China Law Insight : China Law Insight: China Commercial and Intellectual Property Lawyers and Attorneys, Full Service Law Firm: King & Wood

According to the basic insurance theory under the purview of English Common Law jurisdictions, the rights derived from an insurance contract is the subject matter of case law. Article 136 of the Law of Property Act 1925(3) provides that an assignor can assign in writing any right of claims and other subject matters of litigation under the Common Law. Therefore, this provision is applicable in any right of claims and other subject matters of litigation, including the rights derived from an insurance contract. But, this provision is applicable only to existing litigation matters. Non-existent rights or rights that the assignor is not yet entitled to cannot be assigned. The assignment of contingent rights of claims will only be recognized as an equitable right.

The assignment of rights under an insurance contract should be conducted in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. The assignment methods include: (1) assigning the rights under an insurance contract as a whole; (2) assigning the right of claims for insurance benefits under an insurance contract. The difference between these two methods is that under the first method, the assignee becomes the insured, and the assignor is no longer a party to the insurance contract; on the other hand, under the second method, the assignor remains the insured. The following is an in-depth analysis of the various risks and benefits of these two assignment methods in light of basic concepts under PRC insurance laws.

A. The Assignment of the Rights under an Insurance Contract as a Whole

In practice, it is uncommon for a borrower to assign the rights under an insurance policy against the mortgaged property to the lender bank in whole. However, we will discuss this kind of assignment because it will ultimately make the bank obtain the rights under an insurance contract.

According to traditional Common Law insurance theory, where an insurance contract is assigned in whole, the nature of the insurance contract determines whether the assignment is prohibited and whether the permission of the insurer is required. In an insurance contract assignment, especially a property insurance contract assignment as discussed above, the assignee must have an insurable interest over the insured property when the assignment contract is signed. Thus, the assignment of rights under a property insurance contract in whole should be combined with the assignment of the insured subject matter. This requirement is premised on the fact that most insured are the owners of the subject matter of the property insurance. In practice, the assignment of the property insurance contract is always accompanied with the transfer of the subject property. It is worth noting that this theory does not signify that the insurable interest of a property insurance contract lies only in the ownership of the insured subject matter. On the contrary, Common Law insurance theory also recognizes that insurable interests can derive from legal relationships of trust, tenancy or security interests.

As a matter of fact, due to the specific relations under a loan contract, the lender bank cannot be the insured and the owner of the subject property under a property insurance contract at the same time. As a result, the issue that arises is whether the lender bank can, without the transfer of the insured subject matter in at property insurance contracts, accomplish the insurance contract assignment in the name of the security right holder or the creditor?

The Insurance Law of the PRC(4) ("Insurance Law") does not address issues relating to the assignment of a property insurance contract, nor does it require the assignee to have an insurable interest over the insured property when conducting the assignment. The Insurance Law only provides that "where an insured subject matter is assigned, the assignee shall be a successor to the rights and obligations of the insured." In a literal sense, this provision allows the assignment of the insured subject matter will result in the assignment of the insurance contract, but the former is not a prerequisite for the latter. We can further analyze the feasibility of the assignment of an insurance contract within the purview the Contract Law of the PRC(5) ("Contract Law"). Article 88 of the Contract Law provides that a party to a contract may assign the whole of its contractual rights and obligations to a third party with the consent of the other party. Therefore, without the transfer of the insured subject, the assignment of the entire interest in an insurance contract requires the consent of the insurance company. Assuming that the nature of the property insurance contract allows the above assignment, the insurance company involved is inclined to care less about the insurable interest of the assignment than about the risks behind the transfer (especially the moral hazard of the bank who is not the owner of the property) when conducting such an assignment. As a result, the bank does not play a dominant role in the assignment. It is also difficult for the bank to demand the insurance company and the borrower to cooperate and accomplish the assignment according to the former agreements among the parties involved. If the insurance company finally agrees to conduct the assignment, the bank, as the insured, will become a party to the insurance contract. The legal status of the bank as the insured has been previously discussed in this article.

B. The Assignment of the Right to Claim Insurance Benefits under an Insurance Contract

This form of assignment is the most common in banking practice. Banks hope to obtain all of the insurance benefits of an insurance policy without assuming obligations of the insurance contract.

In short, this type of assignment does not change the relationship of the parties to an insurance contract, the assignor is still the insured and shall assume obligations under the insurance contract. According to the Common Law insurance law theory, the insured or the assignee shall notify the insurer of the assignment in a timely manner, but the consent from the insurer is not required. Moreover, the insured is still a party to the original insurance transaction after the assignment transaction, and the assignee is not required to have an insurable interest over the insured property.

It is worth noting that even though this type of assignment is theoretically reasonable, it is still risky under the Insurance Law framework. The insurance assignment contract and the endorsement slip issued by the insurance company designate the bank as the "first beneficiary" to the insurance contract. The bank is entitled to obtain the borrower's insurance benefits under the insurance contract that is due or will be due. However, two major issues arise: (1) is the establishment of the "first beneficiary" by the three parties legitimate during the insurance assignment transaction? (2) recalling the unique nature of an insurance contract that the right to receive insurance benefits is still a contingent claim at the time of assignment, will the actual rights enjoyed by the assignee be weakened when the insurance contract is due?

As to issue (1), the essence of the assignment of the right to claim for insurance benefits is to establish the "first beneficiary" that is entitled to receive the insurance benefits under a property insurance contract. However, if the establishment of an extra-statutory obligee in an insurance contract is illegitimate, the insurance company may argue against the bank's status as a party to the contract, and still pay the insurance benefits directly to the insured on the grounds that the establishment of the "first beneficiary" is illegal. According to the Insurance Law, parties concerned in a property insurance contract include the policy holder, the insurer, and the insured. The insured means a person who is entitled to claim the insurance proceeds. Moreover, there are risks to assigning a beneficiary in a property insurance contract. Although related laws do not clearly prohibit assigning a third party the right to claim for the insurance benefits, the risk that the insurance company only pays the insurance benefits to the insured still exist in practice.

Before exploring issue (2), the definition of the insurance benefits provided in an actual insurance assignment contract may offer some enlightenment. It can be inferred from this definition that the contents of the insurance assignment contract include the existing right to claim for the insurance benefits that is due as well as the contingent right to claim for the insurance benefits that will be due. According to the Common Law insurance theory, the collection of the creditor's right that is due is a common legal right, and the assignee can bring a suit in his/her own name. With regard to the judicial practice in China, the assignee of the creditor's right can bring a suit against the debtor, demanding the debtor to render performance. The above mentioned Shanghai precedents support this as well.

However, a few impediments will prevent the assignee from obtaining the insurance benefits that would be due. Presuming an insured against incident occurs, and the insured is slow to perform his/her duty to notify the insurer, the insurer may not make any active investigations in the accident in order to confirm the amount of indemnity. Under this circumstance, can the assignee directly claim for the insurance benefits against the insurer if the insurer's obligation to pay the insurance benefits has not become due? According to the Common Law insurance theory, the assignment of contingent creditor's right is regulated by the principles of equity, what the assignee obtains is not the right to institute legal proceedings, but the right of a "beneficial interest". "After the consent of the assignor, the assignee and assignor can be the co-plaintiffs and bring forward a lawsuit together."(6)We can conclude from the analysis of the above theory that what the assignee obtains is only the right to receive contingent insurance benefits. Since the assigned right does not constitute the subject matter of litigation under common law, the assignee is unable to obtain the corresponding right to bring a lawsuit. The Common Law affords other remedies to the assignees under the assignment of the contingent creditor's right so that they can bring a lawsuit under certain circumstances.

Under China's laws, the property insurance contract is ambiguous in nature.What the insured enjoys is a contingent creditor's right, which is nonexistentuntil the insured-against incidents specified in the contract take place. According to the judicial practice in China, contingent creditor's rights are assignable, but the legal effect of the assignment will not take effect until the creditor's right comes into existence. After the assignment takes effect, the assignee has the right to directly claim against the debtor. The insurer's obligation to pay insurance benefits has yet to be vested at the moment the insurance assignment contract is signed between the bank and the debtor, and thus the assignment of related insurance benefits has yet to take the corresponding effect. According to the nature of the property insurance contract, the insurer pays insurance benefits to the insured only when damages or losses take place due to the insured-against incidents. Thereafter, the assignment of the creditor's right would take effect. Thus, the insured's obligation to promptly notify the insurer becomes very important. Article 21 of the Insurance Law specifies that:

"the policy holder, the insured or the beneficiary(7) shall, in a timely manner, notify the insurer after being aware of the occurrence of an incident covered by insurance. Where a policy holder, insured or beneficiary fails to notify the insurer in a timely manner intentionally or out of gross negligence, making it difficult to ascertain the nature, cause, extent of the loss, etc., of the incident covered by insurance, the insurer shall not be liable for indemnification or payment of insurance benefits for the undeterminable part, unless the insurer has known or should have known the incident in a timely manner through other channels."

Therefore, if the insured delays in performing his obligations to notify the insurer when the insured-against incident occurs, the insurer can refuse paying the indemnification or insurance benefits. In such a situation, the assignee can not initiate its independent claims for there is no actual interest contained in the assignment. The judicial practice in Shanghai is signified by the People's Court's holding that: "a beneficiary refers particularly to a person who is entitled to claim for the insurance benefits in a personal insurance policy. If a beneficiary is created in a contract of property insurance, the beneficiary can be reimbursed only after the insurance company has indemnified the loss. The beneficiary is not entitled to claim for the insurance benefits.

In summary, the China legal system does not provide a proper mechanism for the parties in a property insurance contract to set up a beneficiary. Consequently, even if there is an assignment of the right to claim for the insurance benefits between the bank and the insured (the borrower), it is difficult for the bank to claim for insurance benefits against the insurer directly at the time the mortgaged property suffers damage or loss. Commonly, the bank can claim the insurance benefits against the insurer with the insured's assistance. On the other hand, the hypothesis that the bank can be designated as the insured is judicially sustainable, but the designation needs consent from the insurer. In addition, other difficulties also impede the bank in performing the obligations of an insured. Thus, it is rare in practice for the parties in a property insurance contract to designate the bank as the insured. On the contrary, it is a feasible way for the bank to guarantee the bank's legitimate right to claim for the insurance benefits if the bank and the insured reach an agreement on the end use of the insurance benefits. The bank can only urge and cooperate with the parties of the insurance contract in an active manner to make the key procedures (such as the confirmation of insurance benefits and the final indemnification) to move forward smoothly. Under the current legal system of China, the bank is not entitled to bring a lawsuit against the non-compliant activities in those procedures. This is also a grave risk factor the banks should consider when conducting loan transactions.

Notes:

1、All the insurance benefits generally refer to all the payments which were due or would be due to the borrower (the insured) under the insurance policy.
2、The related property insurance policies generally refer to those insurance policies relating to the target property under the loan. They also can include insurance policies only pertaining to the assignee.
3、The Law of Property Act 1925 is a statute of the United Kingdom Parliament. The programme was intended to modernise the English law of real property. The Act deals principally with the transfer of property by leas and deed.
4、The Insurance Law of the PRC was adopted at the 14th Meeting of the Standing Committee of 8th National People's Congress on June 30, 1995, amended in accordance with the Decision on the Amendment of the 'Insurance Law of the People's Republic of China' made at 30th Meeting of the Standing Committee of 9th National People's Congress on October 28, 2002, and amended at 7th Meeting of the Standing Committee of 11th National People's Congress on February 28, 2009.
5、The Contract Law of the PRC was adopted at the 2nd Session of the 9th National People's Congress on March 15, 1999 and came into effect as of October 1, 1999.
6、Malcolm A. Clarke, Insurance Contract Law, p.177
7、The "beneficiary" here refers to a person who, as designated by the insured or the policy holder in an insurance of person, is entitled to claim for insurance benefits.

按照英美法的基础保险理论，根据保险合同所享有的权利是诉讼标的物。《1925年财产法案》（3）第136条规定，转让人可以将任何债权或其他普通法诉讼物以书面形式进行完全转让。因此，该法条适用于包括根据保险合同所享有权利在内的任何债权或其他诉讼物。但是，该法条只适用于已经存在的诉讼物，对于尚未存在或不属于转让人的权利，不可能进行转让。就未来债权而言，只有依衡平法进行转让。

转让保险合同所享有的权利的方式必须是法律认可的方式。转让方式包括：（1）转让整个保险合同；（2）转让根据保险合同获得保险赔偿金的权利。这两种转让方式的主要区别是：在（1）中，受让人成为被保险人，而转让人退出保险合同。在（2）中，转让人依旧是被保险人。下文将结合基础保险理论和我国法律的现行规定，就两种转让方式的利弊进行深入的分析。

1、转让整个保险合同

保险合同的整体转让并不是银行在实践中的惯例，但鉴于该转让的最终效果同样可以使得银行取得保险合同项下的权利，故一并探讨。

就转让整个保险合同而言，根据传统英美保险法的理论，保险合同的性质决定了存在禁止转让或者必须经过保险人同意的情况。在转让保险合同的情况下，特别是本文论述的财产保险合同，受让人在转让时必须对该财产具有可投保利益（4）。上述要求的结果是，在大部分的财产保险中，保险合同的转让必须与保险标的物的转让同时发生。当然，该结果的前提是大部分的财产保险的被保险人是财产的所有权人，而财产保险合同的转让通常是在出售财产的情况下发生的。需要指出的是，该理论并非说明财产保险合同的可投保利益仅仅基于所有权，相反，英美法保险理论承认可投保利益也会产生于信托、租赁、担保物权等法律关系。

现实的情况是，鉴于贷款合同关系的背景，银行不可能在取得财产所有权的同时，成为财产保险合同的受让人。那么出现的问题是，银行能否仅仅以担保物权人甚至债权人的身份，在不转让保险标的物的情况下，完成保险合同的转让？

对于财产保险合同的转让，我国《保险法》（5）并无特别规定，也未要求受让人在转让时必须对财产具有保险利益。相关的法律条文只规定：“保险标的转让的，保险标的的受让人承继被保险人的权利和义务。”从该规定的字面意思分析，保险标的转让会导致保险合同转让的效果，但并不是转让保险合同的必要条件。那么，在分析保险合同转让的可行性时，可以从《合同法》（6）的角度出发。根据《合同法》第88条的规定，当事人一方经对方同意，可以将自己在合同中的权利和义务一并转让给第三人。由此可知，如果不存在保险标的物的转让，那么保险合同的概括转让必须经过保险公司的同意。由于保险公司并不需要考虑转让时的保险利益问题，在财产保险合同的性质允许转让的前提下，那么保险公司应当会更多地考虑风险（特别是并非财产所有权人的银行的道德风险）。在这种情况下，银行在保险合同转让中并没有主动权，也很难通过之前的协议要求保险公司、借款人予以配合完成转让。当然，如果最终保险公司同意保险合同的转让，那么银行将取得被保险人的合同当事人地位，而成为被保险人的银行的法律地位在前文已有分析，此处不再赘述。

2、转让根据保险合同获得保险赔偿金的权利

此转让方式是在目前银行业中最为常见的，银行期望以此直接取得相关保险合同项下的保险收益，但并不承担任何保险合同项下的义务。

如前所述，这种转让方式并没有改变保险合同本身，转让人依然是被保险人，需要承担保险合同项下的义务。根据英美保险法的理论，这种转让方式必须给予保险人通知，但通常不需要保险人的同意。此外，在这种转让方式中，鉴于被保险人仍然是合同当事人，受让人不必在财产上享有可投保利益。

然而需要强调的是，尽管这种转让方式有其理论基础，但是在我国保险法的框架下，其实行仍然存在一定风险。结合银行的保险转让合同和保险公司的批单来看，银行将作为保险合同项下的“first beneficial”，有权收取在保险单项下对借款人的所有到期应付的或者不时成为到期应付的款项。那么，由此将衍生出两个主要问题：（1）保险转让的三方当事人在保险合同中创设“first beneficial”的行为是否违反法律的规定？（2）基于受制于保险合同的特殊性质，在转让该权利时，保险赔偿金可能仍然是转让人的未来或有债权，这是否会影响受让人实际所享有的权利？

针对第一个问题，这种转让操作方式的实质，是在财产保险合同项下创设了一个“first beneficial”，其有权收取保险赔偿金。然而，如果在保险合同中创设法律规定以外的权利人的行为本身违法的话，那么保险公司仍然可能将保险金直接支付给被保险人，而以银行的合同地位不合法为由进行抗辩。根据我国《保险法》的规定，财产保险的当事人仅有投保人、保险人、被保险人。被保险人是享有保险金请求权的人。此外，前文提及的《2009年度上海法院金融审判情况通报》就财产保险合同中设置受益人的情况进行了风险提示。虽然我们倾向于认为相关法律并不禁止增设享有保险金请求权的当事人，但实践中确实存在保险公司在赔偿时只认被保险人的风险。

在分析第二个问题之前，再来看一下实践中保险转让合同对于保险收益的定义（参见注释2）。从中可以得出结论，在签署保险转让合同时，转让内容包括收取现有应付保险金的权利和收取未来或有保险金的权利。根据英美保险法理论，收取已经存在的债权是普通法权利，受让人是可以以自己的名义提起诉讼的。结合我国司法实践，债权受让人有权以债务人为被告提起诉讼，要求债务人向其履行债务，前述的判例也能够论证这一点。

然而，对于未来或有保险金的受让人来说，其获取保险金的过程却存在着一定的障碍。假设在保险事故发生后，被保险人怠于行使其通知保险人的义务，保险人亦不主动进行调查、确认赔付，那么在保险人尚无支付保险金的义务的情况下，受让人能否自行向保险人索赔呢？从英美保险法理论出发，未来债权转让是衡平法上的转让，受让人获得的是所谓的“可享受利益的”权益而非提起诉讼的权利。“受让人必须在取得转让人同意后作为共同原告予转让人一起诉讼。”（7）分析上述理论可以得出，从转让的实际效果来看，受让人获取的只是收取未来或有的保险收益的权利，由于该权利不属于普通法上的诉讼标的物，受让人不能直接获取提起诉讼的权利。当然，英美法赋予了未来债权的受让人一定的救济，使其能够在一定的特殊情况下取得相应的独立诉权。

按照我国法律的规定，财产保险合同是射幸合同，被保险人享有的是未来或有债权。根据我国的司法实践（8），未来债权是可以转让的，但该债权的转让应于债权实际发生时才发生法律效力。在转让实际生效后，受让人有权直接向债务人主张债权。鉴于保险人在银行与借款人签署保险转让合同之时尚未负有支付保险金的义务，相关保险收益的转让并未生效。同时，根据财产保险合同的特殊性质，当保险事故发生且造成财产损失时，保险人才应当承担支付保险金的义务，债权转让才会生效。那么，被保险人的及时通知义务就变得非常重要。根据我国《保险法》第21条的规定：“投保人、被保险人和受益人（9）知道保险事故发生后，应当及时通知保险人。故意或者因重大过失未及时通知，致使保险事故的性质、原因、损失程度等难以确定的，保险人对无法确定的部分，不承担赔偿或者给付保险金的责任，但保险人通过其他途径已经及时知道或者应当及时知道保险事故发生的除外。”由此可知，如果被保险人怠于履行自己的通知义务，保险人甚至可能不承担给付保险金的责任，那么受让人将因该转让的实际权益未产生而无法行使独立请求权。根据上海地区的司法实践（10），法院也认为：受益人系专指人身保险合同中享有保险金请求权的人，如果在财产保险合同中约定受益人，那么该权利人只有在保险公司给予理赔情况下才获得收取保险金的权利，该权利人不具有保险金的请求权。

综上所述，在我国现行的法律制度内，由于没有直接设立财产保险中受益人制度，使得银行在贷款抵押物发生灭失或价值减损的情况下，即使与被保险人（即贷款人）就保险金的受偿有过约定，直接向保险人请求保险金的难度相当大，往往还是需要通过被保险人的协助下才能向保险人进行主张。而银行直接作为抵押物的被保险人的情况，虽然在法理上并无冲突，但在实践中需要事先取得保险人的同意，且在此后履行被保险人义务上存在诸多困难，因此在实践中也并不多见。因此，目前银行较为可行的方式仍是事先与被保险人就保险金的最终用途进行约定，以保证自身对保险金具有主张权利的合法依据。对于确定保险金的确定和最终支付等环节上，银行只能积极敦促和配合保险合同当事人，尚无法律上的权利可以直接就此提起诉讼。这也应当为银行在办理贷款业务时作为重要的风险予以关注。

注释：

1、通常系指与贷款项目中的物业有关的保险单。当然，也可能包括仅与转让人有关的保险单。
2、通常系指在保险单项下，对借款人的到期应付的或者不时成为到期应付的所有款项
3、《1925年财产法案》是英国财产法史上的一次重要立法，标志着英国现代财产法体系的建立。法案主要规定通过租赁和契约对财产进行移转。
4、与我国保险法中的“保险利益”概念相似。
5、《中华人民共和国保险法》1995年6月30日第八届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第十四次会议通过　根据2002年10月28日第九届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第三十次会议《关于修改〈中华人民共和国保险法〉的决定》修正，2009年2月28日第十一届全国人民代表大会常务委员会第七次会议修订。
6、《中华人民共和国合同法》由中华人民共和国第九届全国人民代表大会第二次会议于1999年3月15日通过，自1999年10月1日起施行。
7、《保险合同法》，Malcolm A. Clarke著，何美欢、吴志攀等译，第177页。
8、《未来债权转让及通知的效力探析》，王军著，载于《人民法院报》。
9、此处“受益人”是指人身保险合同中由被保险人或者投保人指定的享有保险金请求权的人。
10、（2004）沪一中民三（商）终字第69号。

In practice, the People's Courts also hold the view that an insurance beneficiary refers specifically to the person who is entitled to claim for the insurance benefits in a life insurance contract. In disputes over property insurance contracts, the "first beneficiary" can only be receive insurance benefits after the insurance company has settled the claims of the insured and such a "first beneficiary" cannot claim the insurance benefits directly from the insurance company. Obviously, the People's Courts view the beneficiary of a property insurance contract and the beneficiary of a life insurance differently. The parties in a property insurance agreement designate a third person as the beneficiary of insurance benefits under conditions that the insured against incident occurs, and the nature of such an agreement is to create rights for the third person. Although this third person may be named as a "beneficiary", it contains a different connotation than the concept of "beneficiary" in the Insurance Law. The beneficiary of life insurance is the person who is entitled to claim for the insurance benefits upon the death of the insured. In the process of settling a claim, the beneficiary can bring an independent lawsuit in the court. In contrast, the beneficiary in property insurance is not entitled to claim for insurance benefits. The right to claim for insurance benefits pertains to the insured. The beneficiary can only be indemnified from the insured after the insured has obtained insurance benefits. Given that China's laws do not define or regulate the beneficiaries in property insurance contracts but rather have only defined the beneficiary concept in life insurance contracts, confusion may occur between the two types of beneficiaries.

In mortgage loans, the court may not recognize the lender bank as the beneficiary in a property insurance contract. As a result, the bank may face difficulties in seeking indemnification and in realizing its full security interest. From the jurisprudence point of view and insurance theory under the common law, this article will explore issues arising from property insurance contracts, including how to define the status of the lender bank (as a beneficiary or a third person) and how the lender bank can successfully obtain insurance benefits.

II. How a Lender can Directly Obtain Insurance Benefits as an Insured

In practice, when a borrower signs a mortgage agreement granting a mortgage in property to the bank, the bank often requires that the mortgaged property be insured.In such a property insurance contract, the borrower would be both the policy holder and the insured due to his/her ownership of the mortgaged property. The bank, on the other hand, would be designated as the "beneficiary" according to the endorsement slip issued by the insurance company. As mentioned above, once an insured-against incident occurs, only the borrower, as the insured, would be entitled to claim for insurance benefits from the insurance company.

Meanwhile, the bank would be in a relatively disadvantaged position – if the borrower does not submit a claim for insurance benefits, the bank would be unable to seek payment directly from the insurance company.

Article 12 of the Insurance Law provides that an "insured" means a person whose property, life or body is covered by an insurance contract and who is entitled to claim for insurance benefits. Thus in property insurance, the insured person has a statutory right to claim insurance benefits. What if the bank, instead of the borrower, were directly designated as the insured party in the property insurance contract so that the bank's ultimate right to indemnity is protected? Article 12 of the Insurance Law also specifies that the insured in property insurance shall have an insurable interest in the subject being insured at the time that an incident covered by the insurance occurs. Therefore, in order to answer the above questions, it is necessary to begin our analysis from the identification of "insurable interest".

A. Security Interests Qualify as Insurable Interests

Article 12 of the Insurance Law provides that insurable interest refers to legally recognized interest that the policy holder has in the subject being insured. This is the general definition of the concept of "insurable interest" under China's insurance laws. However, the Insurance Law does not specify what a "legally recognized interest" constitutes. In practice, the identification of an insurable interest is often in dispute. According to traditional legal theory, the owner has an insurable interest over his/her property basing on his/her ownership of the property, which includes not only possessory rights but also the rights of a security holder.

Ownership is the ultimate right over one's property, and it is an exclusive right which excludes others from using or enjoying the property. Damage to or loss of the property would cause direct economic losses for the owner of the property.

Thus it is easy to understand that the property owner has an insurable interest over his/her property. The realization of a security right is still based on the existence and the intactness of the property, but does not manifest as the right to possess, use or profit from a property. If the value of the subject property decreases due to accidental damage, the value of the security interest would be proportionally damaged as well. If the subject property is destroyed, a security interest in the property would vanish accordingly. Thus, damage to or loss of the secured property will ultimately weaken the security holder's priority right to realize on its security interest and have its claim satisfied. The concept of insurable interest was created in order to prevent the moral hazards of a person with no interest in the insured subject matter from collecting insurance proceeds.

If the insured has no interests in the intactness and existence of the insured subject matter, he/she may be reckless with or even destroy the insured property in order to gain insurance benefits, and that will make the insurance transaction akin to gambling. Therefore, since damage or loss to an insured property would jeopardize a security interest holder's priority right to have its claim satisfied, it has an insurable interest over that property and the moral hazard is negligible.

It is worth noting that security interest holder's insurable interest in the subject matter is different from that of the property owner, and can not exceed the value of the property. If debt relating to the mortgage is less than the value of the mortgaged property, the insurable interest should not exceed the sum of the original debts, interest, deferred interest and enforcement costs of the loan and mortgage.

B. The Disadvantages of Designating the Bank as an Insured

In accordance with the insurable interest theory, it would be feasible to designate the bank as the insured in a property insurance contract so that the bank is entitled to claim for insurance benefits. However, this approach would not work in practice due to the following reasons:

First, if an insured-against incident occurs, the insurance benefits would be directly advanced to the bank, as the insured. If this payment is considered as a payment towards the outstanding loan, it will accelerate the maturity of the loan. This would be unfair to the borrower, who may have been able to fully perform his/her duty of repayment. Therefore, the borrower may be unwilling to accept this kind of insurance arrangement which designates the bank as the insured in the mortgage and insurance contracts.

Second, according to the Insurance Law, although the insured is not a party to the insurance contract, he/she is a related person with some statutory insurance obligations, such as maintaining the safety of the insured subject matter, promptly notifying the insurer when the risk to the insured subject matter increases, and taking all necessary measures to prevent and mitigate loss or damage of the insured subject matter if an insured incident happens. Since the bank is not the owner or the actual possessor of the insured subject matter, the bank is unlikely to keep the insured subject matter in good repair or pay close attention to the increasing risks that may occur in relation to the subject matter insured. In addition, the bank may be hesitant to be designated as the insured in an insurance contract due to the additional costs of handling insured-against incidents.

Editor's Note: Part II of Insurance Benefits for Banks as Mortgagees will be published recently.

法院在审理财产保险合同的纠纷时，亦认为，受益人是专指人身保险合同中享有保险金请求权的人，财产保险合同中的“第一受益人”只有在保险公司给予理赔的情况下获得收取保险金的权利，不具有保险金的请求权。受益人向保险公司主张保险金请求权的不能获得支持。显然，法院认为，财产保险合同中的受益人与人身保险合同中的受益人的内涵并不相同。事实上，在财产保险中，被保险人与保险人约定于保险事故发生时，由第三人作为受益人受领保险赔偿金，是为第三人设定权利的行为；此第三人虽然可以依一般用语称为“受益人”，但在内涵上与保险法上的“受益人”概念并不相同。人身保险中的受益人，是指在被保险人死亡后，享有保险金请求权的人，在保险公司拒绝理赔时，受益人可以独立的诉讼主体地位向法院提起诉讼。而财产保险中的受益人，取得的并不是保险金请求权，保险金请求权仍由被保险人享有，受益人取得的只是保险金请求权中直接受领保险赔偿金的权利。在我国法律没有明确规定财产保险合同受益人的情况下，在财产保险中采用受益人的概念，会与人身保险中的受益人发生概念上的混同。

因此，在抵押贷款项下，将银行列为相关财产保险的受益人可能存在不被司法实践所认可的风险，结果危及到银行最终收取保险利益，实现债务清偿的可行性。本文试图从法理的角度出发，结合英美法传统保险理论，探讨银行应如何界定自己在保险合同中的地位以及如何最终顺利获取保险收益。

二、银行作为被保险人直接获取保险收益

就目前的商业实践而言，银行在与借款人签订抵押担保贷款合同，并对借款人的相关财产办理了抵押后，往往会要求借款人对该抵押财产进行投保。在该保险合同中，借款人往往既是投保人，同时又作为抵押财产的所有权人成为被保险人，而银行则根据保险公司的批单成为“受益人”。如前所述，在这种情况下，若发生保险事故，根据《保险法》的规定，只有作为被保险人的借款人才有请求保险公司给付保险金的权利，此时银行就会处于相对被动的地位，即如果借款人不主张保险金赔偿，银行将无权要求保险公司向自己支付保险金。

我国《保险法》第十二条规定，被保险人是指其财产或者人身受保险合同保障，享有保险金请求权的人。因此在财产保险中，被保险人有法定的请求保险金的权利。那么是否可以将银行代替借款人直接列为财产保险合同的被保险人，从而保障银行最终请求保险金的权利呢？对此，《保险法》第十二条还规定了，财产保险的被保险人在保险事故发生时，对保险标的应当具有保险利益。因此，要回答上述问题就必须从保险利益的认定着手分析。

1、担保物权属于保险利益

《保险法》第十二条规定，保险利益是指投保人或者被保险人对保险标的具有的法律上承认的利益。这是保险法上对保险利益的概念的概括性阐述，然而，什么算是“法律上承认的利益”，《保险法》却并没有进行更近一步的规定，从而导致在实践中对保险利益的认定往往会存在争议。根据理论界的传统观点，财产的物权人基于物权享有对财产的保险利益。这里的物权不仅包括所有权，也应包括担保物权。

财产的所有人享有保险利益不难理解，这是因为财产所有权是一个人在该财产上所拥有的最高权利，表现为排除他人使用并享有其所拥有财产的排他性权利，财产的毁损灭失将对所有人造成直接的经济损失，因此所有权人对所有物当然得拥有保险利益。而就担保物权而言，其虽不表现为对物的直接支配、使用和收益，但是其的权利基础也是以标的物的存在、完好为前提的。当标的物因损坏而价值减少时，最终实现完全的担保物权就会受到影响，而当标的物灭失时，担保物权将归于消灭。因此，在担保标的物遭受损害或灭失的情况下，担保物权人就标的物优先受偿的权利亦将随之受到影响。保险利益的设立，其理论基础就在于防范对保险标的没有任何利益的人可能具有的道德风险。如果保险标的是否完好存续对于被保险人来说没有任何利害关系，那么就很难保证其不会为了获取保险金而加害该被保险财产或是放任其损坏、灭失，保险合同最终沦为成了一场赌博。因此，当保险标的损坏、灭失将影响到担保物权人最终优先受偿的权利时，担保物权人的道德风险是可控的，其对担保标的物应当是具有保险利益的。

然而值得注意的是，与所有权人不同，担保物权人对标的物保险利益大小应受到利害关系大小的限制。例如，抵押权人对抵押标的物有保险利益, 但保险利益的范围不得超过标的物的价值, 如果抵押权所担保之债权额小于抵押物的价值, 则其保险利益不得超过原债权、利息、延迟利息及实行抵押权之费用等之和。

2、将银行列为被保险人的缺陷

虽然根据保险利益的理论，将银行列为相关财产保险合同的被保险人，从而最终获得直接的保险金请求权的方式是可行的，然而在实践中可能因为以下的一些商业原因而导致客观上难以实现。

首先，当发生保险事故后，银行作为被保险人请求获得的保险金将直接归银行所有。如果这笔钱被视为抵充借款，那就相当于是对贷款进行加速到期，这对于本来能够如期履约的借款人显然是不公平的。因此，借款人在订立贷款合同时，可能会处于上述原因而不愿接受这样的保险安排。

其次，根据《保险法》的规定，虽然被保险人不是保险合同的当事人，但其是保险合同的关系人，同样负有一些法定的保险义务，包括应当维护保险标的安全、在保险标的危险程度显著增加时应及时通知保险人、当保险事故发生后应采取必要措施防止或者减少损失等。由于银行不是保险标的所有权人（往往也不是实际使用的人），其很难做到对保险标的日常维护，也很难第一时间了解保险标的危险程度的增加，此外，发生保险事故后采取必要措施也须要一定的成本，这些额外成本的承担必将是银行决定成为被保险人的障碍。

编者按：本文的第二部分将在近期刊登

法院在审理财产保险合同的纠纷时，亦认为，受益人是专指人身保险合同中享有保险金请求权的人，财产保险合同中的“第一受益人”只有在保险公司给予理赔的情况下获得收取保险金的权利，不具有保险金的请求权。受益人向保险公司主张保险金请求权的不能获得支持。显然，法院认为，财产保险合同中的受益人与人身保险合同中的受益人的内涵并不相同。事实上，在财产保险中，被保险人与保险人约定于保险事故发生时，由第三人作为受益人受领保险赔偿金，是为第三人设定权利的行为；此第三人虽然可以依一般用语称为“受益人”，但在内涵上与保险法上的“受益人”概念并不相同。人身保险中的受益人，是指在被保险人死亡后，享有保险金请求权的人，在保险公司拒绝理赔时，受益人可以独立的诉讼主体地位向法院提起诉讼。而财产保险中的受益人，取得的并不是保险金请求权，保险金请求权仍由被保险人享有，受益人取得的只是保险金请求权中直接受领保险赔偿金的权利。在我国法律没有明确规定财产保险合同受益人的情况下，在财产保险中采用受益人的概念，会与人身保险中的受益人发生概念上的混同。

因此，在抵押贷款项下，将银行列为相关财产保险的受益人可能存在不被司法实践所认可的风险，结果危及到银行最终收取保险利益，实现债务清偿的可行性。本文试图从法理的角度出发，结合英美法传统保险理论，探讨银行应如何界定自己在保险合同中的地位以及如何最终顺利获取保险收益。

二、银行作为被保险人直接获取保险收益

就目前的商业实践而言，银行在与借款人签订抵押担保贷款合同，并对借款人的相关财产办理了抵押后，往往会要求借款人对该抵押财产进行投保。在该保险合同中，借款人往往既是投保人，同时又作为抵押财产的所有权人成为被保险人，而银行则根据保险公司的批单成为“受益人”。如前所述，在这种情况下，若发生保险事故，根据《保险法》的规定，只有作为被保险人的借款人才有请求保险公司给付保险金的权利，此时银行就会处于相对被动的地位，即如果借款人不主张保险金赔偿，银行将无权要求保险公司向自己支付保险金。

我国《保险法》第十二条规定，被保险人是指其财产或者人身受保险合同保障，享有保险金请求权的人。因此在财产保险中，被保险人有法定的请求保险金的权利。那么是否可以将银行代替借款人直接列为财产保险合同的被保险人，从而保障银行最终请求保险金的权利呢？对此，《保险法》第十二条还规定了，财产保险的被保险人在保险事故发生时，对保险标的应当具有保险利益。因此，要回答上述问题就必须从保险利益的认定着手分析。

1、担保物权属于保险利益

《保险法》第十二条规定，保险利益是指投保人或者被保险人对保险标的具有的法律上承认的利益。这是保险法上对保险利益的概念的概括性阐述，然而，什么算是“法律上承认的利益”，《保险法》却并没有进行更近一步的规定，从而导致在实践中对保险利益的认定往往会存在争议。根据理论界的传统观点，财产的物权人基于物权享有对财产的保险利益。这里的物权不仅包括所有权，也应包括担保物权。

财产的所有人享有保险利益不难理解，这是因为财产所有权是一个人在该财产上所拥有的最高权利，表现为排除他人使用并享有其所拥有财产的排他性权利，财产的毁损灭失将对所有人造成直接的经济损失，因此所有权人对所有物当然得拥有保险利益。而就担保物权而言，其虽不表现为对物的直接支配、使用和收益，但是其的权利基础也是以标的物的存在、完好为前提的。当标的物因损坏而价值减少时，最终实现完全的担保物权就会受到影响，而当标的物灭失时，担保物权将归于消灭。因此，在担保标的物遭受损害或灭失的情况下，担保物权人就标的物优先受偿的权利亦将随之受到影响。保险利益的设立，其理论基础就在于防范对保险标的没有任何利益的人可能具有的道德风险。如果保险标的是否完好存续对于被保险人来说没有任何利害关系，那么就很难保证其不会为了获取保险金而加害该被保险财产或是放任其损坏、灭失，保险合同最终沦为成了一场赌博。因此，当保险标的损坏、灭失将影响到担保物权人最终优先受偿的权利时，担保物权人的道德风险是可控的，其对担保标的物应当是具有保险利益的。

然而值得注意的是，与所有权人不同，担保物权人对标的物保险利益大小应受到利害关系大小的限制。例如，抵押权人对抵押标的物有保险利益, 但保险利益的范围不得超过标的物的价值, 如果抵押权所担保之债权额小于抵押物的价值, 则其保险利益不得超过原债权、利息、延迟利息及实行抵押权之费用等之和。

2、将银行列为被保险人的缺陷

虽然根据保险利益的理论，将银行列为相关财产保险合同的被保险人，从而最终获得直接的保险金请求权的方式是可行的，然而在实践中可能因为以下的一些商业原因而导致客观上难以实现。

首先，当发生保险事故后，银行作为被保险人请求获得的保险金将直接归银行所有。如果这笔钱被视为抵充借款，那就相当于是对贷款进行加速到期，这对于本来能够如期履约的借款人显然是不公平的。因此，借款人在订立贷款合同时，可能会处于上述原因而不愿接受这样的保险安排。

其次，根据《保险法》的规定，虽然被保险人不是保险合同的当事人，但其是保险合同的关系人，同样负有一些法定的保险义务，包括应当维护保险标的安全、在保险标的危险程度显著增加时应及时通知保险人、当保险事故发生后应采取必要措施防止或者减少损失等。由于银行不是保险标的所有权人（往往也不是实际使用的人），其很难做到对保险标的日常维护，也很难第一时间了解保险标的危险程度的增加，此外，发生保险事故后采取必要措施也须要一定的成本，这些额外成本的承担必将是银行决定成为被保险人的障碍。

编者按：本文的第二部分将在近期刊登