【摘要】：我國(guó)《保險(xiǎn)法》對(duì)人身保險(xiǎn)受益人作出了規(guī)定,對(duì)受益人制度是否適用于財(cái)產(chǎn)保險(xiǎn)合同中未做規(guī)定。隨著保險(xiǎn)業(yè)的發(fā)展和信貸消費(fèi)的推廣,在為抵押物投保的財(cái)產(chǎn)損失保險(xiǎn)合同中越來(lái)越多地出現(xiàn)將債權(quán)人約定為受益人的現(xiàn)象,對(duì)于在抵押物保險(xiǎn)合同中另行約定受益人條款的效力、受益人的法律地位及權(quán)利、訴訟地位等問(wèn)題,理論界與司法實(shí)務(wù)中均存在較多爭(zhēng)議。第一部分對(duì)抵押物保險(xiǎn)合同約定受益人存在的主要問(wèn)題進(jìn)行歸納。該部分以司法實(shí)踐中的案例對(duì)財(cái)產(chǎn)損失保險(xiǎn)合同中約定債權(quán)人為受益人的司法觀點(diǎn)為基礎(chǔ),認(rèn)為抵押物保險(xiǎn)合同約定受益人在實(shí)踐中主要存在三個(gè)方面的問(wèn)題,即財(cái)產(chǎn)保險(xiǎn)合同中受益人約定的效力問(wèn)題、抵押物保險(xiǎn)受益人是否享有保險(xiǎn)金請(qǐng)求權(quán)、抵押物保險(xiǎn)受益人享有何種訴訟權(quán)利。第二部分主要闡述了在財(cái)產(chǎn)損失保險(xiǎn)中進(jìn)行受益人約定的理論基礎(chǔ)。對(duì)于財(cái)產(chǎn)保險(xiǎn)中能否存在受益人約定,保險(xiǎn)理論界存在肯定說(shuō)和否定說(shuō)兩種觀點(diǎn),我國(guó)《保險(xiǎn)法》僅對(duì)人身保險(xiǎn)受益人作出了規(guī)定。本文認(rèn)為,對(duì)保險(xiǎn)受益人的指定系被保險(xiǎn)人對(duì)自身權(quán)利的讓渡,被保險(xiǎn)人可以自己享有合同利益也可以另行約定他人為受益人,所以財(cái)產(chǎn)保險(xiǎn)合同中約定受益人是具有法理基礎(chǔ)的,且受益人的權(quán)利系固有權(quán)利。第三部分主要論述了抵押物保險(xiǎn)合同中受益人約定的效力以及受益人是否應(yīng)享有保險(xiǎn)金請(qǐng)求權(quán)。首先,從保險(xiǎn)業(yè)的現(xiàn)實(shí)情況看,在抵押物保險(xiǎn)合同中進(jìn)行受益人約定是較為普遍的一種做法,這是債權(quán)人面對(duì)物上代位權(quán)實(shí)現(xiàn)障礙而選擇的一種補(bǔ)救方式;其次,從《合同法》關(guān)于合同效力的規(guī)定及保險(xiǎn)基本原則的角度考察,在抵押物保險(xiǎn)合同中進(jìn)行受益人約定應(yīng)為有效;再次,從目的解釋角度對(duì)于該受益人約定進(jìn)行解讀,抵押物保險(xiǎn)受益人應(yīng)享有保險(xiǎn)金請(qǐng)求權(quán)。第四部分從四方面分析了抵押物保險(xiǎn)合同受益人權(quán)利地位的認(rèn)定中存在的問(wèn)題,即受益人保險(xiǎn)金請(qǐng)求權(quán)的權(quán)利來(lái)源問(wèn)題、被保險(xiǎn)人與受益人的權(quán)利沖突問(wèn)題、受益人對(duì)保險(xiǎn)金權(quán)利的范圍如何界定問(wèn)題、受益人受領(lǐng)的保險(xiǎn)金的性質(zhì)問(wèn)題。第五部分針對(duì)上述問(wèn)題,從承認(rèn)財(cái)產(chǎn)損失保險(xiǎn)受益人地位、賦予受益人保險(xiǎn)金請(qǐng)求權(quán)、受益人保險(xiǎn)金請(qǐng)求權(quán)的優(yōu)先性、對(duì)受益人保險(xiǎn)金請(qǐng)求權(quán)范圍進(jìn)行原則性規(guī)制、受益人應(yīng)享有保險(xiǎn)金的所有權(quán)五個(gè)方面提出了建議。
[Abstract]:The Insurance Law of our country provides for the beneficiary of personal insurance, but there is no provision as to whether the beneficiary's system is applicable to the property insurance contract. With the development of insurance industry and the popularization of credit consumption, the phenomenon that creditors are agreed as beneficiaries is more and more common in property loss insurance contracts insured against collateral. There are many disputes in theory and judicial practice about the validity of beneficiary clause, the legal status and right of beneficiary, litigation status and so on in the contract of mortgage insurance. The first part summarizes the main problems of the beneficiary in the mortgage insurance contract. This part is based on the judicial point of view that the creditor is the beneficiary in the property loss insurance contract in the case of judicial practice, and thinks that there are three main problems in the practice of the agreed beneficiary in the mortgage insurance contract. That is, the effect of the beneficiary's agreement in the property insurance contract, whether the beneficiary of mortgage insurance has the right of claim for insurance gold, and what kind of litigation right the beneficiary of mortgage insurance enjoys. The second part mainly expounds the theoretical basis of beneficiary agreement in property loss insurance. As to whether there is beneficiary agreement in property insurance, there are two kinds of viewpoints in the field of insurance theory: positive theory and negative theory. The Insurance Law of our country only provides for the beneficiary of personal insurance. This paper holds that the designation of the insured beneficiary is the transfer of the insured's right to his own rights, and the insured may enjoy the contractual benefits on his own or appoint another person as the beneficiary. So the beneficiary in the property insurance contract has legal basis, and the beneficiary's right is inherent right. The third part mainly discusses the validity of beneficiary's agreement in mortgage insurance contract and whether the beneficiary should enjoy the right of claim for insurance gold. First of all, from the reality of the insurance industry, the beneficiary agreement in the mortgage insurance contract is a common practice, which is a remedy that creditors choose in the face of obstacles to the realization of subrogation in rem. Secondly, from the point of view of the contract law on the validity of the contract and the basic principles of insurance, the beneficiary agreement should be effective in the contract of mortgage insurance. Thirdly, from the angle of purpose explanation, the beneficiary of mortgage insurance should have the right of claim for insurance gold. The fourth part analyzes the problems existing in the confirmation of beneficiary's right status in mortgage insurance contract from four aspects, that is, the right source of beneficiary's right to claim for insurance gold, the right conflict between insured and beneficiary. How to define the scope of the beneficiary's right to insurance and the nature of the beneficiary's insurance. The fifth part aims at the above problems, from acknowledging the property loss insurance beneficiary status, endowing the beneficiary insurance claim right, the beneficiary insurance gold request right priority, carries on the principle regulation to the beneficiary insurance claim right scope. The beneficiary should be entitled to the ownership of the insurance in five aspects proposed.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：吉林大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類(lèi)號(hào)】：D922.284

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 潘紅艷;保險(xiǎn)受益權(quán)研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2008年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前4條

1 王淵;財(cái)產(chǎn)保險(xiǎn)受益人約定的保護(hù)與規(guī)制[D];天津財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2015年

2 李萍萍;論船舶保險(xiǎn)合同中的“第一受益人”[D];西南政法大學(xué);2014年

3 孫曉利;保險(xiǎn)受益人法律制度完善研究[D];中國(guó)海洋大學(xué);2013年

4 王鈞平;車(chē)貸險(xiǎn)合同約定銀行為受益人的法律效力[D];西南政法大學(xué);2010年

，

本文編號(hào)：2330071