the clerk let pay only sign

rqiv7z0m5p

Information,http://tootoo.to,
Lee (of the name) turned around in front of their own stores, knocked down his wife leaned over to pick something Ms. Min (of surname), resulting in Ms. Min 13 rib fractures. Once wife stable condition, Lee find insurance claims, but was refused on the grounds that the insured and the injured are husband and wife, are deductible category. After all, in fact, the couple is suspected of potentially fraudulent partnership. Ms. Min order to get the premium,louboutin scarpe, the husband as the insured and the insurance company reported on the court.
?
After hearing the court finds that the nature of the accident was an accident, and concluded that the insurance companies use in order to advance one's own strength disclaimer set format, to narrow the scope of a third party, in order to maximize absolve themselves of responsibility, there is no legal basis for the format Disclaimer Terms should be recognized as invalid provisions, the decree should be paid 246,http://www.railroadpix.com/cgi-bin/photos/search.cgi,000 insurance company.
?
Correspondent Lu Yan
?
Yangzi Evening News reporter Xing Yuanyuan
?
Event Review
?
Severing husband wife 13 ribs
?
Ms. Min on the public disclosure of tobacco shop workers last November 22 in the evening, her husband Lee to deliver meals to the store. Around 8:00, Mr. Lee will turn the car parked in front of the store when he heard the abnormal sound. Get off a look, even knocked his wife Ms. Min. Ms. Min 13 broken ribs, treated and discharged two months.
?
According to the traffic control department found that Lee full responsibility, injured all losses should be paid within to pay high insurance and liability insurance range. Stable condition after his wife,hogan outlet milano, the couple found total medical expenses and disability compensation for 25 million. Mr. Lee went to the insurance company claims, but was rejected on the grounds that Ms. Lee Min is husband and wife. In order to get back the premium, the insurance company,http://bathbbs.net/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=2043165&fromuid=347694, Ms. Min and her husband reported on the court.
?
Court Focus 1:
?
How things through,http://chenxiaotong.net/home.php?mod=space&uid=42945&do=blog&quickforward=1&id=164249, it is not potentially fraudulent?
?
Court,hogan outlet sito ufficiale, potentially fraudulent insurance company questioned the couple, and put forward three reasons:
?
First, Lee was reported the next day after the incident insurance. Claims staff to the scene investigation, the accident scene has been destroyed. Secondly, according to the vehicle adjusters photographs, grazing traces of non-compliance with the couple described. Again, insurance companies reported record inferred from, may be caused by a child-powered vehicles when the accident occurred.
?
In this regard, Li explained, he injured his wife, the first reaction is certainly save lives, it is not the first time to report insurance. As grazing marks, Lee argued that the "old wounds." Child car insurance company about the inference, let the couple angry, "the child was a year old, tall and are out of reach of the accelerator and clutch accident scene no presence of other people."
?
The court finds that:
?
Not potentially fraudulent,air max pas cher pour homme, it was an accident
?
Court after isolation of the couple asked the two sides to find the details of the accident is consistent statements and evidence provided by the insurance company is not sufficient to prove that the incident of the vehicle driven by someone else. The court found that the accident was traffic accident caused Lee improper driving behavior,louboutin femme.
?
Court Focus 2:
?
Insurance companies, according to the standard terms deductible tube regardless of use?
?
Why the insured and the injured are husband and wife, the insurance company exclusions do? The original contract was insured there is a form of insurance terms: "insured members of their families in personal injury, property damage or hosted all, the insurance compensation per capita is not responsible." Insurance company said the terms of the insurance industry is international practice is to avoid moral hazard. "We are not potentially fraudulent ah." The couple is very aggrieved.
?
The court finds that:
?
This format is invalid provision disclaimer
?
Insurance contracts are involved in this case liability insurance,http://www.linfenju.com/bbs/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=356083&fromuid=23823, in this case the responsibility of "the insured person or driver and their family members," the exemption is standard clauses,http://www.wmkhome.com/v21/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=5171169, according to the insurer Tong said that in order to prevent moral hazard. In the case of existing laws and regulations do not clearly defined, relevant formatting disclaimer will be involved in the insurance contract the insured or the driver's family members excluded from the scope of the Department of Human narrow third party, contrary to the first set of motor vehicles three liability insurance in mind, contrary to the fair.
?
Lee also proved that the insured event occurs is not intentionally, there is no so-called moral hazard.
?
According to the "Contract Law" stipulates that the party supplying relieved from its responsibility, adding other responsibilities,http://zlt0512.com/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=256839, excluding the other main rights of the clause is invalid. "Insurance Law" special provisions, the use of invalid a) the insurance contract terms provided by the insurer made the following terms shall be exempt from the insurer obligations according to the law or aggravate the insured, the liability insurer; (b) to exclude insurance person, the insured or the beneficiary's legitimate rights. Accordingly, the use of one's own insurance company with a strong pre-set format disclaimer, to narrow the scope of a third party, in order to maximize absolve themselves of responsibility, there is no legal basis, the formatting disclaimer should be recognized as invalid provision.
?
Court Focus 3:
?
Insurance companies have endless obligation to inform
?
Not to mention whether the effectiveness of the disclaimer, the existence of this provision, Mr. Lee confused, "When is phone insurance, the insurance company clerk just told to pay much money, there is no mention disclaimer. After that I went to the insurance Companies signing,[url=http://wx.jazzsynth.com/wxcgi/kizai/sunkizai.cgi?mode=form&no=51&page=2http://wx.jazzsynth.com/wxcgi/kizai/sunkizai.cgi?mode=form&no=51&page=2[/url], the clerk let pay only sign, did not say anything else. "And the insurance companies to come up with policies to refute," when he was signed in the insurance policy, he is known to disclaimers. "
?
The court finds that:
?
Did not explain the meaning of the terms, failed to meet this obligation
?
The liability exemption clause is in effect, the key is whether the insurance company do to prompt explanation obligations. The obligation to fulfill the form should satisfy two criteria: first, the insured, insurance or other insurance certificate prompt attention enough to cause the insured to the disclaimer made; second, the insured contents of the disclaimer should be based on written or oral form to make a clear explanation to the applicant. In the present case, the insurance company to meet the requirements of the first point. The so-called "clear instructions", referring to the two sides signed the contract agreement for the insurance exemption clause, in addition to insurance policyholders on prompt attention, it should also be on the concept of disclaimer, content and legal consequences in writing or orally in the form of an explanation to the applicant or his agent to make the insured understand the true meaning of the clause and the legal consequences.
?
The present case, stated at a single insured policyholders printed read: "the terms of the exemption which the insurer liability (including liability exemption, the applicant was insured obligation, compensation processing, supplementary provisions) ...... the contents clearly stated to me "Lee stated below in the signature confirmation. Its express terms, the insurance company only on the content of exclusions has been described to the insured, but the concept is on the disclaimer, content and legal consequences in written or oral form to explain to the insured or his agent, allowing policyholders to understand the true meaning of the clause and the legal consequences, the insurance company failed to adduce evidence to prove further.
?
According to the facts of the case, the insurance company can not be found to have fulfilled the disclaimer on the concept, content and legal consequences in written or oral form to explain to the insured or his agent, so that policyholders understand the true meaning of the clause and legal consequences clearly stated obligations. It is based on "Insurance Law" stipulates that the disclaimer effect does not occur, the insurance company should still be liable for damages in the third party liability insurance, compensation for the loss of 246 000 injured.
?
(Original title: husband drove his wife injured, the insurance company exclusions)
?(Edit: SN182)