保险合同解除与拒绝理赔关系辨析——兼谈保险法司法解释二第八条前半段的适用

发布时间：2019-02-24 19:42

【摘要】：对保险法司法解释二第八条前半段未解除保险合同不得直接拒赔的规定的理解,应体现保险法第十六条蕴含的最大诚信与利益平衡目的。认为解释第八条前半段不解除不得拒赔的规定适用十六条第三款规定的所有情形,将使《保险法》第十六条第三款后半段以及第四、五款保险人拒绝赔偿权的规定成为具文。主张可以选择适用保险合同解除权与撤销权来解决超过二年不可抗辩的客观期限问题,将使保险法第十六条第三款限制保险人解除权的规定虚置。因保险受益人故意拖延不报保险事故超过二年解除不可抗辩期间的,保险人可以适用合同法第四十五条附解除条件合同的规定,主张对方为自己的利益不正当阻止条件成就,合同失效。
[Abstract]:The understanding of the provision that the insurance contract may not be directly refused in the first half of the eighth paragraph of the judicial interpretation of the insurance law should reflect the purpose of maximum integrity and benefit balance contained in the sixteenth article of the insurance law. It is considered that the application of all the circumstances stipulated in paragraph 3 of Article 16 to the interpretation of the provisions of the first half of Article 8 which does not lift the non-repudiation of claims will make the provisions of the second half of paragraph 3 of Article 16 of the Insurance Law and the provisions of paragraph 4 and paragraph 5 of the insurer's right to refuse compensation a written text. The claim that the right of rescission and the right of rescission of insurance contract can be applied to solve the problem of objective time limit beyond two years which cannot be defended will make the provisions of the third paragraph of Article 16 of the Insurance Law restricting the right of rescission of the insurer to be void. If the insurance beneficiary deliberately delays reporting the insurance accident for more than two years, the insurer may apply the provisions of Article 45 of the contract Law with the conditions of dissolution, and claim that the other party unjustly prevents the conditional achievement for his own benefit. The contract is invalid.
【作者单位】：漳州市人民检察院民行处;漳州市人民检察院研究室;
【分类号】：D922.284

【参考文献】