Why did compulsory traffic insurance suffer huge losses!

Five major cases will solve your confusion about compulsory traffic insurance losses!

The latest data released by the China Insurance Regulatory Commission shows that the compulsory traffic insurance business suffered an operating loss of 7.2 billion yuan in 2010, of which underwriting losses were 9.7 billion yuan and investment income was 2.5 billion yuan. This is a clear reflection of the worsening losses following the 2.9 billion yuan operating loss of compulsory traffic insurance in 2009. This shows that the growth of compensation is much greater than the growth of premiums. According to Chen Donghui, an expert from the China Insurance Association's compulsory traffic insurance working group, due to the year-by-year increase in personal injury compensation standards, medical expenses, auto parts prices, etc., the average compensation for compulsory traffic insurance cases has increased from 10% in the first half of 2007 to 3,498 yuan, increased to 4,930 yuan in the second half of 2010, an increase of 41%. What is the reason for the increase in compensation? Because at present, traffic accidents involving personal injuries and large property losses are basically resolved through the courts, so the courts have become the valve for compensation expenditures. If the courts can strictly follow the "Compulsory Insurance Regulations" and "Compulsory Insurance Regulations" If the case is decided according to "Articles", even if the compensation standard continues to increase, the loss for compulsory insurance will not be so tragic.

The insurance industry is no longer a monopoly. A prefecture-level city often has twenty or thirty property insurance companies. The competition is particularly fierce. No company will be vague about its costs, so insurance companies operate The costs are ridiculously high and the only reasonable explanation is that reparations payments have been increased. The premiums collected by many car owners who paid for other people's innocent lives are like water from a dike bursting out in the illegal judgment of the court. The following cases are published below for the study of insightful people from all walks of life. I believe it will solve the confusion of compulsory traffic insurance losses.

Case 1: Judgment of exceeding the medical limit. This is the most common judgment and the one that has the greatest impact on insurance companies.

For example, in the (2011) Shou Min Chu Zi No. 532 judgment issued on May 18, 2011, both parties to the accident were equally responsible. The medical expenses for the three persons were 91,430.70 yuan, food subsidy 69 yuan, and follow-up treatment expenses 1,000 yuan, totaling 92,499.7 yuan. According to Article 21 of the "Regulations on Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance" and the "Announcement on the Limits of Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance" and the compulsory insurance contract, medical expenses However, the judgment ordered the insurance company to bear the full amount. In this case, the insurance company paid an additional 82,499.7 yuan in compensation and also borne 2,000 yuan in legal fees. The full text is as follows:

Shandong Province Shouguang People’s Court

Civil Judgment

(2011) Shouguang No. 5 32

The plaintiff Zhang Moumou, male, born on November 23, 1948, Han nationality, is a villager in Xifeng Village, Hualong Town, Shouguang City.

The entrusted agent is Zhang Huagui, a legal worker at Shouguang Shengdong Legal Services Firm.

The defendant Shen Moumou, male, born on March 8, 1982, Han nationality, lives in Jiushan Town, Linqu County, Shandong Province.

The defendant Shen Moumou, female, born on December 19, 1987, Han nationality, Jiushan Town, Linqu County, Shandong Province.

The entrusted agent is Shen Moumou, male, born on September 29, 1966, Han nationality,

Jiushan Town, Linqu County, Shandong Province. He is the father of defendant Shen Moumou.

The defendant is Weifang Central Branch of a property insurance company.

Plaintiff Zhang Moumou sued defendants Shen Moumou, Shen Moumou, and a certain property insurance company

Weifang Central Branch of the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as an insurance company) Road Traffic

A case involving a dispute over compensation for personal and property damage in a traffic accident was filed with this court on January 13, 2011

After the court accepted the case, it formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law and held a public hearing. The plaintiff Zhang Moumou and his authorized agent, the defendant Shen Moumou, and the defendant Shen Moumou's authorized agent Shen Moumou attended the court to participate in the lawsuit. An insurance company refused to appear in court without justifiable reasons after being summoned by this court. The case has now been concluded.

The plaintiff claimed that the defendant Shen Moumou drove the defendant Shen Moumou’s Lu V6S068

The ordinary passenger car left at 13:20 on October 28, 2010 When he arrived at the Fengcheng intersection of Fengtai Road, he hit the plaintiff and injured him. The losses caused by the defendant to the plaintiff include: medical expenses of 91,430.70 yuan, nursing expenses of 3,000 yuan, lost work expenses of 3,465.60 yuan, living allowance during hospitalization of 6.9 yuan, disability compensation of 26,923.60 yuan, and spiritual comfort payment. 5,000 yuan, follow-up treatment fee of 1,000 yuan, transportation fee of 1,300 yuan, electric vehicle damage of 8,35 yuan, evaluation fee of 2,000 yuan, forensic identification fee of 1,000 yuan, *** total 1,34,2,2,3 90 yuan, and the defendant Shen Moumou has paid 7000 yuan. The vehicle involved in the accident was subject to compulsory traffic insurance with a property insurance company on September 14, 2010. During the insurance period when the accident occurred, we requested a ruling to order the insurance company to bear liability for compensation within the scope of the compulsory traffic insurance, and the remaining portion to be borne by the defendant.

The defendant, Weifang Central Branch of an insurance company, did not submit a defense opinion.

Defendant Shen Moumou argued that he had no objection to the course of the traffic accident and the determination of responsibility for the traffic accident

and that the plaintiff’s losses should be borne by the insurance company.

Defendant Shen Moumou argued that he had no objection to the course of the traffic accident and the determination of responsibility for the traffic accident

and that the plaintiff’s losses would be borne by the insurance company.

After trial, it was found that on October 28, 2010, the defendant Shen Moumou drove the Lu

V6S068 ordinary bus to the Fengcheng intersection of Fengtai Road and drove the plaintiff bruised.

The Shouguang Traffic Police Brigade issued the [2010] No. 0 01 48 6 Accident Certification,

Shen Moumou and Zhang Moumou bear equal responsibility for the accident.

At the same time, it was found that the plaintiff Zhang Moumou was hospitalized in Shouguang People's Hospital for 2 to 3 days. After being discharged from the hospital, a judicial appraisal by the Weifang Shengcheng Forensic Identification Institute concluded that Zhang Moumou constituted a ninth-level disability. There are two levels of disability, one and ten, with 120 days lost from work, 30 days of nursing time, one person to care for, and a continuing treatment fee of 1,000 yuan. The losses suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident include: medical expenses of 91,430.70 yuan, nursing expenses of 3,000 yuan (100 yuan/day × 30 days), lost work expenses of 3,465.60 yuan (28.88 yuan/day × 120 days), and disability compensation. 2 9 3 71 2 yuan (611 9 yuan / year , evaluation fee 200 yuan, forensic identification fee 1000 yuan, transportation fee 500 yuan, totaling 130871.5 yuan. The defendant Shen Moumou has paid the plaintiff Zhang Moumou 7 0 0 00 yuan

It was also found that the Lu V6S068 ordinary bus driven by the defendant Shen Moumou was sued by an insurance company

Compulsory traffic insurance was purchased, and the accident occurred during the insurance period.

The above facts include the accident determination letter of the Traffic Police Brigade of the Shouguang Municipal Public Security Bureau, the compulsory traffic insurance policy, the hospitalization records of the Shouguang People's Hospital, medical bills, medication details, adequacy and assessment fee bills, Weifang The appraisal opinion of the Holy City Forensic Medical Examination Institute, the certificate issued by the unit where the caregiver Zhang Yanli works, a copy of the business license, three months' salary slips, receipts and the statements of the parties involved are recorded in the record as evidence.

This court believes that Shen Moumou was driving a motor vehicle and had a traffic accident with Zhang Moumou. The Shouguang Traffic Police Brigade determined that both parties were equally responsible for the accident. The division of responsibilities was not inappropriate. This court adopted it in accordance with the law. According to the degree of fault of both parties determined in the above-mentioned accident determination document, and taking into account the fact that the plaintiff was a non-motor vehicle and the defendant was a motor vehicle, the insurance company's compulsory traffic insurance compensation limit for the plaintiff's losses was determined to be 60%, which is 5901.9, by the defendant Shen. Yuan (130871.5 Yuan - 121035 Yuan) × 60%], the plaintiff Zhang Moumou was disabled due to the accident in this case and requested a certain amount of solatium for mental damage. The reason is justifiable. In view of the fact that the plaintiff Zhang Moumou bears equal responsibility in the accident in this case, this court A solitary payment of RMB 2,000 for mental damage will be made as appropriate. The plaintiff incurred certain transportation expenses due to the accident, and this court determined the transportation expenses to be 500 yuan at its discretion. The Lu V6S068 car driven by Shen Moumou was insured with compulsory traffic insurance by the defendant insurance company, and the accident occurred during the insurance period. The plaintiff Zhang Moumou's losses should first be borne by the defendant Yongman Insurance Company within the limit of compulsory traffic insurance. The defendant Shen Moumou had no fault in this accident and should not be held responsible. The plaintiff's lawsuit against Shen Moumou was dismissed. The plaintiff Zhang Moumou claimed that the defendant Shen Moumou and the Weifang Central Branch of a Property Insurance Co., Ltd. requested compensation for losses. The facts are clear and the evidence is sufficient. This court supports it. The amount of loss shall be determined by this court. In accordance with Article 117, paragraph 2, and Article 119 of the General Principles of the People's Republic of China and Civil Law, and Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China, The provisions of Article 18 of the "Interpretations of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases" and Article 64 and 128 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China, The verdict is as follows:

1. The defendant, Weifang Central Branch of a property insurance company, shall compensate the plaintiff Zhang Moumou for 121,035 yuan in losses caused by a road traffic accident;

2. The defendant Shen Moumou compensated the plaintiff Zhang Moumou for the loss caused by the road traffic accident

RMB 5,901.9, and paid the plaintiff a solatium for mental damage of RMB 2,000 yuan, totaling ***

7901.9 yuan.

Plaintiff Zhang returned RMB 70,000 advanced by one of the defendants.

After the above two items were offset, the plaintiff Zhang returned 62098.1 yuan to the defendant Shen.

3. Reject the plaintiff’s other claims.

The above one and two judgments shall be paid within ten days after the judgment takes effect.

If the obligation to pay money is not fulfilled within the period specified in this judgment, the case shall be handled in accordance with Article 229 of the "Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China"

It is stipulated that

double the payment of debt interest during the period of delayed performance

The case acceptance fee is 2,985 yuan, which shall be paid by the defendant, a property insurance company in Weifang.

The central branch company will bear 2,000 yuan, the defendant Shen will bear 500 yuan, and the plaintiff Zhang will bear 485 yuan.

If you are dissatisfied with this judgment, you may submit an appeal to this court within 15 days from the date of delivery of the judgment.

A copy shall be submitted according to the number of the other parties and the appeal shall be filed in Shanxi.

Weifang Intermediate People’s Court of Eastern Province.

Presiding Judge Wang Laixiang

Judge Zhang Zhizhong

Judge Sui Huawei

May 18, 2011

Secretary Hou Zengmei

Case 2: The insurance company was judged to bear the liability for compulsory traffic insurance when the limit of property losses exceeded the compulsory insurance limit.

The property loss limit refers to the loss of the three persons’ belongings. In case of liability, the upper limit of compensation is 2,000 yuan. However, the Weifang Court compensated the three persons for their losses based on the full insured amount of 122,000 yuan. In this case, it was judged that the insurance company compensated more than 108,488.48 yuan.

People's Court of Changle County, Shandong Province

Civil Judgment

(2011) Lemin Sanchu No. 817

Plaintiff Chang A certain enterprise cultural activity center in Le County (the owner of Lu G99301 car. Hereinafter referred to as a certain enterprise cultural activity center).

The entrusted agent is Sun Moumou, female, Han nationality, born on September 5, 1985, Han nationality, living in Changle County.

Defendant Jiang Moumou, male, born on November 16, 1981, Han nationality, lives in Daotian, Shouguang City (he is the driver and owner of the Lu GE150V off-road vehicle).

The defendant, Weifang Central Branch of XX Property Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as XX Insurance Company).

After accepting the case of a road traffic accident damage compensation dispute between the plaintiff XX Corporate Cultural Activity Center and the defendants Jiang XX and XX Insurance Company, this court formed a collegial panel in accordance with the law and held a public hearing. The plaintiff XX Sun Moumou, the authorized agent of a certain corporate cultural activity center, the authorized agent of the defendant Jiang Moumou, and the authorized agent of a certain insurance company attended the court to participate in the lawsuit. The case has now been concluded. The plaintiff stated that he requested the court to order the defendant to compensate our company for various losses caused by the traffic accident in accordance with the law, 120,000 yuan.

The defendant Jiang Moumou has no reply.

The defendant, a certain insurance company, argued that compensation should be within 2,000 yuan of property damage.

After trial, it was found that at about 14:40 on July 1, 2011, the defendant Jiang Moumou drove a Lu GE150V off-road vehicle from east to west along Changle County Science and Technology Street to the Xinchang intersection At that time, the car collided with the Lu G99301 car driven by Liu Moumou from south to north along the intersection, causing damage to both cars and injuring Jiang Moumou and Liu Moumou. On July 8, 2011, the Traffic Police Brigade of the Changle County Public Security Bureau issued the Road Traffic Accident Certification No. 40 of Le Bus Lizi [2011] (according to the statements of the parties involved, they all said that the light was green when driving to the intersection). There is no traffic police command and no monitoring facilities at this intersection. There were no on-site witnesses when the accident occurred, and the cause of the accident cannot be ascertained. This accident caused vehicle damage to the plaintiff of RMB 115,100. In order to substantiate his claim, the plaintiff submitted a road traffic accident determination document and a price appraisal conclusion document for the items involved in the case. The defendant had no objection.

During the trial of this case, the plaintiff also claimed that the accident caused losses to itself: assessment fee of 500 yuan, clearance fee of 510 yuan, parking fee of 300 yuan, and requested compensation from the defendant; in order to substantiate his claim, Proof of assessment fee documents, wrecker fee documents, and parking fee documents are provided. The defendant insurance companies all raised objections on the grounds that they were not within the scope of compulsory traffic insurance compensation.

It was also found that the defendant Jiang Yunlu GE150V off-road vehicle was insured with compulsory traffic insurance by the defendant XX insurance company, with a total insurance limit of 122,000 yuan. The accident occurred during the insurance period. The above-mentioned facts are confirmed by the statements of the parties concerned, the road traffic accident identification document, and the price appraisal conclusion document of the items involved in the case.

This court believes that the road traffic accident identification document and the price appraisal conclusion document of the items involved issued by the Changle County Public Security Bureau Traffic Police Brigade are legitimate, objective and true, related to this case, and are valid and used as the basis for handling this case. important basis. As for the evaluation fee of 500 yuan and the clearance fee of 510 yuan claimed by the plaintiff, the total loss is 1,010 yuan. This loss is a reasonable and necessary loss caused by this accident, and the evidence provided by it is sufficient and effective. Although the defendant raised objections, he did not Provide valid evidence to deny it, so support the claim. As for the parking fee claimed by the plaintiff, the document provided does not have the name of the unit and the vehicle number, and is not related to this case, so it is not supported. Including the undisputed losses, this traffic accident caused economic losses of 116,110 yuan to the plaintiff. Since the cause of the road traffic accident could not be ascertained, and neither party provided evidence to prove that it was the other party's fault, it was presumed that both parties were equally responsible. The defendant Jiang Moumou should compensate for the economic losses caused to the plaintiff according to his liability. In view of the fact that defendant Jiang Moumou’s vehicle was insured with traffic compulsory traffic insurance by a certain insurance company, the economic losses caused to the plaintiff were first compensated by the certain insurance company within the total limit of traffic compulsory insurance of 122,000 yuan. The insurance company has compensated 11,511.52 yuan in the (2011) Lemin Sanchuzi No. 816 Judgment. Shui'an Insurance Company has compensated within the existing total limit of compulsory traffic insurance of 110,488.48 yuan; for the excess of 5,621.52 yuan, the defendant Jiang Moumou will compensate according to liability. 50%, totaling 2810 76 yuan.

The plaintiff bears 50% of the 5,621.52 yuan, totaling 2,810.76 yuan. Regarding the insurance company's claim that compensation should be within the sub-item limit, this court held that the basis for the insurance company's liability for compensation is the provisions of Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China, which does not After subdividing the limits of each compensation item, the insurance company will first compensate within the total limit; therefore, this court will not accept the insurance company’s proposition. In accordance with the provisions of Article 106 of the "General Principles of the People's Republic of China and Civil Law" and Article 76 of the "Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China", the judgment is as follows:

1. Defendant XX Property Insurance Co., Ltd. Weifang Central Branch compensated the plaintiff for economic losses of 110,488.48 yuan; defendant Jiang XX compensated the plaintiff for economic losses of 2,810.76 yuan, both of which were paid in one lump sum within five days after the judgment came into effect.

2. Reject the plaintiff’s other claims.

If the monetary payment obligation is not performed within the period specified in this judgment, double payment for the period of delayed performance shall be made in accordance with the provisions of Article 229 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China. Debt interest.

The case acceptance fee is 2,700 yuan, and the litigation preservation fee is 4,20 yuan, totaling 3,120 yuan, which shall be borne by the defendant Jiang Moumou.

If you are dissatisfied with this judgment, you can submit an appeal to this court within 15 days from the date of delivery of the judgment, and submit copies according to the number of opposing parties, and appeal to the Weifang Intermediate People's Court of Shandong Province.

Presiding Judge Yu Lisheng

Judge Zhong Dailu

Judge Ji Daojun

August 2, 2011

Secretary Zhang Yunyun

Case 3: The insured vehicle was not responsible and the insurance company was ruled to compensate according to the liability limit.

According to the regulations and the China Insurance Regulatory Commission’s compulsory insurance limit announcement, in the absence of liability, the insurance company’s total compensation is 12,100 yuan, including a medical limit of 1,000 yuan, a death and disability limit of 11,000 yuan, and a property loss of 100 yuan. The Weifang court broke this boundary and awarded compensation according to liability even if there was no liability, which is tantamount to causing disaster to the insurance company. The full text of the case is as follows:

Shandong Qingzhou People’s Court

Civil Judgment

(2011) Qingfa Minchuzi No. 153 Judgment

Plaintiff Liu, male, Han nationality, born on November 23, 1964, lives in Linqu County

Defendant Liu, male, born on March 6, 1970, Han nationality, lives in Qingzhou City

Mugong Sub-district Office

The defendant, Weifang Central Branch of a Property Insurance Co., Ltd.

The plaintiff Liu Moumou sued the defendant Liu, a property insurance company Co., Ltd. Weifang-

After this court accepted the case of the central branch company’s road traffic accident damage compensation dispute, it formed a collegiate panel and held a public hearing in accordance with the law.

Li Ming, the authorized agent of the plaintiff Liu Moumou

Guo and Tian Kewen, the authorized agents of the Weifang Central Branch of a property insurance company Co., Ltd.

The agent has arrived in court, and the defendant Liu A certain person was summoned by this court but refused to appear in court without justifiable reasons. The case has now been concluded.

The plaintiff claimed: At about 3:20 on December 1, 2009, the plaintiff Liu Moumou drove a Lu GD8576 heavy-duty semi-trailer tractor/Lu G6522 heavy-duty tank semi-trailer along the Queen Mother Palace. When driving west to east on the east-west route in front of the substation to the accident site, an accident occurred with the Lu GD3235 medium-sized semi-trailer tractor/Lu GA396 heavy-duty ordinary semi-trailer driven by the defendant Liu who was driving west to east along the east-west route of the Queen Mother Palace Substation, causing the plaintiff to suffer an accident. Liu Moumou was injured and two vehicles were damaged. The accident was conducted on-site by the Traffic Police Brigade of the Qingzhou Public Security Bureau and determined that the plaintiff Liu bore all the responsibility for the accident, while the defendant Liu did not bear responsibility.

Since the two parties failed to negotiate on the compensation issue, they filed a special lawsuit with the court to request that the defendant be compensated in accordance with the law.

The plaintiff suffered various losses of 244,000 yuan, and the litigation costs were borne by the defendant.

Defendant Liu did not respond.

The defendant, Weifang Central Branch of a Property Insurance Co., Ltd.: had no objection to the facts of the accident and the determination of liability, and agreed to compensate within the no-liability limit.

After trial, it was found that at about 3:20 on December 1, 2009, the plaintiff Liu Moumou was driving

a Lu GD8576 heavy-duty semi-trailer tractor/Lu G6522 heavy-duty tractor. When the tank semi-trailer was traveling west to east along the east-west route in front of the Wangmugong substation to the accident site, it was towed by a Lu GD3235 medium-sized semi-trailer driven by the defendant Liu who was traveling west to east along the east-west route of the Wangmugong substation

An accident occurred when the Che/Lu GA396 heavy-duty ordinary semi-trailer was involved, causing the plaintiff Liu Moumou to be

injured and both vehicles were damaged. The accident was inspected on site by the Traffic Police Brigade of Qingzhou Public Security Bureau. It was determined that the plaintiff Liu bore all the responsibility for the accident, while the defendant Liu did not bear any responsibility. After being injured, the plaintiff was admitted to the Qingzhou People's Court for one day, and then transferred to Weifang Yidu Central Hospital for 140 days of treatment. The main diagnosis was brain contusion and laceration.

Upon the plaintiff's application, this court entrusted the Weifang Qingzhou Judicial Appraisal Institute to conduct an appraisal of the plaintiff's injuries

in accordance with the law. The judicial appraisal institute issued a judicial verdict on January 25, 2011. Appraisal opinion

The conclusion is: 1. Liu's brain is damaged and he has mental retardation, which constitutes disability level eight

: Liu's chest injury caused multiple rib fractures Xian's disability level ten; Liu Moumou's left upper limb

was injured, leaving functional impairment, constituting the tenth level of disability; Liu Moumou's left lower limb was injured, and the limb was amputated above the knee

, constitutes the fifth level of disability; 2. Determine the post-injury rest period for Liu XX, starting from the date of trauma to the date of designated disability; 3. Determine Liu XX’s post-injury hospitalization period within two months Two-person nursing,

one person will nurse until the day of discharge; one person will nurse for six months after discharge, and partial nursing for 12 months.

The plaintiff's losses caused by the accident include: medical expenses of 225,853.95 yuan, disability compensation

Compensation of 7,342,8 yuan (611,9 yuan/year x 20 years x 60' /0), the total of the above is 299281.95; it was also found out that: the actual owner of the Lu GD3235 medium-sized semi-trailer tractor/Lu GA396 heavy-duty ordinary semi-trailer is Liu Chunxia, ??and the owner and the trailer are insured by a property insurance company of the defendant respectively For compulsory traffic insurance, the insurance period for Lu GD3235 medium-sized semi-trailer tractors and Lu GA396 heavy-duty ordinary semi-trailers is from August 8, 2009 to August 7, 2010.

The above-mentioned facts confirmed by this court include the traffic accident certificate, medical

bills, medical records, medication details, copies of insurance policies, forensic appraisals, and the original and defendant documents provided by the plaintiff.

The statement of the complaint is documented and can be accepted after review by this court.

This court believes that according to Article 706 of the "Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China"

If a traffic accident involving a motor vehicle causes personal casualties or property losses, The insurance company shall compensate the company within the liability limit of the compulsory motor vehicle third party liability insurance; for the portion exceeding the limit, the liability shall be based on the fault liability of the parties involved in the traffic accident during the occurrence of the traffic accident damage< /p>

The insurance company shall bear civil liability for compensation in accordance with the law according to the size of the liability. Therefore, the liability for compulsory traffic insurance compensation borne by the insurance company is the statutory priority compensation obligation. Unless there is a statutory exemption, the insurance company cannot be exempted from its compensation obligation; insurance companies and policyholders The two-way agreement and the internal regulations of the insurance industry, any part that conflicts with the law should be invalid clauses; the insured vehicle is not responsible for the accident, which is not a statutory exemption situation. The defendant, a property insurance Co., Ltd.

Weifang Center The branch company should bear the obligation to pay compensation in advance within the limit of compulsory traffic insurance. The traffic police brigade of Qingzhou Public Security Bureau determined that the plaintiff Liu Moumou bore all the liability for the accident.

The defendant Liu does not bear responsibility. The accident was found to be objective, true and legal. This court confirmed that the defendant Liu was not responsible for the accident and should not be liable for compensation. Liu's refusal to attend the lawsuit without justifiable reasons after being legally summoned by this court shall be regarded as a waiver of his litigation rights. The amount of compensation claimed by the plaintiff shall be reviewed and approved by this court.

This court will not support the excess. For this reason, in accordance with Article 106, Paragraph 2, Article 100 of the General Principles of the People's Republic of China. Article 19, "Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China and National Highways", Article 76, "Applicable Rules of the Supreme People's Court in the Trial of Personal Injury Compensation Cases" The relevant provisions of "Interpretation of Several Legal Issues" and the provisions of Articles 64 and 130 of the "Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China", the judgment is as follows:

1. Defendant The Weifang Central Branch of a property insurance company will compensate the plaintiff Liu Moumou for medical expenses and disability compensation of a total of 240,000 yuan within ten days after the judgment takes effect.

Pay in full (through payment by the court);

2. Dismiss the plaintiff’s other claims

If the monetary payment obligation is not fulfilled within the period specified in this judgment, the court shall comply with the provisions of " p>

Article 229 of the Civil Procedure Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that Chi Ting's debt interest shall be doubled during the performance period

The acceptance fee is 4960 yuan, which shall be borne by the plaintiff.

If you are not satisfied with this judgment, you may submit an appeal to this court within 15 days from the date of delivery of the judgment.

Submit copies of the number of parties involved (units need to submit business licenses with official seals

, organization codes, and legal representative certificates; individuals need to submit copies of ID cards

), and submit them in advance at the same time The appeal case acceptance fee is 4,960 yuan, and the appeal is to the Intermediate People's Court of Weifang City, Shandong Province.

Presiding Judge Liu Xueqin

The judge of the trial, Zhang Xinghua

Judge Men Xuezhi

March 24, 2000< /p>