In principle, the insurance company has the right to refuse compensation for traffic accidents caused by private cars, but whether the insurance company can refuse compensation successfully depends on the evidence of both parties; After all, there is evidence in the lawsuit.

This lawsuit is estimated to be difficult to win, because although you are not in the process of soliciting customers, it happened on the way back to pick up the car after soliciting customers. In terms of causality, the subsequent car collection is also caused by the drip operation, which is the continuation of the vehicle drip operation, so it still belongs to the category of deductible.

What is the probability that the insurance company will lose the case? After years of practical work experience, in the process of civil litigation of insurance companies, the main reason for the greatest possibility of losing the case is that they have not fulfilled their obvious obligation to inform.

How do we understand this, that is, when the insurance company signed the contract with the owner, it did not clearly inform the owner of some agreed terms that should be known.

In the past, there were many cases in which insurance companies lost for this reason. However, in this traffic accident, it is unlikely that the insurance company will lose the case, because many insurance companies have fulfilled their obvious obligation to inform in the formulation of some terms, such as enlarging the font when the parties sign or signing all the agreed terms.

Is there an overlord clause? Some people may think that since my vehicle has been insured by commercial third party insurance, the insurance company should make compensation within the scope of commercial third party insurance. Why did the insurance company refuse to pay compensation after the traffic accident of the drip truck driver? Is this the overlord clause?

The insurance company's explanation is actually very simple. As a motor vehicle owner, when you buy insurance, you buy insurance for your private car. The insurance rate is relatively low. If you are operating a vehicle, the insurance premium rate is relatively high if you buy commercial three-person insurance.

The insurance company reached an agreement on the terms. If a motor vehicle is in operation, it is necessary to inform the insurance company in advance to adjust the rate, which means that we have to pay more money to the insurance company. No more compensation, and the insurance company won't pay a penny.

My personal understanding is that insurance companies have clearly avoided their own risks when concluding contracts. In other words, if a private car is engaged in business, it will run on the road for a long time, and the probability of an accident is relatively high. Insurance companies are unwilling to bear this part of the risk responsibility.

Since the insurance company, as the owner of a motor vehicle, has purchased the commercial three-party insurance, the insurance company will not pay a penny across the board, right? Should I also pay part of the compensation? I think the people's court will finally make a judgment.

In the case of civil compensation for traffic accidents, if there is a dispute, it will not be satisfactory in civil mediation. Finally, the civil judgment of the people's court is the best way to solve the civil compensation for traffic accidents.