交强险中保险人的追偿权问题
发布时间：2018-09-08 21:30
【摘要】：近年来，随着我国机动车保有量的大幅增长,随之而来的交通事故的数量也大幅上升。因此而导致的人身伤亡损失,对于家庭和个人来说都是沉重的负担。在交强险制度实施之前，对于受害人的赔偿问题主要是通过机动车商业第三者险来实现的，但由于商业险保险公司主要是以盈利为目的，对被保险人恶意肇事造成道路交通事故的，一般不予赔偿，从而使得对受害人的保障机制并不周全。为了尽最大可能的保护受害人利益，我国于2006年出台了《机动车交通事故责任强制保险条例》（以下简称《交强险条例》）。由于《交强险条例》第22条的规定模糊不清，导致各地法院的理解与适用不同，从而在审判过程中出现同案不同判的情形。在学界和司法实务中的主要争议是，对于保险人是仅承担抢救费用的垫付责任还是应当承担保险赔付责任、对于条款中的财产损失应当做扩张解释还是限缩解释。如果法院判决保险人承担保险赔付责任之后，保险公司是否能根据《交强险条例》第22条的规定享有追偿权。本文通过对《交强险条例》第22条的解读，认为保险人应当对受害人的人身伤亡承担保险赔付责任而非仅就抢救费用承担垫付责任，并在赔偿后保险人有权代位受害人向被保险人追偿。保险人行使追偿权的法定事由应当进行扩张，，将服用国家管制的精神药品或者麻醉药品后驾驶机动车发生交通事故的、被保险人从事犯罪行为或者逃避合法拘捕的、被保险人肇事逃逸后能找到肇事车辆等恶意行为也列为追偿事由，将被保险机动车被盗抢期间肇事的情形列为道路交通事故社会救助基金补偿的事由。
[Abstract]:In recent years, with the increase of motor vehicle ownership in China, the number of traffic accidents has also increased significantly. As a result, the loss of personal injury and death is a heavy burden for families and individuals. Before the implementation of the traffic insurance system, the problem of compensation for the victims was mainly realized through commercial third party insurance for motor vehicles. However, since the commercial insurance companies mainly aimed at making profits, To the insurant malicious accident causes the road traffic accident, generally does not grant the compensation, thus causes to the victim's safeguard mechanism not to be complete. In order to protect the interests of victims as far as possible, China issued the regulations on compulsory Insurance for Motor vehicle Traffic Accidents in 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "Traffic compulsory Insurance regulations"). As the provisions of Section 22 of the Traffic compulsory Insurance Ordinance are ambiguous, the interpretation and application of different courts are different, resulting in different judgments of the same case in the course of the trial. In the academic and judicial practice, the main controversy is whether the insurer should only bear the rescue expenses of the advance liability or should bear the liability of insurance indemnity, and the property loss in the clause should be interpreted by expansion or limitation. If the court decides that the insurer is liable for insurance indemnity, the insurance company can have the right of recourse under section 22 of the Traffic compulsory Insurance Ordinance. Based on the interpretation of Article 22 of the "Traffic Insurance regulations", this paper holds that the insurer should bear the liability of insurance compensation for the personal injury and death of the victim, rather than the advance liability for the rescue expenses. And after compensation, the insurer has the right to subrogate the victim to recover from the insured. Where the legal reasons for the insurer's exercise of the right of recourse shall be expanded to cause a traffic accident in a motor vehicle after taking psychotropic drugs or narcotic drugs under state control, or if the insured commits a criminal act or escapes from lawful arrest, After hit-and-run, the insured can find the hit-and-run vehicle and other malicious acts are also listed as the cause of recovery, and the accident during the period of the theft and robbery of the insured motor vehicle is listed as the cause of the compensation of the social relief fund for the road traffic accident.
【学位授予单位】：上海交通大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D922.14
本文编号：2231755
[Abstract]:In recent years, with the increase of motor vehicle ownership in China, the number of traffic accidents has also increased significantly. As a result, the loss of personal injury and death is a heavy burden for families and individuals. Before the implementation of the traffic insurance system, the problem of compensation for the victims was mainly realized through commercial third party insurance for motor vehicles. However, since the commercial insurance companies mainly aimed at making profits, To the insurant malicious accident causes the road traffic accident, generally does not grant the compensation, thus causes to the victim's safeguard mechanism not to be complete. In order to protect the interests of victims as far as possible, China issued the regulations on compulsory Insurance for Motor vehicle Traffic Accidents in 2006 (hereinafter referred to as "Traffic compulsory Insurance regulations"). As the provisions of Section 22 of the Traffic compulsory Insurance Ordinance are ambiguous, the interpretation and application of different courts are different, resulting in different judgments of the same case in the course of the trial. In the academic and judicial practice, the main controversy is whether the insurer should only bear the rescue expenses of the advance liability or should bear the liability of insurance indemnity, and the property loss in the clause should be interpreted by expansion or limitation. If the court decides that the insurer is liable for insurance indemnity, the insurance company can have the right of recourse under section 22 of the Traffic compulsory Insurance Ordinance. Based on the interpretation of Article 22 of the "Traffic Insurance regulations", this paper holds that the insurer should bear the liability of insurance compensation for the personal injury and death of the victim, rather than the advance liability for the rescue expenses. And after compensation, the insurer has the right to subrogate the victim to recover from the insured. Where the legal reasons for the insurer's exercise of the right of recourse shall be expanded to cause a traffic accident in a motor vehicle after taking psychotropic drugs or narcotic drugs under state control, or if the insured commits a criminal act or escapes from lawful arrest, After hit-and-run, the insured can find the hit-and-run vehicle and other malicious acts are also listed as the cause of recovery, and the accident during the period of the theft and robbery of the insured motor vehicle is listed as the cause of the compensation of the social relief fund for the road traffic accident.
【学位授予单位】：上海交通大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2014
【分类号】：D922.14
【参考文献】
中国期刊全文数据库 前9条
1 游杰;梁鹏;;醉酒驾车与交强险人身伤亡赔付——以《交强险条例》第22条第1款为分析重点[J];保险研究;2011年11期
2 王宝发,张晓军;析垫付责任[J];法律适用;1999年04期
3 程啸;王静;;论保证人追偿权与代位权之区分及其意义[J];法学家;2007年02期
4 韩长印;易萍;;交强险中恶意肇事的保险垫付责任[J];法学;2010年10期
5 文杰;;交强险中保险人的追偿权质疑——我国《交强险条例》第22条之妥当性评析[J];保险研究;2012年11期
6 颜培麟;文宏祥;;驾驶人肇事后逃逸情形下交强险的追偿权问题[J];湖北第二师范学院学报;2011年11期
7 武俐;;浅析交强险责任中的追偿权[J];山东审判;2011年06期
8 方毅;;从孙伟铭等醉驾肇事案的判刑 谈对《交强险条例》第二十二条的理解与适用[J];中国保险;2009年12期
9 黎明;;2012年全国机动车保有量、驾驶人分别已达2.4亿辆、2.6亿人——6大因素对道路交通安全产生重要影响[J];商用汽车;2013年04期
本文编号：2231755
本文链接：https://www.wllwen.com/falvlunwen/xingzhengfalunwen/2231755.html
