本文選題：保險(xiǎn) + 免責(zé)　； 參考：《蘇州大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：保險(xiǎn)合同免責(zé)條款中存在的問題對保險(xiǎn)司法審判有重大而直接的影響。目前的立法和司法中存在免責(zé)條款范圍不明和裁判思維不清的問題。免責(zé)條款的范圍不夠明確,法官對此的認(rèn)識(shí)存在差異,審判實(shí)踐中存在著簡單以保險(xiǎn)人未盡提示說明義務(wù)即認(rèn)定免責(zé)條款無效的做法,難以體現(xiàn)免責(zé)條款的實(shí)質(zhì)公平性。本文立足于對保險(xiǎn)人免除責(zé)任的探析,即分析保險(xiǎn)人如何將責(zé)任免除的技術(shù)性問題。論文首先指出免責(zé)條款存在的問題,第二部分和第三部分通過對免責(zé)條款與相關(guān)法律表述的文義分析,以及保險(xiǎn)責(zé)任范圍與免責(zé)條款關(guān)系的闡述,初步明確免責(zé)的范圍。免責(zé)條款包括但不限于保險(xiǎn)合同中的“責(zé)任免除”條款。2009年修訂后的保險(xiǎn)法第十七條將原來“關(guān)于保險(xiǎn)人責(zé)任免除條款”的表述修改為“免除保險(xiǎn)人責(zé)任的條款”,使得免責(zé)條款概念完成了從狹義到廣義的拓展和轉(zhuǎn)變�！懊獬ｋU(xiǎn)人依法應(yīng)承擔(dān)義務(wù)”的條款是典型的免責(zé)條款。保險(xiǎn)責(zé)任范圍與免責(zé)條款的關(guān)系不僅僅是包含關(guān)系,也存在原因關(guān)系等復(fù)雜關(guān)系。關(guān)于保險(xiǎn)責(zé)任范圍的限定是否構(gòu)成免責(zé)條款應(yīng)結(jié)合保險(xiǎn)合同的基本屬性及對價(jià)均衡原則等加以判斷。論文第四部分依據(jù)不同劃分標(biāo)準(zhǔn),將免責(zé)條款分為:法定免責(zé)條款與約定免責(zé)條款、原因免責(zé)條款與結(jié)果免責(zé)條款、實(shí)體免責(zé)條款與程序免責(zé)條款,并在此基礎(chǔ)上結(jié)合具體案例對免責(zé)條款的構(gòu)造及其法理作進(jìn)一步解讀。第五部分將免責(zé)條款置于保險(xiǎn)法中兩項(xiàng)重要的解釋原則即不利解釋原則和合理期待原則之下,通過對免責(zé)條款司法樣態(tài)的分析,闡述司法對免責(zé)條款的具體控制方法。最后,通過對全文的回顧,指出了對免責(zé)條款的實(shí)體控制與程序控制具有同樣的重要性,并對實(shí)際中的一些新做法予以評議。
[Abstract]:The problems existing in the exemption clause of insurance contract have great and direct influence on the judicial trial of insurance.In the current legislation and judicature, the scope of exemption clauses is unclear and the judgment thinking is unclear.The scope of the exemption clause is not clear enough, there are differences in the understanding of the judge, there is a simple practice in trial practice that the insurer failed to show the obligation to explain, that is to say, the exemption clause is invalid, it is difficult to reflect the substantive fairness of the exemption clause.This paper is based on the analysis of the insurer's exemption from liability, that is, the technical problem of how to exempt the insurer from liability.The second part and the third part clarify the scope of exemption by analyzing the meaning of exemption clause and related legal expression, as well as the relationship between the scope of insurance liability and exemption clause.The exemption clause includes, but is not limited to, the "exemption from liability" clause in insurance contracts. Article 17 of the Insurance Law, as amended in 2009, changed the original expression of "exemption clause of insurer's liability" to "clause of exemption from liability of insurer".So that the concept of exemption clause from the narrow sense to the broad sense of the expansion and transformation.The clause of "exempting the insurer from the obligation according to law" is a typical exemption clause.The relationship between the scope of insurance liability and the exemption clause is not only including the relationship, but also the relationship of reasons and so on.Whether the limitation of the scope of insurance liability constitutes an exemption clause should be judged in combination with the basic attributes of the insurance contract and the principle of equilibrium of consideration.The fourth part of the thesis divides the exemption clause into statutory exemption clause and agreed exemption clause, reason exemption clause and result exemption clause, substantive exemption clause and procedural exemption clause.And on this basis combined with specific cases to the structure of exemption clauses and legal theory for further interpretation.The fifth part puts the exemption clause under the unfavorable interpretation principle and the reasonable expectation principle in the insurance law, through the analysis of the judicial pattern of the exemption clause, expounds the concrete control method of the judicial to the exemption clause.Finally, by reviewing the full text, the author points out that the substantive control of exemption clauses is as important as the procedural control, and comments on some new practices in practice.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：蘇州大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2015
【分類號(hào)】：D922.284

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 聶峰;于新剛;;事先達(dá)成的免責(zé)條款能否免責(zé)?[J];中國民兵;2010年05期

2 崔建遠(yuǎn);;免責(zé)條款論[J];中國法學(xué);1991年06期

3 韓世遠(yuǎn);;免責(zé)條款探討[J];當(dāng)代法學(xué);1993年02期

4 喬世凱;;免責(zé)條款未必免責(zé)[J];當(dāng)代工人;2011年10期

5 劉尊知;;“免責(zé)條款”不能免責(zé)[J];農(nóng)業(yè)知識(shí);1997年11期

6 羅建忠;協(xié)議中的傷害免責(zé)條款,無效[J];工會(huì)博覽;2001年20期

7 鄒健;論免責(zé)條款制定人對消費(fèi)者提請注意的義務(wù)[J];中國工商管理研究;2003年05期

8 羅瑛;規(guī)制免責(zé)條款法律制度的探討[J];漳州師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2004年04期

9 周平;免責(zé)條款在鐵路旅客運(yùn)輸合同中的理解及適用[J];鐵道運(yùn)輸與經(jīng)濟(jì);2005年09期

10 徐s，

本文編號(hào)：1754562