财产保险“第一受益人”争议之检视

Review of the “First Beneficiary” Dispute over Property Insurance

财产保险“第一受益人”约定之争议主要有二:该约定之效力及“第一受益人”之法律地位问题。关于“第一受益人”约定之效力,理论上存在“无效说”和“区分说”两种观点,这两种观点各有缺陷,鉴于该约定乃是当事人的真意表示,将该约定视为附条件的有效约定可能更为合理。关于“第一受益人”的法律地位,理论上亦有债权转让的受让人、权利质押的质权人以及不真正向第三人履行合同中的第三人三种观点,然而,合同条款解释的结果却表明,“第一受益人”的法律地位乃是保险法上的受益人。不过“第一受益人”的约定亦有其不合理之处,将其受益人资格限定于财产全损或推定全损时更为适当,并且,“第一受益人”之受益份额应随其款项的收回而逐次减少,倘若款项全部清偿,则“第一受益人”之资格自动丧失。

With respect to the agreement of the “first beneficiary” in property insurance, the main disputes lie in the validity of the agreement and the legal status of the “first beneficiary”. As for the validity of the agreement, there are two viewpoints of “invalid theory” and “differentiation theory”. Each of them has legal flaw. Since the agreement is the true expression of the parties, it may be more reasonable to regard the agreement as a conditional valid agreement. Regarding the legal status of the “first beneficiary”, there are three points including the transferee of the transfer of creditor's rights, the pledgee of the pledge of rights and the third party who does not actually perform the contract with a third party. However, by interpreting the contract, the legal status of the “first beneficiary” is still the beneficiary of the insurance law.Nevertheless, the agreement of the “first beneficiary” also has its unreasonable points. It may be more appropriate to limit the beneficiary qualification to the total loss of property or the total loss of the presumed. Moreover, the beneficiary share of the “first beneficiary” shall be reduced successively with the recovery of its funds. If the funds are fully paid, the qualification of the “first beneficiary” is automatically lost.