投保人梁某的车辆在运行过程中发生火灾造成车辆全部烧毁。经当地公安消防勘查结果是由于该车行李架上货物起火导致燃烧。围绕“自燃”还是“外燃”这一焦点 ,保险公司与法院的认识和理解产生分歧。一、二审法院均认为是“外燃” ,属保险责任 ,保险公司应当赔付 ,而事实火灾属“自燃” ,但由于保险公司解释工作不到位 ,法院又倾向于被保险人 ,再加上现时社会环境 ,保险公司只好委曲求全 ,同意有限赔偿。这一案件警示我们保险事业任重道远 ,要想真正按《保险法》办案 ,还有很长一段路要走 Insured Liang vehicles in the operation of a fire caused by the vehicle all burned. After the local public security fire investigation results are due to the luggage rack fire caused the goods on fire. Around the “spontaneous combustion” or “external combustion” this focus, the insurance company and the court’s understanding and understanding of the differences. The court of first instance and the court of second instance both considered “external combustion” and belonged to the insurance liability. The insurance company should pay for the fact that the fire was a “spontaneous combustion”, but because the insurance company did not explain its work properly, the court tended to insure, plus the present Social environment, insurance companies had to compromise, agree limited compensation. This case has warned us that the insurance industry has a long way to go and there is still a long way to go in order to truly handle the case under the Insurance Law