论文部分内容阅读
《保险法》第17条第2款对保险人违反明确说明义务的法律后果作出了这样的规定:“……未作提示或者明确说明的,该条款不产生效力。”该条规定简单、含糊,且将所有未经提示或明确说明的免责条款都归于不生效力的做法,在理论界引起了相当大的质疑,导致各种学说产生,《保险法》司法解释(二)也采取回避态度,使得问题迟迟得不到解决。基于此,提出建议:通过对免责条款的司法审查、效力的类型化设定以及有选择引入“合理期待原则”来提高“不产生效力”规则的司法适用性。
Article 17, paragraph 2, of the Insurance Act makes such provision as to the insurer’s violation of the legal consequences of a clearly stated obligation: “... it does not give effect without any hint or explicit statement.” “This article provides for a simple, Vagueness and attributing all unscrupulous or unenforceable clauses to ineffectiveness have caused considerable skepticism in theorists and led to the emergence of various theories and the avoidance of judicial interpretations of the Insurance Law , So that the problem still can not be solved. Based on this, we put forward suggestions to improve the judicial applicability of the rule of ”no effect“ through the judicial review of exemption clauses, the type setting of effectiveness and the selective introduction of ”principle of reasonable expectation ".