保险合同免责条款提示说明义务实证研究

发布时间：2018-01-14 08:18

本文关键词：保险合同免责条款提示说明义务实证研究　出处：《中国社会科学院研究生院》2017年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：现行《保险法》第17条规定了保险人对于保险合同免责条款独有提示说明的义务。《保险法解释(二)》第9至13条分别规定了保险认提示说明义务的说明范围、对象、除外情况、内容、履行的方式以及举证责任等。可以说,以上规定对于保险人的实际从业、维护投保人的权益以及现实中的司法审判都具有相当大的积极意义。但是与此同时我们也应看到现行《保险法》以及相关的司法解释对于保险人提示说明义务的规定还有许多亟待明确的地方,如《保险法》第17条中的“明确说明”究竟应达到何种程度?其中“作出足以引起投保人注意的提示”的具体标准是什么?《保险法解释(二)》第9条对于保险人提示说明义务的范围作出了不完全列举式的规定,但是除此之外还有哪些条款是需要保险人进行解释说明的?诸如此类的问题,法律以及司法解释并未给出明确和细化的规定,理论上也对此存在很大分歧和争议。如,对于保险人的说明义务的履行标准应当采纳主观说还是客观说?对于保险人的证明标准应当采取严格的证明标准还是宽松的证明标准?对于保险人的说明范围应当采取广义说、狭义说还是折中说?可见,关于保险人的提示说明义务,法律、司法解释的规定还比较模糊,理论界对此也是众说纷纭、莫衷一是。因此,保险实务中保险人与投保人之间的纠纷越来越多,审判实践对于相关案例的审判也存在着差异化的判决,审判缺乏统一化的标准和可操作性强的参照。因此,明确和细化保险人的提示说明义务迫在眉睫。本文除去绪论部分,主要分为四大部分。第一,介绍我国有关保险人提示说明义务的立法现状,并且对于理论界的争议点进行归纳;第二,本文将用较大的篇幅对于112件相关司法案例进行集中地统计和分析,从时间、空间、审级等多维度对112件案例进行全方面的考察;第三,总结法院在此问题上的审判思路以及司法审判中的主要争议点;第四,本文将在实证分析的基础之上,整合理论界与实务界的分歧,为进一步明晰和细化保险人提示说明义务建言献策。
[Abstract]:Article 17 of the current Insurance Law sets out the insurer's obligation to make an exclusive presentation to the exemption clause of the insurance contract. < interpretation of the Insurance Law (2). > articles 9 to 13 provide for the scope of the description of the obligation to identify insurance references separately. The object, the exception, the content, the way of performing and the burden of proof. Safeguard the rights and interests of policy-holder and the judicial trial in reality all have quite big positive meaning. But at the same time, we should also see the current "insurance law" and the relevant judicial explanation to the insurer prompt to explain the obligation. There is still much to be clear about the rules. To what extent should the "explicit statement" in article 17 of the Insurance Act be reached? Among them, what is the specific standard of "making prompt enough to attract the attention of the policy holder"? Article 9 provides incomplete enumeration of the scope of the insurer's obligation of presentation, but what other provisions require the insurer to explain? Such issues, the law and judicial interpretation did not give a clear and detailed provisions, there is also a lot of theoretical differences and disputes. Should subjective theory or objective theory be adopted for the performance standard of the insurer's obligation of explanation? Should the standard of proof of the insurer adopt strict standard of proof or lenient standard of proof? Should the scope of the description of the insurer take a broad sense, narrow sense or compromise? It can be seen that the obligation of prompt explanation of the insurer, the law, judicial interpretation of the provisions are relatively vague, the theoretical community is also different, there is no consensus. In the insurance practice, there are more and more disputes between the insurer and the policyholder. The trial practice has different judgment for the relevant cases, and the trial lacks the unified standard and the strong operational reference. It is urgent to clarify and refine the obligation of prompt explanation of the insurer. This article removes the introduction part, mainly divided into four parts. First, introduces the current legislative situation of the obligation of prompt explanation of the insurer in China. And to the theory circle dispute point carries on the induction; Second, this paper will focus on the statistics and analysis of 112 related judicial cases, from the time, space, trial level and other multi-dimensional investigation of 112 cases; Third, summarizes the court on this issue on the trial ideas and judicial trial of the main points of dispute; In 4th, based on the empirical analysis, this paper will integrate the differences between theoretical and practical circles, and provide suggestions for further clarification and refinement of the insurer's obligation to prompt and explain.
【学位授予单位】：中国社会科学院研究生院
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D922.284

【相似文献】