《第3章 可保利益》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《第3章 可保利益（28页珍藏版）》请在金锄头文库上搜索。
1、第三章 可保利益（insurable interest）1 有关可保利益的历史演变可保利益与其他许多本书要针对的课题例如是代位求偿权与双重保险等都是与补偿损失原则（principle of indemnity）有紧密的关系。目前可保利益在英国的保险法是属于一个强制性的要求，即受保人必须拥有可保利益，否则保险合约不被承认。可保利益的说法在18世纪前是不被理会，曾经有好几个先例涉及普通法去执行一些完全是赌博性质的保险合约，只要它不违反当时英国的公共政策：Jones v. Randall (1774) 1 Cowp 37；Micklefield v. Hepgin (1793) 1 Anst 133
2、。接下去普通法的发展是法院开始要求赌博性质的保险合约有必要在保单中明示说明是不要求受保人拥有或证明他的可保利益：Lucena v. Craufurd (1802) 3 Bos & Pul 75。在该先例，Lawrence J大法官也给了一个被视为是可保利益的经典与非常广泛的解释。这些明示规定不要求受保人拥有或证明他的可保利益有不同的写法，包括像“interest or not interest”、“policy proof of interest”、“without benefit of salvage”等。 18世纪开始法律逐渐发展要求受保人必须有可保利益，是为了防止受保人以保险的形式去赌博
3、。所以在1745年就有了海上保险法的立法要求针对英国船舶与该船上的货物的保险合约中必须说明谁是有可保利益，否则该保险合约是无效。1745年的立法在序言中说明了赌博性保险合约的3种坏处：（一）造成一个后果是去无限度地在同一个风险上投保，引发保险欺诈；（二）以赌博性保险去对被英国法律所禁止的航次去投保，并遮盖了其非法性；（三）对本来是用作保障合法商人利益的做法带来不良影响与坏名声。 到了1774年，又通过了另外一个针对岸上保险的人寿保险法（Life Assurance Act） 1774年人寿保险法Section 1是说：“From and after the passing of this Ac
4、t no insurance shall be made by any person or persons bodies politick or corporate, on the life or lives of any person or persons, or on any other event or events whatsoever, wherein the person or persons for whose use, benefit, or on whose account such policy or policies shall be made, shall have n
5、o interest, or by way of gaming or wagering; and that every assurance made contrary to the true intent and meaning hereof shall be null and void to all intents and purposes whatsoever.”，作用也是去令受保人没有可保利益的保险合约无效，例如是一般的民众去为英国国王的寿命去投保。到了1845年通过了赌博法（Gambling Act），这是去进一步把以保险形式的赌博变为是无效。接下来就是取代了1745年立法的1906年
6、英国海上保险法，其中Section 5去针对可保利益，并在Section 5(1)明确说明任何人（不再是只针对英国船舶，而只要是英国法院有管辖权的都包括在内）以海上保险作为赌博有关的保险合约都是无效。接下去在Section 5(2)就说明受保人没有可保利益的情况下，该合约就被视为是赌博的合约。在1909年更进一步去通过了海上保险（有关赌博性保单）法（Marine Insurance Gambling Policies Act 1909）令没有可保利益的受保人会犯法 1909年海上保险有关赌博性保单法Section 1是说：“If-(a) any person effects a contrac
7、t of marine insurance without having any bona fide interest, direct or indirect, either in the safe arrival of the ship in relation to which the contract is made or in the safety or preservation of the subject-matter insured or a bona fide expectation of acquiring such an interest; or (b) any person
8、 in the employment of the owner of a ship, not being a part owner of the ship, effects a contract of marine insurance in relation to the ship, and the contract is made interest or no interest, or without further proof of interest than the policy itself, or without benefit of salvage to the insurer,
9、or subject to any other like term, the contract shall be deemed to be a contract by way of gambling on loss by maritime perils, and the person effecting it shall be guilty of an offence, and shall be liable, on summary conviction, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to a fine not
10、exceeding level 3 on the standard scale, and in either case to forfeit to the Crown any money he may receive under the contract.”，但善意的情况下没有可保利益，对受保人的后果只是局限在保险合约是无效。到了2005年赌博法Section 335更是明确允许一个赌博合约可以被法院执行。所以到了今天去探讨可保利益，再也不是赌博不赌博的问题，而是保险法下的一个强制性要求。而除了商业与社会的复杂化，可保利益也变了有很多种形式与法律不断在放宽，再也不是以前比较强调的财产所有权或占
11、有权。至于不涉及财产险的其他类别的保险，例如是责任险，更是随着商业与社会的发展而带来千变万化的各种责任，可保利益更是在大幅度放宽。去总结以上所介绍的，可去节录Colman大法官在The “Moonacre” (1992) 2 Lloyds Rep. 501先例中所讲的这方面的历史发展与演变：“By the beginning of the 18th century a contract of marine insurance could be enforced at common law by the assured notwithstanding he had no personal int
12、erest in the subject matter of the insurance, that is to say even if he stood neither to lose nor to gain from the success or failure of the adventure or the contracts were in substance wagering contracts. It was only by a 1745 Act (19 Geo. 2c. 37) that such contracts were declared to be null and vo
13、id in respect of British ships and their cargoes. It provided that no assurances should be made on any goods on board any British shipsinterest or no interest, or with or without further proof of interest than the policy, or by way of gaming or wageringand that every such assurance shall be null and
14、 void to all intents and purposes.The Life Assurance Act, 1774, applied the same principle to other contracts of insurance except non-marine policies on goods. The Gaming Act, 1845, s. 18, had the effect of making void all contracts of insurance which were wagers by reason of the assureds lack of in
15、terest in the subject matter of the policy. Eventually by s. 4 of the Marine Insurance Act, 1906 it was provided:(1) Every contract of marine insurance by way of gaming or wagering is void.(2) A contract of marine insurance is deemed to be a gaming or wagering contract(a) Where the assured has not a
16、n insurable interest as defined by this Act, and the contract is entered into with no expectation of acquiring such an interest; or (b) Where the policy is made interest or no interest, or without further proof of interest than the policy itself, or without benefit of salvage to the insurer, or subject to any other like termAccordingly the essential question to be investigated in those cases which since 1745 have
