Abstract：The doctrine of reasonable expectations, as an important doctrine for protecting the interests of the insured in the U.S. insurance law, has two functions. At the abstract level, the doctrine has a value-leading function for the protection of the insured. At the specific normative level, the doctrine has the function of judicial correction for the imbalance of interests in the insurance contract. Compared to the lex lata in China, the value-leading of the reasonable expectations doctrine is more intuitive and systematic. The doctrine provides a new perspective, guiding legislators and judges to pay comprehensive and systematic attention to the reasonable expectations of the insured, which tends to protect the interests of the insured. At judicial correction function, the doctrine of reasonable expectations is similar to lex lata in China in its corrective function in ambiguous terms and its corrective function in non-ambiguous terms to the contra proferentem rule, the insurer’s explanation obligation rule and the invalidity rules of standard clauses, respectively, but the former is more flexible in scope and scale. In respect of legal indigenization, on the one hand, the value-leading function of the doctrine should be referenced by way of formal inclusion as a fundamental principle in the Chinese insurance law theory. The reasons for this are twofold. First, the value-leading function of the reasonable expectations doctrine is consistent with the needs of the protection of the interests of the insured in the Chinese Insurance Law. Secondly, the protection of the insured’s reasonable expectations has a relatively broad legislative basis and judicial practice basis in China. The establishment of the doctrine of reasonable expectations can guide legislators and judicial judges to fully consider the reasonable expectations of the insured and relevant factors causing the reasonable expectations of the insured in the process of legislation and judgment, so as to better reflect the insured’s centralism in insurance legislation and justice. On the other hand, in the reference of judicial correction function, the advantages of the doctrine of reasonable expectation in terms of its flexible scope and scale of correction should be incorporated in order to solve the dilemma of applying the lex lata in China in response to actual cases. Considering that the doctrine of reasonable expectations is not only limited to the field of insurance contract interpretation and regulation, but also overlaps with China’s lex lata in the function of Judicial Correction, as well as the risk of abuse of the doctrine of reasonable expectations itself, it is not the best choice to take the doctrine of reasonable expectations as the miscellaneous interpretation principle of insurance contract, which is directly stipulated in insurance legislation and becomes the basis of direct claim for the parties to ask the court to correct the imbalance of interests in insurance contract. It is more suitable to exist in judicial reasoning in the way of legal interpretation, which will not cause confusion to the system of China’s Insurance Law, but also accord with the actual situation of current judicial practice. Facing difficult cases, judges could incorporate the doctrine of reasonable expectations into the reasoned interpretation of lex lata and use legal interpretation to resolve difficult cases within the framework of statutory law, which can serve the function of individual correction of this doctrine.
吴涵昱. 合理期待原则的二维功能及本土化路径[J]. 浙江大学学报(人文社会科学版), 2021, 51(6): 215-233.
Wu Hanyu. Two Dimensional Functions and Indigenization Path of the Doctrine of Reasonable Expectations. JOURNAL OF ZHEJIANG UNIVERSITY, 2021, 51(6): 215-233.
1 Keeton R.， “Insurance law rights at variance with policy provisions，” Harvard Law Review， Vol. 83， No. 5 （1970）， pp. 961-978. 2 邹海林： 《保险法学的新发展》，北京：中国社会科学出版社，2015年。 3 樊启荣： 《美国保险法上“合理期待原则”评析》，《法商研究》2004年第3期，第117-125页。 4 卢明威、罗华： 《论美国保险法合理期待原则的产生与新发展》，《江西科技师范学院学报》2012年第2期，第21-25页。 5 杨秋宇： 《从合同法到保险法：合理期待原则的勃兴与超越》，《中北大学学报（社会科学版）》2017年第2期，第23-28页。 6 李利、许崇苗： 《论在我国保险法上确立合理期待原则》，《保险研究》2011年第4期，第104-109页。 7 李晓楠： 《论“合理期待原则”在保险法中的适用——以司法裁判为视角》，《时代法学》2021年第1期，第94-104页。 8 韩长印、韩永强： 《保险法新论》，北京：中国政法大学出版社，2010年。 9 谢冰清： 《保险法中合理期待原则适用规则之构建》，《法学杂志》2016年第11期，第132-140页。 10 何丽新、王鹏鹏： 《论合理期待原则对保险合同解释的司法适用》，《厦门大学学报（哲学社会科学版）》2017年第6期，第135-143页。 11 马宁： 《保险法中的合理期待：从规则向原则的回归》，《比较法研究》2015年第5期，第76-88页。 12 吴涵昱： 《被保险人法律地位的反思与重构》，《浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2019年第4期，第217-226页。 13 尹中安： 《人身保险投保人任意解除权质疑——兼论人身保险被保险人法律地位》，《法商研究》2020年第1期，第101-114页。 14 Jerry R. H.， “Insurance， contract， and the doctrine of reasonable expectations，” Connecticut Insurance Law Journal， Vol. 5， No. 1 （1998）， pp. 21-45. 15 任自力： 《保险法最大诚信原则之审思》，《法学家》2010年第3期，第106-117页。 16 史博学： 《最大诚信原则的解释论》，《法律方法》2018年第2期，第402-421页。 17 朱作贤、李东： 《论修海商法应否补充规定英国模式的“最大诚信原则”——兼对海上保险最大诚信原则的反思》，《中国海商法年刊》2003年第1期，第55-68页。 18 Schoenbaum T. J.， “The duty of Utmost Good Faith in Marine Insurance Law： a comparative of American and English law，” Journal of Maritime Law and Commerce， Vol. 29， No. 2 （1998）， pp. 10-36. 19 朱广新： 《信赖保护原则及其在民法中的构造》，北京：中国人民大学出版社，2013年。 20 李玉泉： 《〈民法典〉与保险人的说明义务》，《保险研究》2020年第10期，第98-104页。 21 Seno D. J.， “The doctrine of reasonable expectations in insurance law： what to expect in Wisconsin，” Marquette Law Review， Vol. 85， No. 3 （2002）， pp. 859-886. 22 王静： 《保险类案裁判规则与法律适用》，北京：人民法院出版社，2013年。 23 Schwartz D.， “Interpretation and disclosure in insurance contracts，” Loyola Consumer Law Review， Vol. 21， No. 2（2008）， pp. 105-147. 24 王静： 《保险合同法注释书》，北京：中国民主法制出版社，2019年。 25 杜万华主编： 《最高人民法院关于保险法司法解释（三）理解与适用》，北京 ：人民法院出版社，2015年。 26 沈小军： 《论责任保险中被保险人的责任免除请求权——兼评〈保险法司法解释四〉责任保险相关条文》，《法学家》2019年第1期，第135-148页。 27 梁上上： 《论公司正义》，《现代法学》2017年第1期，第56-75页。 28 樊启荣： 《保险法诸问题与新展望》，北京：北京大学出版社，2015年。 29 许德风： 《法教义学的应用》，《中外法学》2013年第5期，第937-973页。
2021, Vol. 51 
