【正文】 tipulate that: the insurance policy holder, the insurant or the beneficiary create the insured accident deliberately, the insurer can terminate the insurance contract and needn’t undertake the responsibility to pay. And according to the regulations of the law, when the insurance policy holder, the insurant or the beneficiary create the insured accident deliberately, the insurer is exempted of the insurance obligation. Besides, on the problem that whether the pubic legal person can be the object, the part list the reasons of the affirm and nagativism the writer prefer to the former. The limitation period is also discuss in the part. The limitation period is initialed when the insurant know the pensator, because the subrogation is based on the right of petition of insurant to the third party. The right of subrogation is the transfer of credit in character. The character of the right of subrogation is the inherit the right of perition to the third party. The article 137 of the Common Regulation of Civil Law stipulates that the limitation period of petition is initialed when the petition can be exercised. And so, in my opinion, the limitation period must be initialed when the insurant know the pensator, but not the insurer. As a result, this regulation should easily impair the reasonable profit of the insurer, because the limitation is so short that it is difficult for the insurer to exercise the right of subrogation. So the law must stipulate that the insurant must appeal to the insurer or third party in the limitation period actively, and it is the obligation of the insurant to receive the pensation by the insurer.The fifth part of the essay is on the exercise of the right of subrogation in several particular conditions. Firstly, in the reinsrance, the reinsurer is the insurer of the first insurer. It is not essential different from the mon property insurance. The principle of “l(fā)oss pensation” and “illegal profit prohibition” must be insisted on. As a result, it left no room for doubt that the reinsurer has the right of subrogation. But the problem is that how can the reinsurer exert the right of subrogation. The writer suggest that they can conclude the mon fate item in the contract. The insurer can deal with all the affairs which are concerned about in the contract, on the condition that the insurer safeguard the mon benefit, such as pensation or taking part in the litigation. All the fees which is connected with also be undertook by the two parties. In the item, the reinsurer autorised the insurer to exercise the right, and at the same time the reinsurer must bear the fees. Secondly, in the repetition insurance, the article 41 of the Insurance Law stipulate that when the insurance amount exceed the insurance value, the total amount of the pensation must not exceed the insurance value. The insurers undertake the liabilities according to the proportion unless they have agreed in the contract. Thus it is seen that our country take the form of ratable distribution to the pound insurance. Thirdly, on the insufficient insurance ,if the third part can not indemnify the outright loss, the petition of the insurant may conflict with the right of subrogation. The author thinks that even though the insurant get the insurance money from the insurer, he still has the right to ask the third party to indemnify the rest loss pensation that he can not get from the insurer according to the insurance contract. And the insurer can ask the third part to pay him the damages only if the insurant have get plete damages. Lastly, in the condition of volunteer payment by the insurer, the author thinks that the insurer also has the right of subrogation. The third part that bear the responsibility of paying the damages can not demur the insurer’s right of subrogation.In order to consummate the institution of subrogation in insurance ,the author introduce legal suggestions as the conclusion of this article.Key words: the right of subrogation in insurance damage pensation exercise limit 目 錄中文摘要 IAbstract Ⅶ引 言 1一、保險代位求償權(quán)的基礎(chǔ)理論 2（一）保險代位求償權(quán)的概念 2（二）保險代位求償權(quán)的法理探源 3（三）保險代位求償權(quán)的功能 5二、保險代位求償權(quán)的取得 10（一）保險代位求償權(quán)的取得方式 10（二）保險代位求償權(quán)的取得條件 10三、保險代位求償權(quán)的行使名義 16（一）保險代位求償權(quán)的行使名義之學(xué)說及爭議 16（二）保險代位求償權(quán)的行使名義之我見 17四、保險代位求償權(quán)行使的限制 20（一）保險代位求償權(quán)行使的限制之一：范圍 20（二）保險代位求償權(quán)行使的限制之二：對象 22（三）保險代位求償權(quán)行使的限制之三：時效 29五、保險代位求償權(quán)行使的幾種特殊情形 32（一）再保險中代位求償權(quán)的行使 32（二）重復(fù)保險中代位求償權(quán)的行使 34（三）不足額保險中代位求償權(quán)的行使 36（四）保險人自愿賠付與代位求償權(quán)的行使 41結(jié) 語 43注 釋 44參考文獻 47后 記 51引 言保險代位求償法律制度是保險法的核心內(nèi)容之一。首先，在再保險中，再保險人是保險人的保險人，其承保的標(biāo)的是原保險人對被保險人所承擔(dān)的賠付責(zé)任之一。然而，在此種情形之下，保險人因被保險人的家庭成員或者其組成人員的故意行為造成的損害先向被保險人給付了保險賠償金，再向其家庭成員或者其組成人員即責(zé)任人進行追償，使得由于故意行為造成的損失最終并未因為購買了保險得到補償，而只是徒增了經(jīng)濟成本。最后，從保險實務(wù)的角度看，由保險人以自己的名義行使代位權(quán)，對于簡化訴訟關(guān)系，避免訴累等都具有一定的好處。在這一部分的最后，介紹了保險代位權(quán)的功能，綜合“防止被保險人不當(dāng)?shù)美f”、“避免第三人脫責(zé)說”以及“保護投保人利益說”這三種學(xué)說，指出從保險的職能看，保險代位權(quán)的最終功能在于保障被保險人獲得充分補償?，F(xiàn)今，保險代位求償權(quán)之行使已經(jīng)成為保險法理論研究的熱點問題。損失補償原則是保險代位求償權(quán)的核心基礎(chǔ)，它是指當(dāng)保險事故發(fā)生而使被保險人遭受損失時，保險人必須在責(zé)任范圍內(nèi)對被保險人所受的實際損失進行補償。理由在于：首先，從保險代位求償權(quán)的性質(zhì)看，其是保險人的一項法定權(quán)利，取得無須被保險人同意，行使更無須同意。對于保險代位求償權(quán)的行使對象，我國《保險法》第47條規(guī)定：“除被保險人的家庭成員或者其組成人員故意造成本法第四十五條第一款規(guī)定的保險事故以外，保險人不得對被保險人的家庭成員或者其組成人員行使代位請求賠償?shù)臋?quán)利。加害人依法所享有的時效權(quán)益，自不因保險人代位行使而被剝奪。最后，在保險人自愿賠付的情形下，筆者認為，保險人仍應(yīng)享有保險代位權(quán)，負有賠償責(zé)任的第三者不能以自愿賠付或不屬于承保責(zé)任對保險人的代位權(quán)進行抗辯。權(quán)利代位即前述的保險代位求償權(quán)；物上代位指保險標(biāo)的遭受保險責(zé)任范圍內(nèi)的損失，保險人按保險金額全額賠付后，依法取得該項標(biāo)的的所有權(quán)。它并非憑空產(chǎn)生，而有著其自身的理論基礎(chǔ)，正是這一理論基礎(chǔ)構(gòu)成了它得以存在的原因。之所以把財產(chǎn)損害界定在“損失”的范圍內(nèi)，是因為在財產(chǎn)保險中，造成的保險事故的損失是可以直接衡量的，它不象人身保險事故一樣是不宜用金錢衡量的?，F(xiàn)代大陸法系民法認為，民事法律關(guān)系是由民事權(quán)利、民事義務(wù)和民事責(zé)任三者結(jié)合而成。[[] 參見江朝國著：《保險法基礎(chǔ)理論》，中國政法大學(xué)出版社2002年版，第392頁。3．保護投保人利益說該學(xué)說認為，保險人在每次發(fā)生保險事故后，如果負給付義務(wù)，必然會減少保險人總資產(chǎn)，結(jié)果導(dǎo)致賠付能力的下降，從而最終不利于投保人的保護。被保險人由于兩種損害賠償權(quán)的存在可能會雙重獲利，這對于其來說是不當(dāng)?shù)模菀渍T發(fā)道德危險，但“若系僅在于防止被保險人不當(dāng)?shù)美瑒t于理論上，只要立法規(guī)定第三人之損害賠償義務(wù)，得因被保險人獲有保險賠償而免除，或保險人之保險賠償義務(wù)因被保險人對第三人之賠償請求而免除即可達此目的，而無規(guī)定保險人之賠償在先，而代位權(quán)實行在后之順序必要。[[] 孫積祿：《保險代位權(quán)研究》，載《西北政法學(xué)院學(xué)報》，2003年第3期，第83頁。雖然被保險人可以因為多種事由而行使損害賠償請求權(quán)，但如果對于不能歸責(zé)于第三人的原因，如不可抗力、意外事故、情勢變更等造成的損失，保險人就不能享有代位求償權(quán)。]而施文森先生則持不同意見，認為保險事故之發(fā)生須由于第三人之故意或過失所致者。然而“權(quán)益轉(zhuǎn)讓書”僅有保險人取得保險代位權(quán)之證據(jù)效力，是否取得及何時取得應(yīng)以保險人給付保險金為唯一判斷依據(jù)?！睆倪@一條可以得出：保險人的代位權(quán)范圍可以不受賠償金