来源：上海金融法院 裁判要旨 在《机动车交通事故责任强制保险条例》（以下简称《交强险条例》）第三条、第二十一条第一款并未 明确"第三者"范围以及如何解释"车上人员"的情况下，不能仅以事故发生时人员所处的位置作为其是否 属于"本车人员"。 对商业三者险中"第三者"的理解，应当与交强险项下的"第三者"理解保持一致，即非"司乘人员"的应属 于"第三者"范围，除非保险合同对"第三者"作出了特殊约定。 案情回顾 原告：上海烨某货物运输代理有限公司（以下简称烨某公司） 被告：某财产保险股份有限公司上海市分公司（以下简称某财产保险公司） 法院经审理查明，2022年7月30日，烨某公司向某财产保险公司投保交强险和商业三者险，保险期间均 为2022年8月31日0时0分起至2023年8月30日23时59分止。商业三者险条款约定："本保险合同中的'第三 者'是指因被保险机动车发生意外事故遭受人身伤亡或者财产损失的人，但不包括被保险机动车本车车 上人员、被保险人。""本保险合同中的车上人员是指发生意外事故的瞬间，在被保险机动车车体内或车 体上的人员，包括正在上下车的人员。" 另案生效判决中，法院判决钱某的损失由烨某公司承担45%的赔 ...

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court of China is seeking public opinion on a draft interpretation regarding traffic accident liability, specifically addressing the issue of "door opening accidents" which have become a significant concern for urban road safety [3][4][5] Group 1: Legislative Developments - The draft interpretation aims to clarify the liability and insurance compensation rules for "door opening accidents," categorizing the actions of passengers as the responsibility of the motor vehicle [5][8] - The draft proposes that insurance companies cannot refuse compensation by claiming that the passenger is not a covered driver, thereby enhancing protection for victims [8][10] - The public consultation period for the draft interpretation is set to end on November 15 [4] Group 2: Impact on Insurance Practices - If implemented, the draft interpretation is expected to streamline the insurance claims process, allowing victims to claim directly from the motor vehicle's insurance without disputes over liability [10][11] - Insurance companies will need to reassess their commercial vehicle insurance policies to align with the new regulations, particularly regarding definitions of "insured persons" and "use of the insured vehicle" [11][12] - The draft interpretation also addresses other insurance responsibilities, indicating a broader effort to clarify legal ambiguities in traffic accident cases [11][12] Group 3: Social Implications - The prevalence of "door opening accidents" is highlighted, with data suggesting that 30% of such incidents may lead to secondary accidents, increasing overall road safety risks [7] - The proposed regulations are seen as a response to public concern over the safety and rights of individuals on the road, emphasizing the need for responsible behavior from both drivers and passengers [10][12] - The draft interpretation aims to foster a culture of safety awareness among all road users, potentially reshaping public attitudes towards responsibility in traffic situations [10][11]

Core Viewpoint - The case highlights the complexities of insurance liability in the context of car rentals, emphasizing the need for insurance companies to conduct thorough due diligence and adapt to the evolving landscape of shared economy services [1][2][4]. Group 1: Case Details - On January 6, 2024, an accident occurred involving a rented vehicle, resulting in injuries and damages, with the driver found primarily at fault [1]. - The injured party incurred medical expenses totaling 47,311.40 yuan and was assessed with a 9th-degree disability, leading to a total claim of over 250,000 yuan [1][3]. - The insurance company argued that the vehicle's use had changed from non-commercial to commercial, thus denying liability under the commercial insurance policy [1]. Group 2: Court Ruling - The court rejected the insurance company's defense, stating that the insurer should have been aware of the vehicle's potential rental use when underwriting the policy [2]. - The court ruled that the insurance company could not deny coverage based on the change in vehicle usage, as it had not clearly defined the operational nature of the vehicle at the time of underwriting [2]. - The final judgment mandated the insurance company to compensate the injured party a total of 254,024.78 yuan, with the driver responsible for an additional 4,240.72 yuan [3][4]. Group 3: Industry Implications - The case serves as a warning for insurance companies to enhance their due diligence processes, especially when dealing with bulk insurance applications from rental companies [4]. - There is a growing need for innovative insurance products tailored to the car rental industry, moving beyond traditional definitions of commercial and non-commercial use [4]. - The case underscores the importance of compliance and transparency from rental companies regarding insurance coverage and the necessity for renters to verify insurance details before renting a vehicle [4].