Guo Mou, a registered driver for an online ride-hailing platform, died suddenly while delivering an order. Both the platform and the insurance company initially refused to compensate, but the Shanghai court has now ruled on the case.
Background and Insurance Details
The platform company had taken out “Road Passenger Transport Carrier Liability Insurance Plus Driver and Passenger Liability Insurance” with an insurance company and signed a “Taxi-Hailing Cooperation Agreement.” The agreement stipulated that the insured parties were the company and its subsidiaries, with the platform acting as the carrier. The platform’s liability to the driver included compensation for the driver’s injury or death and property damage (excluding the driver’s vehicle) during the insurance period, with a maximum insurance limit of 600,000 yuan. The insurance company would form a policy daily based on the taxi orders, recording information such as the driver, vehicle, and passenger for that day.
Incident and Legal Dispute
On the day of the incident, Guo accepted an order from the platform and died suddenly after delivering the passenger to the destination. The forensic appraisal report indicated that Guo died of an acute attack of coronary atherosclerotic heart disease, leading to circulatory and respiratory dysfunction. Guo’s daughter sought compensation from both the platform and the insurance company but was refused.
Platform and Insurance Company’s Stances
The platform argued that it only had an information service relationship with Guo and was not responsible for his death. It claimed that the insurance was personal insurance and that the insurance company should directly compensate Guo. The insurance company, however, argued that the insurance was liability insurance, and the prerequisite for a claim was that the platform company should bear the liability for compensation to Guo. Since the platform company believed it did not need to bear responsibility, the insurance company also refused to settle the claim.
Court’s Ruling
The court held that the insured object determined by the agreement was not the insured person as defined by the Insurance Law. The insured parties stipulated in the agreement were the platform company and its subsidiaries, with drivers and passengers being the objects of protection. The insurance subject matter clause in the agreement indicated that the insurance was liability insurance. The insurance policy stated that the insurance type was “Road Passenger Transport Carrier Liability Insurance Plus Driver and Passenger Liability Insurance,” emphasizing the liability for compensation that the platform company, as the carrier, should bear to the driver.
The court also noted that while managing the driving behavior of drivers, online ride-hailing platforms must safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of drivers. Guo engaged in transportation service activities under the platform’s name. The platform had unilateral decision-making power over driver registration access conditions, contract termination, billing rules, revenue distribution, service contents, and standards. The platform also set various rewards, compensations, performance bonuses, and violation penalties for drivers based on their order-taking situations. Therefore, the driving behavior of driver Guo was managed and restricted by the platform, and the platform company, as the carrier, should ensure the safety of vehicle operation, with the driver being an important role in ensuring safe operation.
The compensation liability borne by the platform should be compensated by the insurance company in accordance with the insurance contract agreement. The scope of insurance liability was clearly stated, and drivers and passengers hired by the platform were within this scope. Therefore, the insurance company should pay the insurance money as agreed.
Final Decision
Ultimately, the court ruled that the insurance company should pay Guo’s family 600,000 yuan in insurance money.
Related Topics:
