The Reason Why "Property Damage Liability Not Covered" When Glass Is Broken by a Stone Hit by the Car in Front

Financial Supervisory Service Publishes Major Consumer Complaints Cases for Q1

Driver A experienced an accident on the highway where a stone kicked up by the vehicle driven by B in front caused the windshield to break. A requested 'property damage compensation' from the auto insurance company B was enrolled in, but was denied. This was because B's actions were not considered intentional.

Property damage compensation covers losses incurred when the insured causes damage or destruction to another person's property, resulting in legal liability for damages. However, it only applies when the damage is caused by illegal acts due to intent or negligence. In the case of kicked-up stones, it is difficult to recognize that stones are on the road and to foresee that stepping on them would cause damage to following vehicles, so the financial authorities also ruled that property damage compensation is not applicable.

In this case, A has no choice but to handle the matter through their own auto insurance. If the vehicle that dropped the stone on the road is found, or if the road management authority knew about the stones but left them unattended for a long time, it is possible to claim damages against those parties.

[Image source=Getty Images]

The Financial Supervisory Service disclosed major complaints and dispute cases for the first quarter of this year on the 4th.

Mr. C suffered losses such as being unable to use reserved accommodation and travel programs at the destination due to a delayed overseas flight. C confirmed that the travel insurance purchased before departure included an 'aircraft delay cost compensation rider' and requested insurance payment, but was denied. This rider only compensates for actual expenses such as meals, accommodation, and communication costs incurred while waiting at the departure location due to aircraft delays. Losses caused by being unable to use accommodation and travel programs at the scheduled destination were not covered.

Mr. D was recommended an additional magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) test due to a suspected midbrain artery stenosis found in a health checkup within three months before purchasing insurance but did not inform the insurer of this when applying. Upon recognizing this fact, the insurer terminated the insurance contract with D. D argued that the insurer unfairly terminated the contract for breach of disclosure obligation, even though it was a suspicion noted in the health checkup results and not a confirmed diagnosis. However, the financial authorities sided with the insurer, stating that suspected disease findings in health checkup results within three months are also subject to disclosure obligations.

A Financial Supervisory Service official explained, "As part of the business innovation roadmap, we disclose major financial complaint cases and dispute judgment criteria quarterly," adding, "We also publish image content on our website to enhance financial consumers' understanding."