故意制造被保险人伤亡事故之可保性问题研究

发布时间：2018-02-08 11:25

本文关键词： 道德风险故意被保险人伤亡可保性　出处：《西南政法大学》2013年硕士论文　论文类型：学位论文

【摘要】：在社会高速发展的今天，人类面临的风险比以往更为纷繁复杂。人们自身为求一份心理上的慰藉和风险发生后的救济保障，保险已成为越来越多人的首选。故意制造被保险人伤亡的事件在保险实务中时有发生，对于此种情形，保险公司是否承担给付保险金的责任，一直是此类案件争论的焦点。而此种情形归根究底还是在于探讨故意制造被保险人伤亡事故是否具有可保性这一问题上，修改后的《保险法》已给出了有关答案。但学界对此问题的争论似乎并未随着立法之确定而尘埃落地，相反有愈演愈烈之势。笔者认为在面对故意制造被保险人伤亡的此类情形时，，不能一概否定其可保性，而应区分不同的情况加以分析和论证。文章第一部分运用有关的保险理论来阐述故意制造被保险人伤亡事件具有可保的可能性，具体有以下几个方面：首先是对传统道德伦理的质疑与反驳。在传统道德伦理的影响下，立法对此类案件采取不可保立场，究其原因在于担心诱发道德伦理风险。然而近代以来，大量的保险实务彰显了此种担心虽有一定的道理，但行为人为求保险金而故意致使被保险人伤亡，此种行为发生的几率很小，并不具有代表性；其次是现代保险法之首要价值即受害人利益救济的变迁。近代保险伦理内涵的扩张预示着保险首要价值的变迁：相较于被保险人的风险管理工具，保险更应是指向受害人的公共管理工具。对受害人受损利益进行及时、有效的填补应是保险制度的终极价值所在；最后是行为人行为的故意。故意的性质、内容和程度的不同也会影响可保性问题。善意的故意、行为的故意和较轻程度的故意为该行为具有可保性提供了理论上的可能性。文章第二部分和第三部分具体区分了他人故意行为和被保险人故意行为两种情况分别加以讨论。在第二部分，他人故意制造被保险人伤亡事故中，根据是否会引发道德风险、该事件是否具有偶然性、受害者有无救济之必要等因素考虑，笔者认为投保人（不发生身份重叠时）为此故意伤害行为具有可保性，受益人为此故意伤害行为不具有可保性，第三人为此故意伤害行为具有可保性。在第三部分，因被保险人自身原因而导致伤亡中，具体区分了被保险人自杀自残和犯罪行为两种情况。在被保险人自杀自残中，以两年期限为界，两年之内，此行为不具有可保性，两年之外，此行为具有可保性。在被保险人因犯罪行为而导致伤亡中，笔者认为应将其纳入可保范围。理由在于保险人承担保险金支付责任，并不涉及激励或惩罚被保险人功能。同时故意的内容也决定了被保险人犯罪可保的可能性。再者，若不允许其可保，则恐有违“罪不及他人”之嫌。本文围绕故意致使被保险人伤亡是否具有可保性这一问题，首先从理论上对可保的可能性予以了阐述；其次将保险实务具体分为他人和被保险人故意为此行为两种情况分别加以讨论。在行为人身份不同、故意内容不同等因素的影响下，故意致使被保险人伤亡的行为是否具有可保性，保险公司是否承担保险金给付责任也有所不同。
[Abstract]:With the rapid development of society today, the risk faced by human being more complicated. People themselves for a comfort and psychological risk after the occurrence of the guarantee of relief, insurance has become more and more people preferred. Deliberately insured casualties in insurance practice have occurred on this situation and whether the insurance company be liable for paying insurance money, has been the focus of debate. In such cases the situation in the end is to deliberate the insured accident has the problem of insurability, the revised Insurance Law > < has given the answer. But the academic debate on this issue with the legislation does not seem to determine the dust settles, the opposite trend. The author believes that in the face of deliberately insured casualties in such cases, can not deny its insurability, and It should be analyzed and demonstrated in different situations.
The first part of the use of insurance related theories to explain deliberately insured casualties have the insurable possibility, specifically in the following aspects: the first is to refute the question and traditional ethics. The influence of traditional ethics, legislation on such cases can not be Baoli field, the reason is that the fear induced by moral the ethical risk. However, in modern times, a large number of insurance practice shows this worry although there is some truth, but human behavior for insurance and the insured intentionally causing casualties, the probability of such behavior is very small, not representative; second is the primary value of modern insurance law is the interests of the victim relief modern change. The expansion of insurance ethics connotation indicates that the changes of the insurance value of the first: compared to the insured risk management tool, the insurance should be public to the victims Management tools. The interests of timely, effective fill should be the ultimate value of insurance system; finally is intentional behavior. Intentional nature, content and extent will also affect the insurability. Good intentional behavior intentionally and deliberately less for the behavior is insurable provides a theoretical possibility.
The second part and the third part of the specific distinction between intentional behavior and others insured behavior of two kinds of cases are discussed. In the second part, others deliberately insured casualty accidents, according to whether it will lead to moral hazard, whether the event is accidental, the victim has no relief necessary to consider factors such as the author. That the applicant (does not occur when the status overlap) intentional injury behavior are insurable, beneficiary for intentional injury behavior is not insurable, third people for intentional injury behavior has the insurability. In the third part, because the insured caused casualties, the specific distinction between the insured and the crime Dutch act of self mutilation two. In the insured themselves to Dutch act for a period of two years, community, within two years, this behavior is not insured, except for two years, the insurability of in. The insured for the crime caused casualties, the author thinks that it should be included in the scope of insurable insurance. The reason is that bear the insurance liability, does not involve the incentive or punishment by the insured. At the same time intentional contents of the decision of the insured crime insurable possibility. Furthermore, if it does not allow the insurable. The fear of violating the "crime than others" too.
Based on the insured intentionally causing casualties with this problem insurability, starting with the theory of insurable possibility to be elaborated; then the insurance practice is divided into others and the insured for the behavior of two kinds of cases are discussed. The behavior of people in a different, different factors such as the effect of intentional content the insured intentionally, whether the behavior of casualties are insurable, the insurance company should bear the obligation of insurance payment is also different.

【学位授予单位】：西南政法大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：D922.284

【参考文献】

中国期刊全文数据库前10条

1 于涛;;被保险人自杀索赔问题的中美法律比较——解析新《保险法》第四十四条[J];保险研究;2009年03期

2 高宇;孙洁;刘薇;;保险法的精神关照与保险合同的权利结构[J];当代法学;2007年06期

3 刘可风;;自利与他利的和谐统一——浅论保险伦理[J];道德与文明;2006年06期

4 樊启荣;;人寿保险合同之自杀条款研究——以2009年修订的《中华人民共和保险法》第44条为分析对象[J];法商研究;2009年05期

5 樊启荣;;在公益与私益之间寻求平衡——《中华人民共和国保险法》第45条规定之反思与重构[J];法商研究;2010年05期

6 樊启荣;保险事故与被保险人过错之关系及其法律调整模式——兼评我国《保险法》第27条第2款及相关规定[J];法学评论;2002年05期

7 曹兴权;;走出责任保险伦理困境的观念路径[J];贵州财经学院学报;2012年03期

8 郝伟;商业保险伦理思想初探[J];广西社会科学;2005年04期

9 凌晨;;人身保险中故意致害行为之法律效果——以《保险法》第43条为中心[J];华东交通大学学报;2012年05期

10 毛颖;;投保人、受益人故意致害行为之法律效果分析[J];四川经济管理学院学报;2007年02期