【摘要】：保險(xiǎn)保證制度,是被保險(xiǎn)人憑此承擔(dān)做或不做某些特定的事情、履行某項(xiàng)條件的義務(wù)、肯定或否定某些事實(shí)情況的存在的一種制度安排。保證作為一項(xiàng)法律制度,在實(shí)際運(yùn)用中具體體現(xiàn)為保險(xiǎn)合同中的保證條款,兩者表現(xiàn)形式不同,本質(zhì)上一致(為了行文方便,如無特殊說明,文中的“保險(xiǎn)保證”是對(duì)保證制度和保證條款的統(tǒng)稱,正文中將對(duì)二者的關(guān)系進(jìn)行說明) 保證制度產(chǎn)生于17世紀(jì)的英國(guó)海上保險(xiǎn)活動(dòng),并由英國(guó)《1906年海上保險(xiǎn)法》加以明確規(guī)定而成為正式的法律用語,該制度又逐漸發(fā)展到非海上保險(xiǎn)中。按照不同的標(biāo)準(zhǔn),保險(xiǎn)保證可以分為海上保險(xiǎn)保證和非海上保險(xiǎn)保證、確認(rèn)性保證和承諾性保證以及明示保證和默示保證。為了更好地理解保證的含義,應(yīng)該注意辨別保險(xiǎn)保證與擔(dān)保法中的保證、保證保險(xiǎn)、告知、陳述、除外責(zé)任等名詞之間的區(qū)別與聯(lián)系。關(guān)于保證的性質(zhì),有的學(xué)者將其列入與基本條款相對(duì)的特約條款,也有的學(xué)者認(rèn)為它是保險(xiǎn)合同成立的基礎(chǔ)條款,但都承認(rèn)它是最大誠信原則的重要內(nèi)容。保證的特征歸納起來有三點(diǎn)：一,保證必須是書面的；二,保證不必具有重要性；三,保證必須嚴(yán)格履行——其中又以嚴(yán)格履行這一特點(diǎn)最為突出。保險(xiǎn)保證對(duì)平衡投保雙方的信息不對(duì)稱、保護(hù)保險(xiǎn)人的利益具有重要的作用,但在其發(fā)展過程中卻染上了不可忽視的瑕疵,尤其是保證的嚴(yán)格履行原則受到極大的質(zhì)責(zé)。 我國(guó)的保險(xiǎn)保證制度一直處于十分尷尬的境地。能夠明確讀到“保險(xiǎn)保證”字眼的規(guī)定僅見于1992年頒布的《中華人民共和國(guó)海商法》第235條,但規(guī)范普通保險(xiǎn)活動(dòng)的《保險(xiǎn)法》中卻缺失了保證制度,既沒有關(guān)于保險(xiǎn)保證的定義、內(nèi)容、性質(zhì)的描述,也沒有對(duì)違反保證的后果作出任何規(guī)定。有的學(xué)者認(rèn)為《保險(xiǎn)法》第51條可以視作“保證”,因其實(shí)質(zhì)上規(guī)定了被保險(xiǎn)人在合同履行過程中必須遵守的相關(guān)義務(wù),但大多數(shù)學(xué)者并不認(rèn)同這一觀點(diǎn)。我國(guó)保險(xiǎn)監(jiān)督管理委員會(huì)(下文簡(jiǎn)稱保監(jiān)會(huì))等監(jiān)管機(jī)構(gòu)出臺(tái)的一系列法律法規(guī)中也出現(xiàn)了類似保險(xiǎn)保證的規(guī)定,如2000年保監(jiān)會(huì)制定頒布的《機(jī)動(dòng)車輛保險(xiǎn)條款》第24條到第29條,要求機(jī)動(dòng)車所有者對(duì)車輛進(jìn)行合理維護(hù)管理、從事合法運(yùn)輸。司法審判機(jī)關(guān)也對(duì)保險(xiǎn)保證做了相關(guān)規(guī)定。 在保險(xiǎn)實(shí)務(wù)中,由于保證制度的缺位使得我國(guó)保險(xiǎn)合同保證條款出現(xiàn)了極大的適用困惑。海上保險(xiǎn)業(yè)務(wù)運(yùn)作不規(guī)范、海上保險(xiǎn)賠付率和保險(xiǎn)費(fèi)率較高的嚴(yán)峻現(xiàn)狀與我國(guó)未能較好地實(shí)施保險(xiǎn)保證制度密切有關(guān)。保險(xiǎn)公司紛紛通過提高費(fèi)率、增加保費(fèi)來彌補(bǔ)損失,但是這對(duì)于那些勤于管理、恪盡義務(wù)的優(yōu)質(zhì)投保人來說卻造成了極大的不公平,久而久之他們便對(duì)國(guó)內(nèi)保險(xiǎn)公司失去信心轉(zhuǎn)而投向外國(guó)保險(xiǎn)公司,致使國(guó)內(nèi)保險(xiǎn)業(yè)務(wù)外流。非海上保險(xiǎn)也由于保證制度及條款的缺失等原因?qū)е卤ｋU(xiǎn)欺詐案件頻發(fā),保險(xiǎn)公司由此產(chǎn)生的賠款不斷增加,保險(xiǎn)欺詐案件占總賠付案件的比例和保險(xiǎn)欺詐賠款占總賠付的比例都在逐年上升。從這些現(xiàn)象可以看出保險(xiǎn)保證條款適用的某些情形在我國(guó)現(xiàn)行法律體系下存在著無法可依的情況,由于海商事與一般民商事之間存在很大的差異,一般的保險(xiǎn)商事活動(dòng)不可能適用《海商法》,但是我國(guó)《保險(xiǎn)法》本身又未對(duì)保證制度做任何規(guī)定。司法實(shí)踐中我國(guó)《關(guān)于審理保險(xiǎn)糾紛案件若干問題的解釋(征求意見稿)》提出了對(duì)保險(xiǎn)保證條款的一些規(guī)定,但在征求各方意見后,也因?yàn)楦鞣N原因沒有得到頒布。 我國(guó)保證制度及條款缺失的根本原因在于保證制度的嚴(yán)苛性——具體體現(xiàn)為保證的內(nèi)容不必具有重大性、違反保證不可抗辯、違反保證無法補(bǔ)救,在使用中人們對(duì)保證制度產(chǎn)生了嚴(yán)重的誤讀,導(dǎo)致一系列濫用保證條款的情況發(fā)生,因此人們常常對(duì)保證制度及條款報(bào)以一種恐懼的心態(tài)。同時(shí),我國(guó)民商事法律制度尚欠完備,明確提及保證二字的僅限于《海商法》第235條關(guān)于違反保證的后果和第244條關(guān)于船舶適航性的規(guī)定。這些規(guī)定都是借鑒英國(guó)《1906年海上保險(xiǎn)法》制定的,然而我國(guó)現(xiàn)行立法承襲的是大陸法系,有別于英美法系法律傳統(tǒng)。在普通保險(xiǎn)中保證更加難覓蹤影了,同時(shí)也缺乏對(duì)保證制度及條款進(jìn)行監(jiān)督和限制的法律規(guī)定。 因此,基于以上原因本文嘗試研究我國(guó)保險(xiǎn)保證制度及條款的缺失現(xiàn)狀,通過中外保證制度與條款的比較分析,提出健全與完善我國(guó)保險(xiǎn)保證的思路,就凸顯出了重要的理論價(jià)值和現(xiàn)實(shí)意義。 本文包括五章共六部分內(nèi)容： 導(dǎo)論部分介紹了本文的選題背景及研究意義,對(duì)該論題的國(guó)內(nèi)外研究現(xiàn)狀進(jìn)行了綜述,歸納了本文的研究方法和研究?jī)?nèi)容,同時(shí)指出了本文可能存在的創(chuàng)新與不足。 第一章研究保險(xiǎn)保證的一般理論,包括保證的定義、分類、起源與發(fā)展、保證與相關(guān)名詞的辨析、保險(xiǎn)保證的性質(zhì)和特點(diǎn)。 第二章從理論和實(shí)務(wù)兩個(gè)角度分析我國(guó)保險(xiǎn)保證制度及條款的現(xiàn)狀和存在的缺陷,還以保證為核心分別列舉了一則海上保險(xiǎn)案例和非海上保險(xiǎn)案例,以說明保證的重要性及違反保證的嚴(yán)重后果。 第三章著重分析我國(guó)保險(xiǎn)保證制度及條款缺失的原因,指出保證本身的“嚴(yán)苛性”及我國(guó)法律制度的不完備是造成保證制度及條款缺失的主要原因。 第四章分析了國(guó)內(nèi)外保險(xiǎn)保證制度及條款,包括美國(guó)、英國(guó)、加拿大、澳大利亞等發(fā)達(dá)國(guó)家與地區(qū)同我國(guó)保險(xiǎn)保證制度及條款的比較。 第五章從立法、監(jiān)管、實(shí)務(wù)、教育、行業(yè)協(xié)會(huì)等方面提出健全和完善我國(guó)保險(xiǎn)保證制度及條款的建議。 本文可能的創(chuàng)新點(diǎn)在于：“小題大做”及研究?jī)?nèi)容、方法上的嘗試。由于《中國(guó)保險(xiǎn)保證制度及條款的缺失與完善》這一選題范圍較小,國(guó)內(nèi)現(xiàn)有的文獻(xiàn)資料比較少,而且集中在對(duì)保證的理論研究上,因此寫作起來比較困難,容易“人云亦云”。經(jīng)過廣泛查找資料、研讀文獻(xiàn),本文最終找到了突破口,以案例分析的形式較為深入地分析了保證制度及條款在我國(guó)缺失的原因及缺失的危害,以比較分析的方式研究了中外保證制度及條款的發(fā)展情況,并在此基礎(chǔ)上提出了健全與完善我國(guó)保險(xiǎn)保證制度及條款的建議,從而實(shí)現(xiàn)“小題大做”。同時(shí),現(xiàn)有文獻(xiàn)一般止步于討論保證制度的特點(diǎn),而沒有分析我國(guó)保證制度缺失的深層原因,本文也對(duì)此做了較為細(xì)致的補(bǔ)充分析。 由于時(shí)間和水平的限制,本文還有一些遺留問題有待進(jìn)一步研究,譬如我國(guó)是否應(yīng)該分別針對(duì)海上保險(xiǎn)和非海上保險(xiǎn)規(guī)定保險(xiǎn)保證制度及條款、各自又應(yīng)該如何規(guī)定,等等。
[Abstract]:Insurance guarantee system is a kind of institutional arrangement by which the Insured undertakes to do or not do certain specific things, fulfil the obligation of certain conditions, affirm or negate the existence of certain factual conditions. The above consistency (for the convenience of writing, if there is no special explanation, the article "insurance guarantee" is a general term for the guarantee system and the guarantee clause, the relationship between the two will be explained in the main text)
Warranty system originated from the 17th century British marine insurance activities, and was explicitly stipulated in the British Marine Insurance Act of 1906. The system gradually developed into non-marine insurance. According to different standards, insurance guarantees can be divided into marine insurance guarantees and non-marine insurance guarantees, confirmatory guarantees and undertakings. In order to better understand the meaning of guaranty, it is necessary to distinguish the differences and connections between the terms of guarantee and guarantee, guarantee insurance, notice, statement and exclusion of liability in the law of guarantee. Some scholars think that it is the basic clause of insurance contract, but they all admit that it is an important content of the principle of utmost good faith. The characteristics of guarantee can be summarized as follows: first, the guarantee must be written; second, the guarantee does not have to be important; third, the guarantee must be strictly performed - and the most prominent feature is strict performance. Insurance guarantee plays an important role in balancing the information asymmetry between the insured and the insurer and protecting the insurer's interests. However, in the course of its development, it has been stained with defects that can not be ignored. Especially, the principle of strict performance of the guarantee has been greatly challenged.
China's insurance guarantee system has always been in a very awkward position. The stipulation of the word "insurance guarantee" can be clearly read only in Article 235 of the Maritime Law of the People's Republic of China promulgated in 1992, but it is absent in the Insurance Law, which regulates general insurance activities. There is no definition, content and nature of insurance guarantee. Some scholars believe that Article 51 of the Insurance Law can be regarded as a "guarantee" because it essentially stipulates the relevant obligations that the insured must abide by in the process of performing the contract, but most scholars do not agree with this view. A series of laws and regulations promulgated by regulators such as the Insurance Regulatory Commission (CIRC) have also provided similar insurance guarantees. For example, Articles 24 to 29 of the "Motor Vehicle Insurance Clauses" promulgated by the CIRC in 2000 require motor vehicle owners to maintain and manage vehicles reasonably and carry out legal transportation. Judicial organs also do insurance guarantees. The relevant provisions.
In the insurance practice, the absence of the guarantee system makes the application of the guarantee clause of the insurance contract in our country confused. The irregular operation of the marine insurance business and the high rate of marine insurance indemnity and premium are closely related to our failure to implement the insurance guarantee system. Rates and premiums are increased to compensate for the losses, but this has caused great injustice to those high-quality policyholders who are diligent in management and fulfill their obligations. Over time, they lose confidence in domestic insurance companies and turn to foreign insurance companies, resulting in the outflow of domestic insurance business. Non-marine insurance is also due to the guarantee system and terms. Lack of insurance fraud and other reasons lead to frequent insurance fraud cases, insurance companies resulting in increasing claims, insurance fraud cases accounted for the proportion of total claims and insurance fraud claims accounted for the proportion of total claims are rising year by year. Because of the great difference between maritime and general civil and commercial affairs, it is impossible for the general insurance and commercial activities to apply the Maritime Law, but the Insurance Law itself has not made any provisions on the guarantee system. Some provisions on insurance guaranty clauses were put forward, but they were not promulgated for various reasons after consulting all parties.
The fundamental reason for the absence of guaranty system and its clauses in China lies in the strictness of the guaranty system, which is embodied in the fact that the content of the guaranty does not need to be significant, the violation of the guaranty is irresistible, and the violation of the guaranty can not be remedied. People have seriously misunderstood the guaranty system in use, resulting in a series of abuses At the same time, the civil and commercial legal system of our country is not perfect, and the explicit mention of the word guaranty is limited to the consequences of breach of guaranty in Article 235 of the Maritime Code and the provisions of Article 244 on seaworthiness of ships. However, the current legislation of our country inherits the civil law system, which is different from the legal tradition of Anglo-American law system.
Therefore, based on the above reasons, this paper attempts to study the current situation of the lack of China's insurance guarantee system and clauses, through the comparative analysis of Chinese and foreign guarantee system and clauses, put forward ideas to improve and perfect China's insurance guarantee, highlighting the important theoretical value and practical significance.
This article consists of five chapters and a total of six parts.
The introduction introduces the background and significance of this paper, summarizes the research status of this topic at home and abroad, summarizes the research methods and contents, and points out the possible innovation and deficiencies of this paper.
The first chapter studies the general theory of insurance guarantee, including the definition, classification, origin and development of insurance guarantee, the distinction between insurance and related terms, the nature and characteristics of insurance guarantee.
Chapter two analyzes the present situation and defects of the insurance guarantee system and its clauses in China from both theoretical and practical perspectives, and enumerates a case of marine insurance and a case of non-marine insurance respectively with guarantee as the core to illustrate the importance of guarantee and the serious consequences of breach of guarantee.
Chapter three focuses on the analysis of the reasons for the absence of the insurance guarantee system and clauses in China, and points out that the strictness of the guarantee itself and the imperfection of the legal system in China are the main reasons for the absence of the insurance guarantee system and clauses.
The fourth chapter analyzes the insurance guarantee system and clauses at home and abroad, including the United States, Britain, Canada, Australia and other developed countries and regions with China's insurance guarantee system and clauses comparison.
The fifth chapter puts forward suggestions on perfecting and perfecting the insurance guarantee system and clauses in China from the aspects of legislation, supervision, practice, education and trade associations.
The possible innovations of this paper lie in the following aspects: making a big deal of a small problem and trying to study the contents and methods of the study. After extensive searching for information and studying the literature, this paper finally finds a breakthrough, analyzes the causes and harms of the absence of the guarantee system and clauses in China in the form of case analysis, studies the development of the guarantee system and clauses at home and abroad by way of comparative analysis, and puts forward some suggestions for improvement. At the same time, the existing literatures generally stop at discussing the characteristics of the guarantee system, without analyzing the deep reasons for the lack of the guarantee system in China, this paper also makes a more detailed supplementary analysis.
Due to the limitation of time and level, there are still some problems left to be further studied in this paper, such as whether China should stipulate insurance guarantee system and clauses for marine insurance and non-marine insurance respectively, and how to stipulate them respectively.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2011
【分類號(hào)】：D922.284;F842

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 孫積祿;保險(xiǎn)法最大誠信原則及其應(yīng)用[J];比較法研究;2004年04期

2 曹興權(quán);保險(xiǎn)保證條款的法律控制[J];佛山科學(xué)技術(shù)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)(社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2005年01期

3 楊榮波;;論我國(guó)海上保險(xiǎn)中的保證條款——比照MIA1906[J];集美大學(xué)學(xué)報(bào)(哲學(xué)社會(huì)科學(xué)版);2008年02期

4 周浩;談?wù)勁c海上保險(xiǎn)合同中保證條款的有關(guān)問題[J];江蘇保險(xiǎn);1995年05期

5 應(yīng)世昌;談船舶保險(xiǎn)中的協(xié)會(huì)保證和違反保證條款[J];上海保險(xiǎn);1999年11期

6 唐苑;;淺談保險(xiǎn)合同中保證條款的適用——一起案例的思考[J];上海保險(xiǎn);2006年01期

7 蔣芳;論海上保險(xiǎn)合同中的保證條款[J];水運(yùn)管理;2004年12期

8 黃英君;羅蘭;;論我國(guó)保險(xiǎn)保證制度的缺陷及其完善[J];保險(xiǎn)職業(yè)學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2007年01期

9 李琴芬;;我國(guó)海上保險(xiǎn)保證制度的缺陷及完善[J];中國(guó)保險(xiǎn);2008年03期

10 鄭蕾;如何認(rèn)識(shí)海上保險(xiǎn)中時(shí)“保證”──兼談對(duì)我國(guó)《海商法》第235條的理解[J];中國(guó)海商法年刊;1997年00期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前2條

1 詹吳;[N];中國(guó)保險(xiǎn)報(bào);2004年

2 中國(guó)出口信用保險(xiǎn)公司廣東分公司 孫嫦嬋;[N];國(guó)際商報(bào);2009年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 曹興權(quán);保險(xiǎn)締約信息義務(wù)制度研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2003年

2 李春彥;論保險(xiǎn)法中的信息披露制度[D];對(duì)外經(jīng)濟(jì)貿(mào)易大學(xué);2005年

3 葛延珉;海上保險(xiǎn)法最大誠信原則研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2005年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前10條

1 劉穎蓉;論保險(xiǎn)法的最大誠信原則[D];上海海運(yùn)學(xué)院;2002年

2 李紅雁;海上保險(xiǎn)法之保證制度研究[D];中國(guó)政法大學(xué);2003年

3 何建東;保險(xiǎn)合同最大誠信原則研究[D];西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2004年

4 曹穎;中國(guó)保險(xiǎn)行業(yè)組織初探[D];西南財(cái)經(jīng)大學(xué);2004年

5 肖洪艷;海上保險(xiǎn)保證研究[D];湖南師范大學(xué);2004年

6 林達(dá);保險(xiǎn)合同告知義務(wù)研究[D];四川大學(xué);2005年

7 昌希燦;保險(xiǎn)合同特約條款研究[D];山東大學(xué);2005年

8 金天華;論海上保險(xiǎn)保證制度[D];吉林大學(xué);2006年

9 蔡浩;保險(xiǎn)合同特約條款研究[D];西南政法大學(xué);2006年

10 孫慶鎮(zhèn);我國(guó)海上保險(xiǎn)中保證制度研究[D];上海海事大學(xué);2006年

，

本文編號(hào)：2242099