In order to crack down DUI,multi-level laws and regulations have carried out.In civil laws,the most consequences is the exemption of the insurer’s obligation of DUI in the insurance contract.Should DUI be deductible? In what kinds of circumstances the insurance compensation will be exempted by DUI? There’re lots of controversial issues in theoretical circle,especially in commercial third-party liability insurance.The relevant laws have relatively general provisions on the scope of exemption clauses and standards of explanation obligations in commercial third-party liability insurance and the performance and proof of electronic insurance explanation obligations are not detailed.These deficiencies lead to inconsistent standards of adjudication in judicial practice.This paper summarizes thirty appealed cases of traffic accident liability disputes caused by DUI from referee network and selects three typical cases to analyse the focal points which are PICCWuhan branch and Peng Jinhui,Li Kuan motor vehicle traffic accident liability dispute,China Life Insurance Changsha branch and Xu Haibing,Zheng Gang motor vehicle traffic accident liability dispute,Pacific Insurance Zibo central branch and Zhang Chunmiao motor vehicle traffic accident liability case.There are three most controversial points which are "How to grasp the standard of DUI","How to identify the insurer’s obligation based on prohibitive provisions" and "How to judge only providing link mode in electronic insurance".It is considered that DUI should be based on the blood alcohol content of drivers and the comprehensive consideration of the subjective intention and social harm of drivers by analysing the influence of drinking,the definition of DUI in current laws.Prohibitive provisions can not reduce the insurer’s explanation obligation by analysing the scope of exceptions clause,the legal conditions to make exceptions clause effective and the difference between prohibitive provisions and statutory exemption clause.Providing "link" in electronic insurance can not be solely used as the basis for the insurer to fulfill the obligation of explicit explanation by analysing the nature,meaning and standard of the obligation of explanation. |