解释保险的四种学说(上)

Four Conceptions of Insurance(Ⅰ)

本文指出了数十年来所讨论的四种有关保险的学说,并逐一分析之,进而探讨其应然层面的含义(规范含义),正是这些规范要素支配着各种学说。它们依次是合同说、公用事业/受管制行业说、产品说以及治理说。尽管这些学说采取的角度大相径庭,却都避不开两个基本问题,这也是长期以来现代保险法不得不直面的困难。问题之一,保险合同的条款在何种程度上决定其法律效力。这是一个古老的难题——格式合同中由一方制定的条款是否有效——的保险法版本。因为几乎所有的保险合同都是标准的格式合同,纵如高端的公司保险也不例外;准此而言,此为保险法的核心问题,而不是边缘问题。问题之二,我们有时称作"公法"的法律,如何影响私人保险的承保范围?这也困扰着整个现代私法:私法应当在何种程度上为合同当事人实现实质公平,或者涉足其他更像是公法事务的领域?比如某特定案件的诉讼结果对其他民事主体未来行为的影响,或者同等条件下投保人的平等对待,这都是典型的公法事务。最后文章表明,每种学说都指向一些应然层面的选择,采纳某种保险理念却并不意味着直接接受或者拒绝其背后的规范选择。驱动法律规则与实践的,不是概念,而是我们的政治、经济与社会价值。然而,有时候我们却无法深入概念的架构洞悉其本质,反而被牵引着在概念外围打转。这样来描述不同保险学说之间的争辩,虽不中,亦不远。在此背景下,本文采取的批判性分析法就要求揭示出应然层面的含义,它事实上支配着每一种概念体系。

This article identifies four conceptions of insurance that have operated in the debates about insurance law in recent decades,analyzes these conceptions,and examines the normative agendas that drive them.These are the contract,public utility/regulated industry,product,and governance conceptions.Although these conceptions adopt very different perspectives,each is a way of struggling with the two fundamental questions that modern insurance law has continually faced.The first question involves the extent to which the language of an insurance policy should determine its legal effect.This is the insurance law version of the age-old question concerning the validity of one-sided provisions in contracts of adhesion.Because virtually all insurance policies,including high-end corporate insurance policies,are standard-forms,it is a question at the core,not the periphery,of insurance law.The second question involves the proper influence of what are sometimes called"public law"values on the scope of private insurance coverage.This is a question with which much of modern private law struggles.To what extent should private law be about doing justice between two contracting parties,and to what extent should it also be concerned with other,more nearly public law matters?Public law matters such as the impact of litigation outcomes on the future behavior of other parties or the equal treatment of similarly situated policyholders.Ultimately,the article argues,adopting a particular conception of insurance is no substitute for making or rejecting the normative choices that each conception entails.It is not our concepts,but our political,economic,and social values that underlie and underwrite legal doctrines and practices.Nonetheless,sometimes we do not see through our conceptual structures but instead are led around by them.This is part of what is taking place in the contests among different conceptions of insurance.In such circumstances,the kind of critical analysis this article undertakes is required to expose the normative agendas that are doing the actual work within each conceptual structure.