论英国保险法中投保人告知义务上的“重要事实”

发布时间：2018-05-16 18:59

本文选题：保险合同 + 告知义务　；参考：《对外经济贸易大学》2004年硕士论文

【摘要】：保险合同(A contract of insurance)，依照英国法的观点, 是指缔约的一方当事人,称为保险人,以特定事件的发生为前提,支付给对方当事人,称为被保险人,一定数量的金钱或相当的其它利益,作为对被保险人于缔约时以保费的形式所支付之对价的返还。保险合同作为商业合同的一种,和其它类型的合同一样，是对当事人双方所达成协议的记录，合同法中关于合同成立和履行的基本法律原则,诸如要约和承诺、对价制度、标的的合法性、当事人的行为能力等等，对于保险合同也同样适用。但与此同时，保险合同也是商业合同中的一个特殊的合同种类，具有不同于其它商业合同的特殊性质和特点。在保险交易中，由于投保人对保险标的和投保风险的了解程度要远远高于保险人，因而在投保人和保险人之间存在着信息的不对称现象。这是保险交易和一般的商业交易相比最为重要的区别之一。因此，这使得保险合同法“从产生的那一天起，就开始偏离普通合同法的发展轨道和方向。”比较而言，在一般的合同法中，当事人在订立合同之际并不负有全面进行信息披露的义务，但由于保险合同当事人之间存在的信息不对称，由投保人向保险人披露所有可能对投保风险产生影响的重要事实，是适用于各种类型保险合同的基本规范。那么由此引出的重要问题是，什么才是投保人应当披露的“重要事实”，它包括哪些具体的内容，这些“重要事实”的重要性应当体现在哪些方面。判定重要事实的标准和方法又是什么！本文以英国保险合同法为研究对象，试图对英国法中有关“重要事实”的各种规则进行较为详细地梳理和剖析，找出其中具有规律性的方法和原则，并与我国保险法律中的有关制度进行比较和探讨，得出结论，希望能够为我国的保险立法和司法工作提供一定的借鉴和参考。第一章；“重要事实”概述。关于什么是重要事实，以及如何判断一项事实是否属于重要事实，《1906年英国海上保险法》第十八条是这样规定的：凡是在决定是否接受投保以及在如何确定保费的问题上能够对一个谨慎的保险人产生影响的一切事实均为重要事实。同时，保险合同法上的重要事实不仅包括普通合 WP=4 同法上的“事实”，也包括观点和见解，在某些情况下甚至还包括谣言和猜测。投保人是否应当将某一信息告知保险人，主要取决于这一信息是否会对保险人在决定是否承保，以及以什么费率承保的判断过程中产生影响。凡是能够在这一过程产生影响的事实，都可能被视为重要事实。根据英国法的有关判例和保险制定法来看，保险合同投保人的告知义务的范围应该包括两个方面的事实，既投保人实际知悉或者推定他应当知悉的所有的重要事实。第二章；重要事实的类型。在讨论了什么是重要事实，以及确定重要事实的原则之后，本章进一步探讨了在司法实践中通常有哪些事实可能会被归纳为重要事实，也就是说，重要事实都包括有哪些具体的类型。这些有关重要事实的内容是将前文所述及的法律原则在具体审判实践中加以贯彻和适用的结果。从英国保险法历史上关于重要事实的众多判例来看，可能会被法庭认为具有重要性的事实包括五种类型，即（1）可能使保险标的面临的实际风险高于正常承保风险的所有事实。（2）表明投保人的投保行为是出于其它动机的所有事实。（3）表明保险人有可能承担比他预先估计的更大的保险责任的事实。（4）可能增加“道德风险”的事实。（5）在投保人知悉范围内的保险人认为具有重要性的其它事实。第三章；重要性的判断和证明。在英国保险法长期的发展过程中，法庭采用过各种不同的方法来判断事实的重要性。一般说来，在司法实践中最常使用的标准有两种：“谨慎的保险人标准”(The test of the “prudent insurer”)；以及“合理的被保险人标准”(The reasonable assured test)。本章分别就这两种关于事实重要性的判断标准进行了探讨。“谨慎的保险人”标准是《1906年英国海上保险法》所采用的是一项客观性的标准，它的含义是指凡是在决定是否接受投保以及在如何确定保费费率的问题上能够对一个谨慎的保险人产生影响的一切事实均为重要事实。这里的“谨慎的保险人”是指一个在当时当地具有通常的智力水平和经验程度的谨慎行事的保险业经营者。除了极少数情况以外，同具体案件中特定保险人的见解无关。“合理的被保险人”标准是除谨慎的保险人标准”之外，法庭所采用的另一项标准。它是指如果“合理的被保险人”认为某一项事实是重要的，那么被保险人就应该向保险人告知这项事实。在重要事实的证明上，对事实重要 WP=5 性的举证责任主要应由保险人承担，如果保险人认为投保人违反了告知义务，那么他应当提出证据来对此加以证明。第四章；与我国保险法的比较。本章对我国《保险法》和《海商法》中有关重要事实的部分进行了梳理，并与英国保险法进行了比较。通过比较可以看出，我国保险法关于重要事实的规则与英国法相比表现出三个方面的不同。首先，根据我国《保险法》规定，投保人只有在故意或过失地不告知重要事实的情况下才能构成对告知义务的违反，如果投保人的不告知行为非出于故意或重大过失，保险人是不能要求其承担责任的。而英国保险法所关注的只是被保险人的告知
[Abstract]:The insurance contract (A contract of insurance), in accordance with the point of view of the British law, refers to a party to a Contracting Party, called an insurer, to be paid to the other party on the premise of the occurrence of a particular event, as the insured, a certain amount of money or a considerable amount of other interests, as a form of premium to the insured in the form of a contracting party. As one of the commercial contracts, the insurance contract, like other types of contracts, is a record of the agreement between the parties to the parties, the basic legal principles relating to the establishment and performance of the contract, such as the offer and commitment, the system of price, the conformity of the subject, the ability of the parties, and so on, and the insurance contract. But at the same time, the insurance contract is also a special type of contract in a commercial contract, which is different from the special nature and characteristics of other commercial contracts. In the insurance transaction, the insured is far more aware of the risk of insurance and insurance than the insurer, and thus exists between the insured and the insurer. This is one of the most important differences between the insurance transaction and the general business transaction. Therefore, this makes the insurance contract law deviate from the common contract law from the beginning of the day. "In general contract law, the parties are not in the contract." There is an obligation to make full disclosure of information, but because of the information asymmetry between the parties involved in the insurance contract, the important fact that the applicant is disclosed to the insurer all the important facts that may affect the insurance risk is the basic norm applicable to various types of insurance contracts. When the "important facts" are disclosed, what specific contents are it included and what aspects of the importance of these "important facts" should be reflected. What are the criteria and methods of judging important facts! This article is based on the British insurance contract law and tries to make more detailed rules of the "important facts" in the British law. To find out the regular methods and principles, and to compare and discuss the relevant systems in China's Insurance Law, and draw conclusions, hoping to provide some reference and reference for our country's insurance legislation and judicial work.
Chapter one; an outline of "important facts". On what important facts are, and how to judge whether a fact is an important fact, the eighteenth article of the British Maritime Insurance Law, <1906, provides a shadow for a prudent insurer in deciding whether to accept insurance and how to determine the premium. All the facts are important facts. At the same time, the important facts in the insurance contract law include not only common facts but also common facts.
WP=4
The "fact" in the same law also includes views and opinions, and in some cases even rumors and guesses. Whether the insured should inform the insurer of a certain information, mainly depends on whether this information will affect the insurer's determination in the process of determining whether it is insured or at any rate. The fact that a process has an impact may be regarded as an important fact. According to the relevant jurisprudence and insurance formulation law of the British law, the scope of the informing obligation of the insured party should include two factual facts, and the applicant knows or presumed all the important facts he should know.
In the second chapter, the type of important facts, after discussing what is important, and the principle of determining important facts, this chapter further explores the fact that in judicial practice the facts may be summed up as important facts, that is, the important facts include the specific types. These are the contents of the important facts. It is the result of the implementation and application of the legal principles described in the previous article in concrete trial practice. From the numerous jurisprudence of the history of the British Insurance Law on important facts, the facts that may be considered important by the court include five types, that is, (1) the actual risks faced by the insurer may be higher than the normal underwriting risk. All the facts. (2) indicates that the insured's insurance behavior is all the facts of other motives. (3) the fact that the insurer is likely to assume greater insurance liability than he has previously estimated. (4) the fact that the "moral hazard" may be increased. (5) other facts that the insurer is aware of the importance of the insurer within the insurant.
The third chapter; the judgment and proof of the importance. In the long-term development of the British insurance law, the court used a variety of different methods to judge the importance of the fact. Generally speaking, there are two most commonly used standards in judicial practice: "the prudent insurer standard" (The test of the "prudent insurer"); and "reasonable"; and "reasonable" The reasonable assured test). This chapter discusses the criteria for judging the importance of the fact, respectively. The "prudent insurer" standard is a standard of objectivity used in the British Maritime Insurance Law of <1906, which means to decide whether to accept insurance and how to do it in the decision. The fact that the question of determining the rate of premium rates can affect a prudent insurer is an important fact. The "prudent insurer" refers to an insurance operator who acts cautiously with the usual level of intelligence and experience at that time. The "reasonable insured" standard is another standard adopted by the tribunal in addition to the prudent insurer's standard. It means that if the "reasonable insured" thinks that a fact is important, the insured should inform the insurer of this fact. It's important to the facts
WP=5
The burden of proof should be borne by the insurer. If the insurer considers that the applicant has violated the obligation of disclosure, he should give evidence to prove it.
The fourth chapter compares with the insurance law of our country. This chapter combs the important facts about the insurance law and the maritime law, and compares it with the British insurance law. Through comparison, it can be seen that the rules of the insurance law of our country have three different aspects compared with the British law. First, according to our country, Insurance law stipulates that the insurant can constitute a violation of the obligation of disclosure only if the applicant does not inform the important facts intentionally or negligently. If the insured's uninformed behavior is not out of deliberate or major negligence, the insurer can not require it to bear the responsibility. The insurance law of the UK is concerned only by the informing of the insured.

【学位授予单位】：对外经济贸易大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2004
【分类号】：D956.1

【相似文献】