本文選題：保險合同 + 霸王條款��； 參考：《湖南大學(xué)》2016年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著機(jī)動車輛的持續(xù)增長,保險行業(yè)的快速發(fā)展,有關(guān)機(jī)動車輛保險合同的糾紛頻發(fā)。本案原告陳某在被告某保險公司處購買盜搶險,在車輛丟失后,原被告就是否應(yīng)當(dāng)承擔(dān)約定的賠付責(zé)任及賠付金額多少的問題發(fā)生爭議。其涉及的法律爭議焦點(diǎn)有四：一是本案格式合同中的爭議免責(zé)條款是否屬于霸王條款；二是本案保險合同是否已生效；三是本案保險期間與保險責(zé)任期間的起始是否應(yīng)一致；四是本案賠償數(shù)額以保險金額還是保險價值為準(zhǔn)。筆者將法律爭議焦點(diǎn)與保險法理論結(jié)合,進(jìn)行案件法律評析。本案特別約定的保險責(zé)任期間條款是霸王條款。保險合同是格式合同,格式合同中的免責(zé)條款范圍應(yīng)以實(shí)質(zhì)內(nèi)容進(jìn)行界定。法律從程序、內(nèi)容和解釋上對免責(zé)條款的效力進(jìn)行制約以保護(hù)投保人或被保險人的利益。法理可以補(bǔ)充法律的不足,從契約自由、公平、最大誠信原則的角度進(jìn)行判斷,杜絕霸王條款的出現(xiàn)。本案保險合同已成立并生效。保險合同有一般和特殊生效要件,同時具有區(qū)別于普通民商事合同的特殊之處,如保險利益、可保性、保險人的提示與明確說明等。本案保險合同的保險期間與保險責(zé)任期間的起始一致。保險合同生效、保險期間、保險責(zé)任期間是不同的法律概念,其涵義不同,時間段也可不重合。當(dāng)事人對保險期間與保險責(zé)任期間的理解有爭議的,應(yīng)采不利解釋。本案賠償數(shù)額以保險價值為準(zhǔn)。損失補(bǔ)償是有限度的,被保險人獲得的賠償數(shù)額受到保險利益、實(shí)際損失及保險合同中約定的保險金額的限制�；诠皆瓌t,被保險人存在過錯,保險人可適度減少賠償責(zé)任。
[Abstract]:With the continuous growth of motor vehicles and the rapid development of insurance industry, disputes about motor vehicle insurance contracts occur frequently.In this case, the plaintiff Chen bought theft in a defendant insurance company. After the loss of the vehicle, the original defendant disputed whether or not he should assume the agreed liability for compensation and how much to pay.The focus of the legal disputes involved is four: first, whether the disclaimer clause in the format contract of this case belongs to the overlord clause; second, whether the insurance contract in this case has come into effect; third, whether the period of insurance in this case should be consistent with the beginning of the period of insurance liability;Fourth, the amount of compensation in this case to the amount of insurance or the value of insurance.The author combines the focus of legal dispute with the theory of insurance law and evaluates the case law.The term of insurance specified in this case is the overlord clause.Insurance contract is a form contract, the scope of exemption clause in the format contract should be defined by substance.The law restricts the effectiveness of exemption clauses in procedure, content and interpretation to protect the interests of the insured or insured.Legal theory can supplement the deficiency of law, judge from the principle of freedom of contract, fairness, maximum good faith, and put an end to the appearance of overlord clause.The insurance contract in this case has been established and effective.The insurance contract has the general and special effective requirements, and it has some special points which are different from the ordinary civil and commercial contract, such as insurable interest, insurability, prompt and clear explanation of the insurer and so on.The insurance period of the insurance contract in this case coincides with the beginning of the insurance liability period.Insurance contract is effective, insurance period, insurance liability period is different legal concept, its meaning is different, time period may not overlap.If the parties dispute their understanding of the insurance period and the insurance liability period, they shall adopt an unfavorable interpretation.The amount of compensation in this case shall be based on the insured value.Loss compensation is limited, and the amount of compensation received by the insured is limited by insurance benefits, actual losses and the amount of insurance agreed in the insurance contract.Based on the principle of fairness, the insured has fault, and the insurer can reduce its liability moderately.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：湖南大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2016
【分類號】：D922.284
，

本文編號：1772389