Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
|Other Titles:||A Reexamination of the Nature of Insurers' Right of Subrogation in Taiwan|
the principle of indemnity;subrogation;legal assignment;common law subrogation theory;constructive trust
|Issue Date:||2016-05-16 16:30:25 (UTC+8)|
This paper examines the nature of insurers’ right of subrogation and related issues. In Taiwan, an insurer’s right of subrogation is generally defined as legal assignment; however, there would appear to be considerable room for debate as to whether this is a wholly appropriate way of dealing with the issue. In addition to the long-standing debate over the appropriateness of this definition, in recent years several new views on the subject have been put forward; these views also need to be considered. Examining both legal precedent and juristic theory, this paper analyzes the three main subrogation models, focusing in particular on common law insurance subrogation theory, which has the most support from legal scholars. By concentrating on the juristic aspects, the paper explores the differences between common law subrogation theory and legal assignment theory, and on their ability to explain the relevant problems. The paper concludes that models based on common law subrogation theory and those on legal assignment theory demonstrate significant differences, and that careful evaluation is needed when making revisions to legislative policy. It is suggested that, when tackling the various problems that exist in this area, common law subrogation theory may be able to offer useful insights. The paper also offers recommendations regarding the doubts–both theoretical and practical–that have been raised with respect to the adoption of legal assignment theory.
|Relation:||法學評論, 90, 229-300|
|Appears in Collections:||[法學評論 TSSCI] 期刊論文|
Files in This Item:
All items in 學術集成 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.