sustain the original judgment. 石家庄地区中级人民法院经第二审审理认定:(一)何省昌与深泽县支公司签订的麦场夏粮火灾保险合同合法有效,双方应认真履行。由于火灾是在保险期内发生,且深县支公司又不能证明对火灾有除外责任,故保险方深泽县支公司对火灾损失应负赔偿责任。(二)合同保险金额是在小麦收割入场前,通过预测承保亩产量确定的,深泽县支公司也按保险金额收取了保险费。由于承保亩产量的预测仅是估算,事实上不可能与实际产量完全一致;且事后多次调查中,与何省昌麦地四周相邻的农户对何省昌麦地当年的亩产量,虽估计有所不同,但大体上接近承保时的预测产量;同时,在麦场上小麦已烧成灰烬的情况下,不可能对烧毁的小麦的实际数量作出准确的测定。因此,深泽县支公司提出何省昌的小麦实际产量低于承保时的预测产量,要求按实际产量的损失赔偿,理由既不充分,也无可靠的证据,不予认定。赔偿金额应以合同规定的保险金额计算。(三)何省昌在火灾发生前,虽在麦场上备了防火水缸,但却未装水,致使起火后群众用沙石扑灭,未能有效地减少损失。况且火灾发生时,何省昌的弟弟何会昌因回家吃晚饭,饭后没有返回看守麦场,致使火苗未被及时发现,造成大火。故何省昌对火灾损失,亦应负一定责任。据此,石家庄地区中级人民法院认为:深泽县人民法院对该案的第一审判决,认定事实清楚,适用法律正确;以保险金额计算赔偿,在减去剩余四百三十斤小麦折款后,余下部分由深泽县支公司赔偿百分之八十,何省昌自负百分之二十,也并无不当。依照《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法(试行)》第一百五十一条(一)项的规定,于一九八五年三月三十日判决驳回何省昌,深泽县支公司的上诉,维持原判。
COMMENTARY 
On June 5, 1985, when summarizing the trial experience at its 226th meeting according to Article 11 (1) of the Organic Law of the People's Court of the People's Republic of China, the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court deemed that: the extensive implementation of the property insurance system was one aspect of our country's economic system reform, and played an active role in stabilizing the socialist economic order, promoting production and safeguarding the peoples' life. The people's courts should, in their judicial work, actively provide legal protection for the correct execution of the property insurance contract. The judgment of first instance of the People's Court of Shenze County, Hebei Province and the judgment of second instance of the Intermediate People's Court of Shijiazhuang Prefecture, Hebei Province discerned the disputes, clarified the liabilities, and handled the case properly. Not only had the policy holder's legal rights and interests but also the insurer's legitimate interests had been protected. They may serve as a reference for the people's court at all levels.

 最高人民法院审判委员会一九八五年六月五日第二百二十六次会议,依照《中华人民共和国人民法院组织法》第十一条一款的规定,在总结审判经验时,认为财产保险制度的广泛实行是我国经济体制改革的一个方面,对稳定社会主义经济秩序,促进生产,安定人民生活有着积极的作用。人民法院在审判工作中,对财产保险合同的正确执行,应积极提供法律保护。河北省深泽县人法院对该案的第一审判决和石家庄地区中级人民法院的第二审判决,分清了是非,明确了责任,处理得当,既保护了投保方的合法权益,又保护了保险方的正当利益,可供各级人民法院借签。
 

     
     
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