發(fā)布時間：2018-01-25 19:05

  本文關(guān)鍵詞： 責任保險 事故 訴訟時效 起算 認定　出處：《對外經(jīng)濟貿(mào)易大學》2015年碩士論文　論文類型：學位論文

【摘要】：《中華人民共和國保險法》(2009.2.28)第二十六條第一款規(guī)定,人壽保險以外的其他保險的被保險人或者受益人,向保險人請求賠償或者給付保險賠款的訴訟時效期間為二年,自其知道或者應(yīng)當知道保險事故發(fā)生之日起計算。依此規(guī)定,保險事故發(fā)生日成為保險訴訟時效計算的起點,作用至關(guān)重要。然而,因為責任保險事故由兩部分組成:一是引發(fā)第三者索賠的基礎(chǔ)事件的發(fā)生,二是第三者向被保險人索賠的事實發(fā)生,涉及保險人與被保險人、侵權(quán)人與被侵權(quán)人雙重法律關(guān)系,故在如何界定保險事故方面,具有較大爭議。本文認為,應(yīng)當將引發(fā)第三者索賠的基礎(chǔ)事件認定為保險事故,因為當引發(fā)第三者索賠的基礎(chǔ)事件發(fā)生,第三者向被保險人索賠幾乎必然性發(fā)生。如以必然發(fā)生的事件作為保險事故有違保險事故應(yīng)當具有不確定性、偶然性的保險原理。在明確責任保險事故概念的前提下,本文進一步討論我國保險法以保險事故發(fā)生之日作為責任保險訴訟時效起算點是否合理,并提出完善的建議。按我國目前保險法第二十六條的規(guī)定,被保險人一旦做出致害他人的行為,訴訟時效已起算。而此時,如受害第三方未向被保險人提出索賠,則因《保險法》第65條第3款“責任保險的被保險人給第三方造成損害,被保險人未向該第三者賠償?shù)?保險人不得向被保險人賠償保險賠款�！钡囊�(guī)定,導致被保險人難以向保險人行使索賠權(quán)。而當?shù)谌咛岢鏊髻r或被保險人向第三者履行賠償責任后,可能已經(jīng)超過保險訴訟時效,導致被保險人無法從保險人處獲得賠償。以上兩種情形對被保險人非常不公平,建議將責任保險訴訟時效改為自被保險人可得權(quán)利行使時開始計算。此外,因我國保險法在特定條件下,賦予受害第三者直接向保險人索賠的權(quán)利,但未相應(yīng)地為該權(quán)利設(shè)置時效限制,導致受害第三者有權(quán)利濫用的可能,本文也針對此漏洞提出了完善建議。厘清責任保險中保險事故的概念并完善保險法中對責任保險訴訟時效起算的規(guī)定,從而減少保險理賠中因?qū)ΡｋU事故、訴訟時效起算認識存在分歧而產(chǎn)生的訴訟糾紛,有利于責任保險健康有序發(fā)展
[Abstract]:The first paragraph of Article 26th of the Insurance Law of the people's Republic of China provides that the insured or the beneficiary of any insurance other than life insurance. The limitation period of action for claiming compensation or giving insurance indemnity to the insurer shall be two years, which shall be calculated from the date on which the insurer knows or should know of the occurrence of the insurance accident. The day of the insurance accident becomes the starting point of the calculation of the limitation of insurance action, which plays an important role. However, the liability insurance accident is composed of two parts: one is the occurrence of the basic events that lead to the third party's claim. The second is the fact that the third party claims against the insured, involving the insurer and the insured, the infringer and the infringee dual legal relationship, so how to define the insurance accident, there is a greater controversy. The underlying event that gives rise to a third party claim should be considered as an insurance accident, since the underlying event that triggered the third party claim occurs. Third party claims against the insured almost inevitable. Such as the inevitable occurrence of events as insurance accidents against the insurance accident should have uncertainty. On the premise of defining the concept of liability insurance accident, this paper further discusses whether it is reasonable for our insurance law to take the date of insurance accident as the starting point of limitation of liability insurance action. And puts forward the perfect suggestion. According to our country present insurance law 26th stipulation, once the insurant makes the behavior which injures others, the lawsuit prescription has already counted. And at this time. If the injured third party does not file a claim against the insured, the insured does not compensate the third party because of the damage caused to the third party by the insured of the liability insurance as a result of Article 65, paragraph 3, of the Insurance Law. The insurer is not allowed to compensate the insured for insurance indemnity. "the provisions of the insurance result in the insurant's difficulty in exercising the right of claim against the insurer." and when a third party claims a claim or the insured performs the liability to a third party, it is difficult for the insured to exercise the claim. Perhaps already exceeded insurance action limitation, cause insurant cannot obtain compensation from underwriter. Above two kinds of circumstance is very unfair to insurant. It is suggested that the limitation period of liability insurance should be changed to be calculated from the time when the insurant can exercise the right. In addition, because of the insurance law of our country, under certain conditions, the injured third party should be given the right to claim compensation directly from the insurer. However, there is no corresponding limitation for the right, which leads to the possibility of abuse of the right by the injured third party. This paper also puts forward some suggestions to improve this loophole, clarify the concept of insurance accident in liability insurance and perfect the limitation of liability insurance in insurance law, so as to reduce the insurance accident in insurance claims. Litigation disputes arising from different cognition of limitation of action are beneficial to the healthy and orderly development of liability insurance.
【學位授予單位】：對外經(jīng)濟貿(mào)易大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2015
【分類號】：D922.284

【共引文獻】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 孫憲超;;大陸法系民法對羅馬法錯誤制度的繼受及中國民法中的重大誤解[J];安徽廣播電視大學學報;2007年02期

2 劉春彥;沈燕紅;;日本城市地下空間開發(fā)利用法律研究[J];地下空間與工程學報;2007年04期

3 張莉麗;辨析懸賞廣告的法律性質(zhì)[J];白城師范學院學報;2005年01期

4 蔡云紅;試論懸賞廣告[J];北京工商大學學報(社會科學版);2000年04期

5 但淑華;試論不完全履行[J];商業(yè)研究;2004年08期

6 張純;;房與地關(guān)系法律問題探析[J];財經(jīng)理論與實踐;2008年04期

7 甘強,袁振華;論懸賞廣告的法律性質(zhì)[J];重慶工業(yè)高等�？茖W校學報;2003年03期

8 林恩偉;;芻議虛擬財產(chǎn)的法律屬性[J];常熟理工學院學報;2010年07期

9 劉洋;;宣告死亡制度批判[J];研究生法學;2004年04期

10 翟寅生;陳羅蘭;;共有物分管協(xié)議對抗效力芻議[J];研究生法學;2009年02期

相關(guān)博士學位論文 前10條

1 陳文華;民間規(guī)則在民事訴訟中的運用[D];山東大學;2011年

2 楊柏國;中國私募證券法律規(guī)制研究[D];華東政法大學;2011年

3 林莎;我國企業(yè)海外并購的法律風險研究[D];中南大學;2010年

4 李偉;創(chuàng)業(yè)投資基金組織形式法律制度研究[D];中國政法大學;2001年

5 邢穎;禁止證券欺詐法律問題研究[D];中國政法大學;2001年

6 楊漢平;政府采購法律問題研究[D];中國政法大學;2001年

7 張代恩;民事主體權(quán)利能力研究[D];中國政法大學;2001年

8 鐘青;權(quán)利質(zhì)權(quán)研究[D];中國社會科學院研究生院;2002年

9 張嚴方;消費者保護法研究[D];中國社會科學院研究生院;2002年

10 謝鴻飛;法律行為的民法構(gòu)造：民法科學和立法技術(shù)的闡釋[D];中國社會科學院研究生院;2002年

，

本文編號：1463487