Mercedes-Benz owners flooded the insurance company exclusions claims 460,000

    Wuhan's first "Mercedes-Benz flooding" claims court

    (Reporter Wan Qin intern Zhu Wenzhao) who spent 4 million as the value of Mr. Lai million to buy a Mercedes car insurance, but the vehicle stalled in heavy rain, water damage to the engine. Lai asked the insurance company for compensation for loss of vehicles, the engine lost by the insurance company to insurance coverage does not belong to the grounds of exclusions, the defendant's PICC Ltd. Wuhan Branch court, claims 460,000 yuan. Yesterday, Wuhan first wading insurance claims car engine in Hanyang Court.

    Yesterday morning, Mr. Li did not appear due to travel, his lawyer Liu Xuelian lawyer said in court this year at 15:30 on July 26 Xu, Lai open end of last year bought the Mercedes-Benz ML350 sport utility vehicle in the New Festival in Zhengzhou City, passing, because heaven rain water, flooded vehicle stalled, familiar with the claims process for Lai then report to the People's Insurance Company. And follow the instructions off the vehicle power operator in place waiting for. About 4 pm, Star Automobile Co., Ltd. Zhengzhou Lee Consultant and workshop technicians rushed to the incident and found the engine burst into the tank. Because of serious engine damage beyond repair, together with other losses, losses of up to 40 million vehicles, so he asked people to fulfill the insurance company's liability insurance. People's Insurance Company places have a special wading engine damage insurance, and Mr Lai did not buy insurance coverage does not belong to the grounds of exclusions. Lai ordered PICC Wuhan branch court.

    Yesterday, in Hanyang court the accused, said Mr Lai to purchase additional insurance other than auto insurance, the engine did not buy special insurance. The plaintiff said that under the law, the insurance company owners insurance when the obligation to inform the owner, and special regulations for emphasis, otherwise, the Ordinance is not legally effective, that is Mr Lai to buy auto insurance, the insurance company did not fulfilled this obligation, the engine does not belong to the scope of reparation excuse does not hold.

    Finally, People's Insurance Company said that they can compensate the loss in addition to other than the engine, but the plaintiff insisted engine damaged by water are caustic range.

    As the damage is still lying on the Mercedes-Benz car repair shop, Mr Lai not to act rashly, therefore, no assessment of the costs of damage, loss of vehicles Hanyang court recommended after an assessment of additional evidence retrial. The case being adjourned.