论保险争议诉讼外解决模式与我国的选择——基于比较法的分析  

The ADR Mechanism of Insurance Contract Disputes in the Perspective of Comparative Law and China’s Choice

作　　者：娄宇[1] LOU Yu

机构地区：[1]中国政法大学民商经济法学院

出　　处：《暨南学报（哲学社会科学版）》2020年第2期70-85,共16页Jinan Journal(Philosophy and Social Sciences)

基　　金：中国政法大学第六批青年教师学术创新团队(批准号:19CXTD08);中国政法大学“优秀中青年教师培养支持计划”(批准号:DSJCXZ180418)。

摘　　要：在比较法的视野中,保险争议诉讼外解决模式有三种:以英国为代表的独立第三方解决模式,以日本、法国和德国为代表的依托行业协会的解决模式,以美国为代表的法庭诉讼内嵌模式。每一种模式都与该国的政治和司法体制、诉讼文化、法律技术与传统、社会经济发展程度密切相关。需要在对我国的司法制度、诉讼传统、保险行业发展水平进行综合考量的基础上借鉴国外的先进经验:独立第三方解纷模式严重依赖政府公权力,不利于机构精简和行政权与司法权的分离,法庭诉讼内嵌式模式的成本较高,不利于保险消费者维权。发挥保险行业协会在资金和专业人员储备方面的优势,建立以行业协会为依托,但又独立于行业协会的诉讼外解决模式应当作为我国未来的选择。In the field of comparative law, there are three kinds of insurance contract disputes litigation outside the settlement mechanism: An independent third-party settlement model represented by the United Kingdom, a settlement model relying on industry associations represented by Japan, France, and Germany,and a court litigation embedded model represented by the US. Each model is closely related to the country’s political and judicial system, litigation culture, legal technology and traditions, and socio-economic development. It is necessary to draw lessons from the advanced experience of foreign developed countries on the basis of comprehensive consideration of China’s judicial system, litigation culture and insurance industry development level: independent third party solution mode relies heavily on government power,which is not conducive to institutional simplification and administrative power and judicial power separation,court litigation embedded model of the higher cost is not conducive to the protection of insurance consumer rights. Therefore, it is China’s future choice to leverage the advantages of the insurance industry associations in terms of capital and professional reserves, and establish an out-of-litigation settlement model that relies on industry associations but is independent of the industry associations.

关 键 词：保险争议 诉讼外解决模式 比较法 模式选择 启示 

分 类 号：D9[政治法律—法学]