汽车责任保险-全英文(doc133)-保险综合(编辑修改稿)

汽车责任保险-全英文(doc133)-保险综合(编辑修改稿)内容摘要：

passage of one year, no litigation has been initiated as a result of the accident. n48 [*1233] The operation of these provisions is triggered by filing a mandatory accident report. n49 The Act defines a motor vehicle liability policy in section . That section requires that the policy insure the person named therein and any other persons, as insured, using any such motor vehicle . . . with the express or implied permission of such named insured . . . against loss from the liability imposed by law for damages arising out of the ownership, maintenance, or use of such motor vehicle. n50 The section also specifies in detail the requirements a policy must meet in order to exempt the insured from the security requirements of the rest of the Act. The debate in Smith turned on the provision that a statutoty motor vehicle liability policy need not insure against loss from any liability for which benefits are in whole or in part either payable or required to be provided under any workmen39。 s pensation law nor any liability for damage to property owned by, rented to, in charge of or transported by the insured. n51 The state legislature in 1957 strengthened the 1953 Act with the enactment of section 20309. n52 This Act, titled the Vehicle Financial Responsibility Act of 1957, provides that no vehicle may be registered in North Carolina unless at the time of registration the owner has proof of financial responsibility. n53 Financial responsibility can be demonstrated by qualifying as a selfinsurer or by offering proof of a motor vehicle liability policy or bond as defined in the 1953 Act. n54 The enactment of the 1957 Act made North Carolina one of only three states to require liability coverage for every vehicle registered in the state. n55 It also obviated criticism that the financial responsibility legislation operated only after an accident had occurred and thus after a victim may have been injured by a financially irresponsible driver. Ideally, the mandatory registration provisions of the 1957 Act deny financially irresponsible drivers a free first bite by denying them access to the road until they prove themselves financially responsible. n56 In decisions since enactment of the 1953 Financial Responsibility Act, North Carolina courts have indicated their intention to interpret the Act expansively. The North Carolina Supreme Court has held that the statute will be broadly construed to carry out its beneficient purpose of providing pensation [*1234] to those who have been injured by automobiles. n57 The Court also has held that the victim39。 s right to recover against the insurer is not derived through the insured, as it is in cases of voluntary insurance, but rather is governed by the statute. n58 . The Court39。 s intention to interpret the Financial Responsibility Act expansively was tested in a 1964 case, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Co. v. Roberts. n59 In that case Roberts and the victim had had a violent fight, after which Roberts pursued the victim by car and drove into him, pinning him against a stone wall. n60 Roberts39。 insurance pany sued for a declaratory judgment that it was not liable for the injuries to the victim because Roberts39。 conduct was intentional. The insurance policy had a clause stating that it covered all sums which Insured shall bee legally obligated to pay as damages because of bodily injury, sickness or disease . . . sustained by any person, Page 5 14 Del. J. Corp. L. 1, * caused by accident and arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the automobile. n61 The policy also provided that [a]ssault and battery shall be deemed an accident unless mitted by or at the direction of the insured. n62 The court noted that such an exclusion was mon in the insurance industry and would be valid if the insured had procured the policy voluntarily. n63 Roberts, however, had purchased the policy pursuant to the requirements of the state39。 s pulsory insurance laws, and the coverage did not exceed the minimun amounts required under the Financial Responsibility Act. n64 The court recognized a conflict between the exclusion clause and the statutory goal of providing pensation for victims of traffic accidents. n65 The clause also conflicted with the express requirement in section that an automobile liability policy insure against liability arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of the automobile. n66 In such a situation, the court held, the statute must prevail over the terms of the policy: The primary purpose of pulsory motor vehicle liability insurance is to pensate innocent victims who have been injured by the negligence of financially irresponsible motorists. Its purpose is not, like that of ordinary insurance, to save harmless the tortfeasor himself. Therefore, there is no reason why the victim39。 s right to recover should depend upon whether the conduct of its insured was intentional or negligent. In order to acplish the objective of the law, the perspective here must be that of the victim and not that of the aggressor. . . . [The victim39。 s rights] are statutory and bee absolute on the occurrence [*1235] of an injury covered by the policy. n67 Twenty years later the court of appeals in Smith examined a conflict between another mon policy exclusion and the state39。 s financial responsibility law. The challenged clause in Smith is known in the insurance industry as an employee exclusion clause and typically provides that an insurer shall not be liable for injury to or death of employees of the insured who are injured while engaged in the business of the insured. n68 The reasoning behind such an exclusion is to permit an employer to avoid the expense of covering his employees under both the mandatory workers39。 pensation system and an automobile liability policy. n69 Like the assault and battery clause of the policy in Ro。