论文部分内容阅读
2006年10月,肖先生驾驶一辆捷达轿车,在北京某十字路口与一辆大货车相撞。大货车损坏不大,可肖先生的车损坏严重,修车费用需数万元。交警认定双方负同等责任。由于大货车司机与肖先生同住一个村,双方是熟人,肖先生考虑到自己的车投保了车辆损失险,因此在交警调解时,肖先生与大货车司机达成“各自修车,互不追究”的调解协议。事后,肖先生向保险公司申请理赔时,保险公司称双方负同等责任,保险公司只能赔偿肖先生修车费用的50%。肖先生认为自己投保了车辆损失险,保险公司就该全额赔偿自己的损失,然后再由保险公司向大货车司机追偿。双方各执一词,肖先生遂将保险公司诉至法院,但未获支持。
In October 2006, Mr. Shaw driving a Jetta sedan collided with a large truck at a crossroads in Beijing. Large truck damage is not serious, but Mr. Shaw’s car damage is serious, the cost of repairs need tens of thousands of dollars. Traffic police found both sides bear equal responsibility. As the big truck driver and Mr. Shaw live in a village, the two sides are acquaintances, Mr. Shaw considered his car insured vehicle loss insurance, traffic police mediation, Mr. Shaw and the big truck driver reached a "repair their car, do not pursue each other Mediation agreement. Afterwards, when Mr. Xiao applied to the insurance company for claims, the insurance company said both parties were equally responsible and the insurance company could only pay 50% of Mr. Xiao’s car repair costs. Mr. Xiao considers himself insured vehicle loss insurance, insurance companies to compensate for their full losses, and then recovered by the insurance company to the big truck drivers. The two sides each stick to the word, Mr. Xiao sued the insurance company to the court, but not supported.