Core Insights - The first specialized operational liability insurance product for low-altitude economic operators, named "Anywing Plan," has been launched in Suzhou, providing risk coverage for operational management [1] - The low-altitude economy insurance market is rapidly developing, with over 30% of property insurance companies already engaged in related businesses [2] - The market size for low-altitude economy insurance is projected to reach between 8 billion to 10 billion yuan by 2035 [2] Group 1: Product Development - The Anywing Plan aims to fill the gap in professional risk coverage for low-altitude economic operators, offering a comprehensive risk management system that addresses unique risks such as signal interference and operational errors [1] - Various innovative insurance products have been launched, including a comprehensive low-altitude economic insurance service system by PICC and EHang, and third-party liability insurance by Zhongcai and Taibao [2] Group 2: Market Potential - The low-altitude economy insurance market is expected to see significant growth due to the increasing insurance demand across the entire industry chain, from manufacturing to operation [2][3] - The financial regulatory authorities are actively guiding insurance institutions to innovate in low-altitude economy insurance products and services [2] Group 3: Industry Challenges - The low-altitude economy insurance sector faces challenges such as a lack of historical data, which complicates risk assessment and pricing [3] - Industry experts emphasize the need for insurance companies to collaborate with low-altitude economic stakeholders to enhance data sharing and develop innovative products [3]

外卖骑手刘某驾驶电动自行车送餐途中，与驾驶电动自行车的吕某发生碰撞，致吕某受伤，电动自 行车受损。公安交管部门认定，刘某负事故的全部责任，吕某无责任。刘某是甲公司的员工，甲公司曾 为其在保险公司投保雇主责任险附加第三者责任险。保单特别约定载明，在保障期间，骑手遭受意外伤 害保险事故，保险公司承担相关医疗费用，但事故发生地的社会医疗保险或其他公费医疗管理部门规定 的自费项目和自费药品费用以及医保统筹基金、附加支付，均为保险责任以外。 事故发生后，吕某就相关损失向人民法院提起诉讼，法院判决甲公司赔偿损失合计20万余元。甲公 司履行完相应赔付义务后，向保险公司理赔未果，故诉至法院，要求保险公司承担相应的保险责任。 本报讯（记者 郭燕 通讯员 夏梦 潘志川）骑手送外卖途中与他人相撞，导致他人受伤，公司为骑手 购买了雇主责任险附加第三者责任险，赔付伤者后向保险公司理赔却被保险公司告知非医保用药不赔。 那么，交通事故中，非医保用药的责任应由谁来承担？近日，上海市虹口区人民法院审理了一起有关保 险理赔过程中扣除非医保用药医疗费争议的案件。 综上，法院判决保险公司向甲公司支付保险金20万余元。该案判决后，双方未提起上诉，现已 ...

Core Viewpoint - The legal framework surrounding compensation for operational losses due to traffic accidents involving ride-hailing vehicles has been clarified through recent court cases, establishing that such losses are recognized as property damage and are compensable under certain conditions [1][2]. Group 1: Legal Cases and Outcomes - In a case from January 2024, a ride-hailing driver sought compensation for four days of operational loss after being involved in an accident where he was not at fault, and the court ruled in his favor, determining a compensation amount of 873.09 yuan for three days of downtime [1]. - Another case from June 2023 involved a ride-hailing driver whose vehicle was out of service for nine days due to an accident, with the court awarding him 2,700 yuan for his operational losses, affirming that such losses are reasonable and compensable [2]. Group 2: Insurance Implications - Compensation for operational losses falls under the category of property damage and is covered by mandatory traffic accident insurance (交强险), while the applicability of commercial insurance for such losses depends on the specific terms outlined in the insurance contract [2]. - If an insurance company has clearly communicated any exclusions regarding operational loss compensation, the liability may shift to the party at fault in the accident [2]. Group 3: Recommendations for Drivers - Ride-hailing drivers are advised to maintain accurate records of their daily operational income to substantiate claims for operational loss compensation in the event of an accident [3]. - Both ride-hailing and private vehicle drivers should familiarize themselves with relevant laws and regulations to better understand their rights and obligations, thereby protecting their legal interests [3].

案例1"某运输公司诉杨某劳动争议案"明确，企业与网约货车司机之间存在用工事实、构成支配性劳动管理 的，应当认定存在劳动关系，依法保障网约货车司机享受劳动权益。 第二，依法审理涉新就业形态责任保险合同纠纷案件 案例2"某餐饮配送公司诉某保险公司责任保险合同纠纷案"明确，认定是否属于相关责任保险中约定的"业务有 关工作"，应当依据保险合同约定的具体理赔情形，结合法律规定、企业经营范围、劳动者从业类型、从事有 关行为对于完成业务工作的必要性及是否受企业指派等因素综合考量。鼓励企业通过购买商业保险，保障遭受 职业伤害的新就业形态劳动者及因劳动者执行工作任务造成损害的第三人，及时获得救济，分散企业风险，推 动新业态经济健康规范发展。 第三，妥善审理劳动者执行工作任务受到损害案件 案例3"冯某诉某物业公司身体权纠纷案"，强调人民法院在处理相关案件时应当充分考虑新就业形态人员职业 伤害保障的制度功能，确保案件处理结果与有关试点制度安排相向而行。依法支持劳动者关于第三人承担民事 赔偿责任的请求，明确第三人的侵权责任不因劳动者获得新就业形态人员职业伤害保障待遇而免除或者减轻， 筑牢职业安全"防护网"。 第四，妥善审理劳动者执行 ...