保險法五十年之回顧與展望

Abstract

保險係藉由團體力量來分散個人危險、填補其損失的經濟制度，其目的並非使被保險人藉由保險給付而獲得超過損害額度的利益。另一方面，若被保險人得因保險給付而獲利，也可能間接提升道德危險發生的機會。從而，在得以認定被保險人因保險事故所受經濟損失額度的險種（損害保險）中，遂有所謂的「利得禁止原則」（Bereicherungsverbot，又稱為「不當得利禁止原則」）。本文所探討的問題包括：1、基於利得禁止原則所設置的超額保險、複保險與保險代位等規定，是否屬於強行性的法律規定？2、與上述規範相關，但法律卻未盡詳盡或周詳的問題上，是否應基於利得禁止原則的拘束力，而以類推適用或目的性限縮來處理相關爭議問題？3、在上述規範以外的事項，是否亦應肯定利得禁止原則的規範上拘束力，以解釋或評價保險契約約定或保險給付的效力？主要研究結論為：利得禁止原則並不是一個當然具有規範上拘束力的法律原則，其規範上拘束力的發生及其效力範圍，有賴於制定法加以形成及確定。超額保險、複保險以及保險代位等規範，在防止被保險人獲得超過損害額的補償的相關規定，應以絕對強行規定的性質理解之。至於其他非法律明定禁止超額受償的事項，但卻有產生超額補償的可能性者，不宜逕以違反利得禁止原則而否定其效力。

The insurance system transfers individual hazards and recover loss by insurance pool. The system is not intended for insured to get any benefit higher than the amount of damage. On the other hand, if we allow insured benefit from insurance payment, it will contribute to enhance the occurrence of moral hazard indirectly. Thus, in indemnity insurance, there is a principle called ‘‘Bereicherungsverbot’’, which also called principle of undue enrichment. This article discuss the issue included：1. The provision(excess insurance, double insurance, subrogation ) which derived from Bereicherungsverbot are belong to mandatory statute? 2. The issue is relevant to above provision(excess insurance, double insurance, subrogation) , but not detail regulated by law. Can we solve the issue by analogy principle or purpose restriction under Bereicherungsverbot？3. In addition to preceding condition, should we admit Bereicherungsverbot as mandatory principium to interpret or revalue insurance contract? Our conclusion is that : Bereicherungsverbot is definitely not a mandatory principle, and its legal effect is relied on Statute. The provision of excess insurance, double insurance and subrogation right must be regarded as mandatory provision. In addition to condition which expressly provide in unambiguity statute, we can’t deny its legal effect by Bereicherungsverbot.