论文部分内容阅读
美国保险法对责任保险中惩罚性赔偿责任是否可保存在两种截然不同的意见,各州的规定不同,司法实践也各异。为了正当适用该制度,需要对其做出详细的解释:基于可保风险理论及责任保险标的理论,直接责任形态中,因故意行为引起的惩罚性赔偿责任不可保,因重大过失行为引起的惩罚性赔偿责任可保;在间接责任形态中,由于被保险人承担的是替代责任,原则上惩罚性赔偿责任具有可保性,但被保险人与实际行为人的合谋行为所导致的惩罚性赔偿责任除外。法官在解释惩罚性赔偿责任是否适用时还要借助于疑义利益解释原则和合理期待的解释原则。
Whether the punitive damages in liability insurance in the U.S. Insurance Law can be held in two completely different opinions varies from state to state and from different jurisdictions. In order to properly apply this system, it needs to be explained in detail: Based on insurable risk theory and the theory of liability insurance, in the direct responsibility form, punitive damages caused by intentional acts can not be guaranteed and penalties due to gross negligence In the indirect form of responsibility, in principle, the punitive damages are insurable due to the assumed responsibility of the insured, but the punitive damages caused by the collusion between the insured and the actual actor Except for responsibility. In explaining whether the punitive damages is applicable, judges also use the principle of interpretation of doubtful interests and the principle of reasonable expectation.