英国海上保险欺诈性索赔的法律问题研究
发布时间：2018-08-09 19:04
【摘要】：海上保险领域中欺诈性索赔问题频繁出现。英国在对欺诈性索赔相关法律问题的研究中处于领先地位。在《1906海上保险法》中,并没有对欺诈性索赔的法律问题进行专门的规定。因此,在对被认定为是欺诈性索赔的案件进行具体处理时,法官往往会将其划归为后合同诚信义务后将其交由最大诚信原则进行处理。而在英国2015《保险法》颁布实施后,欺诈性索赔的问题被单独规定在其第十二、十三条之中。这两个条款对欺诈性索赔的法律问题有了全新的规定,使欺诈性索赔不必再依靠后合同诚信义务能够独立存在。并且,先行赔付部分是否应予返还这一问题也通过法律明文确定下来。英国2015《保险法》第十二条对法律责任的划分做出了更合理的规定,这一划分方式能够更好的保护合同双方当事人的权益。而第十三条对团体保险中出现的欺诈性索赔的情形进行了明确的规定。这两条法律规定能够对被保险人等相关人的权利起到更好的保护作用。英国2015《保险法》对欺诈性索赔的法律问题规定的并不全面,对欺诈性索赔的含义没有进行明确的界定。这导致在对较为特殊的案例进行处理时无法明确对案件进行定性。并且从体系的完整性上来看,欺诈性索赔没有明确含义这一缺陷对欺诈性索赔的发展是极其不利的。而且,欺诈性索赔的具体认定标准问题也没有通过明确的法律规定得到解决。这一问题在实践中只能依靠法官的自由裁量。欺诈性索赔的认定标准不能明确对欺诈性索赔在实务中的适用也是没有益处的。比照中国法下对于欺诈性索赔相关法律问题的规定,欺诈性索赔的含义在中国法下也没有进行界定。并且,对团体保险中个别被保险人等相关人进行欺诈性索赔应如何处理这一问题,中国法下也没有对进行规定。笔者建议,在中国《保险法》中加入团体保险欺诈性索赔的法律规定。中国法对这一问题的法律规定的确立可以借鉴英国2015《保险法》第十三条进行制定。并且,在中国《保险法》中应当明确团体保险欺诈性索赔的规定不仅适用于人身保险中,也适用于针对财产的团体保险。为使欺诈性索赔这一制度更加完善,中国《保险法》中还应当明确规定保险人对被保险人等相关人进行欺诈行为的民事救济方法。从而能够对被保险人等相关人的权利进行更全面的保护。此外,在学理上也要对欺诈性索赔的含义进行进一步明确的界定,以达到欺诈性索赔制度体系完整性的要求,还能够对具体案件的定性提供相应的帮助。更有利于欺诈性索赔制度的发展。
[Abstract]:Fraudulent claims appear frequently in the field of marine insurance. Britain is leading the way in the study of legal issues related to fraudulent claims. In the 1906 Maritime Insurance Act, there are no specific provisions on the legal issues of fraudulent claims. Therefore, when dealing with a case deemed to be a fraudulent claim, the judge often classifies it as a post-contractual bona fide obligation to be dealt with by the principle of maximum good faith. After the enactment of the British Insurance Act 2015, the issue of fraudulent claims was separately provided for in articles 12 and 13 of the Act. These two clauses have completely new provisions on the legal issues of fraudulent claims, so that fraudulent claims do not have to rely on post-contractual fiduciary obligations to exist independently. Moreover, the question of whether the advance payment should be returned is also explicitly determined by law. Article 12 of the British Insurance Act 2015 makes more reasonable provisions on the division of legal liability, which can better protect the rights and interests of both parties to the contract. Article 13 provides a clear definition of fraudulent claims in group insurance. These two legal provisions can better protect the rights of the insured and other related persons. The British Insurance Act 2015 does not provide for the legal issues of fraudulent claims completely, and the meaning of fraudulent claims is not clearly defined. This makes it impossible to clearly define the case when dealing with a more specific case. And from the integrity of the system, the lack of clear meaning of fraudulent claims is extremely detrimental to the development of fraudulent claims. Moreover, the issue of specific criteria for the identification of fraudulent claims has not been resolved through clear legal provisions. In practice, this problem can only depend on the discretion of the judge. The identification criteria of fraudulent claims are not specific to the application of fraudulent claims in practice. The meaning of fraudulent claim is not defined under Chinese law. Moreover, there is no provision under Chinese law on how to deal with the problem of fraudulent claims by individual insured and other related persons in group insurance. The author suggests that the legal provisions of group insurance fraudulent claims should be added to China's Insurance Law. The establishment of Chinese law on this issue can draw lessons from Article 13 of British Insurance Law 2015. Moreover, in China's Insurance Law, it should be made clear that the provisions of group insurance fraud claim apply not only to personal insurance, but also to group insurance against property. In order to make the system of fraudulent claims more perfect, China's Insurance Law should also clearly stipulate the civil remedies for the insurer's fraudulent acts against the insured and other related persons. Thus can carry on the more comprehensive protection to the insurant and so on related person's rights. In addition, it is necessary to define the meaning of fraudulent claims in theory, so as to meet the requirements of the integrity of the system of fraudulent claims, and to provide corresponding help for the qualitative analysis of specific cases. More conducive to the development of fraudulent claims system.
【学位授予单位】：辽宁大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D956.1;DD912.28
本文编号：2175007
[Abstract]:Fraudulent claims appear frequently in the field of marine insurance. Britain is leading the way in the study of legal issues related to fraudulent claims. In the 1906 Maritime Insurance Act, there are no specific provisions on the legal issues of fraudulent claims. Therefore, when dealing with a case deemed to be a fraudulent claim, the judge often classifies it as a post-contractual bona fide obligation to be dealt with by the principle of maximum good faith. After the enactment of the British Insurance Act 2015, the issue of fraudulent claims was separately provided for in articles 12 and 13 of the Act. These two clauses have completely new provisions on the legal issues of fraudulent claims, so that fraudulent claims do not have to rely on post-contractual fiduciary obligations to exist independently. Moreover, the question of whether the advance payment should be returned is also explicitly determined by law. Article 12 of the British Insurance Act 2015 makes more reasonable provisions on the division of legal liability, which can better protect the rights and interests of both parties to the contract. Article 13 provides a clear definition of fraudulent claims in group insurance. These two legal provisions can better protect the rights of the insured and other related persons. The British Insurance Act 2015 does not provide for the legal issues of fraudulent claims completely, and the meaning of fraudulent claims is not clearly defined. This makes it impossible to clearly define the case when dealing with a more specific case. And from the integrity of the system, the lack of clear meaning of fraudulent claims is extremely detrimental to the development of fraudulent claims. Moreover, the issue of specific criteria for the identification of fraudulent claims has not been resolved through clear legal provisions. In practice, this problem can only depend on the discretion of the judge. The identification criteria of fraudulent claims are not specific to the application of fraudulent claims in practice. The meaning of fraudulent claim is not defined under Chinese law. Moreover, there is no provision under Chinese law on how to deal with the problem of fraudulent claims by individual insured and other related persons in group insurance. The author suggests that the legal provisions of group insurance fraudulent claims should be added to China's Insurance Law. The establishment of Chinese law on this issue can draw lessons from Article 13 of British Insurance Law 2015. Moreover, in China's Insurance Law, it should be made clear that the provisions of group insurance fraud claim apply not only to personal insurance, but also to group insurance against property. In order to make the system of fraudulent claims more perfect, China's Insurance Law should also clearly stipulate the civil remedies for the insurer's fraudulent acts against the insured and other related persons. Thus can carry on the more comprehensive protection to the insurant and so on related person's rights. In addition, it is necessary to define the meaning of fraudulent claims in theory, so as to meet the requirements of the integrity of the system of fraudulent claims, and to provide corresponding help for the qualitative analysis of specific cases. More conducive to the development of fraudulent claims system.
【学位授予单位】：辽宁大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2017
【分类号】：D956.1;DD912.28
【参考文献】
相关期刊论文 前10条
1 涂识;;英国《2015年保险法》的修改对保险合同中最大诚信原则的变革[J];河南理工大学学报(社会科学版);2016年01期
2 于海东;;英国2015《保险法》对我国海上保险法的借鉴意义[J];上海保险;2016年03期
3 顾张淼;;英国2015年保险法对我国海商法的借鉴意义——告知义务之重要情况[J];法制博览;2016年08期
4 温世扬;蔡大顺;;论我国团体保险法制完善的路径选择——以要保人的资格规制为中心[J];法学杂志;2016年01期
5 张金蕾;潘秀华;;中国海上保险法律制度修改的再审视——以《2015年英国保险法》为背景[J];中国海商法研究;2015年04期
6 马宁;;保险侵权欺诈的识别与私法规制——以《保险法》第27条为中心[J];中南大学学报(社会科学版);2015年03期
7 朱作贤;;对海上保险法最大诚信原则的误读及匡正——兼析英国《2015年保险法》之最新发展[J];世界海运;2015年06期
8 孙珊珊;;英国2015年保险法修改的解读[J];法制与社会;2015年15期
9 朱作贤;;论船舶融资面临的海上保险法律难题:中国法的缺失及完善[J];河北法学;2014年01期
10 林新华;史景利;;论海上保险的欺诈索赔——兼对后合同阶段适用最大诚信原则的反思[J];重庆理工大学学报(社会科学);2011年11期
相关重要报纸文章 前1条
1 陈靖文;;英国2015年保险法的变革及影响[N];中国保险报;2016年
相关博士学位论文 前1条
1 王海波;论中国海上保险法与一般保险法之协调[D];复旦大学;2012年
相关硕士学位论文 前2条
1 刘儒;论合理陈述原则及其对保险人的影响[D];大连海事大学;2015年
2 郭兴亮;海上保险告知义务主体研究[D];大连海事大学;2015年
，本文编号：2175007
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/jingjifalunwen/2175007.html
