保险近因原则之“近因”概念内涵探析

多年来,国内外学术界对保险法近因原则中"近因"一词的诠释一直存在"时间说"与"效力说"两种截然不同的观点。前者认为时间上最为接近的原因就是近因,后者则认为效力上最为显著的原因才是近因。本文以为,对"近因"概念内涵的准确、科学理解在保险实践中具有重要意义;"时间说"并不切合保险理赔中对因果关系认定的实际,因为任何损失发生当时的情况所牵涉的原因极可能非常广泛,以致无法仅以时间来衡量决定近因;"效果说"亦未必尽善其美,因为在保险理赔实践中,如果不论存在多少个导致损失的客观原因,只能择其一因作为理赔的依据,"多因一果"的客观现象就变成了一个毫无实际意义的、多余的空壳名词。"近因"应当同时考虑发生损害时间上的接近和效果上的作用两个方面原因,"近因"应当是时间和效果两方面要素的有机结合。

For many years, there stood two completely different viewpoints, namely the ＂time theory＂ and the ＂effect theory＂, in the interpretation of the term ＂proximate cause＂ in the proximate cause principle in insurance. The former advocate holds that the cause most close in time is the proximate cause, whereas the latter considers the cause of the most significant effect the proximate cause. The paper deems correct interpretation of the connotation of the term ＂proximate cause＂ of practical importance. The ＂time theory＂ doesn＇t comply with the practicality of establishing causality for insurance claims payment, for the causes at the occurrence of damages are likely of a large number, therefore the time factor will mostly fail as a criterion. Similarly, the ＂effect theory＂ is not foolproof either, for in the case of insurance claim payment, no matter how many objective causes leading to the damages, only one of them will be used as the basis for claim payment. The situation of ＂multiple causes for one result＂ doesn＇t make any practical sense and is a shell term only. The ＂proximate cause＂ should connote both the proximity of time and intensity of effect, namely, it should be a combination of both the time and the effect factors.