Research On The Legal Application Of Ride-hailing Owners Violate Risk Increases Notification Obligations

The obligation to notify the increase in danger refers to the obligation of the insured to notify the insurer of the situation in a timely manner during the insurance period,so that the probability of an insured accident occurring in the insured subject increases significantly.Its theoretical basis lies in the theory of information asymmetry and the principle of consideration balance,with the purpose of “controlling danger”,preventing moral hazard,and maintaining the balance of consideration in insurance contracts.After the family-owned vehicle engages in the operation of online ridehailing,the increase in the frequency of vehicle travel will inevitably lead to an increase in the probability of traffic accidents.Therefore,once a traffic accident occurs,the owner of the car is likely to be fully rejected by the insurance company for violating the risk increase notification obligation when applying for a claim,which will lead to a claim dispute.Judicial practice is very confusing in the adjudication of such disputes,and there are many problems in the application of the law,making the insurance claims of online ride-hailing an unresolved problem.In addition,the consequences of full refusal of compensation are too harsh for online car owners,which greatly limits the future development of the online ride-hailing industry.Therefore,it is of great significance to improve the application of the law for online car owners to violate the obligation to notify the increase in danger.Through the analysis and sorting out of 264 cases,it is found that the following problems mainly exist in judicial practice.First of all,some courts have fallen into a misunderstanding in applying the adjudication rules established by Guiding Cases,blindly applying them regardless of the circumstances,resulting in the phenomenon of“different cases with the same judgment” in such cases from time to time.Secondly,although Interpretation of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of the Insurance Law of the People’s Republic of China(IV)gives the criterion for judging “a significant increase in the degree of danger”,it only lists the factors that judges should consider in their judgments,not objective and quantitative standards,there is great uncertainty,the guiding significance of adjudication and trial of such cases is limited,the discretionary space of judges is still very large,and the level of judges is uneven,resulting that in the phenomenon of different judgments in the same case is serious.Thirdly,some courts have directly ignored the examination of the causality element,while the courts that have not ignored this element are only superficial in reasoning,the sentences are simple and superficial,the reasoning is empty or even unreasonable,only the conclusion,the causality element is marginalized.Finally,there is also disagreement between courts as to the nature of the risky increase notification obligation.Some courts hold that the obligation is an agreed obligation and the insurer needs to perform the obligation of prompt explanation,while other courts hold that the obligation is a statutory obligation,and the insurer does not need to prompt an explanation or only needs to be prompted.In view of the problems existing in practice,it is proposed to put forward perfect suggestions based on cutting-edge theories and judicial practice experience: Firstly,introduce three elements of increased theoretical danger-saliency,continuity and unpredictability.The operation of e-hailing vehicles for household use must be in line with “distinctiveness” and “unpredictability”,so the judgment of a significant increase in danger should be centered on “continuity”,focusing on the number of orders and orders of insured motor vehicles on the e-hailing platform.The second is to accurately identify the exemption clause of the notification obligation of increasing the danger,prevent the insurance company from disguising it as a general exemption clause and excluding the existence of causality elements,and in the determination of causation,the “loose causality theory” should be adopted to expand the scope of the determination of causation,and only if the traffic accident and the degree of danger increase significantly are completely unrelated,the causality defense can be applied.The third is to make it clear that the notice of increased danger is an agreed obligation,and the insurance company has the obligation to prompt and explain.Under the electronic insurance method,attention should be paid to reviewing whether it is mandatory for the insured to read the terms and instructions and whether face verification is required;in the case of agency,it should be considered that the effect of the prompts and explanations made by the insurance company to the agent is not as effective as the insured himself.Finally,the harsh consequences of full denial of compensation are mitigated by borrowing the “corresponding adjustment model”.When applying this principle specifically,it is divided into three situations: full-time operation,part-time operation and occasional operation based on the frequency of engaging in e-hailing operations.For full-time operations,full compensation can be refused,for part-time operations,the “corresponding adjustment mode” is adopted,and for occasional operations,full compensation should be paid.