网约车商业三者险拒赔质疑

Questioning Rejection of Commercial Third Party Liability Insurance Claims by Online Car-hailing

家庭自用车变更为网约车后发生的事故,商业三者险可以拒赔,这是目前我国法院的通行做法。拒赔之法律基础,乃在于被保险人违反危险增加之通知义务。然而,较之家庭自用车,网约车的实际风险并非皆然显著增加,判决保险人全然拒赔的做法有违对价平衡原则和比例原则。这也表明,我国关于危险增加通知义务规定可能有失妥当。而当下较为合理的赔付是:对全营运和半营运的网约车事故,保险人至少应当按照实交保费与应交保费的比例赔付,对偶尔营运的网约车事故,保险人应当依照家庭自用车保险合同的约定全额赔付。欲使网约车保险符合对价平衡原则,保险人应当采取UBI模式定价,开发专门的网约车保险产品,如此亦能大幅降低网约车商业三者险的纠纷。

After a family car registered as a online-hailing car,the insurer usually rejected its commercial third party liability insurance claims.This practice is commonly recognized by our courts.The reason is the insured’s breach of the duty of notice of increased risk.However,the actual risk of online-hailing cars is not all significantly higher than that of family cars,and the insurer’s total rejection violates the principle of consideration balancing and the principle of proportion,which also indicates that China’s provisions on notification of increased risks may be inappropriate.The more reasonable compensation is:for the accident of complete operation or half operation online-hailing cars,the insurer ought to pay at least according to the proportion of paid-in premium and premium payable,and for the accident of occasionally operating online-hailing cars,the insurer ought to pay the amount in full specified in the insurance contract for family cars.In order to make online car-hailing insurance conform to the principle of consideration balancing,the insurer should adopt the UBI model pricing and develop specialized online-hailing car insurance products.This can significantly reduce commercial third party liability insurance disputes for online-hailing cars.