《保险研究》20190508-《论不健全交强险关系之效力重构》（沈小军）

［摘   要］在驾驶人使用机动车未得投保人允许或存在违法行为等不健全交强险关系中,被保险人将不享有保险金给付请求权,但现行法将保险人的责任限制在抢救费用的垫付上,有违保护受害人之立法目的。尽管实务部门以限缩解释“未得投保人允许”以及扩张违法驾车情形下保险人的责任等方式,在一定程度上强化了对受害人的保护,但仍存在一些保护漏洞。不健全交强险关系的效力应当限于使保险人取得对不正当被保险人的追偿权,而不应当对受害人的保险金请求权产生不利影响。现行法对保险人追偿权的规定采列举模式,无法涵盖所有情形。“未得投保人允许”除“被保险机动车被盗抢期间肇事”外,尚包括“擅自驾驶他人机动车”的情形。被保险人违法驾车除《交强险条例》第22条已经列举的情形外,还应包括其他不真正义务的违反。为兼顾被保险人的正当利益,保险人的追偿权应受到适当限制。除应具备因果关系要件外,对被保险人非因故意而违反不真正义务的情形应废弃全有全无原则,而改采比例原则。

［关键词］交强险；被保险人；受害人保护；保险人；追偿权

［基金项目］本文为国家社科基金项目“民法典制定中的危险归责理论研究(15CFX042)”的阶段性研究成果。

［作者简介］沈小军,上海对外经贸大学法学院讲师,德国科隆大学法学博士,研究方向：保险法。

Reconstruction of the Effect of Defective Compulsory Traffic Insurance

SHEN Xiao-jun

Abstract：In the relationship of defective compulsory traffic accident liability insurance for motor vehicles，which includes the case that the driver uses the motor vehicle without the permission of the policy holder and conducts other illegal behaviors,the insured is not eligible for the payment claim right. But the lex lata limits the insurer′s liability to the advance payment of the rescue fee. Such restrictions are contrary to the legislative purpose of victim protection. Although the relevant department has strengthened the protection of victims to some extent by restricting the interpretation of “without the permission of the policy holder” and expanding the liability of the insurer in the case of illegal driving,there are still some protection loopholes. The effectiveness of the defective compulsory traffic accident liability insurance for motor vehicles relationship should be limited to the insurer′s right of recovery to the improper insured instead of adversely affecting the victim′s claim for insurance. The lex lata provides an enumeration model for the insurer′s right of recovery,which cannot cover all situations. Besides “the accident of the insured motor vehicle during the theft”,“without the permission of the policy holder” also includes the case of “driving other people′s motor vehicles without authorization”. In addition to the circumstances already enumerated in Article 22 of the Compulsory Insurance Regulations on Traffic Accident Liability for Motor Vehicles,the insured′s other violations of unreal obligations shall be included. In order to consider the interests of the insured,the insurer′s right of recovery should be appropriately restricted. In addition to the requirements of causality,not the All-or-Nothing Principle but the Proportional Reduction Principle should be adopted in cases where the insured violates the unreal obligation without intention.

Key words：compulsory traffic insurance;the insured;victim protection;insurer;the right of recovery