论投保欺诈背景下的保险人合同撤销权——以一起投保欺诈案件的两级法院判决为线索

The Insurer's Contractual Right of Revocation under the Background of Application Fraud——Using the Verdicts of Two Levels of Courts on an Application Fraud as the Clue

2009年我国修订《保险法》增设"不可抗辩条款"是立法的进步,但因其未将投保欺诈等情形作为不可抗辩的除外适用规定,致使该类案件的司法处理无所适从。《保险法》司法解释(二)制定中对保险人受欺诈后撤销合同诉求之支持,先定后删,司法解释(三)征求意见稿又将其作为待定议题,使学界对保险合同撤销权与解除权竞合时的"排除说"与"选择说"之争更趋激烈。深入研究所得结论是:在投保欺诈背景下,保险人应依法享有保险合同撤销权。主要理由为:投保人自觉履行健康询问时的如实告知义务是最大诚信原则的内在要求;依赖保险人的事先防范无法阻止欺诈;公正的司法不应以任何理由和方式支持恶意欺诈行为;现行保险合同解除权制度对保险人的司法救济已形同虚设,不足以发挥惩恶扬善作用;"特别法优于一般法适用"规则在投保欺诈案件中缺乏适用前提;合同解除权与撤销权不该相互顶替取代;被投保欺诈的保险人撤销合同并不完全排除不可抗辩条款的适用;带病投保欺诈背离保险的本质属性,破坏保险的社会功能。

In 2009, China revised the ＂Insurance Law＂ and added the ＂incontestable clause＂, which is the progress of legislation. But it didn＇ t prescribe the application fraud as the exemption of the incontestable clause, this has led to judicial confusion in such cases. In the legislative process, at first, the ＂Insurance law＂ judicial interpretation （2） supported the withdrawal from the contract after the insurer＇ s discovery of fraud, but it later canceled this opinion. The draft of judicial interpretation （3） turned it as a pending issue, making academic debates between ＂exclusion opinion＂ and ＂selection opinion＂, two theories on the concurrence of insurance contract withdrawal right and rescission right, become more and more intense. After an in-depth study, the paper concluded that under the background of application fraud, the insurer should have the right to revoke the insurance contract. The main reasons are as follows ： the policyholder＇ s truthful disclosure obligation towards health inquiries is the intrinsic requirement of the outmost good faith principle ; the insurer＇ s prevention beforehand cannot prevent the occurrence of frauds ; im- partial justice should not support malicious frauds in any way;the judicial relief of the insurer through the existing contract rescission right exists in name only, and the current provision is not rewarding the virtue and punishing vice;＂ special law is superior to the general law application＂ rule is lacking application precondition in insurance fraud cases;the rescission right and the cancellation rights should not replace each other;the insurer who rescind a contract upon discovery of insurance fraud does not completely rule out the incontestable clause;applying for insurance with illness violates the essential attribute of insurance and undermines the social function of insurance.