机动车责任保险中“第三者”的认定标准

发布时间：2018-04-29 10:05

本文选题：责任保险 + 第三者　；参考：《南京大学》2015年硕士论文

【摘要】：我国道路交通事故受害人保护模式是由机动车强制责任保险和机动车商业责任保险共同构架的,即以《道路交通安全法》和《机动车交通事故责任强制保险条例》为法律框架的机动车强制保险法律制度,为交通事故的受害人提供最基本的保障,并辅之以机动车商业责任保险制度。然而在实务中由于机动车责任保险的承保对象是使用排除主义加以说明的,受害人(即受害第三者)排除了"本车人员"和被保险人,但是却没有明确相关概念的范围,造成了实务中许多同案不同判的现象。本文以机动车责任保险中第三者认定标准的相关案例的分类整理为支持,对我国机动车责任保险中"第三者"范围的分析说明是着眼于交强险和商业险相关规定的不同。结合相关案件的裁判文书和各个地区法院的审判思路,通过讨论评价后得出扩大解释第三者范围的结论。全文除了引言分为五个部分。第一部分是交强险中的第三者,首先介绍了责任保险的概念以及责任保险中的第三者;其次介绍了交强险的含义与特征;再次是对我国交强险制度的考察,通过介绍法律的一般规定发掘若干争议问题,通过明确本车人员以及被保险人的概念与范围,以便厘清第三者的除外范围,更好地界定第三者的范围。第二部分是商业险中的第三者,作为交强险补充的商业险,其保护的第三者范围较之交强险有一定的不同,其规定的第三者范围明显小于交强险。通过对比交强险和商业险的不同,明确商业险作为交强险的辅助,并不完全覆盖交强险的除外领域,并说明商业险中第三者的争议问题。第三部分是建立在前两部分的讨论之上,通过上文罗列的争议问题,查阅大量裁判文书进行案例的整理分析,通过案情的介绍和争议焦点的归纳分析,得出结论,即目前交通事故第三者处理中并没有完全区分强制保险和商业保险,对于界定第三者的标准也不统一。第四部分是对司法实践中机动车责任保险第三者认定的启示,首先明确了第三者的性质,其次通过列举不同地区法院的对此的态度,认为坚持扩大第三者保护范围的思想是符合交强险的发展趋势的。第五部分是结论,结合实践中部分法院的审判态度,通过研究得出如下结论:交强险和商业险关于第三者的划分是不同的,实务中法院往往不加区分,应该根据强制保险和自愿保险的赔偿顺序,结合相关规定分别判断是否属于机动车责任保险的赔偿对象,对于属于交强险赔付对象的第三者,其超出交强险赔偿范围的那部分再根据商业险的规定去判断是否属于双方约定的第三者。而是否属于第三者的判断要牢牢把握第三者"待确定性"的特点,尽快建立统一的判断标准来取代罗列式的举例。
[Abstract]:The protection model of road traffic accident victims in China is jointly constructed by compulsory liability insurance for motor vehicles and commercial liability insurance for motor vehicles. That is, the legal system of compulsory motor vehicle insurance, which is based on the "Road Traffic Safety Law" and the "regulations on compulsory Insurance for Motor vehicle Traffic Accidents", provides the most basic protection for the victims of traffic accidents. And supplemented by the motor vehicle commercial liability insurance system. However, in practice, because the insured object of motor vehicle liability insurance is explained by exclusivity, the victim (that is, the injured third party) excludes the "vehicle personnel" and the insured, but there is no clear scope of the relevant concept. It has caused many different judgments in practice. Supported by the classification of the related cases of the third party identification standard in motor vehicle liability insurance, this paper analyzes the scope of "third party" in motor vehicle liability insurance in China and explains that it is focused on the difference between the relevant provisions of traffic insurance and commercial insurance. Combined with the judgment documents of relevant cases and the trial ideas of various district courts, the conclusion of expanding the scope of interpretation of third parties is obtained through discussion and evaluation. In addition to the introduction, the full text is divided into five parts. The first part is the third party in the traffic insurance. First, it introduces the concept of liability insurance and the third party in the liability insurance. Secondly, it introduces the meaning and characteristics of the traffic insurance. Through the introduction of the general provisions of the law to explore a number of controversial issues, by clarifying the concept and scope of the vehicle personnel and the insured, in order to clarify the exclusion scope of the third party, a better definition of the scope of the third party. The second part is the third party in the commercial insurance, as a supplementary commercial insurance, the scope of the third party is different from that of the compulsory insurance, and the scope of the third party is obviously smaller than that of the compulsory insurance. By comparing the difference between commercial insurance and commercial insurance, it is clear that commercial insurance, as a subsidiary of commercial insurance, does not completely cover the excluded areas, and explains the disputes of third parties in commercial insurance. The third part is based on the first two parts of the discussion, through the above listed dispute issues, referring to a large number of adjudicative documents to sort out and analyze cases, through the introduction of the case and the focus of the dispute induction analysis, draw a conclusion, That is, the third party handling traffic accident does not completely distinguish between compulsory insurance and commercial insurance, and the standard of defining third party is not uniform. The fourth part is the enlightenment to the third party identification of motor vehicle liability insurance in judicial practice. Firstly, it clarifies the nature of the third party, and then lists the attitudes of different district courts. It is believed that the idea of expanding the scope of third party protection is in line with the development trend of traffic insurance. The fifth part is the conclusion, combined with the trial attitude of some courts in practice, the following conclusions are drawn through the study: the division of third parties is different from commercial insurance, and the courts often do not distinguish between them in practice. According to the order of compensation of compulsory insurance and voluntary insurance, combined with relevant regulations, we should judge separately whether the object of compensation belongs to the liability insurance of motor vehicles, and for the third party who belongs to the object of compensation in traffic insurance, The part beyond the scope of the compulsory insurance compensation shall then judge whether or not it belongs to a third party as agreed by both parties according to the provisions of commercial insurance. The judgment of whether it belongs to a third party should firmly grasp the characteristics of the third party "waiting for certainty" and establish a unified judgment standard as soon as possible to replace the examples of listing.
【学位授予单位】：南京大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2015
【分类号】：D922.284

【相似文献】