-
Categories
-
Pharmaceutical Intermediates
-
Active Pharmaceutical Ingredients
-
Food Additives
- Industrial Coatings
- Agrochemicals
- Dyes and Pigments
- Surfactant
- Flavors and Fragrances
- Chemical Reagents
- Catalyst and Auxiliary
- Natural Products
- Inorganic Chemistry
-
Organic Chemistry
-
Biochemical Engineering
- Analytical Chemistry
-
Cosmetic Ingredient
- Water Treatment Chemical
-
Pharmaceutical Intermediates
Promotion
ECHEMI Mall
Wholesale
Weekly Price
Exhibition
News
-
Trade Service
On March 21, 2015, after Li had lunch, he took a rest next to the scaffolding gas exhaust pipe on the roof construction site.
After the incident, Li’s company informed his family that when Li was employed, the company had insured him with accidental injury group medical insurance and accident group term life insurance.
Faced with the claims application of Li’s parents, the insurance company believed that Li’s death was due to his own cause and was not an accident.
Li's parents were very angry about this.
Whether the cause of death was accidental injury
The focus of the dispute in this case was whether Li's death was caused by accidental injury and whether it was within the insurance coverage agreed in the insurance contract.
Li’s parents suggested that the police dispatch materials issued by the police station reflected the smell of sulfur in the gas and the worker’s desire to wake Li to work, and other descriptions were consistent with Li’s response to treatment and medication in the hospital, that is, the main manifestations were: Asphyxiation caused by toxic gas or other gas, this situation meets the requirements of accidental death.
The insurance company argued that the medical insurance clauses and the death insurance clauses stated: Accidents refer to external, sudden, unintentional, and non-illness events that cause physical harm.
Faced with the insurance company’s statement, Li’s parents stated that Li was the only child in the family and did not want to see his son undergo an autopsy, so they did not agree to a forensic evaluation; after the accident, he contacted the police station, and the police station issued a police report to prove it.
The insurance company failed to prove the exemption.
The court heard that, first of all, Li's death was proved by relevant materials issued by the public security department, and the plaintiff had completed the burden of proof that Li's death was caused by unexpected injuries.
In the end, the court ruled that the insurance company should pay Li’s parents 467.
http://