本文選題：海上保險 + 告知義務��； 參考：《上海海事大學》2006年碩士論文

【摘要】：海上保險是現(xiàn)代保險的最初淵源，告知說明義務是海上保險中的一項重要制度，它直接關系著保險合同雙方當事人的利益。本文試從五個方面來探討這一制度：第一，告知說明義務的界定。本文分別從告知義務與說明義務的理論基礎、主體、法律性質(zhì)、作用方面分析了兩者的相同之處，從而得出告知義務與說明義務具有同一性，它們是海上保險合同的雙方當事人履行締約信息披露義務的不同表現(xiàn)；第二，告知說明義務的理論基礎。傳統(tǒng)理論認為告知義務基于最大誠信原則而產(chǎn)生，筆者認為最大誠信原則僅從主觀方面揭示了告知義務的產(chǎn)生基礎，危險測定說則揭示了告知義務產(chǎn)生的客觀基礎，因此告知義務的理論基礎應兼采主客觀兩方面的內(nèi)容。同樣，說明義務的理論基礎也應兼采主客觀兩方面內(nèi)容，以最大誠信原則為其主觀基礎，以保險產(chǎn)品測定為其客觀基礎；第三，，告知說明義務的履行主體。鑒于海商法僅有被保險人概念而無投保人一說，給保險實踐帶來諸多問題，筆者建議在海上保險中引入投保人概念并確立其告知義務。我國的保險經(jīng)紀人在提法上雖與英國保險法一致，但是兩者的法律地位卻有很大差異，鑒于我國尚無投保代理人制度，筆者建議借鑒英國法的規(guī)定，重設我國的保險經(jīng)紀人制度并確立其獨立的告知義務。保險人是說明義務當然的、法定的履行主體，無任何異議，但在實踐中，保險人往往委托其代理人全權處理與保險有關的事宜，因此，應當在法律上確立保險代理人的說明義務并明確其義務的范圍；第四，告知說明義務的履行。本文從告知義務的履行范圍、告知除外、告知的方式三個方面分析了告知義務的履行。就告知義務的履行范圍問題，本文通過對基準人的選擇、影響的確定、知道與應當知道以及“如實”告知的論述予以明確。就告知除外的內(nèi)容，本文認為應包括法律、減少危險程度的事實、保險人知道或者應當知道的事項等八項內(nèi)容。就告知的方式，筆者認為海商法采用自動無限告知的方式是比較合理的。海上保險產(chǎn)品為保險合同條款所體現(xiàn)，因此說明的內(nèi)容主要是保險合同條款，包括一般合同條款和免責條款。鑒于書面方式與口頭方式各有利弊，筆者建議在說明義務的履行中把這兩種方式相結合；第五，告知說明義務的違反及其法律后果。本文認為違反告知義務的構成要件應采主觀主義原則，即既要有不實告知或未告知的客觀行為，又要有故意或過失的心理狀態(tài)。而違反告知義務
[Abstract]:Marine insurance is the initial origin of modern insurance. The obligation of disclosure is an important system in marine insurance, which is directly related to the interests of both parties to the insurance contract.This paper tries to explore this system from five aspects: first, the definition of the obligation of disclosure.This paper analyzes the similarities between the obligation of notification and the obligation of explanation from the aspects of the theoretical basis, subject, legal nature and function of the obligation of notification and explanation, and concludes that the obligation of notification and obligation of explanation are identical.They are the different performance of the parties to the marine insurance contract to fulfill the obligation of disclosure of information. Second, the theoretical basis of the obligation to inform and explain.The traditional theory holds that the obligation of disclosure is based on the principle of maximum good faith. The author thinks that the principle of maximum good faith reveals the basis of the obligation of notification only from the subjective aspect, while the theory of risk determination reveals the objective basis of the obligation of notification.Therefore, the theoretical basis of the obligation of notification should adopt both subjective and objective contents.Similarly, the theoretical basis of the obligation of explanation should be both subjective and objective, taking the principle of maximum good faith as its subjective basis, and taking the measurement of insurance products as its objective basis; third, informing the subject of the performance of the obligation of explanation.In view of the fact that maritime law has only the concept of the insured without the policy holder, which brings many problems to the practice of insurance, the author suggests that the concept of the insured should be introduced into marine insurance and the obligation of informing the insured should be established.Although the formulation of insurance broker in our country is consistent with that of British insurance law, the legal status of them is quite different. In view of the fact that there is no insurance agent system in our country, the author suggests to draw lessons from the provisions of English law.To re-establish our insurance broker system and establish its independent notification obligations.Of course, the insurer is obliged to explain its obligations. There is no objection to the legal subject of performance. However, in practice, the insurer often entrusts its agent with full powers to deal with matters relating to insurance.The legal obligation of insurance agent should be established and the scope of its obligation should be defined.This paper analyzes the performance of the obligation of notification from three aspects: the scope of the obligation of notification, the exception of notification, and the mode of notification.With regard to the scope of performance of the obligation of notification, this paper clarifies the choice of the benchmark person, the determination of the influence, the discussion of knowing and ought to know and the "truthfulness" of informing.As for the contents of the information, this article holds that it should include the law, the fact of reducing the degree of danger, the matters that the insurer knows or ought to know, and so on.On the way of informing, the author thinks that it is reasonable for maritime law to adopt the method of automatic infinite notification.The marine insurance products are embodied in the terms of the insurance contract, so the contents of the description are mainly the terms of the insurance contract, including the general contract clause and the exemption clause.In view of the advantages and disadvantages of written and oral methods, the author proposes to combine the two ways in the performance of the obligation of explanation. Fifth, to inform the breach of the obligation of explanation and its legal consequences.This paper holds that the constitutive elements of breach of the obligation of notification should adopt the principle of subjectivism, that is, there should not only be objective acts of false or uninformed information, but also the psychological state of intent or negligence.For breach of the obligation of notification
【學位授予單位】：上海海事大學
【學位級別】：碩士
【學位授予年份】：2006
【分類號】：D922.294;D922.284

【引證文獻】

相關碩士學位論文 前3條

1 齊躍;海上保險違反告知義務抗辯權研究[D];北京工商大學;2010年

2 胡松齡;海上保險違反告知義務抗辯權法律問題研究[D];復旦大學;2011年

3 邢小靜;保險人明確說明義務的界定[D];蘭州大學;2012年

本文編號：1739808