From the actual situation of clause design, the design of domestic vehicle insurance clauses has not substantially harmed the legitimate interests of insurance consumers. Currently, there are several main situations in which domestic vehicle insurance compensates according to the proportion of accident liability:
1. When the insured motor vehicle driver is at fault, the insurer assumes the corresponding compensation responsibility according to the proportion of accident liability borne by the insured motor vehicle driver in the accident. Compensation according to responsibility embodies the basic spirit of relevant laws in our country.
2. When the insured motor vehicle driver is not at fault and should be compensated by a third party, it can be divided into several situations: First, if the third party can be found and the third party has vehicle insurance, the insured person can obtain corresponding compensation through the compulsory traffic insurance and commercial third-party liability insurance subscribed by the third party, and the insufficient part of the loss compensation can be compensated through the civil damage liability bearing mechanism; Second, if the third party can be found but does not have vehicle insurance, some insurance companies currently enable the insured person to obtain damage compensation through the subrogation mechanism; Third, when the third party cannot be found, the insurance company compensates 70% (most domestic insurance companies are roughly like this).
According to the above situations, it can be known that the current media reports on the "no-fault no-compensation" scenario in the auto insurance industry do not include all insurance companies. When the insured vehicle is not at fault, the insured person can obtain their rights protection through various channels related to insurance. In my view, the court's ruling that the compensation clause based on the proportion of accident liability is an invalid clause is also unfair. As a typical civil law country, it is not surprising for different courts to make different judgments on the same or similar cases, but this does not mean that the judgment is correct.
In insurance claims practice, there is a system that protects the rights of the insured - the subrogation system, which allows the insured to conveniently and promptly compensate for losses that should be compensated by a third party. The current reality is that the establishment and execution of this system are not ideal, which may affect the effective implementation of the insured's interests. Insurance companies indeed need to improve in this aspect. For example, a certain insurance company has taken a valuable step forward, and its auto insurance clause is designed as follows: "If the loss of the insured vehicle within the scope of insurance liability should be compensated by a third party, from the date the insurer compensates the insured with the insurance money, the insurer will substitute and exercise the insured's right to request compensation from the third party within the amount of compensation. If the insured has already obtained damage compensation from the third party, when the insurer compensates the insurance money, the compensation amount that the insured has already obtained from the third party can be correspondingly deducted. After the insurance accident occurs but before the insurer compensates the insurance money, if the insured waives the right to request compensation from the third party, the insurer will not bear the compensation responsibility; after the insurer compensates the insured, if the insured waives the right to request compensation from the third party without the consent of the insurer, such behavior is invalid; if the insured's fault causes the insurer unable or unable to fully exercise the right to request compensation by substitution, the insurer can correspondingly deduct the insurance compensation."
The China Insurance Regulatory Commission has always attached great importance to the protection of consumer rights. Recently, it has successively introduced relevant measures, indicating that it will guide the China Insurance Association and insurance companies to further improve the standards and procedures of the vehicle damage insurance "subrogation right", etc., providing convenience for both parties' claims through simplifying processes, documents, and using electronic technology. Each insurance company should implement the instructions of the regulatory commission, making the implementation of the subrogation system regular and standardized.
As some regulatory leaders and industry experts have said, the fundamental reason why the compensation clause according to responsibility in this auto insurance has been questioned is mainly not the problem of the clause design itself, but rather the urgent need to improve the quality of insurance services. Improving the quality of insurance services has been somewhat conceptual and sloganized for many years, and standardized, proceduralized, transparent, and convenient services have not yet been significantly reflected, bringing embarrassing situations such as difficult claims to consumers, damaging the overall image of the insurance industry. Recently, the China Insurance Regulatory Commission issued a notice requiring each insurance company to continuously innovate, enrich commercial auto insurance products and services, and continuously improve the auto insurance claims service mechanism. Each commercial insurance company should take this opportunity and, to a certain extent, view the insurance industry as an organic whole rather than implementing regional segmentation and subject isolation. They should jointly establish a service network system and channel that effectively protect and facilitate the implementation of the insured's interests, such as establishing negotiation mechanisms and mutual settlement mechanisms among insurance companies, truly enhancing the quality of insurance services.
Whenever an insurance dispute case is exposed, insurance companies often face widespread criticism from the media and the public. The reasons vary: some are due to problems inherent in the insurance companies themselves, while others might stem from misconceptions held by the media and the public. In a society where insurance knowledge has yet to be widely disseminated, some degree of misunderstanding and misinterpretation of insurance and the insurance industry is inevitable. The entire society should work together to correctly interpret insurance and jointly maintain its healthy development.