Analysis On The Right Of Subrogation Of Insurer In Agents Driving Accident

In this era of rapid development of technology and the Internet,the per capita possession of smart phones has increased,coupled with people’s pursuit of convenience when going out,a large number of new industries catering to everyone’s needs have been spawned,and this is the case for driving on behalf of others.However,because the industry does not currently have a complete legal system to adapt to it,there are often many disputes and disputes that cannot be reached in a unified settlement when a traffic accident occurs in the process of driving on behalf of the driver.Under the existing mechanism,after a motor vehicle traffic accident occurs,under normal circumstances,the insurance company will be requested to compensate the injured party first within its insurance coverage.After the insurer pays the indemnity to the damaged party,the problems related to the insurer’s right of subrogation appear.Because laws and regulations and relevant judicial interpretations do not explain the status of the agent driver,the legal relationship between relevant subjects,the application of practice and theory,and the relief rules,etc.,judges often come to different conclusions about cases in the same situation.Based on the above reasons,this paper takes A insurance company v.E generation driving companies such as insurance subrogation dispute as an example,in this case involved in the generation of driving accidents the insurer’s right of subrogation scope,object,generation of accident in the legal relationship analysis on the related issues,such as with the court and different view.The first part of the paper summarizes the focus of the dispute from the case: 1.Whether the plaintiff A insurance company enjoys the right of subrogation;2.2.Whether the three defendants are all the objects of subrogation by the plaintiff and all of them need to bear the liabilities involved in the case;The second part of the article analyzes the above disputes: 1.According to different insurance types,plaintiff A insurance company has different subrogation rights.The analysis concludes that plaintiff A insurance company does not have the right of subrogation for forced traffic insurance,but has the right of subrogation for vehicle damage insurance and commercial insurance,and the conditions of the plaintiff’s exercise have been met.2,according to the different position three become the object of subrogation and the defendant responsibility,analysis concluded that the E generation drive company in this case is the plaintiff subrogation object and employer responsibility,wang mou one object of subrogation in this case is the plaintiff but in this case,it does not bear the case involved responsibility,the final compensation subject is B insurance company;The third part analyzes the case as a whole,so as to reflect on the nature of the platform agent driving contract and the direct claim right of the third party in liability insurance caused by the case,and suggests that the agent driving contract should be defined as the nature of the contract,and the direct claim right should be given to the third party in liability insurance,and the corresponding simplified request steps should be clarified.