Publications-Theses
Article View/Open
Publication Export
-
題名 論氣候變遷責任之保險理賠爭議— 由AES v. Steadfast案出發
Aes v. Steadfast and the insurance claims issues related to climate change liability作者 蕭涵煦
Hsiao, Han-Hsu貢獻者 陳俊元
蕭涵煦
Hsiao, Han-Hsu關鍵詞 氣候變遷責任
商業綜合責任保險日期 2019 上傳時間 1-Jul-2019 10:50:50 (UTC+8) 摘要 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 article aims to figure out the issues related to climate change liability.As the extreme weather caused by climate change aggravated, property damages and body injuries also have increased like never before. Seeking for damages recovery, people and governments began to seek for damages from corporates who frequently emitted greenhouse gases. Facing huge amount of compensating liability and legal fees, corporates seek to transfer these liability risks to their insurers.However, several issues appear as corporates seek to transfer their risks. The first case dealing with these issues is AES. v. Steadfast. In this case, the insurer contended that they have no duty to indemnify the insured for several reasons. First, the damages caused by global warming were expected by the insured, thus did not constitute occurrence; Second, the damages have appeared before the contract; Third, greenhouse gases are pollution, pursuant to pollution exclusion, the damages caused by pollution should not be compensated.This article analyzes the possible solutions to these issues, and also analyze these issues applying Taiwan’s relating regulations.參考文獻 中文部分書籍江朝國，保險法論文集(二)，1997年。林群弼，保險法論，增訂二版，2003年。邱錦添、胡勝益、林克憲，金融消費者保護法與案例解析， 2012年。陳彩稚，財產與責任保險之理論基礎，2006年。葉俊榮，氣候變遷治理與法律，2015年。劉宗榮，新保險法-保險契約法的理論與實務，2007年。期刊論文李志峰，長尾責任－論美國責任保險保單形式的演變、爭議及我國責任保險保單之特色，保險專刊，第25卷第1期，頁97-132，2009年。李志峰，論利益衝突下責任保險人之抗辯義務-以美國法制為核心，全國律師，第16卷第5期，頁39-52，2012年。李建良，論司法審查的政治界限：美國「政治問題原則」初探，人文及社會科學集刊，第9卷第4期，頁65-110，1997年。汪信君，責任保險人之參與權，月旦法學教室，第21期，2004年，頁32-33。林建智，論合理期待原則，保險專刊，第33輯，頁157-166，1993年。林建智、李志峰，論責任保險人之抗辯義務：以美國發展為重心，東吳法律學報，第23:2期，頁109-157，2011年。張冠群，保險契約條款「疑義」之認定與解釋──評臺灣高等法院一○○年度保險上易字第一號判決，月旦法學雜誌，第210期，頁187-213，2012年。張冠群、李慧芳，企業因氣候變遷而生損害賠償責任之成立可能性及其風險管理—以美國法律與務為中心，高大法學論叢，第7卷第2期，頁41-98，2012年。陳俊元，怒火地平線－墨西哥灣漏油案與保險契約之解釋，華岡法粹，第62期，頁57，頁49-73，2017年。黃丞儀，潔淨空氣，如何解釋？從 Duke Energy （2007） 與 Massachusetts v. EPA （2007）論美國行政法中立法目的、行政 解釋和司法審查之關係，臺大法學論叢，第44卷第3期，頁666-744，2015年。博碩士學位論文李志峰，責任保險契約當事人於危險事故發生後之義務：以英美相關法制為核心，國立政治大學風險管理與保險學系博士論文，2011年。陳彥廷，論金融消費者之權益保障 : 以金融消費者保護法第七條、第八條為中心，國立政治大學法律科際整合研究所碩士論文，2016年。網際網路李彥麟，談氣候變遷侵權行為訴訟作為推動環境議題的手段：從美國案例來反思，跨越誌，檢自：http://shs.ntu.edu.tw/shsblog/?p=31974.國家教育研究院， 教育部重編國語字典，檢自http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/cgi-bin/cbdic/gsweb.cgi?o=dcbdic&searchid=Z00000140807。國家教育研究院，教育部重編國語字典，檢自http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/cgi-bin/cbdic/gsweb.cgi?ccd=gI0Vhm&o=e0&sec1=1&op=sid=%22Z00000158599%22.&v=-2.。黃麗蓉(民國106年1月24日)，新竹平地真的下雪了！氣象局認證：難得一見，中時電子報，檢自：https://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20160124003334-260405?chdtv.新安東京海上產險，汽車保險，檢自https://www.tmnewa.com.tw/Upload/80755606-dfea-479f-b42c-3598b8d91298/636410883388169172.pdf.英文部分書籍Jerry, Robert H. (1996). UNDERSTANDING INSURANCE LAW. New York: Lexisnexis.Metz, Bert, Davidson, Ogunlad E, Coninck, Heleen De, Loos, Manuela & Meyer, Leo (Editors)(2005), IPCC CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE AND STORAGE REPORT. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Nordhaus, W. D., & Boyer, J. (2000). WARMING THE WORLD: ECONOMIC MODELS OF GLOBAL WARMING. MASSACHUSETTS. Massachusetts: MIT Press.Ostrager, Barry R. & Newman, Thomas R.(2018). HANDBOOK ON INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES. New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.Robert, H. Jerry II & Henderson, Roger (2001). INSURANCE LAW: CASES AND MATERIALS, St. Paul. MN: West Academic Publishing.Stempe, Jeffrey W. & Erik S. (2018). STEMPEL AND KNUTSEN ON INSURANCE COVERAGE. New York: Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory U.S.Stern, N. H. (2007). THE ECONOMICS OF CLIMATE CHANGE: THE STERN REVIEW. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.期刊Abraham, K. S., Environmental Liability and the Limits of Insurance, 88 COLUM. L. REV. 942(1988).Abraham, K. S., The Rise and Fall of Commercial Liability Insurance, 87 VA. L. REV. 85(2001).Antognini, Richard L., When Will My Troubles End? The Loss In Progress Defense In Progressive Loss Insurance Cases, 25 LOY. L. A. L. REV. 419(1992).Ben-Shahar, Omri, Outsourcing Regulation: How Insurance Reduces Moral Hazard,111 MICH. LAW REV 197(2012).Blake R. Bertagna, “Standing” Up for the Environment: The Ability of Plaintiffs to Establish Legal Standing to Redress Injuries Caused by Global Warming, BYU L. REV. 415 (2006).Bryan, Robert W. & Petrie, John T., Occurrence Coverage for Pollution Damage–Searching for the Policyholder`s Actual Subjective Expection, 28 GONZ. L. REV. 553(1993).Burke, R. Stephen, Pollution Exclusion Clauses: The Agony, the Ecstasy, and the Irony for Insurance Companies, 17 N. KY. L. REV. 443 (1990).Chaifullo, Louis A. & Kane, David C., Application of the Absolute Pollution Exclusion to Nontraditional Pollution, 22 ENVTL. CL. J. 287 (2010).Donald, Wylie J. & Davis, Craig W., Carbon Dioxide: Harmless, Ubiquitous, and Certainly Not a Pollutant under a Liability Policy`s Absolute Pollution Exclusion, 39 SETON HALL L. REV. 107(2009).Fruehauf, Richard L., The Cost of Knowledge: Making Sense of “Nonfortuity”, 84 VA. L. REV. 107 (1998).Gerrard, M. B., & MacDougald, J. A., An Introduction To Climate Change Liability Litigation And A View To The Future, 20 CONN. INS. LJ 153(2013).Green, David S., Massachusetts v. EPA Without Massachusetts: Private Party Standing in Climate Change Litigation, 36 ENVIRONS: ENVTL. L. & POL`Y J. 35 (2012).Grossman, D. A., Warming Up To A Not-So-Radical Idea: Tort-Based Climate Change Litigation, 28 COLUM. J. ENVTL. L. 1(2003).He, Q., Mitigation Of Climate Change Risks And Regulation By Insurance: A Feasible Proposal For China, 43 BC ENVTL. AFF. L. REV., 319(2016).Heinke, Rex & Biro, Warren J., Is Global Warming a Covered Accident: Is Global Warming a Covered Accident: An Analysis of AES Corp. v. Steadfast Insurance Co, 20 CONN. INS. L.J. 179(2013).Heintz, John E., Interpreting the Scope of Coverage for Unexpected Results, 2 ENVTL. CL. J. 377(1990).Hettrick, Clyde M., Everything is Relative, Including the Absoluteness of the Current, Restrictive Pollution Exclusion, 21 ENVTL. CL. J. 142(2009).Holley, Matt W., The “Fortuity Doctrine”: Misapplying The Known Loss Rule To Liability Insurance Policies, 41 TEX. TECH L. REV. 529(2009).Hunter, D., & Salzman, J., Negligence In The Air: The Duty Of Care In Climate Change Litigation, 155 U. PA. L. REV.1741(2006).Johnson, J. A., Contractual Liability and the Insured Contract, 5 JOURNAL OF INSURANCE AND INDEMNITY LAW 16 (2012).Keeton, Robert E., Insurance Law Rights at Variance with Policy Provisions, 83 HARV. L. REV. 961(1970).Klass, A. B., State innovation and preemption: Lessons from State Climate Change Efforts, 41 LOY. L. A. L. REV. 1653(2007).Lantz, Chandra. Triggering Coverage of Progressive Property Loss: Preserving The Distinctions Between First-And Third Party Insurance Policies, 35 WM. & MARY L. REV. 1801(1994).Malloy, James S. & Sylvester John M., Insurance Coverage For Global Warming Liability Claims, 45 TORT TRIAL & INS. PRAC. LJ, 811(2010).Medaglia, M. Elizabeth & Horowit, Gregory H. & Love, Gina S., The Status of Certain Nonfortuity Defenses in Casualty Insurance Coverage, 30 TORT & INS. L.J. 943(1995).Mielenhausen, T. C., Insurance Coverage For Environmental And Toxic Tort Claims, 17 WM. MITCHELL L. REV. 945(1991).Nevius, J. G., & Dolmanisth, S. J., The Pollution-Exclusion Conspiracy: A Newly Recognized Basis for Recovery, 13 PACE. ENVTL. L. REV., 1103 (1995).Oliver, Darlene M., The Use of the Pollution Exclusion in Nontraditional Environmental Contexts, 10 ENVTL. CL. J. 39(1998).Roberts, David M., The “Known Risk” Doctrine: The Emperor`s New Clothes, 3 ENVTL. CLAIMS J. 511(1991).Shelley, William P. & Mason, Richard C., Application Of The Absolute Pollution Exclusion To Toxic Tort Claims: Will Courts Choose Policy Construction Or Deconstruction?, 33 TORT & INS. L.J. 749(1998).Stix, G., A Climate Repair Manual, 295 SCIAM 46(2006).Vincent, David P., AES v. Steadfast and the Concept of Foreseeability in Climate Change Litigation, 44 ENVTL. L. 201(2014).Zipursky, B., The Restatement (Third) and The Place Of Duty In Negligence Law, 54 VAND. L. REV. 657(2001).網際網路Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers, Retrieved May 8, 2019 ,from https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf.UNEP Finance Initiative, Adaptation and Vulnerability to Climate Change: The Role of the Finance Sector 14, Retrieved May 8, 2019 ,from http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/CEO_briefing_adaptation_vulnerability_2006.pdf.The University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, Insurability in the face of Climate Change, Retrieved May 8, 2019 ,from https://www.cisl.cam.ac.uk/business-action/sustainable-finance/climatewise/pdfs/insurability-in-the-face-of-climate-change.pdf/view.John Green, The Myth of “Accident-Based” Policies, Retrieved May 8, 2019 ,from https://www.farellacoveragelaw.com/2010/04/the-myth-of-accident-based-policies.html/.Jill Berkeley, Breaching the Duty to Defend: Remedy for Recovering Peace of Mind, retrieved May 15, 2019, from https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/insurance/b/badfaithdutydefend/posts/breaching-the-duty-to-defend-remedy-for-recovering-peace-of-mind.Foley Hoag, Martin C. Pentz & Creighton K. Page, Obligations of Insurer and Policyholder, Retrieved May 8, 2019 ,from https://foleyhoag.com/publications/ebooks-and-white-papers/2017/october/obligations-of-insurer-and-policyholder.Center for Climate and Energy Solution, The Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC, Retrieved May 8, 2019 ,from https://unfccc.int/topics/science/workstreams/cooperation-with-the-ipcc/the-fifth-assessment-report-of-the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-changeCrawford, Dale C., The I.S.O. Pollution Exclusion: How Far Does It Goes, Retrieved May 8, 2019, from http://www.dalecrawford.com/article_%20AAIMCo.pdf.Morley J Weston(June 1, 2017), INFOGRAPHIC: How Climate Change Will Impact Taiwan, The News Lens, retrieved May 14, 2019, from https://international.thenewslens.com/article/69579.Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Retrieved May 8, 2019 ,from https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide.Contractual Liability and the CGL Policy, Retrieved May 8, 2019, from https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/contractual-liability-and-the-cgl-policy.Donald S. Malecki, More Bad News For Contractors, Retrieved June 23, 2019, from http://roughnotes.com/rnmagazine/2006/february06/02p094.htm. 描述 碩士
國立政治大學
風險管理與保險學系
1043580221資料來源 http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1043580221 資料類型 thesis dc.contributor.advisor 陳俊元 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) 蕭涵煦 zh_TW dc.contributor.author (Authors) Hsiao, Han-Hsu en_US dc.creator (作者) 蕭涵煦 zh_TW dc.creator (作者) Hsiao, Han-Hsu en_US dc.date (日期) 2019 en_US dc.date.accessioned 1-Jul-2019 10:50:50 (UTC+8) - dc.date.available 1-Jul-2019 10:50:50 (UTC+8) - dc.date.issued (上傳時間) 1-Jul-2019 10:50:50 (UTC+8) - dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) G1043580221 en_US dc.identifier.uri (URI) http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/124153 - dc.description (描述) 碩士 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 國立政治大學 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 風險管理與保險學系 zh_TW dc.description (描述) 1043580221 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) 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。 zh_TW dc.description.abstract (摘要) This article aims to figure out the issues related to climate change liability.As the extreme weather caused by climate change aggravated, property damages and body injuries also have increased like never before. Seeking for damages recovery, people and governments began to seek for damages from corporates who frequently emitted greenhouse gases. Facing huge amount of compensating liability and legal fees, corporates seek to transfer these liability risks to their insurers.However, several issues appear as corporates seek to transfer their risks. The first case dealing with these issues is AES. v. Steadfast. In this case, the insurer contended that they have no duty to indemnify the insured for several reasons. First, the damages caused by global warming were expected by the insured, thus did not constitute occurrence; Second, the damages have appeared before the contract; Third, greenhouse gases are pollution, pursuant to pollution exclusion, the damages caused by pollution should not be compensated.This article analyzes the possible solutions to these issues, and also analyze these issues applying Taiwan’s relating regulations. en_US dc.description.tableofcontents 第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究動機與目的 1第二節 研究範圍與內容 2第二章 氣候變遷訴訟與責任保險 4第一節 問題源起：方興未艾之氣候變遷訴訟 5第一項 氣候變遷訴訟之背景 5第二項 氣候變遷訴訟之現況與發展 7第二節 保險作為風險移轉之手段：以CGL保險為例 17第一項 氣候變遷下責任風險之可保性分析 18第二項 CGL保險概述 21第三項 除外條款 22第四項 保險人義務 24第三節 小結 25第三章 AES V. STEADFAST案介紹 26第一節 本案背景事實及原、被告主張 26第一項 氣候變遷訴訟：Native Village of Kivalina v.ExxonMobil Corp. 26第二項 被告AES公司請求Steadfast保險公司協助抗辯 27第三項 原、被告之主張 28第二節 本案判決：損害非基於事故所生 29第一項 初次判決(First Decision) 29第二項 重開審理期日(Rehearing) 30第三項 再次判決(Second Decision) 31第四項 Justice Mims協同意見：過失與意外之關聯性 31第三節 氣候變遷與責任風險移轉爭議 32第一項 事故之解釋爭議 32第二項 「損害進行中原則」與「污染除外條款」適用之疑義 33第四章 保險事故之解釋爭議 34第一節 CGL保險之要件：損害之偶發性 34第一項 源起 34第二項 1966年之前：以意外作為偶發性之表述 35第三項 1966迄今：以事故作為偶發性之表述 35第二節 環境污染事件之偶發性探討 36第一項 過失與意外之互斥性 38第二項 可預期性之認定：客觀說與主觀說之爭 40第三項 可預期之對象：行為亦或結果之爭議 49第四項 保險契約之解釋方法 52第五項 小結 55第三節 氣候變遷訴訟下法院針對偶然性應作之解釋 55第一項 AES v. Steadfast案針對偶然性應作之解釋 55第二項 未來氣候變遷下保險爭議中可預期性應作之解釋 58第四節 小結 59第五章 損失進行中抗辯 60第一節 偶然性原則 60第一項 概念 61第二項 具體應用 62第三項 必要性、妥適性與適用可能性 66第二節 相關疑義 71第一項 「知悉」是否為要件 72第二項 「知悉」之觀察角度 75第三項「知悉」之內容 79第四項 小結 88第三節「損失進行中」抗辯之適用 88第六章 污染除外條款之適用 91第一節 CGL保險之污染除外條款 92第一項 意義 92第二項 污染除外條款之訂定 93第三項 污染除外條款之延革94第二節 於溫室氣體之適用99第一項 污染概念之界定 100第二項 污染除外條款於非傳統型污染之適用 104第三項 溫室氣體之適用 120第三節 小結 129第七章 我國法規與條款之建議與結論 131第一節 我國法下保險人之抗辯義務 131第一項 抗辯義務之概念 131第二項 我國CGL保險之約定 133第三項 我國之現況 134第四項 評釋 137第五項 修正建議 138第二節 事故之解釋 138第一項 我國CGL保險單之規定 139第二項 我國之現況 139第三項 評釋 141第四項 修正建議 142第三節 損失進行中原則 143第一項 我國法之規定 143第二項 漸進式損害適用第51條之疑義 144第三項 責任保險適用保險法第51條之限制 145第四項 評釋 145第五項 修正建議 146第四節 污染除外條款 147第一項 我國CGL保險之規定 148第二項 我國法之規定 148第三項 修正建議 152第五節 結論 154參考文獻 157附錄一 兆豐產物CGL保險 162附錄二 和泰產物CGL保險 180 zh_TW dc.format.extent 2519405 bytes - dc.format.mimetype application/pdf - dc.source.uri (資料來源) http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G1043580221 en_US dc.subject (關鍵詞) 氣候變遷責任 zh_TW dc.subject (關鍵詞) 商業綜合責任保險 zh_TW dc.title (題名) 論氣候變遷責任之保險理賠爭議— 由AES v. Steadfast案出發 zh_TW dc.title (題名) Aes v. Steadfast and the insurance claims issues related to climate change liability en_US dc.type (資料類型) thesis en_US dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) 中文部分書籍江朝國，保險法論文集(二)，1997年。林群弼，保險法論，增訂二版，2003年。邱錦添、胡勝益、林克憲，金融消費者保護法與案例解析， 2012年。陳彩稚，財產與責任保險之理論基礎，2006年。葉俊榮，氣候變遷治理與法律，2015年。劉宗榮，新保險法-保險契約法的理論與實務，2007年。期刊論文李志峰，長尾責任－論美國責任保險保單形式的演變、爭議及我國責任保險保單之特色，保險專刊，第25卷第1期，頁97-132，2009年。李志峰，論利益衝突下責任保險人之抗辯義務-以美國法制為核心，全國律師，第16卷第5期，頁39-52，2012年。李建良，論司法審查的政治界限：美國「政治問題原則」初探，人文及社會科學集刊，第9卷第4期，頁65-110，1997年。汪信君，責任保險人之參與權，月旦法學教室，第21期，2004年，頁32-33。林建智，論合理期待原則，保險專刊，第33輯，頁157-166，1993年。林建智、李志峰，論責任保險人之抗辯義務：以美國發展為重心，東吳法律學報，第23:2期，頁109-157，2011年。張冠群，保險契約條款「疑義」之認定與解釋──評臺灣高等法院一○○年度保險上易字第一號判決，月旦法學雜誌，第210期，頁187-213，2012年。張冠群、李慧芳，企業因氣候變遷而生損害賠償責任之成立可能性及其風險管理—以美國法律與務為中心，高大法學論叢，第7卷第2期，頁41-98，2012年。陳俊元，怒火地平線－墨西哥灣漏油案與保險契約之解釋，華岡法粹，第62期，頁57，頁49-73，2017年。黃丞儀，潔淨空氣，如何解釋？從 Duke Energy （2007） 與 Massachusetts v. EPA （2007）論美國行政法中立法目的、行政 解釋和司法審查之關係，臺大法學論叢，第44卷第3期，頁666-744，2015年。博碩士學位論文李志峰，責任保險契約當事人於危險事故發生後之義務：以英美相關法制為核心，國立政治大學風險管理與保險學系博士論文，2011年。陳彥廷，論金融消費者之權益保障 : 以金融消費者保護法第七條、第八條為中心，國立政治大學法律科際整合研究所碩士論文，2016年。網際網路李彥麟，談氣候變遷侵權行為訴訟作為推動環境議題的手段：從美國案例來反思，跨越誌，檢自：http://shs.ntu.edu.tw/shsblog/?p=31974.國家教育研究院， 教育部重編國語字典，檢自http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/cgi-bin/cbdic/gsweb.cgi?o=dcbdic&searchid=Z00000140807。國家教育研究院，教育部重編國語字典，檢自http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/cgi-bin/cbdic/gsweb.cgi?ccd=gI0Vhm&o=e0&sec1=1&op=sid=%22Z00000158599%22.&v=-2.。黃麗蓉(民國106年1月24日)，新竹平地真的下雪了！氣象局認證：難得一見，中時電子報，檢自：https://www.chinatimes.com/realtimenews/20160124003334-260405?chdtv.新安東京海上產險，汽車保險，檢自https://www.tmnewa.com.tw/Upload/80755606-dfea-479f-b42c-3598b8d91298/636410883388169172.pdf.英文部分書籍Jerry, Robert H. (1996). UNDERSTANDING INSURANCE LAW. New York: Lexisnexis.Metz, Bert, Davidson, Ogunlad E, Coninck, Heleen De, Loos, Manuela & Meyer, Leo (Editors)(2005), IPCC CARBON DIOXIDE CAPTURE AND STORAGE REPORT. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Nordhaus, W. D., & Boyer, J. (2000). WARMING THE WORLD: ECONOMIC MODELS OF GLOBAL WARMING. MASSACHUSETTS. Massachusetts: MIT Press.Ostrager, Barry R. & Newman, Thomas R.(2018). HANDBOOK ON INSURANCE COVERAGE DISPUTES. New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.Robert, H. Jerry II & Henderson, Roger (2001). INSURANCE LAW: CASES AND MATERIALS, St. Paul. MN: West Academic Publishing.Stempe, Jeffrey W. & Erik S. (2018). STEMPEL AND KNUTSEN ON INSURANCE COVERAGE. New York: Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory U.S.Stern, N. H. (2007). THE ECONOMICS OF CLIMATE CHANGE: THE STERN REVIEW. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.期刊Abraham, K. S., Environmental Liability and the Limits of Insurance, 88 COLUM. L. REV. 942(1988).Abraham, K. S., The Rise and Fall of Commercial Liability Insurance, 87 VA. L. REV. 85(2001).Antognini, Richard L., When Will My Troubles End? The Loss In Progress Defense In Progressive Loss Insurance Cases, 25 LOY. L. A. L. REV. 419(1992).Ben-Shahar, Omri, Outsourcing Regulation: How Insurance Reduces Moral Hazard,111 MICH. LAW REV 197(2012).Blake R. Bertagna, “Standing” Up for the Environment: The Ability of Plaintiffs to Establish Legal Standing to Redress Injuries Caused by Global Warming, BYU L. REV. 415 (2006).Bryan, Robert W. & Petrie, John T., Occurrence Coverage for Pollution Damage–Searching for the Policyholder`s Actual Subjective Expection, 28 GONZ. L. REV. 553(1993).Burke, R. Stephen, Pollution Exclusion Clauses: The Agony, the Ecstasy, and the Irony for Insurance Companies, 17 N. KY. L. REV. 443 (1990).Chaifullo, Louis A. & Kane, David C., Application of the Absolute Pollution Exclusion to Nontraditional Pollution, 22 ENVTL. CL. J. 287 (2010).Donald, Wylie J. & Davis, Craig W., Carbon Dioxide: Harmless, Ubiquitous, and Certainly Not a Pollutant under a Liability Policy`s Absolute Pollution Exclusion, 39 SETON HALL L. REV. 107(2009).Fruehauf, Richard L., The Cost of Knowledge: Making Sense of “Nonfortuity”, 84 VA. L. REV. 107 (1998).Gerrard, M. B., & MacDougald, J. A., An Introduction To Climate Change Liability Litigation And A View To The Future, 20 CONN. INS. LJ 153(2013).Green, David S., Massachusetts v. EPA Without Massachusetts: Private Party Standing in Climate Change Litigation, 36 ENVIRONS: ENVTL. L. & POL`Y J. 35 (2012).Grossman, D. A., Warming Up To A Not-So-Radical Idea: Tort-Based Climate Change Litigation, 28 COLUM. J. ENVTL. L. 1(2003).He, Q., Mitigation Of Climate Change Risks And Regulation By Insurance: A Feasible Proposal For China, 43 BC ENVTL. AFF. L. REV., 319(2016).Heinke, Rex & Biro, Warren J., Is Global Warming a Covered Accident: Is Global Warming a Covered Accident: An Analysis of AES Corp. v. Steadfast Insurance Co, 20 CONN. INS. L.J. 179(2013).Heintz, John E., Interpreting the Scope of Coverage for Unexpected Results, 2 ENVTL. CL. J. 377(1990).Hettrick, Clyde M., Everything is Relative, Including the Absoluteness of the Current, Restrictive Pollution Exclusion, 21 ENVTL. CL. J. 142(2009).Holley, Matt W., The “Fortuity Doctrine”: Misapplying The Known Loss Rule To Liability Insurance Policies, 41 TEX. TECH L. REV. 529(2009).Hunter, D., & Salzman, J., Negligence In The Air: The Duty Of Care In Climate Change Litigation, 155 U. PA. L. REV.1741(2006).Johnson, J. A., Contractual Liability and the Insured Contract, 5 JOURNAL OF INSURANCE AND INDEMNITY LAW 16 (2012).Keeton, Robert E., Insurance Law Rights at Variance with Policy Provisions, 83 HARV. L. REV. 961(1970).Klass, A. B., State innovation and preemption: Lessons from State Climate Change Efforts, 41 LOY. L. A. L. REV. 1653(2007).Lantz, Chandra. Triggering Coverage of Progressive Property Loss: Preserving The Distinctions Between First-And Third Party Insurance Policies, 35 WM. & MARY L. REV. 1801(1994).Malloy, James S. & Sylvester John M., Insurance Coverage For Global Warming Liability Claims, 45 TORT TRIAL & INS. PRAC. LJ, 811(2010).Medaglia, M. Elizabeth & Horowit, Gregory H. & Love, Gina S., The Status of Certain Nonfortuity Defenses in Casualty Insurance Coverage, 30 TORT & INS. L.J. 943(1995).Mielenhausen, T. C., Insurance Coverage For Environmental And Toxic Tort Claims, 17 WM. MITCHELL L. REV. 945(1991).Nevius, J. G., & Dolmanisth, S. J., The Pollution-Exclusion Conspiracy: A Newly Recognized Basis for Recovery, 13 PACE. ENVTL. L. REV., 1103 (1995).Oliver, Darlene M., The Use of the Pollution Exclusion in Nontraditional Environmental Contexts, 10 ENVTL. CL. J. 39(1998).Roberts, David M., The “Known Risk” Doctrine: The Emperor`s New Clothes, 3 ENVTL. CLAIMS J. 511(1991).Shelley, William P. & Mason, Richard C., Application Of The Absolute Pollution Exclusion To Toxic Tort Claims: Will Courts Choose Policy Construction Or Deconstruction?, 33 TORT & INS. L.J. 749(1998).Stix, G., A Climate Repair Manual, 295 SCIAM 46(2006).Vincent, David P., AES v. Steadfast and the Concept of Foreseeability in Climate Change Litigation, 44 ENVTL. L. 201(2014).Zipursky, B., The Restatement (Third) and The Place Of Duty In Negligence Law, 54 VAND. L. REV. 657(2001).網際網路Climate Change 2014 Synthesis Report Summary for Policymakers, Retrieved May 8, 2019 ,from https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/syr/AR5_SYR_FINAL_SPM.pdf.UNEP Finance Initiative, Adaptation and Vulnerability to Climate Change: The Role of the Finance Sector 14, Retrieved May 8, 2019 ,from http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/CEO_briefing_adaptation_vulnerability_2006.pdf.The University of Cambridge Institute for Sustainability Leadership, Insurability in the face of Climate Change, Retrieved May 8, 2019 ,from https://www.cisl.cam.ac.uk/business-action/sustainable-finance/climatewise/pdfs/insurability-in-the-face-of-climate-change.pdf/view.John Green, The Myth of “Accident-Based” Policies, Retrieved May 8, 2019 ,from https://www.farellacoveragelaw.com/2010/04/the-myth-of-accident-based-policies.html/.Jill Berkeley, Breaching the Duty to Defend: Remedy for Recovering Peace of Mind, retrieved May 15, 2019, from https://www.lexisnexis.com/legalnewsroom/insurance/b/badfaithdutydefend/posts/breaching-the-duty-to-defend-remedy-for-recovering-peace-of-mind.Foley Hoag, Martin C. Pentz & Creighton K. Page, Obligations of Insurer and Policyholder, Retrieved May 8, 2019 ,from https://foleyhoag.com/publications/ebooks-and-white-papers/2017/october/obligations-of-insurer-and-policyholder.Center for Climate and Energy Solution, The Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC, Retrieved May 8, 2019 ,from https://unfccc.int/topics/science/workstreams/cooperation-with-the-ipcc/the-fifth-assessment-report-of-the-intergovernmental-panel-on-climate-changeCrawford, Dale C., The I.S.O. Pollution Exclusion: How Far Does It Goes, Retrieved May 8, 2019, from http://www.dalecrawford.com/article_%20AAIMCo.pdf.Morley J Weston(June 1, 2017), INFOGRAPHIC: How Climate Change Will Impact Taiwan, The News Lens, retrieved May 14, 2019, from https://international.thenewslens.com/article/69579.Climate Change: Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide, Retrieved May 8, 2019 ,from https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide.Contractual Liability and the CGL Policy, Retrieved May 8, 2019, from https://www.irmi.com/articles/expert-commentary/contractual-liability-and-the-cgl-policy.Donald S. Malecki, More Bad News For Contractors, Retrieved June 23, 2019, from http://roughnotes.com/rnmagazine/2006/february06/02p094.htm. zh_TW dc.identifier.doi (DOI) 10.6814/NCCU201900057 en_US
