責任保險法制之現代化

Abstract

隨著社會發展進步，人與人間接觸越為頻繁，因侵權行為、債務不履行而發生訴訟之情況，相較於過往更容易發生。在此之際，受害人雖可依民法向加害人請求侵權或債務不履行損害賠償，惟受害人無法實際獲得賠償，無異是畫餅充飢。從而為確保加害人(債務人)有足夠清償能力，責任保險有其必要性存在。其不僅提供受害人獲得清償之保障，更移轉加害人責任風險予保險人，使加害人與受害人雙方取得雙贏狀態，有助於法律關係之完滿解決。在責任保險於現今社會逐漸佔有其重要地位之際，責任保險契約下法律關係之解明，有其研究之必要。首先就責任保險契約性質而言，該保險在我國向來被視為財產保險險種之一，因而責任保險人負給付金錢之義務。然責任保險有保護被保險人 (加害人)與第三人\n(受害人)之功能存在，其與一般財產保險契約僅保障被保險人之功能有所不同。純粹從財產保險角度理解責任保險人之責任似有不足，應以責任保險功能角度出發，肯認被保險人有向保險人請求免責之權利。其次就責任保險人之給付義務而言，雖保險法直接或間接明文規範其義務，惟義務違反法律效果為何？現今我國司法實務尚未針對不同義務違反類型為討論，本計畫在此部分將以外國相關案例事實為基礎，嘗試探討在我國法制下應如何因應。最後就第三人保護而言，我國在2001年增訂保險法第94條第2項第三人直接請求權之規定，似乎頗強調保障第三人之功能。實際上該規定是否能確實保障第三人？另德日保險法皆有規定責任保險第三人優先清償權規定，我國保險法至今尚未明文，是否有規定之必要？均為本文討論之重心。

When people frequently communicate with another because of social development, it’s easier to arise legal controversy due to default or torts than before. In the same time, victim may bring suit against wrongdoer or debtor by Civil Code, however, if victim can’t be satisfied by compensation, there’s nothing to be relieving hunger with pictures of cakes. To assure wrongdoer’s solvency ability,\nliability insurance plays an important role. Liability insurance not only assures wrongdoer’s solvency ability, but also transfers wrongdoer’s liability risk to insurer, it makes win-win situation for both parties, and helpful for solving legal controversy smoothly. We should discuss the relationship within liability insurance contract when liability insurance gradually occupies an important position. First, on the nature of liability insurance contract, the insurance in Taiwan has been considered one kind of property insurance, so the insurer has an obligation to pay insurance money for insured. Nevertheless, there are two functions about liability insurance: insured (wrongdoer) and third party (victim)protection. In contrast to property insurance, which only focus on insured benefit. It’s wrong to\nunderstand liability insurance from property perspective. We should take a look from the function of liability insurance, and consider that insured may ask insurer to offer disclaimer payment. Second, on the obligation of liability insurer, Insurance Act directly or indirectly provides it. If insurer breach above obligation, what kind of legal effect may be deduced? Because our judiciary hasn’t been focus on different circumstance, we take this chance to discuss relevant foreign case fact, and find solution within our legal system. Finally, in terms of third party protection, Insurance Act 2001 Article 94\nsection 2 provided direct claim right of third party. It seems to address third party protection function of liability insurance. In fact, may direct claim right actually protect third party, or bring more confused to judicial practitioner? In other aspect, German and Japan Insurance Act provided that third party has priority right against insured’s creditor, but Taiwan Insurance doesn’t entitle third party against insured’s creditor. We will discuss the necessary of direct claim right and third party\npriority right.