论文部分内容阅读
当机动车交通事故责任纠纷中同时存在精神损害和物质损害,两者的赔偿顺序一直是实务中一大争议。本文通过对一起保险合同纠纷进行分析,认为在处理类似案件中不宜一概适用最高院(【2008】民一他字第25号)《复函》的内容,而应以最高院《合同法解释(二)》第二十条关于债务抵充的有关规定为正确的法律适用。通过适用该规定,平衡双方当事人之间的利益,以期合理解决上述争议问题。
When motor vehicle accident liability disputes exist in the same time mental damage and material damage, the compensation order of the two has been a major controversy in practice. Based on the analysis of a dispute over insurance contracts, it is concluded that it is inappropriate to apply the “reply” of the Supreme People’s Court ([2008] Minyi Shou Zi No. 25) in the handling of similar cases, but should be explained in the Supreme Court’s "Contract Law Interpretation B) Article 20 The relevant provisions on debt offsetting are correct application of law. By applying this provision, the interests of both parties are balanced with a view to a reasonable solution to the above controversial issues.