How I Won a Traffic-Accident Insurance Claim Case That Legal Professionals Had Written Off
On November 19, 2023, while cycling in Beijing, I collided with a BMW. The accident damaged both the BMW and my Giant bicycle and injured me. Traffic police assigned me primary responsibility and the other driver secondary responsibility. In April 2024, the other side's insurer filed a complaint with the court under the cause of action "insurer's subrogation dispute," demanding that I bear 70% of the BMW's repair costs.
Consulting legal professionals, I found that Chinese courts hold two sharply divided views on such cases. Courts in some regions order pedestrians or non-motor-vehicle riders to compensate the motor vehicle's repair costs; courts in other regions order them not to.
Yet certain grassroots courts in Beijing had previously ruled that responsible pedestrians or non-motor-vehicle riders must compensate the motor vehicle's repair costs, and the intermediate court would uphold the original judgment. Therefore the Beijing court staff and lawyer friends I knew all told me I could not win and that I might as well concede and pay the BMW's repair bill to save time and energy. The Beijing law firms specializing in traffic-accident cases that I found online also had no interest in representing me after my consultation; they told me I could not win and should stop fooling around.
This established judicial practice would indeed daunt many, but a few other friends encouraged me to fight on. Especially a lawyer in my native Hubei, who said that under Chinese law I could win. If I won, the way Beijing's judiciary decides similar cases could change, to the benefit of vulnerable pedestrians and non-motor-vehicle riders. Even if I ultimately lost, my effort would build momentum and contribute to future change.
I have long cared about social and legal progress. Over 20 years ago I was involved in the case of Sun Zhigang, who was beaten to death in custody for lacking a temporary residence permit; together with many others I raised my voice for this fellow townsman I had never met. Our efforts eventually led to the abolition of the urban detention-and-repatriation regulations, so that migrant workers no longer have to live and work in the city in fear of lacking a temporary permit. Whenever I recall such episodes, I feel proud; after all, we made a tangible contribution to social progress.
So, after much thought, I steeled myself to fight this case that Beijing's legal establishment had written off. My original plan was to lose at first and second instance, then petition the Beijing High Court for retrial to see if I could turn things around; if that failed, I would seek prosecution protest at the Beijing People's Procuratorate; and if that also failed, I would stop. The whole process might take two or three years.
Unexpectedly (though reasonably), I won at the first instance, which gave me many advantages. Although the other side may still appeal, or even seek retrial and protest, the chance of a first-instance judgment being overturned is low, so I am now in the advantageous position.
I think I won at first instance for two reasons: first, my luck was genuinely good—I encountered judges and panel members who applied the law impartially and dared to break with convention; second, my own effort and the help of relatives and friends (especially one close relative and the Hubei lawyer mentioned above) gave me the courage to proceed. They offered much useful advice and repeatedly polished my legal documents; my defense statement was carefully revised by them.
I now publish my Civil Answer and the court's Judgment—with personal information of the parties redacted—for your reference.
Civil Answer
Respondent: Zhou ××
Respondent's ID number: ×××××
Domicile: ××××
Contact phone: ×××
Claimant: ×× Insurance Company, Beijing Branch
Domicile: ××××
Unified social credit code: ××××
Person in charge: ××, title: ×××, contact phone: ××××
In this insurer's subrogation dispute between the Respondent (the defendant in the original suit, Zhou ××, hereinafter "the Defendant") and the Claimant (the insurer of the motor-vehicle policyholder ××, namely ×× Property Insurance Co., Ltd., Beijing Branch, hereinafter "the Plaintiff"), the Defendant received the civil complaint filed by the Plaintiff and the Court's notice of response on June 14, 2024, and submitted a Written Application for Defense by EMS on June 19, 2024.
Based on the existing evidence, the Plaintiff's civil complaint, and the relevant provisions of Chinese law, the Defendant holds: 1) the Plaintiff has no right to sue the Defendant; 2) the evidence the Plaintiff presents in the complaint is itself problematic; 3) the proportion of compensation claimed has no legal basis; and 4) the traffic police's accident liability determination is open to question. The Defendant respectfully requests this Court to reject the Plaintiff's claims.
The facts and reasons are as follows:
The Plaintiff's complaint states that at 15:23 on November 19, 2023, at ×× in Beijing, the Defendant Zhou ×× was cycling from south to west when the Plaintiff's policyholder Liu ×× was driving a small sedan, license plate Jing ×××, from east to west; the two vehicles collided, the Defendant was injured, and vehicle Jing ××× was damaged. The ×× Brigade of the Beijing Public Security Bureau Traffic Management Bureau handled the case and issued a Road Traffic Accident Liability Determination, finding the Defendant Zhou ×× primarily responsible and the Plaintiff's policyholder Liu ×× secondarily responsible. All this matches what actually happened that day.
However, there are the following four points:
1. The Defendant does not accept the Plaintiff's argument that the law entitles it to recover the car repair costs from the Defendant.
The Defendant relies on the following provisions:
Article 1179 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China: "Where infringement causes personal injury to another, compensation shall be paid for reasonable expenses incurred for treatment and rehabilitation, such as medical expenses, nursing fees, transportation fees, nutrition fees, and hospital meal subsidies, as well as lost income due to missed work. Where disability is caused, assistive devices and disability compensation shall also be paid; where death is caused, funeral expenses and death compensation shall also be paid."
Article 1182: "Where infringement of another's personal rights and interests causes property loss, compensation shall be based on the loss suffered by the infringed or the benefit gained by the infringer; where the loss suffered and the benefit gained are hard to determine and the parties cannot agree on the amount, the people's court shall determine the amount based on the circumstances."
Article 1208: "Where a motor vehicle causes damage in a traffic accident, liability for compensation shall be borne in accordance with road traffic safety laws and the relevant provisions of this Code."
Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the PRC: "Where a motor vehicle traffic accident causes personal injury or property loss, the insurer shall compensate within the liability limit of compulsory third-party motor vehicle insurance; for the shortfall, liability shall be borne as follows: (1) Between motor vehicles, the at-fault party bears compensation; if both are at fault, liability is shared in proportion to each party's fault. (2) Between a motor vehicle and a non-motor-vehicle driver or pedestrian, if the non-motor-vehicle driver or pedestrian is not at fault, the motor vehicle side bears compensation; where evidence proves the non-motor-vehicle driver or pedestrian is at fault, the motor vehicle side's compensation is appropriately reduced according to the degree of fault; if the motor vehicle side is not at fault, it bears no more than 10% of the compensation. Where the accident loss is caused by the non-motor-vehicle driver or pedestrian intentionally colliding with the motor vehicle, the motor vehicle side bears no liability."
Article 11 of the Supreme People's Court Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Trying Road Traffic Accident Damage Compensation Cases, on the determination of compensation scope: "'Personal injury or death' under Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law means damage to the infringed's personal rights and interests such as the right to life, physical integrity, and health caused by a motor-vehicle traffic accident, including the various harms specified in Articles 1179 and 1183 of the Civil Code. 'Property loss' under Article 76 means loss to the infringed's property rights and interests caused by a motor-vehicle traffic accident."
Under the above provisions, when a motor vehicle collides with a non-motor vehicle or pedestrian, the case should be tried under the Road Traffic Safety Law and the relevant provisions of the Civil Code.
Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law states: "Between a motor vehicle and a non-motor-vehicle driver or pedestrian, if the non-motor-vehicle driver or pedestrian is not at fault, the motor vehicle side bears compensation; where evidence proves the non-motor-vehicle driver or pedestrian is at fault, the motor vehicle side's compensation is appropriately reduced according to the degree of fault; if the motor vehicle side is not at fault, it bears no more than 10% of the compensation. Where the accident loss is caused by the non-motor-vehicle driver or pedestrian intentionally colliding with the motor vehicle, the motor vehicle side bears no liability."
This article provides that in accidents between motor vehicles and non-motor-vehicle drivers or pedestrians, the motor vehicle bears compensation liability, which may be appropriately reduced according to the nature of fault; it does NOT provide that the non-motor vehicle or pedestrian must compensate the motor vehicle for its loss absent intentional collision. The traffic authority's liability determination serves to define the motor vehicle driver's compensation duty; it does not impose on non-motor vehicles or pedestrians a duty to compensate the motor vehicle's damage absent intentional collision.
Courts nationwide have reached different results in trying insurer subrogation dispute cases. Some courts, applying the Insurance Law, have ordered non-motor-vehicle riders or pedestrians to bear compensation; Beijing has a few such precedents. But nationwide, the great majority of rulings lean toward ordering non-motor-vehicle riders and pedestrians not to compensate the motor vehicle's repair costs.
Through parallel-case research, the Defendant has found relevant insurer subrogation cases. To avoid excessive length, the Defendant summarizes them briefly here and submits the full judgments published on China Judgements Online as annexes for the Court's reference.
Case No. (2022) Jing 74 Min Zhong No. 1831 (Annex 1): Final judgment by the Beijing Financial Court, applying the Insurance Law, ordering pedestrian Cui to bear the motor vehicle's repair costs and upholding the insurer's subrogation right. (Note: the Financial Court merely upheld the first-instance judgment.)
Case No. (2021) Jing 74 Min Zhong No. 400 (Annex 2): Final judgment by the Beijing Financial Court, applying the Insurance Law, ordering electric-bicycle rider Yuan to bear the motor vehicle's repair costs and upholding the insurer's subrogation right. (Note: the Financial Court merely upheld the first-instance judgment.)
Case No. (2021) Yu Min Shen No. 8872 (Annex 3): Final judgment by the Henan High People's Court, applying Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law, holding that pedestrians or non-motor-vehicle riders have no duty or liability to compensate the motor vehicle's repair costs, and ruling that party Tian, as the pedestrian/non-motor-vehicle side, need not compensate the motor vehicle's damage, dismissing the insurer's subrogation claim.
Case No. (2023) Jin 02 Min Zhong No. 2837 (Annex 4): Final judgment by a Tianjin Intermediate People's Court, applying Article 76, holding that pedestrians or non-motor-vehicle riders have no duty to repair the motor vehicle, and ruling that bicycle rider Lu, who had been assigned full responsibility by the traffic authority, need not bear the motor vehicle's repair costs, dismissing the insurer's subrogation claim.
Case No. (2023) Yue 01 Min Zhong No. 4248 (Annex 5): Final judgment by the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court, applying Article 76, holding that pedestrians or non-motor-vehicle riders have no duty to repair the motor vehicle, and ruling that non-motor-vehicle party Zhang need not bear the motor vehicle's repair costs, dismissing the insurer's subrogation claim.
Case No. (2023) Yue 01 Min Zhong No. 5203 (Annex 6): Final judgment by the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court, applying Article 76, holding that pedestrians or non-motor-vehicle riders have no duty to repair the motor vehicle, and ruling that non-motor-vehicle party Yi need not bear the motor vehicle's repair costs, dismissing the insurer's subrogation claim.
Case No. (2023) Ji Min Shen No. 9498 (Annex 7): Final judgment by the Hebei High People's Court, applying Article 76, holding that pedestrians or non-motor-vehicle riders have no duty to repair the motor vehicle, and ruling that non-motor-vehicle party Hou need not bear the motor vehicle's repair costs, dismissing the insurer's subrogation claim.
Case No. (2024) Hu 74 Min Zhong No. 627 (Annex 8): Final judgment by the Shanghai Financial Court, applying Article 76, holding that pedestrians or non-motor-vehicle riders have no duty to repair the motor vehicle, and ruling that non-motor-vehicle party Yang need not bear the motor vehicle's repair costs, dismissing the insurer's subrogation claim.
Such cases are too numerous to list; the above examples suffice.
It is an objective fact that courts in different regions of China reach markedly different results on the same type of case, and this phenomenon leaves people nationwide with a poor sense of justice and affects social stability and unity. China is a unified people's democratic republic; outside Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan, uniform laws apply, unlike federal systems such as the United States where state laws differ. The judicial chaos of divergent rulings on parallel cases damages the image of the rule of law and of the country, and harms the people's interests.
Accordingly, on May 29, 2020, when the central leadership presided over the 20th group study session of the Political Bureau, clear requirements were issued on unifying the application of law. The Supreme People's Court subsequently issued the Implementation Measures for the Unification of Legal Application in 2021, calling for nationwide courts to unify legal application standards and decide parallel cases uniformly.
In early 2021, the Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission listed "improving the mechanism for unifying legal application" among the ten key reform tasks for the political-legal field in 2021, specifying that the Supreme People's Court should take the lead in resolving concrete problems in adjudication—especially inconsistencies in legal-application views and uneven adjudication standards among the SPC's own tribunals and across local courts.
The divergent local rulings on who bears motor-vehicle damage after accidents between non-motor vehicles/pedestrians and motor vehicles is precisely the problem the central leadership cares about and the Implementation Measures aim to solve.
After a collision between a motor vehicle and a non-motor vehicle, should insurer subrogation cases be decided under the Insurance Law or the Road Traffic Safety Law? Article 1208 of the Civil Code expressly states: "Where a motor vehicle causes damage in a traffic accident, liability for compensation shall be borne in accordance with road traffic safety laws and the relevant provisions of this Code." Under this provision, the rulings of the Shanghai, Tianjin, and Guangdong courts, which refer to Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law, are more reasonable.
Moreover, under the principle that the special law prevails over the general law, in traffic-accident compensation disputes the Road Traffic Safety Law is the special law relative to the Insurance Law. The Insurance Law covers not only traffic insurance but all kinds of insurance, whereas the Road Traffic Safety Law is exclusively about traffic safety. Therefore these disputes should be adjudicated with priority given to the Road Traffic Safety Law.
Paragraph 2 of Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law stipulates only the motor vehicle's duty to compensate non-motor vehicles and pedestrians; it does not stipulate the pedestrian's or non-motor vehicle's duty to compensate the motor vehicle, because the legislature, in drafting the law, considered that motor vehicles and non-motor vehicles/pedestrians differ in their capacity to inflict harm on the road and are not equal.
Relative to motor vehicles, non-motor vehicles and pedestrians are the vulnerable side, more easily harmed, and the right to life outweighs property rights; Chinese legislation follows the "people-oriented" principle. That is why Article 76 distinguishes accidents between two motor vehicles from accidents between a motor vehicle and a non-motor vehicle or pedestrian. If non-motor vehicles and pedestrians did not need to be treated differently, Article 76 would not need to be divided into two sub-clauses for separate judicial definition.
Beijing is the capital of exemplary governance; its rule of law should set the national example by protecting the vulnerable side in adjudication, upholding the legislature's people-oriented stance, and demonstrating the superiority of China's socialist system. Insurers, while profiting from premiums, also have the responsibility and obligation to bear various risks and maintain social stability; they cannot take profits while shirking social responsibility.
Courts in Shanghai, Tianjin, and Guangdong have ruled under Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law, and the insurers in those regions have not gone bankrupt. But ruling under the Insurance Law to make vulnerable pedestrians and non-motor-vehicle riders compensate the motor vehicle's repair costs not only violates the rule-of-law principles mentioned above, but also imposes a heavy burden on households of pedestrians and non-motor-vehicle riders who lack insurance backing—especially when repair costs are as high as in this case. The prior rulings of certain Beijing courts failed to reflect the superiority of China's socialist system; instead, by diverging from other regions, they created confusion in legal standards and weakened the people's sense of justice.
Divergent local rulings also affect the credibility of Chinese law and the country's image, which is why the central leadership emphasized in 2020 the need to unify legal application standards. In response, beginning in 2021, led by the Central Political and Legal Affairs Commission, China has vigorously implemented the SPC's Implementation Measures for Unifying Legal Application.
The Defendant respectfully requests this Court, under the SPC's Implementation Measures and the principle of "uniform rulings on parallel cases," to reject the claims of ×× Property Insurance Co., Ltd., Beijing Branch.
2. The evidence offered by the Plaintiff lacks objectivity, authenticity, and relevance.
(1) The Defendant once received a phone call from the repair shop handling the Plaintiff's vehicle, which told the Defendant the total repair cost was about 30,000 yuan and demanded that the Defendant pay. But in the invoices provided by the Plaintiff, the Defendant saw two repair-shop invoices: one for 46,270 yuan and one for 19,830 yuan, totaling 66,100 yuan. The amounts contradict each other and are hard to credit.
(2) The two Motor Vehicle Damage Condition Confirmation Forms provided by the Plaintiff bear only the signature of the Plaintiff's policyholder ××. Spaces requiring signatures from the insurer and the repair shop are blank. Since the Plaintiff alleges the Defendant should compensate, under the "he who asserts must prove" principle the Plaintiff must provide objective, authentic, and relevant evidence. The Plaintiff's evidence is insufficient to prove that all repair costs relate to this accident; the Plaintiff may have added repair amounts unrelated to this accident.
3. The proportion and amount of compensation demanded have unclear legal basis.
On compensation liability, the nationwide practice is broadly to allow the non-motor side a 10% margin, which is also reflected in Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law. Under local practice: when the non-motor vehicle is fully responsible, the motor vehicle bears no more than 10%; when the non-motor vehicle is primarily responsible, the motor vehicle bears 40%; when equally responsible, 60%; when secondarily responsible, 80%; when the non-motor vehicle is not responsible, the motor vehicle bears 100% compensation. Moreover, this compensation is one-directional, from motor vehicle to non-motor vehicle; only when the non-motor vehicle or pedestrian intentionally strikes the motor vehicle is the motor vehicle entirely without liability and the non-motor side bears the loss.
In this case, the Plaintiff has no evidence that the Defendant had any motive to intentionally strike the Plaintiff's policyholder's vehicle. Moreover, the Plaintiff's policyholder ×× also bore fault for speeding. The demanded 70% compensation has no clear legal basis.
4. The traffic authority's accident liability determination is open to question.
(1) This accident occurred because the Plaintiff's policyholder ×× was speeding through a zebra crossing (which is why ×× was assigned responsibility), and the Defendant, who was about to cross the crossing, saw the danger and swerved the handlebars in urgent avoidance. This was an act of urgent necessity, not the improper turn described in the liability determination. Conduct taken in urgent avoidance when life is threatened constitutes justifiable self-protection and should not be ruled a traffic violation. The Defendant should not bear primary responsibility, nor perhaps any responsibility.
(2) The Defendant was seriously injured when struck; the diagnosis from ×× Hospital (Annex 9) confirms traumatic brain injury at the time. The traffic police made the liability determination in a hospital corridor using summary procedure while the Defendant was in poor condition. During hospitalization, the Defendant applied for administrative review, but the reviewing officer issued a review decision without investigating the Defendant at all. The above procedures are all flawed. The Defendant submits the CD of video and photographs of the collision and requests the court to judge, based on this evidence, whether the traffic authority's liability determination is reasonable.
In summary, the Defendant holds that the Plaintiff's claims lack legal basis and that the evidence offered lacks objectivity, authenticity, and relevance, and requests the Court to dismiss all of the Plaintiff's claims according to law—so as to demonstrate the humanity and civilization of the rule of law, put people first, resolve contradictions among the people, fully embody the superiority of the socialist system and socialist core values, and enhance the people's sense of justice.
Respectfully,
×× People's Court
Defense counsel: Zhou ××
June 24, 2024
On July 2 the case was heard. It was the first (and hopefully last) lawsuit of my life. I was somewhat nervous going to court, but since I had prepared to lose, my nerves were not too bad. During the hearing, the female judge and the female judge's assistant were both very kind. My wife (who insisted on accompanying me—we had not even prepared a power of attorney) and I were a bit tongue-tied from inexperience (fortunately I had submitted a written defense in advance), but the attitude of the judge and clerk made us feel much better. The hearing was conducted seriously, running from 9:30 to after 11:00, and gave us ample time for evidence cross-examination and defense. After the judge and assistant gently calmed me, I recovered from my initial nervousness, and the rest of the defense went smoothly; I even managed to leave the other side's legal representative somewhat at a loss for rebuttal.
At 5:42 p.m. on July 16 (evidently the court ladies were working overtime, showing how hard they too labor), I received an email with the electronic judgment. To be honest, before opening the email, my heart was pounding, because I had not expected to win at first instance. After reading the judgment, I was overjoyed: I had won. The full judgment was about 3,000 characters, written in great detail, showing the court had tried and decided the case carefully.
The judgment reads as follows (personal information redacted to protect the parties' privacy):
An insurer subrogation dispute between the Plaintiff ×× Property Insurance Co., Ltd., Beijing Branch (hereinafter "×× Property Insurance") and the Defendant Zhou ×× was filed with this Court on July 1, 2024 and, applying summary procedure, was heard in open session. The Plaintiff's authorized agents ×× and ×××, and the Defendant Zhou ×× and his authorized agent ××× (i.e., my wife) appeared.
The case is now concluded.
×× Property Insurance requests: that Zhou ×× pay the claim of 46,270 yuan and bear the litigation costs. Facts and reasons: On November 19, 2023, in ×× District, Beijing, Zhou ××, riding a bicycle, came into contact with vehicle Jing ×××× driven by Liu ××, causing damage to both vehicles and injury to Zhou ××. The traffic authority determined Zhou ×× primarily responsible and Liu ×× secondarily responsible. Vehicle Jing ×××× was covered by motor-vehicle damage insurance with ×× Property Insurance, the insured being Liu ××; the policy period ran from April 29, 2023 to April 28, 2024, with an insured amount of 460,080 yuan. The accident occurred within the policy period. Afterward, the insured filed a claim with ×× Property Insurance for repair costs of 66,100 yuan. ×× Property Insurance paid the insured in full and obtained subrogation rights; according to the accident liability proportion, Zhou ×× should pay ×× Property Insurance 46,270 yuan.
Zhou ×× answered: I disagree with all of ×× Property Insurance's claims, for the following reasons:
1. The relevant law does not provide that a non-motor-vehicle rider or pedestrian must compensate the motor vehicle's damage absent intentional collision; given the adjudication standards in parallel cases, where the motor vehicle side was at fault and the non-motor-vehicle side Zhou ×× was not intentional, ×× Property Insurance has no right to demand that Zhou ×× pay the vehicle repair costs. 2. ×× Property Insurance's claim that Zhou ×× bear 70% of vehicle damage has no legal basis. 3. The repair items and prices claimed lack valid evidence; during the repair, the shop told Zhou ×× the cost was only about 30,000 yuan. 4. Zhou ×× swerved the handlebars because he saw the other vehicle speeding and acted in urgent avoidance; this should not be ruled a traffic violation, and I contest the accident liability determination.
The parties submitted evidence supporting their claims and answers, and the Court organized cross-examination. Evidence undisputed by the parties is confirmed and placed on record.
Based on the parties' statements and the evidence reviewed and confirmed, the Court finds: vehicle Jing ×××× was covered by motor-vehicle damage insurance with ×× Property Insurance, the insured being Liu ××, with an insured amount of 460,080 yuan and a policy period from 0:00 on April 29, 2023 to 24:00 on April 28, 2024.
At 15:23 on November 19, 2023, at ×××× in ×× District, Beijing, Zhou ×× was cycling from south to west and Liu ×× was driving vehicle Jing ××× from east to west; the right side of the bicycle came into contact with the left side of vehicle Jing ×××, damaging both vehicles and injuring Zhou ××. On the same day, the traffic authority issued an accident determination finding Zhou ×× at fault for failing to follow the directing traffic signs (primary responsibility) and Liu ×× at fault for other conduct impairing safe driving (secondary responsibility). Because Zhou ×× requested written review, the traffic authority issued a review conclusion on December 14, 2023 finding the facts clear and evidence sufficient and upholding the determination. At trial, Zhou ×× stated he still contests the liability division, arguing the determination was signed while he was unconscious and without adult family present, that vehicle Jing ××× was speeding, and that he had swerved out of urgent necessity. On inquiry, ×× Property Insurance stated it could provide no further evidence that Zhou ×× acted with subjective intent. After the accident, vehicle Jing ××× was appraised by ×× Property Insurance and repaired at Beijing ××× Automobile Sales and Service Co., Ltd., with actual repair costs of 66,100 yuan. On inquiry, Zhou ×× contested the reasonableness of the repair prices and items, alleging over-repair, and noted that the appraisal was signed only by Liu ××, which he deemed non-compliant. After the Court's explanation, Zhou ×× expressly declined to apply for judicial expertise on causation or the reasonableness of repair items.
Thereafter, Liu ×× filed a claim with ×× Property Insurance for the above repair costs, and on January 3, 2024 ×× Property Insurance paid Liu ×× 66,100 yuan. On inquiry, ×× Property Insurance stated that, because Zhou ×× bore primary responsibility, it asserted subrogation against Zhou ×× for 70% of the loss, i.e., 46,270 yuan.
The above facts are supported by the electronic policy, accident determination, review acceptance notice, review conclusion, information query form, on-site and teardown photos of the vehicle, damage confirmation form, settlement statement, repair invoices, claim application and rights-transfer document, payment receipt, the parties' statements, and the court hearing record.
The Court holds that, under Article 60, paragraph 1, of the Insurance Law of the PRC, an insurer's subrogation right is acquired and exercised only where the civil compensation liability in the underlying legal relationship is established. In this case, whether ×× Property Insurance holds a subrogation right against Zhou ×× depends on whether Liu ××, as the motor-vehicle side, has a damage-claim against Zhou ××, the non-motor-vehicle side. Under the relevant provisions of the Civil Code and Article 76 of the Road Traffic Safety Law, when an accident occurs between a motor vehicle and a non-motor-vehicle driver, the motor-vehicle side bears no-fault liability; the law does not expressly provide that the non-motor-vehicle side must compensate the motor vehicle according to its fault. As a high-speed transport tool, the motor vehicle is highly dangerous and occupies a superior position on the road; as the beneficiary of this high-speed tool, the motor-vehicle side should bear a higher duty of care for the resulting danger. On one hand, the Road Traffic Safety Law already compensates the motor vehicle's property loss and evaluates the non-motor-vehicle side's fault by reducing the motor vehicle's compensation duty toward the non-motor side; on the other hand, by encouraging motor-vehicle owners to buy commercial third-party and especially vehicle-damage insurance, the risk of the motor vehicle's own property loss is also shared and transferred. Therefore, absent evidence that the non-motor-vehicle side acted with subjective intent in causing the accident, it is inappropriate to directly impose compensation liability on the non-motor-vehicle side for the motor vehicle's damage. Where the non-motor-vehicle side lawfully bears no compensation duty for the motor vehicle's property loss, the insurer has no subrogation right. For the above reasons, the claim of ×× Property Insurance Co., Ltd., Beijing Branch, that Zhou ×× pay the corresponding claim, is without legal basis, and the Court does not support it.
Zhou ××'s defense contesting the liability division in the accident determination lacks effective supporting evidence, and the Court does not accept it. It should be noted that the traffic-enforcement-level accident liability determination is not directly equivalent to the fault assessment for civil compensation; for property damage after an accident between a motor vehicle and a non-motor vehicle, the relevant legal provisions and legislative purpose must be applied, the specific circumstances comprehensively weighed, and civil compensation determined fairly and reasonably. Since Zhou ×× bears no compensation duty, the Court does not further address his objections to the repair costs.
In summary, the Court, applying Article 1208 of the Civil Code, Article 76(1)(2) of the Road Traffic Safety Law, Article 60(1) of the Insurance Law, Article 67(1) of the Civil Procedure Law, and Article 90 of the SPC Interpretation on Applying the Civil Procedure Law, rules as follows:
Dismiss all claims of ×× Property Insurance Co., Ltd., Beijing Branch.
The case acceptance fee of 478 yuan is borne by ×× Property Insurance Co., Ltd., Beijing Branch, already paid.
If dissatisfied with this judgment, a party may, within 15 days of service, submit an appeal petition to this Court and file copies according to the number of opposing parties, appealing to the ××× Court.
This judgment adopted the most critical part of my defense and also rejected some of my arguments, ultimately ruling in my favor based on parallel-case adjudication standards. Winning a lawsuit hinges on the reasonableness of winning. As a party, if there had been no reasonableness to winning, I would not have bothered; precisely because that reasonableness existed, I made the effort.
The SPC's Implementation Measures for Unifying Legal Application played a key role in this victory. After listening to several legal friends, I was puzzled by why similar cases were decided differently across regions; when I searched online for the reason, I came across the central leadership's and Political and Legal Affairs Commission's discussions on parallel-case retrieval and uniform rulings, and learned that such an institution exists in China. I then found my breakthrough: through parallel-case retrieval, I searched "insurer subrogation dispute" on China Judgements Online and the People's Court Case Database and found a large number of examples.
For a non-specialist like me, the judgments on China Judgements Online and the People's Court Case Database are the best learning material; my own grasp of the legal provisions in this case came almost entirely from those judgments. This is a "short, flat, fast" way to learn the relevant law; ordinary people can use it to quickly master the law relevant to their own cases.
The SPC's Implementation Measures for Unifying Legal Application is a new legal institution, and a very good one, that can minimize wrongful convictions. At present, not many people know about this provision or know how to use it; at least in traffic-accident insurer subrogation disputes, I was the first person in Beijing (and possibly nationwide) to defend myself along these lines. Through this article I would like to recommend this regulation to readers, and recommend the "parallel-case retrieval" and "uniform rulings on parallel cases" principles put forward by China's central government. This is a major reform in China's judicial field; given time, it will surely advance the country's judicial progress.
You reap what you sow; nothing in the world is impossible for a willing heart. With careful preparation, we can earn the chance of good fortune. Litigation is not a pleasant affair, but what is worse than litigation is having a clear chance of winning and losing anyway. If we do more preparation work, our chances of winning multiply. I believe this victory may not only reduce my own losses but also reduce losses for future people in the same situation, and offer a new line of thinking to friends mired in litigation.
Finally, I should note that I am not a legal professional; I have been through only this one lawsuit and have little experience. All the legal knowledge I had I have shared in this article. If readers have legal disputes, please do not consult me; you should go to a law firm and consult a professional lawyer, or, like me, study comparable cases yourself and seek a breakthrough.
Finally, may there be no wrongful or unjust cases under heaven.