>>>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
 
Guiding Case No. 25: Beijing Branch of Huatai Property Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Li Zhigui and Zhangjiakou Office, Hebei Branch of Tian'an Property Insurance Co., Ltd. (Dispute over an insurer's subrogation right)
指导案例25号:华泰财产保险有限公司北京分公司诉李志贵、天安财产保险股份有限公司河北省分公司张家口支公司保险人代位求偿权纠纷案
【法宝引证码】

Guiding Case No. 25: Beijing Branch of Huatai Property Insurance Co., Ltd. v. Li Zhigui and Zhangjiakou Office, Hebei Branch of Tian'an Property Insurance Co., Ltd.(Dispute over an insurer's subrogation right)

 

指导案例25号:华泰财产保险有限公司北京分公司诉李志贵、天安财产保险股份有限公司河北省分公司张家口支公司保险人代位求偿权纠纷案

(Issued on January 26, 2014, as adopted by the Judicial Committee of the Supreme People's Court after deliberation) (最高人民法院审判委员会讨论通过 2014年1月26日发布)

Guiding Case No. 25 指导案例25号
Keywords 关键词
Civil action; insurer's subrogation right; jurisdiction 民事诉讼 保险人代位求偿 管辖
Judgment's Key Points 裁判要点
Where, after having compensated the insured in an insurance accident caused by a third party's damage to the subject matter of insurance, the insurer exercises its subrogation right to bring an action for the insured's right of compensation from the third party, the court having jurisdiction over the action should be determined according to the legal relationship between the insured in subrogation and the third party, rather than the legal relationship in the insurance contract. Where the third party infringes upon the lawful rights and interests of the insured, the court at the place of the tort or the domicile of the defendant should have jurisdiction. 因第三者对保险标的的损害造成保险事故,保险人向被保险人赔偿保险金后,代位行使被保险人对第三者请求赔偿的权利而提起诉讼的,应当根据保险人所代位的被保险人与第三者之间的法律关系,而不应当根据保险合同法律关系确定管辖法院。第三者侵害被保险人合法权益的,由侵权行为地或者被告住所地法院管辖。
Relevant Legal Provisions 相关法条
Article 28 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二十八条
Paragraph 1, Article 60 of the Insurance Law of the People's Republic of China 中华人民共和国保险法》第六十条第一款
Basic Facts 基本案情
On June 1, 2011, Beijing Branch of Huatai Property Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Huatai Insurance”) and Beijing Yada Jindu Catering Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Yada Jindu Catering”) entered into a motor vehicle insurance contract, under which the plate number of the insured vehicle was Jing A82368 and the insurance duration was from 00:00 on June 5, 2011, and 24:00 on June 4, 2012. On November 18, 2011, when Chen (with first name withheld) drove the insured vehicle on the Airport Expressway in Chaoyang District, Beijing, a traffic accident occurred between the insured vehicle and the vehicle driven by Li Zhigui with the plate number of Ji GA9120, causing damage to the insured vehicle. It was determined by the traffic administrative department that Li Zhigui was solely liable for the accident. After the occurrence of the accident, Huatai Insurance compensated the insured, Dada Jindu Catering, in the amount of 83,878 yuan as agreed upon in the insurance contract, and legally obtained the subrogation right. Since the vehicle causing the accident was covered by the mandatory motor vehicle traffic accident liability insurance underwritten by Zhangjiakou Office, Hebei Branch of Tian'an Property Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Tian'an Insurance”), Huatai Insurance brought an action in the People's Court of Dongcheng District, Beijing in October 2012, requesting the court to order that defendants Li Zhigui, the driver causing the accident, and Tian'an Insurance should compensate the plaintiff in the amount of 83,878 yuan and assume all the litigation fees. 2011年6月1日,华泰财产保险有限公司北京分公司(简称华泰保险公司)与北京亚大锦都餐饮管理有限公司(简称亚大锦都餐饮公司)签订机动车辆保险合同,被保险车辆的车牌号为京A82368,保险期间自2011年6月5日0时起至2012年6月4日24时止。2011年11月18日,陈某某驾驶被保险车辆行驶至北京市朝阳区机场高速公路上时,与李志贵驾驶的车牌号为冀GA9120的车辆发生交通事故,造成被保险车辆受损。经交管部门认定,李志贵负事故全部责任。事故发生后,华泰保险公司依照保险合同的约定,向被保险人亚大锦都餐饮公司赔偿保险金83878元,并依法取得代位求偿权。基于肇事车辆系在天安财产保险股份有限公司河北省分公司张家口支公司(简称天安保险公司)投保了机动车交通事故责任强制保险,华泰保险公司于2012年10月诉至北京市东城区人民法院,请求判令被告肇事司机李志贵和天安保险公司赔偿83878元,并承担诉讼费用。
The domicile of defendant Li Zhigui was Shacheng Town, Huailai County, Zhangjiakou City, Hebei Province; the domicile of defendant Tian'an Insurance was 108 East Yanjing Road, Shacheng Town, Huailai County, Zhangjiakou City; the place where the insurance accident occurred was the Airport Expressway in Chaoyang District, Beijing; and the address of the owner of the insured vehicle as indicated on the vehicle license was 8 Xinzhong West Street, Gongti North Road, Dongcheng District, Beijing. 被告李志贵的住所地为河北省张家口市怀来县沙城镇,被告天安保险公司的住所地为张家口市怀来县沙城镇燕京路东108号,保险事故发生地为北京市朝阳区机场高速公路上,被保险车辆行驶证记载所有人的住址为北京市东城区工体北路新中西街8号。
Judgment 裁判结果
On December 17, 2012, the People's Court of Dongcheng District, Beijing issued a civil ruling (No. 13663 [2012], First, Civil Division, Dongcheng): The action brought by Huatai Insurance should be rejected. After the pronouncement of this ruling, neither of the parties appealed, and this ruling came into force. 北京市东城区人民法院于2012年12月17日作出(2012)东民初字第13663号民事裁定:对华泰保险公司的起诉不予受理。宣判后,当事人未上诉,裁定已发生法律效力。
Judgment's Reasoning 裁判理由
In the effective ruling, the court held that: Under Article 60 of the Insurance Law of the People's Republic of China, an insurer's subrogation right meant the right legally obtained by an insurer to be subrogated to the insured's right of compensation from the third party that caused damage to the subject manner of insurance and assumed the compensatory liability. The subrogation right of an insurer as directly prescribed by the law was a statutory right of the insurer, rather than a right agreed upon in an insurance contract. Where an insurance accident occurred for the damage caused by a third party to the subject matter of issuance, after having compensated the insured, the insurer exercised its subrogate right to bring an action for the insured's right of compensation from the third party, the court having jurisdiction over the action should be determined according to the legal relationship between the insured in subrogation and the third party. Where the third party infringed upon the lawful rights and interests of the insured, and a tort action was brought, the court at the place of the tort or the domicile of the defendant should have jurisdiction in accordance with Article 28 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, the provisions on the jurisdiction over property insurance contract disputes should not apply, and the jurisdiction should not be determined based on the place where the subject matter of insurance was located. In this case, the third party committed a tort in road traffic, causing an insurance accident, and the insured had the right to claim damages against the third party. If the insurer exercised its subrogation right to bring an action against the third party, the action should be under the jurisdiction of the court at the place of the tort or the domicile of the defendant. Neither the domiciles of the two defendants nor the place of the tort was located in Dongcheng District, Beijing. The People's Court of Dongcheng District, Beijing had no jurisdiction over the action, and a ruling should be issued to reject the action.

 法院生效裁判认为:根据《中华人民共和国保险法》第六十条的规定,保险人的代位求偿权是指保险人依法享有的,代位行使被保险人向造成保险标的损害负有赔偿责任的第三者请求赔偿的权利。保险人代位求偿权源于法律的直接规定,属于保险人的法定权利,并非基于保险合同而产生的约定权利。因第三者对保险标的的损害造成保险事故,保险人向被保险人赔偿保险金后,代位行使被保险人对第三者请求赔偿的权利而提起诉讼的,应根据保险人所代位的被保险人与第三者之间的法律关系确定管辖法院。第三者侵害被保险人合法权益,因侵权行为提起的诉讼,依据《中华人民共和国民事诉讼法》第二十八条的规定,由侵权行为地或者被告住所地法院管辖,而不适用财产保险合同纠纷管辖的规定,不应以保险标的物所在地作为管辖依据。本案中,第三者实施了道路交通侵权行为,造成保险事故,被保险人对第三者有侵权损害赔偿请求权;保险人行使代位权起诉第三者的,应当由侵权行为地或者被告住所地法院管辖。现二被告的住所地及侵权行为地均不在北京市东城区,故北京市东城区人民法院对该起诉没有管辖权,应裁定不予受理。
 

     
     
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