本文關(guān)鍵詞： 交強(qiáng)險(xiǎn) 保險(xiǎn)人 追償權(quán) 交通事故 受害第三人　出處：《西南政法大學(xué)》2014年碩士論文　論文類型：學(xué)位論文

【摘要】：在交通事故頻發(fā)的今天，機(jī)動車責(zé)任強(qiáng)制保險(xiǎn)越發(fā)受到人們的關(guān)注，，成為了與大部分家庭的利益緊密相關(guān)的重要保險(xiǎn)。機(jī)動車責(zé)任強(qiáng)制保險(xiǎn)簡稱交強(qiáng)險(xiǎn)，是具有強(qiáng)制性、政策性和社會公益性的特殊責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)，大多數(shù)國家和地區(qū)均立法予以規(guī)定。我國的交強(qiáng)險(xiǎn)制度發(fā)展歷程較短，國務(wù)院2006年頒布機(jī)動車交通事故責(zé)任強(qiáng)制保險(xiǎn)條例對其進(jìn)行專項(xiàng)調(diào)整，該條例秉承“保障受害第三人獲得及時賠償”的立法目的對保險(xiǎn)人的免責(zé)事由進(jìn)行了嚴(yán)格限制，但為防止保險(xiǎn)人的責(zé)任被過度加重，條例賦予保險(xiǎn)人在一定情形下對被保險(xiǎn)人的追償權(quán)以轉(zhuǎn)移終局責(zé)任，這便是交強(qiáng)險(xiǎn)中特有的保險(xiǎn)人追償權(quán)。2012年，最高人民法院審判委員會通過了《關(guān)于審理道路交通事故損害賠償案件適用法律若干問題的解釋》，該解釋對交強(qiáng)險(xiǎn)中有關(guān)保險(xiǎn)人追償權(quán)的一些問題做出了修改，更換了追償對象的稱謂，調(diào)整了追償事由的范圍。從總體上看，我國交強(qiáng)險(xiǎn)相關(guān)立法呈現(xiàn)出不斷完善的趨勢，但在保險(xiǎn)人追償對象及追償事由的規(guī)定上仍有可改進(jìn)的空間，本文試從這兩方面存在的問題著手，希望通過對保險(xiǎn)人追償權(quán)的法理基礎(chǔ)、具體構(gòu)成及適用問題的分析尋求保險(xiǎn)人追償權(quán)制度的完善之道。 文章分為引言、正文和結(jié)論三部分，正文又由四部分組成，其結(jié)構(gòu)和大致內(nèi)容如下： 正文的第一部分介紹了保險(xiǎn)人追償權(quán)的立法規(guī)定，并對我國現(xiàn)行立法中存在的問題進(jìn)行了梳理。該部分首先介紹了我國立法有關(guān)交強(qiáng)險(xiǎn)保險(xiǎn)人追償對象及追償事由的規(guī)定。其次，比較分析了德國、日本以及我國臺灣地區(qū)的相關(guān)立法，總結(jié)了他們的立法經(jīng)驗(yàn)。最后，對我國立法在保險(xiǎn)人追償對象及追償事由上存在的問題進(jìn)行了歸納，主要包括追償對象之稱謂不合理、被保險(xiǎn)人范圍較小且構(gòu)成嚴(yán)苛、追償事由不完善等。 第二部分對保險(xiǎn)人追償權(quán)的法理基礎(chǔ)進(jìn)行了探討，指出保險(xiǎn)人追償權(quán)是保險(xiǎn)人、被保險(xiǎn)人及第三人三方利益博弈的結(jié)果。該部分首先分析了對第三人進(jìn)行利益保護(hù)的理論基礎(chǔ)，明確了對第三人利益的保護(hù)是保險(xiǎn)人追償權(quán)得以存在的前提和基礎(chǔ)。其次，對保險(xiǎn)人利益保護(hù)的必要性進(jìn)行了分析，指出賦予保險(xiǎn)人追償權(quán)是保護(hù)其利益的必然要求。最后，分析了惡意肇事被保險(xiǎn)人的可責(zé)性，指出由其承擔(dān)終局責(zé)任的必要性。 第三部分討論了保險(xiǎn)人追償權(quán)的具體構(gòu)成及適用。該部分首先對保險(xiǎn)人追償權(quán)的構(gòu)成要件進(jìn)行了介紹，繼而分析了保險(xiǎn)人追償權(quán)的適用問題，即在確定保險(xiǎn)人追償對象及追償事由時所應(yīng)當(dāng)考慮的因素，主要包括與侵權(quán)責(zé)任法的銜接、被保險(xiǎn)人的主觀心理、被保險(xiǎn)人的行為后果等。 第四部分針對正文第一部分所提出的問題，提出了四點(diǎn)完善意見，即：增加保險(xiǎn)人追償權(quán)之設(shè)立目的的規(guī)定；適度擴(kuò)大追償對象的范圍；補(bǔ)充追償事由；修訂法條間不相協(xié)調(diào)之處。
[Abstract]:With the frequent occurrence of traffic accidents, compulsory motor vehicle liability insurance has become an important insurance closely related to the interests of most families. The special liability insurance of policy and public welfare is stipulated by most countries and regions. On 2006, the State Council promulgated the regulations on compulsory Insurance for Motor vehicle Traffic Accidents, which strictly restrict the insurer's exemption from liability in accordance with the legislative purpose of "ensuring the third party being injured to receive prompt compensation." However, in order to prevent the insurer's liability from being excessively aggravated, the Ordinance gives the insurer the right of recourse against the insured under certain circumstances in order to transfer the final liability, which is the right of recourse of the insurer unique to the traffic insurance. 2012, The trial Committee of the Supreme people's Court adopted the "interpretation on some issues applicable to the Law applicable to hearing cases of compensation for damages caused by Road Traffic Accidents", which modified some of the issues concerning the insurer's right of recourse in traffic compulsory insurance. The title of the object of recovery has been changed and the scope of the subject matter of recovery has been adjusted. On the whole, the relevant legislation on traffic insurance in China has shown a trend of continuous improvement, but there is still room for improvement in the provisions on the object of recovery and the reason for recovery by the insurer. This paper tries to start with the problems in these two aspects, hoping to seek the perfect way of the insurer's right of recourse system through the analysis of the legal basis, the concrete constitution and the application of the insurer's right of recourse. The article is divided into three parts: introduction, text and conclusion. The text is composed of four parts. Its structure and content are as follows:. The first part of the text introduces the legislative provisions of the insurer's right of recourse. In this part, the author first introduces the provisions of the legislation on the object and cause of recovery by the traffic insurance insurer. Secondly, it compares and analyzes Germany. The relevant legislation of Japan and Taiwan region, summarized their legislative experience. Finally, the author summarized the problems in the object and cause of recovery of the insurer in our legislation, mainly including the unreasonable appellation of the object of recovery. The scope of the insured is relatively small and constitutes harsh, and the cause of recovery is imperfect. The second part discusses the legal basis of the insurer's right of recourse, and points out that the insurer's right of recourse is the insurer. This part analyzes the theoretical basis of the protection of the interests of the third party, and clarifies that the protection of the interests of the third party is the premise and basis for the existence of the insurer's right of recourse. This paper analyzes the necessity of the protection of the insurer's interests and points out that it is the inevitable requirement to protect the interests of the insurer by endowing the insurer with the right of recourse. Finally, the author analyzes the responsibility of the insured who caused the malicious accident and points out the necessity for the insurer to bear the ultimate responsibility. The third part discusses the specific composition and application of the insurer's right of recourse, which first introduces the constitutive elements of the insurer's right of recourse, and then analyzes the application of the insurer's right of recourse. That is to say, the factors that should be considered in determining the object and cause of recovery include the connection with the law of tort liability, the subjective psychology of the insured, the consequences of the insured's behavior, and so on. According to the problems raised in the first part of the text, the 4th part puts forward four suggestions, that is, to increase the purpose of the insurer's right of recourse, to expand appropriately the scope of the object of recovery, to supplement the cause of recovery; Amendments to the law do not harmonize with each other.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：西南政法大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2014
【分類號】：D922.284

【參考文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 張新寶;;道路交通事故中的機(jī)動車第三者責(zé)任強(qiáng)制保險(xiǎn)[J];法學(xué)家;2005年01期

2 韓長印;易萍;;交強(qiáng)險(xiǎn)中惡意肇事的保險(xiǎn)墊付責(zé)任[J];法學(xué);2010年10期

3 文杰;;交強(qiáng)險(xiǎn)中保險(xiǎn)人的追償權(quán)質(zhì)疑——我國《交強(qiáng)險(xiǎn)條例》第22條之妥當(dāng)性評析[J];保險(xiǎn)研究;2012年11期

4 武亦文;;保險(xiǎn)代位求償對象的類型化分析——以特殊主體為研究對象[J];法學(xué)評論;2013年03期

5 解可;;論機(jī)動車強(qiáng)制責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)中的保險(xiǎn)代位權(quán)[J];哈爾濱學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2010年07期

6 李春景;;機(jī)動車交通事故責(zé)任強(qiáng)制保險(xiǎn)若干問題研究[J];時代法學(xué);2007年02期

7 劉銳;;《機(jī)動車交通事故責(zé)任強(qiáng)制保險(xiǎn)條例》評析[J];人民司法;2006年05期

8 劉銳;;解決交強(qiáng)險(xiǎn)與侵權(quán)責(zé)任關(guān)系的困難與建議[J];人民司法;2012年17期

9 武俐;;淺析交強(qiáng)險(xiǎn)責(zé)任中的追償權(quán)[J];山東審判;2011年06期

10 吳曉靜;鄧婷;;平衡保護(hù)個體利益與公共利益——無證駕駛致害等情形下交強(qiáng)險(xiǎn)保險(xiǎn)人的責(zé)任[J];人民司法;2012年17期

本文編號：1553956