摘要
实践中由于对条例第22条理解不同,对因酒醉、无照驾驶造成的交通事故人身损害是否属于交强险赔偿范围,存在肯定说和否定说两种不同观点和做法。否定手说更具合理合法性。保险条款第九条并不违背法律、行政法规效力性强制性规定;条例第二十二条是特别规定应当优先适用;支持抢救费用以外的其他人身伤亡损失没有法律依据;保险人不应当对故意违法造成的交通事故承担赔偿责任;不能适用《合同法》第四十条规定认定第九条无效;不能对第九条做出对保险人不利的解释。
Practice, due to different understanding of section 22, due to intoxication, driving without a license resulting from personal injury accidents whether Traffic Insurance Compensation, said positive and negative, said there are two different views and practices. And said no more rational legitimacy. Insurance policy does not violate Article IX laws and administrative regulations of the effectiveness of mandatory provisions; provisions of Article 2 is a special provision should prevail; support for the rescue costs other than personal injury losses no legal basis; the insurer should not be caused by the deliberate illegal The accident liability; not applicable ＂contract law＂ provisions of the Fourth identified Article 10 is invalid; can not make the insurer Article unfavorable interpretation.
出处
《现代物业（中旬刊）》
2010年第4期99-100,120,共3页
Modern Property Management
关键词
交通事故
强制责任保险
效力性强制性规定
格式条款
抢救费用
Traffic Accident
Compulsory liability insurance
Effectiveness of mandatory
Standard
Terms Rescue costs
