保險法告知義務之法律實證研究—以歸責要件與消費者保護為中心

Abstract

本文目的在以比較法與實證研究方法，由我國 2015 年告知義務修正之疑義切入，重新檢討反思我國法之適當性，並提出解釋與立法之建議。違反告知義務之主觀要件長久以來即有爭議，本次修法卻未能完全解決。英美法在此部分有詳細之討論，可供我國參考。再者本文以為，告知義務法制之設計重點在於尋找主觀要件、客觀要件與法律效果之最佳配置。因此，本文另擬透過實證研究，分析我國歷來判決就告知義務之主觀要件與其他重要爭點之趨勢，以尋找最適合我國的規範模型。在比較法的觀察上，可以發現告知義務立法例多有保護消費者之趨勢。在對我國判決的實證研究方面，我國判決對消費者之保護約屬於中等程度。審酌目前立法之趨勢、以及我國尚無大幅放寬或限縮告知義務法律效果之必要性，應可考慮採取中等強度之規範：亦即限於告知義務人故意或重大過失時，保險人方有解除契約權之模式。在具體方式上，就近程可以解釋方式為之，長期而言仍以修法明確說明為妥。而在個別爭點的審酌上，實證研究發現消費者於若干爭點較為弱勢，其判斷標準多亦已為學說所批評，故應檢討以提升對消費者之保護。就結論而言，我國法大致上符合立法例保護消費者之方向，但實際修法與細節有待改進。期盼藉由本文之比較法與實證分析，能有助於釐清立法例之趨勢與我國之需要，以重新建構適合我國需要的告知義務法制。

This study aims to reexamine the laws regarding duty of disclosure in Taiwan with comparative law and empirical methods, starting from its revolution in 2015, and then providing recommendations for interpretation and legislation. The subjective element of misrepresentation has been controversial for long time, but amendment in 2015 still failed to solve this issue successfully. The U.K. and U.S. have more discusstions about this issue and thus worth further consideration for Taiwan. This paper also argues that the key to the design of duty of disclosure is on finding the optimal specification of subjective elements, objective elements, and legal consequences. This study tries to calrify the tendency of subjective element and other important issues by empirically analyzing relevant cases, and then to explore the optimal regulation model for Taiwan. The trend of consumer protection can be found after comparative law analysis. Then, the empirical study shows that Taiwanese courts have a moderate degree consumer protection. Considering the legislative trend and on empirical evidence supporting significant necessities to broaden or restrict the consequences of breaching duty of disclosure, this study recommends a moderate model. This means that insurers can rescind the contracts only when the insureds have intention or gross negligence. This can be implemented by interpretation in short term, and by legislative revolution in long run. For some other issues, courts’ judgments are comparative disadvantage to insureds. This is also proved by this empirical study and thus should be modified to improve consumer protection. In conclusion, Taiwanese law generally follows the trend of consumer protection, but the relevant modification and details are waiting for more improvement. With this comparative and empirical study, we hope this research contributes to clarify the trend of legislation and the demand of Taiwan, and then finds a model of duty of disclosure fit for Taiwan.