Drunk Driving Causes Crash: Compulsory Insurance Pays, Commercial Policy Excludes Coverage, and At-Fault Driver Bears Liability

The Supreme People's Court released a typical case concerning compensation for damages arising from a road traffic accident. After drinking alcohol together with Feng, Zhang handed over his vehicle to Feng to drive. Feng drove at excessive speed and collided with a two-wheeled moped operated by Xiao Gang, causing Xiao Gang injuries. Feng then abandoned the vehicle and fled the scene. The public security traffic management authority determined that Feng bore full responsibility for the accident, while Xiao Gang was blameless. The involved vehicle was covered by compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance (compulsory insurance) and commercial third-party liability insurance with a coverage limit of RMB 3 million, and the accident occurred within the policy period. The court held that Feng had driven after drinking and fled the scene, violating statutory prohibitions. The insurer had properly fulfilled its duty to highlight the exclusion clauses in the commercial insurance policy; therefore, the commercial third-party liability insurance would not provide compensation. However, regarding the compulsory insurance, since driving under the influence of alcohol is not among the exemption scenarios stipulated in the Regulations on Compulsory Insurance for Motor Vehicle Traffic Accidents, the court ruled that the insurer must compensate Xiao Gang up to the compulsory insurance liability limit, amounting to RMB 83,000. Under Article 22 of the aforementioned Regulations, if the driver is found guilty of drunk driving, the insurer is required to advance payment for emergency medical expenses within the compulsory insurance limit and may seek reimbursement from the responsible party. For claims related to personal injury damages, the insurer remains obligated to pay compensation within the compulsory insurance limit (excluding property damage), and retains the right of subrogation. Furthermore, the vehicle owner, Zhang, knowingly lent his car to Feng despite being aware that Feng had consumed alcohol, thereby contributing to the occurrence of the harm. The court accordingly determined that losses exceeding the compulsory insurance coverage should be borne by Feng, with 40% of those losses jointly compensated by both Zhang and Feng.