On August 30th， according to media reports， Zhang， driving a heavy-duty dump truck， found his vehicle’s insurance had expired on May 17， 2023. On May 24， 2024， at 15:13， Zhang applied for compulsory traffic insurance and commercial third-party liability insurance for the vehicle. By 15:34， he received the electronic policy， which clearly stated the insurance period as “from 00:00 on May 25， 2024， to 24:00 on May 24， 2025.”
However， before the policy became effective， at 15:50 on May 24， 2024， Zhang collided with Wang， who was riding an electric motorcycle， while attempting to overtake. The traffic police determined Zhang to be entirely at fault for the accident.
Wang’s relatives sued Zhang and the insurance company， seeking over 460，000 yuan in compensation. They argued that the insurance company should bear the liability for compensation within the scope of the compulsory traffic insurance and commercial third-party liability insurance. The core of the dispute between the parties centered on the start time of insurance coverage.
The court， in its deliberation， noted that Zhang’s vehicle was insured after a period of being uninsured. The insurance company was fully aware of this fact and should have anticipated the risks during the uninsured period. However， during the underwriting process， the insurance company neither advised Zhang on selecting the insurance effective date nor explained the potential risks associated with the “effective from the next day at midnight” clause. Instead， it directly applied standard terms to determine the effective date， essentially depriving the policyholder of their right to choose. This contravened the legislative intent of compulsory traffic insurance.
Therefore， the court ruled that the “effective from midnight” clause was not binding on Zhang， and the insurance company was obligated to bear the compensation liability within the limits of the compulsory traffic insurance. This ruling reflects a judicial emphasis on consumer protection and the principle of utmost good faith in insurance contracts， particularly when dealing with entities in a position of informational advantage.
As a driver of a freight vehicle and a professional in the transportation industry， Zhang should possess a certain level of understanding regarding commercial insurance underwriting rules and contract terms. Upon receiving the electronic policy， he raised no objections to the stated insurance period of “effective from the next day at midnight，” which should be considered his tacit acceptance of the agreement. Consequently， the court did not support Zhang’s claim that the “effective from midnight” clause for commercial third-party liability insurance was invalid. This part of the decision underscores the court’s expectation for informed consent and adherence to contractual terms by policyholders， even in instances where standard clauses are applied.
Ultimately， the court ordered the insurance company to compensate 180，000 yuan within the compulsory traffic insurance limits. The remaining losses of over 220，000 yuan (after deducting expenses already advanced by Zhang) were to be borne by Zhang himself. This outcome highlights a balanced approach by the court， acknowledging the insurer’s liability under compulsory insurance while holding the policyholder responsible for losses exceeding those mandated by law， given his understanding of the policy terms.
