Source: Insurance Educators
A new energy vehicle insured for "personal use" accepted more than 90 rideshare orders within half a month on a ride-hailing platform, and still had 6 passenger trips on the day of the accident. After the crash, owner Luo applied to the insurance company for compensation of over 6,000 yuan. When the claim was denied, Luo sued the insurer.
Recently, Luo's claims were rejected in both the first instance at Chengdu Shuangliu Court and the second instance at the Chengdu-Chongqing Financial Court.
The incident was minor, but the controversy was significant.
According to "Chuan Guan News," in 2024 year, 6 month, Mr. Luo purchased a one-year commercial insurance policy for his new energy vehicle. The policy explicitly states the usage type as "private passenger car" and covers both vehicle damage insurance and third-party liability insurance.
The "Important Notice" section of the insurance policy, in bold text, states: If the insured vehicle's risk level increases significantly due to modifications, additions, or changes in usage nature, the insurer must be notified promptly. Luo personally signed the policyholder's declaration.
In 2025 year 6 month, Luo caused a traffic accident while driving and was held fully responsible by the traffic police. Vehicle repair costs exceeded 6000 yuan, prompting Luo to file a claim with the insurance company.
After investigation, the insurance company found that within 15 days prior to the accident, this vehicle registered under Mr./Ms. Luo had generated over 90 ride-hailing orders via a carpooling platform. The pickup times were scattered across various hours, with no fixed patterns for origins or destinations. More critically, on the day of the accident, the vehicle still had 6 passenger-carrying orders recorded.
The insurance company determined that Mr. Luo used his vehicle for ride-hailing services under the guise of a carpool, fundamentally changing its usage and significantly increasing the risk without notifying the insurer; therefore, it denied the claim.
Lu objected, arguing that his actions constituted private carpooling rather than for-hire transportation, and the insurer should pay out according to the policy. After negotiations failed, Lu filed a lawsuit against the insurance company.
Court: 90 orders in half a month is no longer "on the way."
The Shuangliu Court held that the purpose of private carpooling is for vehicle owners to carry fellow travelers along their own routes and share travel costs, characterized by low frequency, fixed routes, and non-profit nature. Such incidental carpooling does not alter the vehicle's status as a privately used family car.
However, Luo's usage clearly exceeded reasonable limits. The court ruled that determining whether a vehicle has shifted from personal to commercial use cannot rely solely on the platform's listed service category; it must be based on actual usage patterns. Luo accepted 90+ rides within half a month, averaging more than 6 trips per day, with operating hours covering the full day and frequently changing pickup and drop-off locations. This demonstrates that his primary purpose was earning revenue through passenger transport, thereby meeting the criteria for commercial passenger operations.
When a personal vehicle is converted to frequent ride-hailing service, driving mileage, road usage time, and frequency increase significantly, raising the risk of accidents. This falls under "a significant increase in the risk level of the insured object" as defined by insurance regulations. Since Mr. Luo failed to fulfill his notification obligation, the insurance company may deny the claim.
Accordingly, the Shuangliu Court dismissed Luo's claims. Luo appealed, and the Chengdu-Chongqing Financial Court upheld the original judgment in its second-instance ruling.
Insurance industry professionals note that personal vehicle premiums are based on a "occasional private use" risk model, which differs significantly from commercial vehicle risk levels. If a vehicle owner intends to use their car for ride-hailing or other commercial passenger transport, they must update their policy and pay the additional premium; otherwise, claims will almost certainly be denied in the event of an accident.
