論氣候變遷責任之保險理賠爭議—以AES v. Steadfast案為中心

Abstract

本文旨在探討氣候變遷下，被保險人及保險人間可能發生之保險理賠爭議爭議，以及該爭議可能之解釋方式。隨著全球暖化問題日漸嚴峻，極端氣候所致之財產損害、人身傷亡亦逐年增高。對此，受有損害之人民及政府，開始將矛頭指向氣候變遷之元兇，即大量排放溫室氣體之企業。在面臨政府及人民索賠之鉅額賠償及訴訟費用下，企業思索將其責任風險移轉予其商業綜合責任保險人，因而請求保險人協助其抗辯，或者填補其因賠償第三人所造成之損害，然而，基於氣候變遷訴訟以及商業綜合責任保險之特殊性，此請求將致生爭議。第一起被保險人因面臨氣候變遷訴訟向保險人請求協助抗辯，因產生爭議而進入訴訟之案件為AES v. Steadfast案。本案之保險人拒絕協助抗辯，而其理由有三：一、氣候變遷所致之損害，並非事故，不符合商業綜合責任保險之要件；二、氣候變遷所致之損害，為保險契約訂定前即已存在，並延續至保險期間。依損害進行中原則，保險契約不生效力；三、溫室氣體屬於污染，依污染除外條款，溫室氣體所致之損害應排除於承保範圍。由於此三抗辯，在向來皆極具爭議，故可預期在將來之氣候變遷訴訟中，亦應屬保險契約雙方之攻防焦點。為分析此三爭議，本文欲分析向來之美國法院判決，對於此三爭議之見解。並將結果套用至氣候變遷訴訟責任風險移轉之爭議案件中，得出保險人在氣候變遷訴訟中，應協助被保險人抗辯及填補損害之結論。最後，本文探討商業綜合保險於我國之適用疑義，以及在氣候變遷訴訟中，在我國法下所可能產生之結果，並具以提出建議及結論。

This study aims to explore the liability and duty of defense of liability insurer when insurance occurrence is causes by climate change. Since many liability insurance policies in Taiwan originate from the U.S., the U.S. leading case AES v. Steadfast in this issue is worth more considerations. This study provides analysis for three main issues in this case: first, whether the loss contributed by climate change is the occurrence in CGL policy or not. Secondly, whether the loss contributed by climate change exits before insurance contract and extend to insurer period, then satisfying loss in progress doctrine and invalidating insurance contract. Third, whether greenhouse gas is equivalent to pollution and not within insurance coverage according to pollution exclusion clause. For Taiwanese law, this study suggests to confirm the duty of defense of insurer. Also, current law and insurance policy in Taiwan are not able to exclude the liability contributed by climate change, and thus more clear clauses are needed if insurer desire to exclude it.