With the development of social economy, it is becoming increasingly common for individuals to own multiple motor vehicles. Can the reason for the insurance company's refusal to claim compensation for the accidental collision of two vehicles under the same name, based on the insurance contract terms stating that the insured's own vehicle loss falls within the scope of exemption? Recently, the People's Court of Xinluo District, Longyan City, Fujian Province concluded a motor vehicle traffic accident liability dispute case and ruled in accordance with the law that the insurance company should fully bear the vehicle maintenance losses. The second instance upheld the original judgment.

Huang registered two small cars under his name. In November 2025, Huang's daughter Guo accidentally collided with another car owned by Huang while reversing one of the cars, causing damage to the vehicle. According to the traffic police department, the driver Guo is fully responsible for this accident. After the accident, the damaged vehicle was sent to the factory for repair, and Huang spent a total of over 25900 yuan on repair costs. After investigation, the vehicle involved in the accident was insured by a certain insurance company for compulsory traffic insurance and commercial insurance. The accident occurred within the validity period of the insurance, and the insurance policy stated that the insured was Mr. Huang.

During the accident claims stage, the insurance company, based on the relevant provisions of the "New Energy Vehicle Commercial Insurance Model Terms (Trial) Exemption Statement", claimed that the loss of the insured's own vehicle was within the scope of exemption and did not need to bear compensation liability, and refused to compensate for the vehicle maintenance costs. A dispute arose between the two parties, and Huang sued to the Silla Court.

After trial, the court believes that the core dispute in this case is whether the collision between vehicles belonging to the same owner falls within the scope of insurance exemption, and whether the insurance company can be exempted from compensation liability. Firstly, insurance follows the principle of "one vehicle, one insurance", with each motor vehicle corresponding to an independent insurance contract. Although the two vehicles involved in the case belong to the same owner, they are respectively the offending vehicle and the damaged vehicle in the accident. Legally, they constitute independent parties of the offending party and the damaged party. The owner of the damaged vehicle, Mr. Huang, is a legal "third party" relative to the insurance contract of the offending vehicle and has the right to claim insurance compensation.

Secondly, the original intention of establishing the exemption clause in the case is to prevent the moral hazard of the policyholder maliciously causing accidents and defrauding insurance benefits, rather than completely exempting the same owner of the vehicle from liability for claims in accidents. At the same time, insurance exemption clauses are standard clauses, and insurance companies have a dual obligation to provide legal prompts and clear explanations. They need to clearly inform policyholders of the content, applicable scenarios, and legal consequences of the clauses.

In this case, the content of the exemption clause involved is expressed vaguely and defined unclearly, making it difficult for ordinary policyholders to accurately understand the scope of application. Additionally, the insurance company has not submitted sufficient evidence to prove that it has provided a detailed explanation and clear notification of the exemption clause to the policyholder. Therefore, the exemption clause does not have legal effect according to law, and the reason for the insurance company's refusal to claim cannot be established.

Based on this, the court made a judgment in accordance with the law: a certain insurance company shall fully compensate Huang for the vehicle maintenance losses totaling more than 25900 yuan. After the first instance verdict, the insurance company appealed and the second instance upheld the original verdict. The verdict has now come into effect.

Car insurance claims strictly follow the independent contract rule of "one vehicle, one insurance", with each motor vehicle corresponding to a unique insurance contract. Even if the vehicle belongs to the same owner, in the event of a collision accident, a relatively independent party is formed, namely the perpetrator and the injured party. The owner of a damaged vehicle in an accident is considered a third party under the law and has the right to claim insurance compensation in accordance with the insurance contract of the vehicle involved in the accident. The insurance company's refusal to claim based solely on the fact that two vehicles belong to the same insured does not conform to the original intention of third-party liability insurance to protect unspecified victims and share accident risks, and lacks legal basis.

At the same time, the ruling supporting the claim in this case only applies to traffic accidents that occur during daily driving, and does not equate to tacitly approving the claim behavior of intentional collision. If the act of intentionally colliding with one's own car does not constitute a traffic accident, the insurance company does not need to claim compensation. If the policyholder or driver engages in malicious insurance fraud, not only will they be unable to obtain any insurance claims, but also for insurance fraud that has not yet constituted a crime, the financial regulatory department will impose administrative penalties in accordance with the law; If the amount of insurance fraud is large and the circumstances are serious, constituting the crime of insurance fraud, criminal responsibility will be pursued in accordance with the law.          

This article is transferred from the WeChat official account "Shandong Gaofa". Thank you!