海上保險(xiǎn)中代位求償制度研究
發(fā)布時(shí)間：2018-09-05 16:23
【摘要】：目前國(guó)內(nèi)關(guān)于海上保險(xiǎn)代位求償權(quán)的法律規(guī)定主要見(jiàn)之于《海商法》、《保險(xiǎn)法》和《海事訴訟特別程序法》，但對(duì)如何理解這些法律的相關(guān)規(guī)定，司法實(shí)踐和理論研究中爭(zhēng)議頗多。尤其海上保險(xiǎn)代位求償權(quán)的定性問(wèn)題，是該法律制度的基石所在!我國(guó)《海商法》在制訂過(guò)程中曾經(jīng)較多地借鑒了英美法，其第十二章〈海上保險(xiǎn)合同〉即吸收了《英國(guó)1906年海上保險(xiǎn)法》的一些成熟做法。當(dāng)《海商法》的規(guī)定在理論上或?qū)嵺`中存在疑義時(shí)，我國(guó)的學(xué)者也傾向于用英美法的相關(guān)法律和習(xí)慣做法來(lái)進(jìn)行解釋。但我國(guó)畢竟屬于大陸法系的國(guó)家，生搬硬套英美法的結(jié)果，往往和我國(guó)的現(xiàn)有規(guī)定格格不入。因此，筆者在本文中嘗試用大陸法系一般民法理論與基本原則對(duì)海上保險(xiǎn)代位求償權(quán)制度進(jìn)行解釋，使其在我國(guó)法律體系下運(yùn)作起來(lái)更為合理。對(duì)此，筆者立足于我國(guó)是大陸法系國(guó)家，而不是由于我國(guó)《海商法》的制訂曾大量參照了英美法系的法律規(guī)定而僅僅以英美法系的作法為參照范本的寫(xiě)作模式，在廣泛考察了大陸法系國(guó)家關(guān)于代位權(quán)、債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)移、債權(quán)轉(zhuǎn)讓等相關(guān)民法理論的基礎(chǔ)上，比較了《海商法》和《保險(xiǎn)法》關(guān)于代位求償權(quán)法律性質(zhì)的規(guī)定，闡明兩者規(guī)定的一致性。 但是，保險(xiǎn)法是商法的一個(gè)分支，其一些特殊規(guī)則有時(shí)也不能用民法的一般理論和基本原則來(lái)解釋。筆者認(rèn)為，保險(xiǎn)代位求償權(quán)制度的法理基礎(chǔ)是損失補(bǔ)償原則，任何違背這一原則的結(jié)論都是不科學(xué)的。例如，第三人以保險(xiǎn)人的賠付不當(dāng)為由抗辯保險(xiǎn)人的代位求償權(quán)時(shí)，如果僅僅從相關(guān)法律條文的字面意思來(lái)理解，第三人往往可以抗辯成功；如果保險(xiǎn)人僅用民法的一般理論來(lái)證明其在不當(dāng)賠付的情形下仍有權(quán)向第三人追償，又通常難以自圓其說(shuō)。筆者認(rèn)為只有從損失補(bǔ)償原則出發(fā)，才能合理地解釋這個(gè)問(wèn)題。在處理保險(xiǎn)人的代位求償權(quán)和被保險(xiǎn)人的損害賠償請(qǐng)求權(quán)之間產(chǎn)生的矛盾時(shí)，也只有從這一原則出發(fā)，才能真正符合代位求償權(quán)制度的內(nèi)在要求，平衡被保險(xiǎn)入和保險(xiǎn)人之間的利益。而且，為貫徹保險(xiǎn)代位求償權(quán)的精神，筆者認(rèn)為從損失補(bǔ)償原則出發(fā)，應(yīng)該對(duì)“第三人”的概念進(jìn)行擴(kuò)張，而不應(yīng)拘泥于第三人必須為最終責(zé)任承擔(dān)者。對(duì)于無(wú)責(zé)任的第三人的贈(zèng)與或自愿給付，只要這樣的給付是為了彌補(bǔ)保險(xiǎn)標(biāo)的的損失，而且也不是完全排他性地賦予被保險(xiǎn)人，保險(xiǎn)人便有權(quán)對(duì)其主張行使代位求償權(quán)。 此外，筆者還在文中介紹了一些國(guó)家實(shí)踐中的一種習(xí)慣做法—貸款收據(jù)， 及對(duì)第三人的損害賠償金的性質(zhì)的探討，希望我國(guó)保險(xiǎn)公司在做好客戶服務(wù)工 作，盡快賠付被保險(xiǎn)人的損失的同時(shí)，又保護(hù)自己的代位求償權(quán)不受影響。 同時(shí)，本文認(rèn)為代位求償權(quán)的法理基礎(chǔ)—保險(xiǎn)損失補(bǔ)償原則是代位求償權(quán) 的理論基礎(chǔ)，，在理解和解釋該制度時(shí)，應(yīng)始終貫徹這一原則!因此，本文在對(duì)實(shí) 踐和理論中經(jīng)常出現(xiàn)的代位求償權(quán)的實(shí)體和程序性爭(zhēng)議進(jìn)行全面和深入的探討 和論述過(guò)程中，堅(jiān)持以此為前提，力爭(zhēng)在使該制度在具備實(shí)際可操作性的同時(shí)符 合保險(xiǎn)的一般原理。 《海事訴訟特別程序法》的通過(guò)初步建立了代位求償權(quán)制度的程序性機(jī)制， 同時(shí)也解決了不少之前存在的某些關(guān)于實(shí)體性規(guī)定的分歧。但不可否認(rèn)的是，《海 訴法》有其立法上的缺陷，對(duì)此，筆者在對(duì)相關(guān)法條進(jìn)行學(xué)理解釋的同時(shí)，也指 出了其中的不足之處，希望能拋磚引玉，對(duì)代位求償權(quán)的正確行使及將來(lái)修改《海 訴法》盡點(diǎn)綿薄之力。
[Abstract]:At present, the domestic legal provisions on subrogation of marine insurance are mainly found in Maritime Law, Insurance Law and Maritime Procedure Law, but there are many disputes in judicial practice and theoretical research on how to understand the relevant provisions of these laws. Especially, the qualitative problem of subrogation of marine insurance is the cornerstone of the legal system. In the course of formulation, China's Maritime Law has used Anglo-American law for reference. Chapter 12, Marine Insurance Contract, absorbs some mature practices of British Marine Insurance Law 1906. When the provisions of Maritime Law are doubtful in theory or practice, Chinese scholars also tend to use Anglo-American laws and practices. But after all, our country belongs to the continental law system, and the result of copying the Anglo-American law is often inconsistent with the existing provisions of our country. In view of this, the author, based on the fact that China is a continental law system country, does not refer to the Anglo-American law system for a large number of legal provisions, but only refers to the Anglo-American law system as a model of writing, and extensively inspects the continental law system countries about subrogation, transfer of creditor's rights, creditor's rights. On the basis of relevant civil law theories such as transfer, this paper compares the provisions on the legal nature of subrogation in Maritime Law and Insurance Law, and clarifies the consistency of the two provisions.
However, insurance law is a branch of commercial law, and some of its special rules can not be explained by the general theory and basic principles of civil law. In order to defend the insurer's right of subrogation, the third party can always defend if it is understood only from the literal meaning of the relevant legal provisions; if the insurer only uses the general theory of civil law to prove that he still has the right to recover from the third party in the case of improper compensation, it is usually difficult to justify himself. In dealing with the contradiction between the insurer's right of subrogation and the insured's right of claim for damages, only from this principle can we truly meet the inherent requirements of the subrogation system and balance the interests between the insured and the insurer. In order to carry out the spirit of insurance subrogation, the author thinks that the concept of "third party" should be expanded from the principle of compensation for loss, and should not be constrained by the fact that the third party must be the ultimate liability bearer. Nor is it wholly exclusive to the insured, and the insurer has the right to exercise the right of subrogation.
In addition, the author also introduces some customary practices in some countries, such as loan receipts.
And the nature of damages for the third party, I hope our insurance companies are good at customer service workers.
As soon as possible, it will compensate the insured's loss as soon as possible, while protecting his right of subrogation.
At the same time, the author thinks that the principle of insurance compensation is the right of subrogation.
On the theoretical basis, we should always implement this principle when we understand and explain this system.
The substantive and procedural disputes of subrogation right which often appear in practice and theory are discussed comprehensively and thoroughly.
In the course of discussion, we should adhere to this premise and strive to make the system practical and operable at the same time.
The general principle of insurance.
The adoption of the maritime procedure law has preliminarily established a procedural mechanism for the right of subrogation.
At the same time, it has solved some of the previous differences on substantive provisions.
The law of litigation has its legislative defects. In this regard, the author also makes a theoretical explanation of the relevant articles, and also points out that
It is hoped that the right of subrogation can be exercised correctly and the future amendment can be made.
We should try our best to make some efforts.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海海事大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2003
【分類號(hào)】：D922.284;D925.1
本文編號(hào)：2224810
[Abstract]:At present, the domestic legal provisions on subrogation of marine insurance are mainly found in Maritime Law, Insurance Law and Maritime Procedure Law, but there are many disputes in judicial practice and theoretical research on how to understand the relevant provisions of these laws. Especially, the qualitative problem of subrogation of marine insurance is the cornerstone of the legal system. In the course of formulation, China's Maritime Law has used Anglo-American law for reference. Chapter 12, Marine Insurance Contract, absorbs some mature practices of British Marine Insurance Law 1906. When the provisions of Maritime Law are doubtful in theory or practice, Chinese scholars also tend to use Anglo-American laws and practices. But after all, our country belongs to the continental law system, and the result of copying the Anglo-American law is often inconsistent with the existing provisions of our country. In view of this, the author, based on the fact that China is a continental law system country, does not refer to the Anglo-American law system for a large number of legal provisions, but only refers to the Anglo-American law system as a model of writing, and extensively inspects the continental law system countries about subrogation, transfer of creditor's rights, creditor's rights. On the basis of relevant civil law theories such as transfer, this paper compares the provisions on the legal nature of subrogation in Maritime Law and Insurance Law, and clarifies the consistency of the two provisions.
However, insurance law is a branch of commercial law, and some of its special rules can not be explained by the general theory and basic principles of civil law. In order to defend the insurer's right of subrogation, the third party can always defend if it is understood only from the literal meaning of the relevant legal provisions; if the insurer only uses the general theory of civil law to prove that he still has the right to recover from the third party in the case of improper compensation, it is usually difficult to justify himself. In dealing with the contradiction between the insurer's right of subrogation and the insured's right of claim for damages, only from this principle can we truly meet the inherent requirements of the subrogation system and balance the interests between the insured and the insurer. In order to carry out the spirit of insurance subrogation, the author thinks that the concept of "third party" should be expanded from the principle of compensation for loss, and should not be constrained by the fact that the third party must be the ultimate liability bearer. Nor is it wholly exclusive to the insured, and the insurer has the right to exercise the right of subrogation.
In addition, the author also introduces some customary practices in some countries, such as loan receipts.
And the nature of damages for the third party, I hope our insurance companies are good at customer service workers.
As soon as possible, it will compensate the insured's loss as soon as possible, while protecting his right of subrogation.
At the same time, the author thinks that the principle of insurance compensation is the right of subrogation.
On the theoretical basis, we should always implement this principle when we understand and explain this system.
The substantive and procedural disputes of subrogation right which often appear in practice and theory are discussed comprehensively and thoroughly.
In the course of discussion, we should adhere to this premise and strive to make the system practical and operable at the same time.
The general principle of insurance.
The adoption of the maritime procedure law has preliminarily established a procedural mechanism for the right of subrogation.
At the same time, it has solved some of the previous differences on substantive provisions.
The law of litigation has its legislative defects. In this regard, the author also makes a theoretical explanation of the relevant articles, and also points out that
It is hoped that the right of subrogation can be exercised correctly and the future amendment can be made.
We should try our best to make some efforts.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：上海海事大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2003
【分類號(hào)】：D922.284;D925.1
【引證文獻(xiàn)】
相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前5條
1 劉迪;海上保險(xiǎn)代位求償權(quán)行使程序法律問(wèn)題研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2011年
2 李婉真;海上保險(xiǎn)中的代位求償權(quán)制度研究[D];哈爾濱工程大學(xué);2011年
3 宋曉珂;海上保險(xiǎn)代位求償訴訟法律問(wèn)題研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2006年
4 高毓蔚;訴訟中海上保險(xiǎn)代位求償權(quán)行使的程序問(wèn)題研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2009年
5 魏紀(jì)珍;海上保險(xiǎn)代位求償權(quán)研究[D];河南大學(xué);2010年
本文編號(hào)：2224810
本文鏈接：http://sikaile.net/falvlunwen/sflw/2224810.html
最近更新
教材專著
