本文選題：責(zé)任保險(xiǎn) + 保證保險(xiǎn)�。� 參考：《大連海事大學(xué)》2017年碩士論文

【摘要】：隨著社會(huì)發(fā)展進(jìn)程的不斷加快,傳統(tǒng)的訴訟保全擔(dān)保模式已經(jīng)不能滿足社會(huì)的發(fā)展,訴訟財(cái)產(chǎn)保全責(zé)任險(xiǎn)的產(chǎn)生緩解了訴訟當(dāng)事人在申請(qǐng)財(cái)產(chǎn)保全過(guò)程中的資金壓力;由于其依靠于保險(xiǎn)公司這樣資金雄厚的企業(yè),減輕了人民法院審查擔(dān)�？煽啃缘膲毫�;同時(shí)其投保便捷,程序簡(jiǎn)潔,手續(xù)明了,且費(fèi)率低的優(yōu)勢(shì)明顯,吸引了眾多受眾群體,然而對(duì)其屬于何種保險(xiǎn),其保單保函效力如何等存在爭(zhēng)議,其在司法實(shí)務(wù)承保過(guò)程中也存在諸多問(wèn)題。本文通過(guò)研究訴訟財(cái)產(chǎn)保全責(zé)任險(xiǎn)同責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)、保證保險(xiǎn)的關(guān)系,保單保函的擔(dān)保能力、效力等,旨在探索訴訟財(cái)產(chǎn)保全責(zé)任險(xiǎn)的相關(guān)法律問(wèn)題。訴訟財(cái)產(chǎn)保全責(zé)任險(xiǎn)的法律定性方面,通過(guò)研究其與責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)和保證保險(xiǎn)的關(guān)系,以及其與保證擔(dān)保的關(guān)系等,最終建議作出相關(guān)立法,將其定性為責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)項(xiàng)下,但又不完全同于責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)的一種特殊的保險(xiǎn)模式。由于其與保證保險(xiǎn)和責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)的交叉部分更類似于一種中間險(xiǎn)種的模式,針對(duì)其特殊性對(duì)其法律定性作出特殊規(guī)定。與責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)相同的部分適用責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)的相關(guān)法律規(guī)定,沖突部分獨(dú)創(chuàng)性地對(duì)其作出法律規(guī)定,該部分法律只針對(duì)訴訟財(cái)產(chǎn)保全責(zé)任險(xiǎn)一種作出的規(guī)定,其他險(xiǎn)種并不適用。保單保函的法律屬性方面,從保單保函是否具有認(rèn)定申請(qǐng)人已經(jīng)提供保證擔(dān)保的資質(zhì)入手,將保單保函中保險(xiǎn)公司和申請(qǐng)人的連帶責(zé)任由法律進(jìn)行強(qiáng)制規(guī)定,并且亦由法律強(qiáng)制規(guī)定此種連帶責(zé)任排除保險(xiǎn)公司內(nèi)部文件或內(nèi)部規(guī)定以及與申請(qǐng)人的約定;對(duì)保單保函的法律性質(zhì)認(rèn)定為保險(xiǎn)領(lǐng)域的"獨(dú)立保函"即"先付款,后爭(zhēng)議"。在賠付風(fēng)險(xiǎn)方面,規(guī)定為申請(qǐng)人投保訴訟財(cái)產(chǎn)保全責(zé)任險(xiǎn)的,由此風(fēng)險(xiǎn)轉(zhuǎn)移給保險(xiǎn)公司承擔(dān),并且為無(wú)條件賠付,但是可以規(guī)定保險(xiǎn)公司可以先行賠付之后,依據(jù)公司內(nèi)部文件或內(nèi)部規(guī)定以及與申請(qǐng)人的約定等對(duì)申請(qǐng)人享有追償權(quán)。在保險(xiǎn)公司對(duì)被申請(qǐng)人的抗辯權(quán)方面,規(guī)定為只有在申請(qǐng)人和被申請(qǐng)人存在欺詐時(shí)保險(xiǎn)公司即享有對(duì)被申請(qǐng)人索賠權(quán)的抗辯,其余條件下均不具有抗辯權(quán)。除上述之外,對(duì)訴訟財(cái)產(chǎn)保全責(zé)任險(xiǎn)的保險(xiǎn)責(zé)任、承保風(fēng)險(xiǎn)、賠付以及免責(zé)條款等做出探析并提出相關(guān)建議,以期在實(shí)務(wù)中對(duì)訴訟財(cái)產(chǎn)保全責(zé)任險(xiǎn)的運(yùn)用起到一定的作用。
[Abstract]:With the rapid development of the society, the traditional litigation preservation guarantee mode can not meet the social development. The emergence of litigation property preservation liability insurance alleviates the financial pressure of litigants in the process of applying for property preservation. Because it relies on an enterprise with such a strong capital as an insurance company, it alleviates the pressure on the people's court to examine the reliability of the guarantee; at the same time, it has the advantages of convenient insurance, simple procedures, clear procedures, and low rates, which has attracted a large number of audience groups. However, there are disputes about what kind of insurance it belongs to and how effective the policy guarantee is, and there are also many problems in the process of judicial practice underwriting. By studying the relationship between liability insurance and liability insurance, the relationship between liability insurance, the guarantee ability and effectiveness of the policy guarantee, this paper aims to explore the relevant legal issues of the liability insurance for the preservation of litigation property. In the legal qualitative aspect of litigation property preservation liability insurance, by studying its relationship with liability insurance and guarantee insurance, as well as its relationship with guaranty guarantee, it is finally proposed to make relevant legislation to characterize it as liability insurance. However, it is not exactly the same as a special insurance mode of liability insurance. Because it is more similar to the intersecting part of guarantee insurance and liability insurance, it makes a special regulation on its legal nature according to its particularity. The same part of liability insurance applies the relevant legal provisions of liability insurance, the conflict part originates to make the legal stipulation to it, this part of the law is only one kind of stipulation for the lawsuit property preservation liability insurance, other kinds of insurance do not apply. With regard to the legal attributes of the policy guarantee, starting from whether the policy guarantee has the qualification to confirm that the applicant has already provided the guarantee, the joint and several liabilities of the insurance company and the applicant in the policy guarantee shall be compulsorily stipulated by law. And it is also stipulated by law that this kind of joint and several liability excludes the internal documents or internal regulations of the insurance company and the agreement with the applicant; the legal nature of the policy guarantee is regarded as the "independent guarantee" in the field of insurance, that is, "payment first, then dispute". In the aspect of indemnifying risks, where it is stipulated that the applicant shall be insured against the liability insurance for the preservation of litigation property, the risk shall be transferred to the insurance company and paid unconditionally, but it may be stipulated that the insurance company may pay in advance, According to the company's internal documents or internal regulations and the agreement with the applicant to enjoy the right of recovery against the applicant. As for the defense right of the insurance company against the respondent, it is stipulated that the insurance company has the defense to the defendant's right of claim only when the applicant and the respondent have fraud, and the other conditions do not have the right of defense. In addition to the above, this paper makes an analysis of the insurance liability, underwriting risk, indemnity and exemption clauses of litigation property preservation liability insurance, and puts forward some relevant suggestions, in order to play a certain role in the application of litigation property preservation liability insurance in practice.
【學(xué)位授予單位】：大連海事大學(xué)
【學(xué)位級(jí)別】：碩士
【學(xué)位授予年份】：2017
【分類號(hào)】：D922.28

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 姜仲波;訴訟財(cái)產(chǎn)保全條件的新思考[J];黑龍江省政法管理干部學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào);2002年04期

2 陳秀君;李俊青;;對(duì)訴訟財(cái)產(chǎn)保全的思考與建議[J];商場(chǎng)現(xiàn)代化;2007年21期

3 曾勇;;淺析我國(guó)訴訟財(cái)產(chǎn)保全的不足與制度完善[J];法制與社會(huì);2011年23期

4 卜千;;論訴訟財(cái)產(chǎn)保全的解除——從第三人提供擔(dān)保的角度[J];法制與社會(huì);2012年32期

5 陳靜波;論行政訴訟財(cái)產(chǎn)保全制度[J];行政與法;1997年03期

6 梁根立;“本裁定送達(dá)后立即執(zhí)行”之異議[J];法律適用;1994年01期

7 ;努力化解矛盾糾紛 保障申訴人合法權(quán)益——河北驕傲船務(wù)有限公司申請(qǐng)確認(rèn)民事訴訟財(cái)產(chǎn)保全行為違法申訴案[J];山東審判;2013年02期

8 崔巍;民事訴訟財(cái)產(chǎn)保全與行政訴訟證據(jù)保全的同時(shí)適用[J];人民司法;1995年05期

9 石月平;;“鴻富錦3000萬(wàn)索賠訴訟案”的法律思考[J];視聽界;2006年05期

10 王芳;;前嫂子奪房記[J];婚姻與家庭(社會(huì)紀(jì)實(shí));2012年02期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前10條

1 張明華邋趙曦明;訴訟財(cái)產(chǎn)保全復(fù)議應(yīng)審查實(shí)體問(wèn)題[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2007年

2 劉秋蘇;慎重適用訴訟財(cái)產(chǎn)保全措施[N];江蘇經(jīng)濟(jì)報(bào);2010年

3 王成玉邋林毅;訴訟財(cái)產(chǎn)保全不當(dāng)引發(fā)民事糾紛增多[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2008年

4 通訊員 王國(guó)軍;梨樹法院著力構(gòu)建“和諧立案”新機(jī)制[N];四平日?qǐng)?bào);2008年

5 杜 聞;英國(guó)式訴訟財(cái)產(chǎn)保全制度的“誕生”[N];人民法院報(bào);2004年

6 王曉波　記者 郭樹仁;訴訟“五提醒”體現(xiàn)人性關(guān)懷[N];北方法制報(bào);2008年

7 記者 何曉慧;認(rèn)真學(xué)習(xí)貫徹會(huì)議精神 真抓實(shí)干抓好當(dāng)前工作[N];人民法院報(bào);2014年

8 記者 趙鑫 通訊員 管收年;用真情溫暖每一位當(dāng)事人[N];天津政法報(bào);2010年

9 郁俊慶;規(guī)避法院執(zhí)行的成因及對(duì)策[N];江蘇法制報(bào);2010年

10 傅勇輝 賴道文;上猶法院綜合解決“執(zhí)行難”[N];人民法院報(bào);2005年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前6條

1 楊小三;關(guān)于訴訟財(cái)產(chǎn)保全的案例分析[D];蘭州大學(xué);2010年

2 周洲;訴訟財(cái)產(chǎn)保全責(zé)任保險(xiǎn)法律問(wèn)題研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2016年

3 鞏瑤;訴訟財(cái)產(chǎn)保全責(zé)任險(xiǎn)法律問(wèn)題研究[D];大連海事大學(xué);2017年

4 張亮;我國(guó)民事訴訟財(cái)產(chǎn)保全制度研究[D];山東大學(xué);2010年

5 潘明敏;論訴訟財(cái)產(chǎn)保全程序的完善[D];西南政法大學(xué);2015年

6 宋浩之;我國(guó)民事訴訟財(cái)產(chǎn)保全的案外人異議制度構(gòu)建研究[D];安徽大學(xué);2013年

，

本文編號(hào)：2016867