《保险研究》20231209-《<保险法>第17条修订：必要性与实现路径》（温世扬、刘景琪）

［摘   要］《保险法》第17条修订的必要性源于区分构造之弊、功能扩张之弊和制度衔接之需，为此需根植于本土制度进行完善。实现说明义务内容的功能归位，宜将“免除保险人责任的条款”转变为“重大利害关系条款”。对“重大利害关系”的解构应从两方面进行：首先，《民法典》第497条蕴含的“排除无评价可能性的条款”思路与“重大利害关系”的反面解构存在契合性，作为排除事项之一“核心给付条款”的范围应限于对价款和主体仅作关键性定义或者描述的条款以及合同标的条款；其次，应在合同主要条款范围内对“重大利害关系”进行正面的类型归整，其范围涵盖对价款有限制或改变表述的条款、对主体设定年龄或者职业限制的条款、承保风险相关条款、保险期间和责任开始时间、法定和特别约定义务以及违约后果、解决争议的办法。说明义务履行的功能归位需在明确“理性外行人”实质标准的前提下，以“主动提示+被动说明”实现制度衔接的契合。

［关键词］保险人；说明义务；免责条款；重大利害关系

［作者简介］温世扬，武汉大学法学院教授，博士生导师，研究方向：保险法；刘景琪，武汉大学法学院博士研究生，研究方向：保险法。

The Necessity for the Amendment of  Article 17 of the Insurance Law and the Execution Path

WEN Shi-yang,LIU Jing-qi

Abstract：The necessity of amending Article 17 of the Insurance Law stems from the drawbacks of differentiated construction,the drawbacks of functional expansion and the need for system connection,which needs to be perfected in the local system.In order to realize the functional relegation of the content of the duty of explanation,it is appropriate to transform the “clause exempting the insurer from liability” into the “clause of material interest”.The deconstruction of “material interest” should be carried out from two aspects:firstly,the idea of “excluding clauses with no possibility of evaluation” contained in Article 497 of the Civil Code is compatible with the negative deconstruction of “material interest”,and the scope of “core benefit clauses” as one of the exclusions should be limited to objects clauses and clauses with only key definitions or descriptions of the price and subject matter.Secondly,“material interest” should be positively categorized within the scope of the main clauses of the contract,covering clauses that limit or change the expression of the price,clauses that set age or occupational limitations on the subject,clauses relating to the risks to be covered,the period of insurance and the time of commencement of liability,the statutory and special obligations as well as the consequences of breach of contract,and the methods of dispute resolution.The function of the duty of explanation should be reoriented to the “active reminder+passive explanation” in order to realize the systemic connection under the premise of clarifying the substantive standard of “reasonable layman”.

Key words：insurer;duty of explanation;exemption clause;material interest