Taihe Research | How Should Insurance Companies Assume Liability in “Dooring” Accidents?
Release Date:
2026-08-04
As a vital pillar of the financial system and social welfare, the insurance industry has consistently advanced in a prudent manner, with legal compliance as its bottom line and regulatory requirements as its guiding principle. In an era of increasingly stringent financial oversight, continuous innovation in insurance business models, and ever‑stricter consumer protection, every stage of an insurer’s operations—from product design and sales to underwriting, claims handling, and investment management—faces more rigorous compliance standards and clearer legal boundaries. Consequently, a deep understanding of, strict adherence to, and effective application of the law have become essential imperatives for insurance institutions, industry professionals, and consumers alike.
To this end, Taihe Law Firm has officially launched a dedicated insurance law column, offering in-depth, practice‑oriented insights into compliance across the entire insurance value chain from a professional legal perspective. The column promptly interprets the Insurance Law and related regulatory updates, dissects landmark industry cases, and analyzes the reasoning behind judicial rulings in insurance disputes. It focuses on high‑frequency, challenging issues such as sales compliance, claims disputes, personal data protection, and the regulation of intermediary activities, employing plain‑language explanations, scenario‑based breakdowns, and actionable guidance to help insurance institutions strengthen their internal control frameworks, enable practitioners to mitigate professional risks, and clarify the rights and obligations of consumers.
Compliance safeguards trust, and the rule of law ensures long-term stability. We hope this column will serve as a trusted partner for the insurance industry in addressing legal challenges and mitigating compliance risks, ensuring that every policy is lawful and every commitment brings peace of mind.
I. Introduction
Parking by the roadside and opening a car door to get out are commonplace actions in everyday travel, yet they can conceal significant safety hazards. When drivers fail to provide adequate warnings or passengers neglect to check rear‑view conditions before exiting, suddenly opened doors often leave passing cyclists or pedestrians with insufficient time to react, leading to collisions, falls, or even more serious accidents—incidents that have been vividly dubbed “dooring.” For a long time, whether and how insurers should compensate in such cases has remained a central point of contention in judicial practice. Insurers typically argue that insurance policies cover the insured or their authorized drivers, whereas dooring incidents involve passengers, who fall outside the scope of coverage. On May 6, 2026, the Supreme People’s Court issued the “Interpretation (II) of the Supreme People’s Court on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in Adjudicating Cases Involving Damage Compensation for Road Traffic Accidents” (hereinafter referred to as “Interpretation (II)”), which took effect on June 30, 2026. The document provides clear guidelines on victim protection and the allocation of insurance liability in dooring‑related accidents. This article examines relevant provisions of the judicial interpretation through typical case analyses and evaluates the allocation of responsibility among insurers, drivers, passengers, and platform operators in dooring incidents.
II. Case Summary
In February 2023, Dong was driving a motor vehicle and stopped on a certain stretch of road. Du, seated in the front passenger seat, failed to check the traffic behind the vehicle and, without any safety warning from driver Dong, opened the door and stepped out, colliding with Ms. Pan, who was riding an electric bicycle normally. The collision resulted in multiple fractures for Ms. Pan, leading to a Grade‑10 disability rating. The public security traffic management authority determined that both driver Dong and passenger Du shared equal responsibility, while Ms. Pan bore no liability. Ms. Pan brought suit before the People’s Court of Fengxian District, Shanghai, seeking compensation totaling over RMB 420,000 for various losses. The insurance company argued that the commercial third‑party liability insurance covers only 50% of the liability attributable to driver Dong and should not be liable for the passenger’s conduct.
III. Summary of the Judgment
After hearing the case, the People’s Court of Fengxian District, Shanghai, held that driver Dong failed to fulfill his duty to warn passenger Du before she opened the vehicle door, and passenger Du, in opening the door, did not exercise due care. The combined actions of both parties jointly caused the accident, constituting a joint tort. Although the public security traffic management authorities assigned separate liabilities to the driver and the passenger, from the victim’s perspective, both the driver and the passenger are integral components of the motor vehicle side and constitute a single entity. Regardless of how liability is apportioned internally between the driver and the passenger, the insurance company remains liable for compensating the damages caused by this unified motor vehicle side. In light of the insurer’s prior advance payment of over RMB 70,000, the court ultimately ruled that the insurance company shall further compensate Ms. Pan more than RMB 320,000 within the limits of compulsory traffic insurance and commercial third-party liability insurance.
IV. Legal Analysis
“Dooring” incidents constitute tort disputes involving infringement of another’s right to life and right to health. The tortious conduct typically arises from the combined actions of the driver and the passenger, amounting to joint negligence. The driver is required both to select an appropriate location for stopping to allow passengers to get in or out and to fulfill a duty to issue timely warnings; meanwhile, the passenger must exercise due care to observe the surrounding environment before opening the door. When the actions of the driver and the passenger together give rise to harm, such conduct constitutes joint tortfeasance.
Article 2, Paragraph 1 of the Interpretation (II) expressly provides: Where the injured party (i.e., the victim) asserts that the liability of the passenger falls within the scope of the motor vehicle’s liability and seeks compensation from the insurer within the compulsory traffic insurance liability limits and in accordance with the terms of the commercial third-party liability insurance contract, the people’s court shall uphold such claim. In other words, the liability arising from a passenger opening a door and causing harm has been explicitly included under the category of “motor vehicle’s liability.” For the victim, both the driver and the passenger are regarded as part of the “motor vehicle side” and constitute a single entity. Regardless of how liability is apportioned internally between the driver and the passenger, the insurers providing compulsory traffic insurance and commercial third-party liability insurance shall bear insurance indemnity for damages caused by this unified motor vehicle side, irrespective of the internal allocation of liability among the driver and the passenger.
Meanwhile, Article 2, Paragraph 2 of the Interpretation (II) explicitly provides that, if the insurance compensation is still insufficient, the passenger and the driver shall bear the liability for damages in accordance with the law. In line with the statutory rules governing subrogation under compulsory traffic accident liability insurance, this paragraph further stipulates that, following payment of compensation, the insurer may seek recourse against any passenger who acted with intent. This provision not only ensures that compulsory traffic accident liability insurance fulfills its basic protective function but also imposes strict sanctions on those who intentionally caused the damage.
In light of the foregoing provisions, the liability of insurance companies in “dooring” incidents can be summarized into the following three tiers: 1. Prior indemnification by the insurer. The insurer shall compensate the victim within the limits of compulsory traffic insurance and in accordance with the terms of the commercial third-party liability insurance policy, and may not refuse to pay on the ground that the passenger is not the insured. 2. Supplementary compensation by the driver and passengers. If the insurance proceeds are still insufficient to cover the victim’s full losses, the remaining shortfall shall be borne by the passenger and the driver in accordance with the law. 3. Joint and several liability of the driver and passengers. For any portion of the loss that remains uncovered after insurance payment, the driver and the passenger shall bear joint and several liability for compensation. It is clarified that, vis-à-vis third parties (i.e., the victim), the driver and the passenger constitute a single entity and assume joint and several liability; internally, they apportion responsibility according to their respective shares of fault.
However, under certain circumstances, the insurer may still be exempt from or partially exempt from liability for compensation, primarily in the following situations: 1. If the policyholder changes the vehicle’s intended use without notifying the insurer—for example, if the vehicle was insured as a “private family use” but is subsequently used for commercial purposes (such as ride-hailing), thereby significantly increasing the risk associated with the insured object and failing to inform the insurer—the insurer may refuse to assume liability under the commercial third-party liability insurance. 2. If a passenger intentionally causes harm, after compulsory traffic accident liability insurance has made payment, the insurer, having paid on behalf of the injured party, shall have the right to seek recourse against that passenger if the harm was caused by the passenger’s deliberate act of opening the door.
Furthermore, if the vehicle involved in the case is a ride-hailing car, relevant judicial precedents indicate that the ride-hailing platform exercises de facto organizational and managerial control over the driver. Consequently, the platform may also bear certain liability in “dooring” incidents. In judicial practice, courts typically assess the platform’s fault by considering factors such as its review and management obligations, the proportion of revenue it retains, the extent of gaps in insurance coverage, and principles of fairness. Within the scope of its fault, the platform shares joint liability with the driver.
V. Legal Advice
(1) Revision of Insurance Clauses
Following the implementation of Interpretation No. 2, it is recommended to refine exemption clauses by explicitly stipulating that failure to notify the insurer when the vehicle’s intended use is changed—such as from private family use to ride-hailing operations—constitutes an exclusion from coverage. Additionally, the subrogation provisions should be improved by clearly defining, within the motor insurance policy terms, the conditions under which subrogation applies in “door‑opening‑collision” incidents, thereby reducing claims‑related disputes. Furthermore, insurers should diligently fulfill their duty to provide adequate notice and explanation, ensuring that exemption clauses are prominently highlighted and clearly articulated to policyholders so as to render such clauses legally effective.
(II) Strengthen Risk Management
During the underwriting process, rigorously verify the nature of vehicle use. For privately owned vehicles used for ride-hailing services, require policyholders to promptly amend their insurance coverage and clearly inform them at the time of application that any change in the vehicle’s intended use must be reported to the insurer; failure to do so may result in denial of claims under commercial insurance.
(3) Exercise the right of recourse in accordance with the law.
Article 2 of the Interpretation (II) provides that, in principle, compulsory traffic insurance insurers may not seek recourse against passengers, except where the damage was intentionally caused by the passenger. By contrast, the right of recourse under commercial third-party liability insurance is governed by the terms of the insurance contract. In other words, compulsory traffic insurance permits recourse only when the passenger’s harm was caused intentionally, whereas commercial third-party liability insurance requires a determination, based on the contract, as to whether recourse may be pursued against a negligent passenger. During the claims‑settlement phase, it is important to collect and preserve evidence demonstrating the passenger’s intentional misconduct or gross negligence, and to promptly exercise the right of recourse in cases that meet the statutory or contractual conditions for recovery, thereby minimizing losses.
(4) Attention to the Faults of Ride-Hailing Platforms
Ride-hailing platforms effectively establish an organizational and managerial relationship with drivers. Where a case involves ride-hailing services, insurers are advised to verify whether the driver holds the requisite operating qualifications and whether all necessary formalities between the driver and the platform have been duly completed. Depending on the specific circumstances, insurers may seek to hold the ride-hailing platform liable for its corresponding obligations.
Attorney Shi Qiao, Areas of practice include insurance compliance and risk management, legal review of insurance products, arbitration and litigation involving significant insurance disputes, design of supply-chain finance structures and risk mitigation in leasing and factoring, fund formation and equity investment, recovery and commercial disposal of non‑performing claims in banking and construction projects, legal advisory services for administrative agencies and state‑owned enterprises, corporate compliance, and major civil and commercial litigation—providing both non‑litigation and litigation services in these fields.
Attorney Xie Yuting’s practice areas include dispute resolution and legal advisory services in the insurance sector, ongoing legal services for state-owned enterprises, labor disputes, civil and commercial litigation, and the recovery of non-performing assets, including those held by banks.
Follow us
Related News