Mr. Ji and Ms. Xu, the couple, were persuaded by insurance agents to cancel ten insurance contracts and purchase two new ones. However, they incurred significant losses due to the cancellation, and they subsequently sued the insurance company to the court. Recently, the Chaoyang Court in Beijing held a public hearing and announced the verdict of the case. The court ruled in accordance with the law that the insurance company should compensate the two individuals for the partial losses caused by the cancellation of their insurance policies, and refund the corresponding insurance premiums for the two insurance contracts signed after the cancellation. The case shows that Mr. Ji and Mrs. Xu claimed that both of them are old customers of a certain insurance company. After obtaining the policy information of the two, the company's salesperson, Mr. Lan, voluntarily came to their door and "persuaded" them that the interest rate of the already insured product was very low, and the new product had more advantages in terms of profit recovery and income. They could refund the ten insurance contracts they originally purchased and purchase two new insurances; Lan promised both of them that the losses incurred due to the surrender would be compensated to them after the surrender. At the strong recommendation of Mr. Lan, Mr. Ji and Mrs. Xu withdrew their previous ten insurance contracts and purchased two new products recommended by Mr. Lan. However, after the policy was cancelled, Lan did not fulfill his promise to compensate for the losses incurred by the two parties as agreed. The two discovered that Lan intentionally avoided clauses that were unfavorable to them while promoting the new product, engaging in misleading behavior such as claiming that dividends were compound interest and that paying only one year's premium would not result in losses. The two parties filed a lawsuit as plaintiffs, requesting a certain insurance company to compensate for the losses incurred by the two parties' policy cancellations and refund the insurance premium of the newly signed insurance contract. The defendant, an insurance company, argued that the two plaintiffs voluntarily submitted the application for surrender and should bear the losses arising from the termination of the insurance contract on their own. After trial, the court found that insurance salesperson Lan had engaged in false promises to compensate for the loss of surrender, misinterpreted the rules of insurance application and surrender, and other behaviors during the sales process of insurance products. This behavior led to the two plaintiffs having a wrong understanding of whether there were risks and consequences in surrendering and purchasing new insurance products with the proceeds of surrender. As an insurance company salesperson, Lan's promotion and advertising of insurance products should be considered as official behavior, and the consequences of his behavior should be borne by a certain insurance company. In addition, Lan's aforementioned violations reflect loopholes in customer information management, personnel training, and management of a certain insurance company, which led to Lan guiding policyholders to cancel or re insure their policies through illegal sales behavior. The insurance company is at fault for this and should bear responsibility. However, the two plaintiffs also had some fault in the occurrence of the differential loss. Although they had a corresponding understanding of the losses that would occur if the policy was cancelled through normal procedures, they did not choose to avoid the losses. Instead, they trusted the salesperson's illegal promises in order to protect and realize their own interests. Therefore, they should bear part of the losses themselves, and a certain insurance company should bear 70% of the differential loss caused by the two plaintiffs' cancellation. For the two insurance contracts signed later, the court held that due to issues such as delayed delivery of insurance contracts and lack of consent from the insured, the two insurance contracts should be respectively terminated and deemed invalid in accordance with the law. In the end, the Chaoyang Court in Beijing ruled in the first instance that the defendant, an insurance company, paid the two plaintiffs a loss of 38427.49 yuan for the cancellation of insurance policies. The two insurance contracts signed between the two plaintiffs and the insurance company were respectively confirmed to be terminated and invalid according to law. The insurance company refunded the two plaintiffs' insurance premiums and paid the loss of fund occupation. After the verdict, the two plaintiffs stated that they would not appeal, and the defendant, an insurance company, did not indicate whether they would appeal. Currently, the first instance judgment has not yet taken effect. The presiding judge of the case, Wu Tong, reminded that insurance companies should focus on strengthening customer information management, enhancing business personnel management, actively fulfilling contract delivery obligations, and avoiding exempting contract delivery obligations by default policyholders logging in to the APP to view. And policyholders should apply for insurance rationally, enhance compliance awareness, not easily believe in promises to compensate for losses, increase risk awareness, and choose insurance products that are suitable for their own economic level and demand type to avoid losses caused by interrupted premium payments. On the other hand, we should enhance our awareness of evidence retention and risk identification ability. For example, when communicating through WeChat, important content should avoid only recording voice calls and retain textual content; If the salesperson makes certain promotional or promised content that raises doubts for the policyholder, the policyholder can call the official customer service hotline for further inquiry and verification, or go to the business outlet to confirm. (New Society)