I take full responsibility, but does the other escape insurance company compensate? At that time, when calling the police, the police said how to compensate the other party for escaping.

See how the court decides, whether there is compensation, if there is no compensation, the following is copied online:

As an agent, I received a dispute from a party in traffic accident compensation. The basic case is that the victim's car broke down on the highway around 4 am. At that time, the driver and the owner parked their vehicles on the right side of the shoulder, and when they got off to check the vehicles, they were slightly scratched by vehicles in the same direction. The driver didn't know that the vehicle ran over someone. After the traffic accident, he stopped more than 300 meters away from the scene of the accident and only checked his own vehicle. When he found that the vehicle was slightly damaged, he drove away. After being captured. The traffic police found that the perpetrator escaped and took full responsibility. The driver who caused the accident has been sentenced to five years and six months in prison. The relatives of the victims filed a lawsuit in the People's Court of Xiangdong County, demanding civil compensation for the accident. The focus of the case dispute is whether the traffic accident and escape commercial three-way insurance can be exempted. The judgment of first instance can be exempted from liability; The car refused to accept the appeal and appealed to Xiangyang Intermediate People's Court. The case is still in the second instance.

During the second trial, the case of Guangdong Higher People's Court was published in the People's Court Daily on October 7th, 20 1 13. The case clearly pointed out that the traffic accident escape commercial three-way insurance can not be exempted; However, the case of Zhongshan Intermediate People's Court was published in Guangdong Court Newspaper No.2013 12, which clearly pointed out that the three risks of traffic accident and escape can be exempted.

Both cases are valid cases.

Guangdong Higher People's Court ruled that Anhua Insurance Company applied for retrial of the case of hit-and-run traffic accident, and held that the insurer was exempted from all the compensation liability of its commercial third party liability insurance on the grounds of hit-and-run traffic accident, which violated the principles of fairness, good faith and insurance law and was an invalid clause. In commercial third-party liability insurance, the occurrence of traffic accidents means that the compensation conditions agreed in the contract have been met, and the insurer should fulfill the obligation of compensation. The impact of hit-and-run is only after the accident, not going back to the past, and the insured should only be responsible for the part of the escape that expands the damage. The insurer's exemption from all responsibilities on the grounds of hit-and-run violates the principles of fairness and good faith and the insurance law, which is an invalid clause. In this case, the defendant's hit-and-run behavior did not cause new losses to the insurer, so the insurer cannot be exempted from liability for compensation on this ground.

Judging from the case of Zhongshan Intermediate People's Court, it is a common problem in the current trial practice whether the insurance company of motor vehicle hit-and-run commercial traffic insurance can be exempted, and the handling of this problem is directly related to the immediate economic interests of the insurer and the insured of motor vehicle commercial traffic insurance. Based on the social harmfulness of traffic accident escape and the prominent position of relevant exemption clauses in many insurance exemption clauses, affirming the legal effect of the exemption clauses of traffic accident escape in commercial third party insurance can make a correct judicial evaluation of traffic accident escape behavior, provide standardized judicial guidance for traffic driving behavior and related social groups, promote traffic safety and protect the personal and property rights of the majority of traffic subjects. The first paragraph of Article 70 of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates that "in the event of a traffic accident on the road, the driver of the vehicle shall stop immediately to protect the scene; If personal injury or death is caused, the driver of the vehicle shall immediately rescue the injured person and report to the traffic police on duty or the traffic management department of the public security organ in time. " Wu is the driver of the vehicle that caused the traffic accident in this case. After the traffic accident, he failed to fulfill his legal obligations stipulated in the Road Traffic Safety Law and left the scene without authorization. The traffic police department has determined that he drove away after a traffic accident. Jubang Clothing Company's appeal opinion that Wu * * does not belong to hit-and-run traffic lacks factual and legal basis. In this case, it has been stated in the commercial third party liability insurance policy signed by Jubang Garment Company and Zhongshan Branch of China People's Insurance Company that the insurance contract consists of insurance clauses and insurance policies. The insurance clause stipulates that "after the accident, if the insured or his licensed driver drives the insured motor vehicle and fails to take measures to escape from the scene of the accident according to law, the insurer shall be exempted from liability." Because the law stipulates that motor vehicle drivers should protect the scene, rescue the wounded and call the police, and must not escape, the court of first instance found that Zhongshan Branch of PICC has clearly marked the corresponding exemption clause in bold, so the clause is legal and effective, and there is a factual basis. Article 10 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Insurance Law of People's Republic of China (PRC) stipulates that "the insurer takes the prohibitive provisions of laws and administrative regulations as the exemption reason of the exemption clause of the insurance contract. After the insurer prompts the clause, the applicant, the insured or the beneficiary claims that the clause is not effective on the grounds that the insurer has not fulfilled its explicit obligations, and the people's court will not support it." Accordingly, the court of first instance supported the defense claim that Zhongshan Branch of PICC was exempted from the liability of third party liability insurance, which had a legal basis and was handled correctly. According to Item (1) of Paragraph 1 of Article 170 of the Civil Procedure Law of People's Republic of China (PRC), the judgment is: the appeal is dismissed and the original judgment is upheld.

Further reading: How to buy insurance, which is good, and teach you how to avoid these "pits" of insurance.