交强险中保险人的追偿权质疑——我国《交强险条例》第22条之妥当性评析

Questioning the Insurer′s Right of Recourse in Mandatory Third-party Traffic Liability Insurance:——Commenting On the Rationality of The 22nd Clause of "Mandatory Third-party Traffic Liability Insurance Provisions"

交强险中保险人的追偿权性质应为代位权,其行使追偿权的前提应为对受害人的人身伤亡在交强险责任限额范围内承担了保险赔付责任而非仅就抢救费用负垫付责任。保险人行使追偿权的事由应为被保险人恶意行为造成道路交通事故的情形,对无权使用被保险机动车导致道路交通事故的情形,可列为道路交通事故社会救助基金补偿的事由。受害人与被保险人有和解、抛弃或其他约定,是否有碍于保险人追偿权的行使,应区分保险人为保险赔付之前与赔付之后两个不同时间点加以判定,并分别确定相应的法律效果。

The nature of the insurer＇s right of recourse in Thirdparty Traffic Liability Insurance should be the right of subrogation. The condition of the insurer exercising recourse right should be the he had assumed insurance com pensation responsibility for the victim＇s personal casualty within the limit of the sum insured, but not paid the ad vance rescue cost only. The reasons of the insurer exercising recourse right should be the conditions of the insured＇ s malicious acts leading to road traffic accidents. The conditions that leading to road traffic accidents without the right to use motor vehicles insured should be the compensation reason of the road traffic accident social relief fund. Whether the compromise, abandoning, or other agreement between the victim and the insured prevented the insurer exercising recourse right or not should be judged by the time of the insurer compensating, and should ensure the le gal effects respectively.