本文選題：再保險(xiǎn)合同 + 原被保險(xiǎn)人��； 參考：《上海交通大學(xué)》2015年碩士論文

【摘要】：傳統(tǒng)再保險(xiǎn)理論普遍認(rèn)為,再保險(xiǎn)合同獨(dú)立于原保險(xiǎn)合同,一般情形下,基于債的相對(duì)性理論,原被保險(xiǎn)人不能直接向再保險(xiǎn)人提出賠償或給付保險(xiǎn)金的請(qǐng)求。但基于合同自由原則,當(dāng)事人的意思表示可改變各方當(dāng)事人的法律地位,原被保險(xiǎn)人可以基于合同的明確約定取得對(duì)再保險(xiǎn)人的直接請(qǐng)求權(quán),司法實(shí)踐中還出現(xiàn)了再保險(xiǎn)合同與共同保險(xiǎn)合同的“雜交合同”,我國《保險(xiǎn)法》第29條第2款的現(xiàn)行規(guī)定已不能滿足現(xiàn)代保險(xiǎn)業(yè)的發(fā)展對(duì)法律規(guī)范的需求。本文結(jié)合我國再保險(xiǎn)市場(chǎng)的發(fā)展特點(diǎn)和原被保險(xiǎn)人直接請(qǐng)求權(quán)的法理基礎(chǔ)兩個(gè)方面論證了認(rèn)可有關(guān)原被保險(xiǎn)人直接請(qǐng)求權(quán)約定效力的必要性和合理性,并提出對(duì)《保險(xiǎn)法》第29條第2款的修改意見。在我國保險(xiǎn)市場(chǎng)中,中小保險(xiǎn)企業(yè)虧損嚴(yán)重,在保險(xiǎn)公司并購或破產(chǎn)中發(fā)生的保險(xiǎn)業(yè)務(wù)轉(zhuǎn)讓情形中,原保險(xiǎn)公司與受讓方保險(xiǎn)公司就承繼原保單持有人的保險(xiǎn)責(zé)任所達(dá)成的協(xié)議屬于廣義上的再保險(xiǎn)合同,原保單持有人即為原被保險(xiǎn)人,此時(shí)法律默認(rèn)了原被保險(xiǎn)人的直接請(qǐng)求權(quán)。另一方面,我國再保險(xiǎn)業(yè)高度依賴境外保險(xiǎn)公司,當(dāng)境內(nèi)原保險(xiǎn)人資不抵債、破產(chǎn)或拒絕償付時(shí),若否定原被保險(xiǎn)人的直接請(qǐng)求權(quán),原被保險(xiǎn)人的利益將無法得到保護(hù)。因此,有必要確認(rèn)當(dāng)事人之間有關(guān)原被保險(xiǎn)人直接請(qǐng)求權(quán)約定的法律效力。從再保險(xiǎn)合同的性質(zhì)分析,再保險(xiǎn)合同不同于責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)合同,不適用法律對(duì)責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)中有關(guān)法定第三人直接請(qǐng)求權(quán)的規(guī)定。我國《保險(xiǎn)法》第29條第2款不是效力性強(qiáng)制規(guī)范,若當(dāng)事人在原保險(xiǎn)合同及再保險(xiǎn)合同中明確約定了原被保險(xiǎn)人的直接請(qǐng)求權(quán),該約定應(yīng)該有效。原被保險(xiǎn)人可依“債權(quán)讓與”、“第三人利益合同”或“債務(wù)加入”三種解釋路徑取得對(duì)再保險(xiǎn)人的直接請(qǐng)求權(quán)。因此,基于當(dāng)事人之間的約定,發(fā)生約定之情形時(shí),原被保險(xiǎn)人可向再保險(xiǎn)人直接請(qǐng)求賠償或保險(xiǎn)金給付,但以再保險(xiǎn)合同中約定的再保險(xiǎn)人的責(zé)任為限。筆者建議修改我國《保險(xiǎn)法》第29條第2款,添加“但原保險(xiǎn)合同或再保險(xiǎn)合同約定的除外”的但書規(guī)定,將當(dāng)事人明確約定原被保險(xiǎn)人直接請(qǐng)求權(quán)之情形排除在原條款適用范圍之外。
[Abstract]:The traditional reinsurance theory generally holds that the reinsurance contract is independent of the original insurance contract. In general, based on the relativity theory of debt, the original insured can not directly make a claim to the reinsurer for compensation or payment of insurance funds. However, based on the principle of freedom of contract, the expression of the will of the parties may change the legal status of the parties concerned, and the original insured may obtain the right of direct claim against the reinsurer on the basis of the explicit agreement of the contract. In judicial practice, there is a "hybrid contract" between reinsurance contract and co-insurance contract. The current provisions of Article 29 (2) of our country's Insurance Law can no longer meet the needs of the development of modern insurance industry for legal norms. Combined with the development characteristics of the reinsurance market in China and the legal basis of the original insured's right of direct claim, this paper demonstrates the necessity and rationality of approving the contractual effect of the original insured's right of direct claim. The article 29, paragraph 2, of the Insurance Law is amended. In our country's insurance market, small and medium-sized insurance enterprises have serious losses, and in the case of insurance business transfers that occur during mergers and acquisitions or bankruptcy of insurance companies, The agreement reached between the original insurance company and the transferee insurance company on the insurance liability of the original policy holder is a broad reinsurance contract, and the original policy holder is the original insured, The law acquiesces to the direct claim of the original insured. On the other hand, China's reinsurance industry is highly dependent on overseas insurance companies. When the domestic original insurer is insolvent, bankrupt or refuses to pay off, if the original insured's right of direct claim is denied, the interests of the original insured will not be protected. Therefore, it is necessary to confirm the legal effect of the agreement on the original insurant's right of direct claim between the parties. From the nature of the reinsurance contract, the reinsurance contract is different from the liability insurance contract, and the law does not apply to the direct claim of the legal third party in the liability insurance. The second paragraph of Article 29 of our country's Insurance Law is not the compulsory norm of validity. If the parties in the original insurance contract and the reinsurance contract explicitly stipulated the direct claim of the original insured, the agreement should be valid. The original insured can obtain the right of direct claim against the reinsurer according to the three interpretation paths of "assignment of creditor's rights", "contract of benefit of the third party" or "join of debt". Therefore, based on the agreement between the parties, when the agreement occurs, the original insured may directly claim compensation or insurance compensation from the reinsurer, provided that the liability of the reinsurer as stipulated in the reinsurance contract is limited. The author suggests amending the second paragraph of Article 29 of the Insurance Law of our country to add the proviso of "except as agreed in the original insurance contract or reinsurance contract". The parties expressly agree that the original insured's right of direct claim is excluded from the scope of application of the original clause.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海交通大學(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 季宏武;;交強(qiáng)險(xiǎn)中受害人直接請(qǐng)求權(quán)問題研究[J];法制與社會(huì);2008年03期

2 方芳;;論機(jī)動(dòng)車責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)受害人的直接請(qǐng)求權(quán)[J];商業(yè)文化(學(xué)術(shù)版);2009年09期

3 陳亞芹;;論責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)第三人直接請(qǐng)求權(quán)的立法模式——對(duì)直接請(qǐng)求權(quán)理論基礎(chǔ)的新解讀[J];保險(xiǎn)研究;2011年01期

4 李娟;;“交強(qiáng)險(xiǎn)”受害人直接請(qǐng)求權(quán)的立法反思與重構(gòu)[J];湖北工業(yè)大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào);2011年06期

5 陳亞芹;;責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)第三人直接請(qǐng)求權(quán)的價(jià)值定位及其抗辯分析[J];商業(yè)研究;2012年02期

6 唐松青;;機(jī)動(dòng)車責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)第三人直接請(qǐng)求權(quán)問題研究[J];湖南社會(huì)科學(xué);2007年03期

7 劉敢生;閆小龍;;道路交通事故受害人的直接請(qǐng)求權(quán)[J];法治論叢(上海政法學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào));2007年03期

8 傘波仁;;淺論商業(yè)三責(zé)險(xiǎn)受害人的直接請(qǐng)求權(quán)[J];現(xiàn)代商業(yè);2008年24期

9 肖萌菊;;旅行社責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)中第三人直接請(qǐng)求權(quán)研究[J];天中學(xué)刊;2009年03期

10 袁雪;王璐;;海上責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)中第三人直接請(qǐng)求權(quán)屬性初探[J];法制與經(jīng)濟(jì)(下旬);2010年04期

相關(guān)會(huì)議論文 前1條

1 王富新;;淺析“交強(qiáng)險(xiǎn)”中第三人的直接請(qǐng)求權(quán)[A];浙江省2010年保險(xiǎn)法學(xué)學(xué)術(shù)年會(huì)論文集[C];2010年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 楊文杰;再保險(xiǎn)中原被保險(xiǎn)人的直接請(qǐng)求權(quán)研究[D];上海交通大學(xué);2015年

2 馬平川;交強(qiáng)險(xiǎn)受害人直接請(qǐng)求權(quán)制度研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2009年

3 王丹;論機(jī)動(dòng)車第三者責(zé)任險(xiǎn)中的受害人直接請(qǐng)求權(quán)[D];黑龍江大學(xué);2013年

4 朱張軍;責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)第三人直接請(qǐng)求權(quán)問題研究[D];華中科技大學(xué);2007年

5 戴漢珍;論機(jī)動(dòng)車責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)中第三人的直接請(qǐng)求權(quán)[D];山東大學(xué);2009年

6 卞飛;論責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)第三人的直接請(qǐng)求權(quán)[D];廈門大學(xué);2001年

7 劉寧;論責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)第三人的直接請(qǐng)求權(quán)[D];山西大學(xué);2006年

8 喻嘯;論機(jī)動(dòng)車強(qiáng)制責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)中受害人之直接請(qǐng)求權(quán)[D];西南政法大學(xué);2007年

9 王靜波;論強(qiáng)制機(jī)動(dòng)車責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)中的第三人直接請(qǐng)求權(quán)[D];對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2007年

10 申慶月;我國責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)受害人直接請(qǐng)求權(quán)制度法律研究[D];中國政法大學(xué);2007年

，

本文編號(hào)：1846010