论文部分内容阅读
“湖南畏罪自杀索赔案”引出了《保险法》第六十七条在适用中存在的问题。司法实务中对该条中规定的“故意犯罪”和“导致”两词的理解存在争议,使《保险法》第六十七条的适用处于两难的境地,理论上对该问题的研究也陷入了“循环论证”的尴尬境地。单从技术层面或仅通过举证规则等手段试图突破这一困境并不能解决根本问题,而应从研究问题的方法论上寻求突破这一困境的途径。
“Hunan Suffrage Suicide Claim Case” leads to the question of the application of Article 67 of the Insurance Law. In the judicial practice, there is controversy over the understanding of the term “intentional crime” and “cause” stipulated in the article, so that the application of Article 67 of the Insurance Law is in a dilemma. In theory, Research is also caught in the embarrassment of “circular argument.” To try to break through this dilemma solely from the technical level or merely by means of evidence-based rules can not solve the fundamental problem. Instead, we should seek ways to break through this methodology from the methodology of the research question.