Brief of the case

    When Xi driving Lu Rxxx truck was reversing in the Cangzhou service area of Beijing-Taiwan Expressway, it collided with the Anhui Mxxx truck (registered owner of a Changshu logistics company) driven by Ma, causing damage to the commercial vehicle carried by the Anhui Mxxx truck. The accident was determined by the traffic police department, Xi assumed primary responsibility, Ma assumed secondary responsibility. The registered owner of Lu Rxxx truck is a Shandong logistics company, which has insured 1 million yuan of compulsory traffic insurance and commercial insurance in the insurance company. The accident involved in the case occurred during the insurance liability period. A logistics company in Changshu sued the court, demanding compensation for vehicle depreciation losses of more than 180,000 yuan. Xi, a logistics company in Shandong argued that there was no objection to the division of responsibility of the traffic police department, and the insurance company insured traffic force insurance and commercial three risks, and the plaintiff's loss should be compensated by the insurance company. The insurance company argues that it agrees to bear the legal and reasonable losses in accordance with the proportion of accident liability, but the depreciation loss claimed by the plaintiff is an indirect loss, and according to Article 24 of the insurance clause, the insurance company will not pay for the impairment loss caused by repair.

Court hearing

    The court held that the damaged vehicle in question was still in transit and was a commodity to be sold in nature, different from a vehicle already on the road; And the commercial vehicle is in the circulation field, the direct value is reflected by the transaction value. The case is infringement dispute, should apply the principle of loss filling, Changshu a logistics company will be damaged to more than 1.01 million yuan to buy out, and more than 760,000 yuan sold, its transaction value difference should be identified as a direct loss, this case does not meet the insurance clause 24th agreed disclaimer. The court ordered the insurance company to compensate a Changshu logistics company for property losses of 176,370 yuan. 

    After the judgment of the first instance, the insurance company appealed to the court of second instance. 

    The Court of second instance held that Article 12 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues relating to the Application of Law in the trial of Cases of Compensation for Damage caused by road traffic accidents stipulates that losses caused by road traffic accidents, including the cost of maintenance of damaged vehicles, the loss of items carried in vehicles, and the cost of vehicle rescue, are within the scope of compensation for infringer. The traffic accident caused damage to the commodity vehicle on the truck driven by Ma Mou, at this time the damaged commodity vehicle is not a means of transportation, but the goods carried by the vehicle, and the loss belongs to the "loss of the goods carried by the vehicle" in the above judicial interpretation. The commodity vehicle is a brand new vehicle that has just left the factory for the purpose of sales. According to the common sense of life and the current situation of the market, even if the vehicle suffers external damage, its transaction value will inevitably decrease compared with the original new car, and the evidence provided by a logistics company in Changshu has proved that the loss exists objectively. As for the problem that the insurance company claims that the commercial three insurance should not pay for the depreciation loss, the content of Article 24 of the Motor Vehicle Comprehensive Commercial Insurance Clause is "the depreciation of the third party property caused by the change of market price, the impairment loss caused by the reduction of value after repair", and the insurer is not liable for compensation. First of all, the loss of goods in this case is caused by infringement, not by changes in market prices; Secondly, "impairment loss caused by reduced value after repair" is generally understood as impairment caused by traffic accident damage to the vehicle used as a means of transportation, and damage to the commercial vehicle being transported belongs to the actual loss of reduced value of the commodity; Third, the insurance company as the provider of the insurance clause, commercial vehicles as a special case, the insurance company did not prompt and clearly explain in the exemption clause. The insurance company's grounds of appeal are not valid.

Judge's statement

    Can vehicle depreciation losses be supported? Should the insurance company pay for the loss of vehicle depreciation? In traffic accident liability disputes involving damaged motor vehicles, the parties mostly claim the loss of depreciation of vehicles in litigation requests. According to the reply opinion of the Supreme People's Court on the issue of Compensation for depreciation loss of vehicles in Traffic Accidents, taking into account the current social and economic development and the objective conditions supporting the loss of depreciation of motor vehicles, the compensation for such loss should be cautious. Do not support in principle; In a few special and extreme cases, appropriate compensation may be considered. In this case, support for the loss of vehicle depreciation, there are the following reasons: first, the vehicle for sale in this case is different from the vehicle in the accident, is defined as the "vehicle carried goods", support the "vehicle carried goods" loss has a legal basis; Second, the vehicle for sale has commodity attributes, and its value will inevitably decrease after damage. Even if it is repaired, it can no longer be sold at the new car price, and there is evidence to prove that the loss exists objectively. Third, the insurance company, as the provider of the insurance clause, has not indicated and clearly stated in the exemption clause for the special situation of damaged vehicles for sale, so this case does not meet the exemption condition agreed in the insurance clause. 

    The support for the loss of vehicle depreciation in this case has a factual basis and legal basis, which can provide certain reference value for the trial of such cases.

    This article is transferred from the "Shandong High Law" wechat public number, thank you!