Hitting is a shared mode of transportation where people agree to ride along the way to their destination, and is favored by many due to its convenience and affordability. So, can the accident insurance purchased from the insurance company be used to claim compensation for a ride in a traffic accident? Recently, the People's Court of Liangxi District, Wuxi City, Jiangsu Province, concluded such a case. Xiao Zhang is a new citizen who came to Wuxi for work. His hometown is Yancheng, and he often visits his family members. He drives back and forth every time. In August 2022, Xiao Zhang saw a message in a WeChat group that someone wanted to pay a certain fee to ride a ride. To save costs, Xiao Zhang took the initiative to talk to the other party and informed them that they were returning to Wuxi and could depart together. At the same time, Xiao Zhang also posted his itinerary on the ride hailing platform, and soon Wu responded online that he wanted to take the ride. Subsequently, according to the agreed time and location, Xiao Zhang drove from Yancheng with Li and Wu to return to Wuxi. When driving on a certain highway section, Xiao Zhang did not pay attention to an accident vehicle ahead and collided with it, causing Li in the car to be injured. Wu died despite medical treatment. The traffic police department has determined that Xiao Zhang bears the main responsibility for the accident. After the accident, Xiao Zhang compensated the family of Wu with 970000 yuan. As Xiao Zhang had previously purchased supplementary accidental injury insurance for drivers and passengers from an insurance company, he made a claim to the insurance company. The insurance company informed that their behavior changed the operational nature of the vehicle, and according to the insurance terms, it is not within the scope of insurance liability protection and refuses to compensate. Therefore, Xiao Zhang filed a lawsuit with the Liangxi District People's Court, demanding that the insurance company pay an accidental injury insurance premium of 300000 yuan. After trial, the court found that Xiao Zhang had insured his vehicle with supplementary accidental injury insurance for drivers and passengers for one year in May 2022. The policy states that the motor vehicle is intended for personal use by the family, and the coverage includes a payment of 300000 yuan per person for accidental death or disability caused by driving or riding in non-commercial vehicles. Among them, it is specially agreed that this insurance contract only covers non operational vehicles driven or ridden by the insurer with the license plate number or chassis number specified in the policy. After the accident, the insurance company made a claim inquiry record with Xiao Zhang, who stated the fact that he brought Li and Wu on his way back to Wuxi from Yancheng. Afterwards, the insurance company issued a refusal notice to Xiao Zhang, stating that Xiao Zhang had changed the nature of the vehicle's operation and, according to the special agreement, was not within the scope of insurance compensation. According to data from the ride hailing platform, before the accident, Xiao Zhang would post information about ride hailing services between Wuxi and Yancheng on average once or twice a month, with fixed routes and a fee of around 100 yuan per trip. The court believes that as a shared mode of transportation, carpooling allows car owners to share some of the travel costs or provide free mutual assistance by taking passengers along the designated route, which is in line with the car owner's daily driving habits and vehicle usage purposes. Therefore, hitchhiking does not change the nature of the vehicle's use, does not belong to commercial vehicles, and does not significantly increase the level of danger of the insured vehicle. As Xiao Zhang has purchased supplementary accidental injury insurance for drivers and passengers from the insurance company, the insurance contract between the two parties is established. This contract represents the true intentions of both parties and does not violate legal provisions. It is legal and valid, and the insurance company should bear the responsibility of compensating for the insurance benefits as agreed. In summary, the court ruled that the insurance company should pay 300000 yuan to Xiao Zhang. Judge Ge Wei, who is in charge of this case, determined the nature of the vehicle based on the frequency of receiving orders, costs, and routes. He said that if a private car is involved in an accident while riding a ride, should the insurance company compensate for it? The court should comprehensively consider various factors. According to the Guiding Opinions on Deepening Reform and Promoting the Healthy Development of the Taxi Industry issued by the General Office of the State Council, private carpooling, also known as carpooling or carpooling, is a shared travel mode in which the carpooling service provider releases travel information in advance, and people with the same travel route choose to take the carpooling service provider's carpooling, share part of the travel costs, or provide free mutual assistance. There is a significant difference between legitimate private passenger car sharing and ride hailing commercial passenger services. Although there is no need to apply for a ride hailing license, the following requirements should be met: firstly, travel information should be released in advance based on the owner's own travel needs; The second option is for people with the same travel route to choose shared vehicles; Thirdly, not for the purpose of profit, sharing part of the travel costs or providing free mutual assistance; Fourthly, there should be a certain limit on the number of daily carpools per vehicle. According to Article 31 of the "Implementation Rules for the Management of Online Reservation Taxi Operation Services in Wuxi City", if a carpooling service provider adopts the method of sharing part of the travel costs, it shall publish driving travel information in advance, and each vehicle shall not exceed 4 times a day. The shared cost of carpooling shall not exceed 50% of the guide price or pricing of the local cruising vehicle. It is not allowed to engage in ride hailing services under the name of private passenger car sharing. Whether a private car running for a ride will be recognized as a commercial vehicle, the court generally makes a comprehensive judgment based on the owner's order frequency, fee collection, and driving route. Ge Wei stated that if the car owner provides carpooling services to others and charges reasonable fees without changing the route of the vehicle, without significantly increasing the level of danger of the vehicle, it should not be considered as changing the nature of the vehicle's use. However, if the car owner profits from providing ride hailing services, resulting in a significant increase in the level of vehicle danger, it will be deemed to have changed the nature of vehicle use, and the insurance company has the right to refuse compensation. As a new mode of transportation, hitchhiking has made certain contributions in alleviating traffic congestion and promoting green, harmonious and sustainable development. Here, Ge Wei reminds private car owners that when accepting ride hailing orders, they should limit themselves to "reasonable cost sharing" and can keep their driving routes, income details, etc. in advance before accepting the order. Insurance companies can also provide further explanations and clarifications on concepts such as "operation" and "ride hailing" in their policies to avoid ambiguity after accidents occur. At the same time, insurance companies can also develop specialized additional insurance for ride hailing services to meet market demand. (New Society)