人身保险复效与解除权的衔接构造

doi:10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN33-6000/C.2022.12.128

摘要
图/表
参考文献
相关文章 (0)

全文: PDF (1146 KB) RICH HTML
输出: BibTeX | EndNote (RIS)

摘要复效系指因投保人未交保费导致合同中止时，若其在法定期限内申请复效并补交保费便能恢复合同效力的法律构造。我国实证法中，对除投保人以外的关联利益主体是否享有复效申请权，以及其申请后能否代为补交保费的问题未置一词。从法律逻辑与价值基础出发，复效制度须因应司法实践需求，在基础结构上适度扩张申请权主体以实现续造。复效与解除权制度本应相互独立，但因人身保险真正利他性而导致第三人与合同主体间存在信息差，加之解除权形成性原理，第三人在保险人法定解除权与投保人任意解除权项下可能遭遇利益减损。为缓和利益波动，弥合二者的制度间隙，可通过预防构造与应对构造的模式组合加以衔接。其中保险人法定解除权与投保人任意解除权应分别对应单一通知模式与“复催告—自由”模式。

	服务

	把本文推荐给朋友
	加入我的书架
	加入引用管理器
	E-mail Alert
	RSS
	作者相关文章
	陈景善
	何天翔

关键词 ：人身保险合同, 复效制度, 解除权, 利他合同

Abstract：Reinstatement of insurance refers to a legal mechanism wherein, upon the policyholder’s failure to timely pay premiums, leading to the suspension of a personal insurance contract, the contract can be reinstated if the policyholder applies for reinstatement within the statutorily defined reinstatement period and pays the outstanding premiums. Originating from the inherent power asymmetry between insurers and policyholders, this mechanism serves to restore contractual equilibrium, ensuring the continuity and stability of the insurance contract while safeguarding the contractual interests of both the insured and beneficiaries. However, as a contract inherently altruistic in nature, personal insurance extends beyond the concerns of the policyholder and the insurer, involving third-party interests during contract performance. Such complexity results in the normative framework modeled on dual contracts tending to overlook the interests of third parties, especially when the insurer and the policyholder exercise their right of rescission. Thus, there is a pressing need for a nuanced institutional design to protect third-party interests in the context of personal insurance reinstatement.In the current Chinese legal landscape, the reinstatement system relies on a foundational structure encompassing a “reinstatement request” and “hazard defense”. However, current insurance law fails to address the question whether third parties, whose interests are intertwined with the contract apart from the policyholder, possess the right to apply for reinstatement and if they can make premium payments on behalf of the policyholder following such an application. Given that third parties lack contractual insight and therefore unable to ascertain specific contract performance details, such a legal structure may result in the loss of opportunities for the third parties to self-remedy their insurance interests. Consequently, the reinstatement system should undergo two structural adjustments to address this issue. Firstly, from both logical and legitimacy perspectives, the reinstatement system should align with the demands of judicial practice. This entails expanding the qualification for reinstatement applications to include the insured or beneficiary while imposing a duty on them to inform the policyholder after applying for reinstatement, thereby compelling the policyholder to rectify premium payments. Secondly, building upon this, the system should permit third parties to make premium payments for a suspended contract through mechanisms including “third-party alternative performance” or “exempt debt assumption”, which help realize the two institutional values of the reinstatement system, namely continuation and mutual benefits.The reinstatement system and the right of rescission should ideally operate independently. However, due to the inherent altruistic nature of personal insurance contracts, an information asymmetry exists between the third parties and the contracting parties. Additionally, the formative nature of the right of rescission implies inadequate reminders for third-party rights. Consequently, third-party interests are at risk in situations involving the statutory right of rescission exercised by the insurer and the discretionary right of rescission exercised by the policyholder. To safeguard third-party interests and bridge the gap between these two systems, a combination of preventive and responsive constructions could be implemented. In terms of specific institutional construction, distinctive modes should be devised for the discretionary right of rescission and the statutory right of rescission. For the former, a notification mode is recommended for the policyholder’s exercise of discretionary rescission. This mandates that the policyholder informs the third parties of the information on the exercise of rescission right before doing so. For the latter, the re-interpellation system could be introduced for the statutory right of rescission. This system requires the insurer to notify the third parties concurrently with reminding the policyholder to pay the premium. It needs to be aligned with the free mode of the right of rescission thereafter.The existing legal scholarship has shown a notable dearth in addressing the safeguarding of third-party interests in the context of insurance reinstatement. Also, a comprehensive exploration of the intricate relationship between the reinstatement and the right of rescission is conspicuously absent from scholarly discourse, creating a discernible theoretical gap. This paper addresses this research vacuum by examining the reinstatement system, the right of rescission, and their articulation as three distinct thematic dimensions. It introduces a typology-based approach to articulate the reinstatement and recession rights system, providing a nuanced understanding of their interplay; while also evaluates the roles of the “re-interpellation system” and the “inquiry into redemption” system within the discussion. The proposed articulation construction, emerging from this inquiry, can better fulfill its dual institutional values of continuity and mutual benefit while ensuring proper protection for third-party interests.

Key words： personal insurance contracts reinstatement of insurance right of rescission altruistic contracts

收稿日期: 2022-12-12

基金资助:司法部国家法治与法学理论研究一般项目（19SFB2041）

作者简介: 陈景善（https：//orcid.org/0009-0000-2202-9275），女，中国政法大学民商经济法学院教授、博士生导师，法学博士，主要从事民商事法律研究；；何天翔（https：//orcid.org/0009-0009-0434-3880），男，新加坡国立大学法学院博士研究生，主要从事民商事法律研究；

引用本文:

陈景善, 何天翔. 人身保险复效与解除权的衔接构造[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2023, 53(12): 72-86. Chen Jingshan, He Tianxiang. The Connecting Structure Between the Right of Rescission and Reinstatement of Personal Insurance. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2023, 53(12): 72-86.

链接本文:

https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/CN/10.3785/j.issn.1008-942X.CN33-6000/C.2022.12.128 或 https://www.zjujournals.com/soc/CN/Y2023/V53/I12/72

1 马天柱：《被保险人之保险保障利益的法律特征与相关规则构建》，《保险研究》2017年第1期，第118-127页。
2 Poufinas T. & Michaelide G.， “Determinants of life insurance policy surrenders，” Modern Economy， Vol. 9， No. 8 （2018）， pp. 1400-1422.
3 何丽新、陈诺：《利他保险合同下任意解除权的利益失衡与解决路径》，《政法论坛》2021年第1期，第101-111页。
4 刘振：《保险合同复效制度适用研究——以〈最高人民法院关于适用《中华人民共和国保险法》若干问题的解释（三）〉第8条为中心展开》，《法律适用》2016年第2期，第63-71页。
5 李玉泉编：《保险法学——理论与实务》（第二版），北京：高等教育出版社，2010年。
6 薛军：《利他合同的基本理论问题》，《法学研究》2006年第4期，第116-126页。
7 王泽鉴：《民法物权》，北京：北京大学出版社，2010年。
8 杜景林、卢谌：《德国民法典评注：总则·债法·物权》，北京：法律出版社，2011年。
9 郑玉波：《民法债篇总论》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2004年。
10 温世扬主编：《保险法》，北京：法律出版社，2007年。
11 董庶、王静：《试论利他保险合同的投保人任意解除权》，《法律适用》2013年第2期，第19-24页。
12 梁鹏：《保险法司法解释中的合同复效问题》，《中国保险》2016年第6期，第43-47页。
13 王利明：《论第三人代为履行——以〈民法典〉第524条为中心》，《法学杂志》2021年第8期，第1-16页。
14 杨德齐：《论保险合同解除权制度的体系建构——兼评〈保险法〉司法解释三（征求意见稿）的解除权条款》，《保险研究》2015年第2期，第82-93页。
15 冉克平：《民法典编纂视野中的第三人清偿制度》，《法商研究》2015年第2期，第35-43页。
16 夏庆锋：《人身保险合同复效制度的法律适用》，《财经法学》2017年第4期，第126-137页。
17 田春阳：《浅析我国人身保险合同的复效制度》，《文化创新比较研究》2018年第12期，第171-173页。
18 Mao H.， Ostaszewski K. M. & Wang Y.， “Deciding whether a life insurance contract should be reinstated，” Journal of Insurance Issues， Vol. 34， No. 1 （2011）， pp. 1-17.
19 德］迪尔克·罗歇尔德斯：《德国债法总论》，沈小军、张金海译，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2017年。
20 Ericson R. V.， Doyle A. & Barry D.， Insurance as Governance， Toronto： University of Toronto Press， 2003.
21 金万红、马炎秋：《论保险合同的终止与解除》，《中国海洋大学学报（社会科学版）》2013年第2期，第79-84页。
22 臧彦：《保险契约信息不对称的法律规制》，《法制与社会发展》2002年第6期，第102-106页。
23 储敏：《保险人的最大诚信义务》，《当代法学》2000年第1期，第65-67页。
24 张家勇：《为第三人利益的合同的制度构造》，北京：法律出版社，2007年。
25 陈景善、郜俊辉：《利他合同之法定解除权行使规则研究》，《社会科学研究》2020年第6期，第81-89页。
26 王泽鉴：《民法学说与判例研究》第七册，北京：北京大学出版社，2009年。
27 张丽英：《国际经济法》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2018年。
28 黎耀斌：《人身保险合同中保险人的催告义务》，《山西省政法管理干部学院学报》2019年第4期，第100-103页。
29 林诚二：《民法债编总论》，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2003年。
30 史尚宽：《债法总论》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2000年。
31 岳卫：《利他型人寿保险中投保人与受益人的对价关系》，《法学研究》2017年第6期，第115-第118页。
32 The Law Commission and The Scottish Law Commission， Insurance Contract Law： Business Disclosure， Warranties， Insurers’ Remedies for Fraudulent Claims and Late Payment， London： Williams Lea Group， 2014， pp. 157-164.
33 Chideh O. A. & Sorayaei A.， “Effective factors on life insurance profitability （Case study： Iranian insurance companies），” Open Journal of Business and Management， Vol. 7， No. 2 （2019）， pp. 546-555.