Gasgoo Munich- On May 28, BYD rolled out a one-year "City Navigation Safety Net" for all users of its DiPilot A and B systems. Under the policy, if an at-fault accident occurs while the CNOA City Navigation feature is being used correctly, BYD will fully cover direct economic losses—including vehicle repairs, third-party property damage, and personal injury. There is no cap on payouts, and the claim will not affect the following year’s commercial insurance premiums.
It has been less than a year since BYD first launched a similar safety net for intelligent parking in July 2025.
Yet, the policy was put to the test almost as quickly as it was announced. On the evening of May 29—just one day after the launch—a Denza Z9GT owner posted: "Day one of the safety net, and we’ve crashed."
BYD’s response was equally swift. By the afternoon of May 30, a technical investigation confirmed the accident fell within the coverage scope, and the company approved the payout. The entire process—from the crash to confirmation of coverage—took less than 24 hours.
Notably, this is likely the first instance in China—and possibly in the history of autonomous driving—where an automaker has accepted financial liability for an accident caused by its system. While the industry has long defaulted to the rule that "the driver is on the hook" amid ongoing uncertainty over liability, BYD has chosen a starkly different path.
Whether this sets a benchmark for the industry to follow or proves to be a risky gamble remains to be seen.
From Scrapes to Payout in Under 24 Hours
On the evening of May 29, a Denza Z9GT fast-charging edition was driving on a city road in Shenzhen with the City Navigation system engaged. The vehicle, a new model launched in March 2026, had previously received an OTA update to the DiPilot 5.0 system. The owner had also activated the CNOA City Navigation safety net coverage prior to the crash, meeting all prerequisites for the service.
According to the owner, Ms. Chen, the vehicle scraped against the car ahead while in City Navigation mode. The system failed to trigger emergency avoidance at any point. In an attempt to minimize damage, Chen applied the brakes manually during the collision, which prompted a driver takeover request, but the incident occurred while the system was still actively driving. The car was wrapped in a "Black Knight" style film, which was damaged in the incident.
Image source: Screenshot from owner's social media
Following the accident, Chen immediately contacted BYD’s official customer service to report the incident. Under BYD’s safety net protocol, reporting requires a "dual-channel" approach: filing with both the car insurer and BYD’s official coverage system. Owners must hold off on initiating formal insurance claims; while third-party vehicle damage can be assessed, no payments should be made yet.
Once the claim is filed, the vehicle must be taken to an authorized dealership for technical inspection, a process that typically takes 24 to 48 hours. The goal is to determine liability. If the driver is at fault, the standard insurance process applies. However, if the assisted driving system is deemed responsible, BYD covers the costs; the owner can then withdraw the claim with the insurer, leaving BYD to handle everything.
By the afternoon of May 30, BYD completed its technical review, confirming the accident occurred during compliant use of City Navigation and fell within the coverage scope. The company agreed to fully cover direct economic losses, including repair costs. The entire process—from the owner’s social media post to the confirmation of payout—was completed within 24 hours.
Image source: Screenshot from owner's social media
Chen told media outlets that "the whole process was very smooth—no hassle at all." Regarding online questions about whether the newly installed wrap would be covered, Chen indicated that it appeared it would be, adding that she had already submitted the wrap’s warranty card.
It is important to note that BYD’s safety net is not a catch-all policy. The coverage applies exclusively to the CNOA City Navigation function; it does not extend to other driver-assist features like ACC adaptive cruise control, ICC lane centering, or HNOA highway navigation. Furthermore, users must complete a knowledge test on the BYD App before using these features for the first time.
Additionally, the service is not an insurance product and cannot replace mandatory traffic insurance or commercial vehicle policies. BYD only covers the economic losses for which the vehicle is liable when the accident is specifically attributed to the intelligent driving system.
The L2 Liability Trap: Why Is BYD Willing to Underwrite the Risk?
The intense industry focus on BYD’s City Navigation safety net stems from the core issue it addresses: a question that has been debated endlessly but never fully resolved in the era of smart driving—who is liable when an L2 assisted driving system causes an accident?
Under current regulations, L2 driving is classified as "human-machine co-driving," where the system provides partial assistance but the driver must remain vigilant and ready to take control at all times. Guiding documents from the Ministry of Public Security and the Supreme People's Court explicitly state that the driver remains the primary operator of the vehicle. Even with assisted driving active, the driver is the one executing the driving task and bears the legal responsibility for safety.
This means that even when assisted driving is engaged, the driver—not the vehicle or the automaker—is the liable party in the event of a crash. While the legal logic is clear, the issue becomes far more complex in real-world scenarios.
In recent years, automakers have pulled out all the stops in marketing to capture the assisted driving market. Vague concepts like "L2++," "L2.999," and "Quasi-L3" have flooded the marketplace, dazzling consumers while planting seeds of safety risk.
Automakers channel Steve Jobs when hyping features, but channel Jia Yueting when discussing accountability. This massive gap between marketing hype and actual liability leaves many assisted driving users feeling that the car can do anything—until an accident happens, and they realize they are on their own.
In 2025, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology’s Department of Equipment Industry held a special meeting, explicitly banning automakers from exaggerated or false advertising and mandating strict disclosure obligations. Since then, manufacturers have shifted from vague terms like "autonomous driving" or "smart driving" to "(combined) assisted driving," dropping labels like "L2++" and "L2.999."
Despite tighter regulation, users still perceive significant risks and feel anxious about liability when using these systems. Insurers are not lenient with assisted driving claims. Data from PICC Property and Casualty in 2025 shows the average loss per vehicle in assisted driving accidents reached 47,000 CNY—35% higher than traditional crashes. While many automakers bundle "assisted driving insurance" with their vehicles, they often deflect blame in practice by citing the difficulty of defining responsibility.
Against this backdrop, BYD’s safety net model offers a distinct logic. It is not a traditional insurance product, but rather a liability framework backed by the automaker’s own technical capabilities.
From the smart parking coverage launched in July 2025 to the City Navigation safety net in May 2026, BYD is attempting to eliminate consumer trust issues by proving it can control the entire chain of accountability.
By completing a technical review and approving payout within 24 hours, the efficiency of handling this first case sends a clear signal: the automaker has both the incentive and the ability to quickly determine liability in smart driving crashes. Once users stop worrying that "no one will be there to help if things go wrong," the psychological barrier to adopting assisted driving naturally lowers.
Image source: BYD
Of course, the safety net model is not a panacea. It relies on the automaker’s ability to technically assess incidents, and it carries the risk of prohibitively high payout costs if accidents occur on a large scale.
Furthermore, the service does not resolve the technical limitations of L2 systems. Recognition blind spots in complex road conditions and the boundaries of emergency avoidance capabilities remain technical challenges that require continuous improvement. Drivers must still remain attentive. Industry insiders continue to advise owners to keep their hands on the wheel and their eyes on the road when using assisted driving features.
From an industry perspective, BYD’s experiment provides a reference point for assigning liability in assisted driving. The rapid payout for this first incident proves the mechanism is feasible in isolated cases. However, its long-term effects will require more time and data to verify. Whether BYD has opened a Pandora’s box of unpredictable risks or given a substantial boost to the adoption of assisted driving remains to be seen.
Still, with commercial L3 autonomous driving still a way off, the promise that "the automaker will cover the costs" objectively represents a small step forward.
