“投保欺诈”的法律规制——《保险法》第16条第3款的解读

Legal Regulation of "Insurance Fraud" ——Interpretation of Paragraph 3 of Article 16 of Insurance Law

'投保欺诈'的背景下,《保险法》第16条违反如实告知义务所生的解除权与《合同法》第54条因受欺诈所生的撤销权有重合之处,当保险合同成立两年后,保险人不得行使解除权。此时对于'投保欺诈'是否需要规制?若应予以规制,应如何规制?从民刑法律的衔接、保险合同的射幸性、不可争辩条款的目的三个角度进行分析,对此种情况下的'投保欺诈'仍应予以规制。德、日两国分别通过成文法与判例法的形式确立了允许保险人在可争辩期经过以后行使撤销权的规则,美国则通过将'投保欺诈'规定为不可争辩条款的例外允许保险人行使解除权,对'投保欺诈'进行规制。就我国现行法而言,应允许保险人行使撤销权来解决该问题,同时《保险法》第16条的解除权应限定于保险合同成立两年内未发生保险事故,若发生保险事故的,解除权的行使不受不可争辩条款的限制。

Under the background of'insurance fraud',the right of rescission arising from the breach of the obligation of telling the truth in Article 16 of the Insurance Law coincides with the right of rescission arising from fraud in Article 54 of the Contract Law.When the insurance contract is established for two years,the insurer shall not exercise the right of rescission.Does'insurance fraud'need to be regulated at this time?If it should be regulated,how should it be regulated?This paper analyses the connection of civil and criminal law,the luckiness of insurance contract and the purpose of indisputable clause.In this case,'insurance fraud'should still be regulated.Germany and Japan established the right of revocation by statute law and case law respectively.The United States regulated the fraud of insurance by stipulating'fraud of insurance'as an exception to the indisputable clause,which allowed the insurer to exercise the right of revocation.As far as the current law of our country is concerned,the insurer should be allowed to exercise the right of revocation to solve this problem.At the same time,the right of rescission of Article 16 of the Insurance Law should be limited to two years after the establishment of an insurance contract without insurance accident.If an insurance accident occurs,the exercise of the right of rescission shall not be restricted by indisputable clauses.