| dc.contributor.advisor | 林建智 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author (Authors) | 張如雯 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author (Authors) | Chang,Ru Wen | en_US |
| dc.creator (作者) | 張如雯 | zh_TW |
| dc.creator (作者) | Chang,Ru Wen | en_US |
| dc.date (日期) | 2004 | en_US |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2009-09-18 | - |
| dc.date.available | 2009-09-18 | - |
| dc.date.issued (上傳時間) | 2009-09-18 | - |
| dc.identifier (Other Identifiers) | G0091358012 | en_US |
| dc.identifier.uri (URI) | https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/34117 | - |
| dc.description (描述) | 碩士 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 國立政治大學 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 風險管理與保險研究所 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 91358012 | zh_TW |
| dc.description (描述) | 93 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | 再保險之目的，在於提供保險人保險保障。其方式乃再保險人就原保險人在原保險契約中所負之給付責任，予以部份或全部的補償。再保險契約就再保險人之再保險給付責任所為之約定，最常見者為「同一命運原則」之約定。依「同一命運條款」之字面解釋，此條款係指再保險人須與原保險人「同一命運」，於原保險人對被保險人為保險給付後，補償原保險人因對被保險人為保險給付所生之損害。依據損害補償原則，須保險人之保險給付在保險契約及再保險契約之承保範圍內，再保險人始負再保險給付之責任。為了避免嚴格依據損害補償原則解釋再保險人之責任，造成保險人無法取得再保險保障之結果，並提高對於保險人之保障，再保險契約雙方乃藉由同一命運條款的相關約定，約定保險人只須證明其已向被保險人為補償給付且其給付係依「誠信」所為，再保險人即須同其命運，向保險人為補償給付。再保險人此一契約義務，乃再保險契約雙方當事人基於契約自由，於再保險契約中特別加入同一命運條款的結果。保險人之「誠信」乃同一命運原則適用之基石，此為法院所共同肯認。然而，對於同一命運原則於個案中之具體適用，法院之看法似乎並無足夠的一致性。究竟，決定再保險契約雙方當事人權利義務的同一命運原則，法院如何解釋其適用上發生之爭議？又，法院對於抽象的誠信原則如何解釋？在同一命運原則的背景下，再保險人是否可以提出何種抗辯以免除其保險給付責任？最後，是否這些問題的解答可以有某程度的預測可能性，以供日後再保險契約雙方草擬同一命運條款之參考？針對保險人對被保險人所應為之補償，再保險人與原保險人可能有不同解釋，前者認為再保險人與保險人同一命運之範圍，應以原保險及再保險約定之範圍為限；後者則認為凡保險人所給付與被保險人者，再保險人皆須與其同一命運，負擔給付責任。縱使再保險契約雙方皆主張其以再保險契約之約定為給付責任範圍之界定基礎，然基於利益彼此對立之立場，雙方對於「契約約定」往往有不同詮釋。再保險契約雙方間之爭議，實務上常見者如，原保險人對被保險人所給付之通融賠款（Ex-gratia payment）、懲罰性賠償（Punitive damages）等，是否屬於再保險人與保險人同一命運之範圍？將此類爭議一般化，須探究者為，同一命運條款何種程度限制了再保險人對原保險人之給付表示異議的權利？另外，倘若再保險契約中沒有同一命運條款的約定，是否可認為此條款為再保險契約所「默示」（Implied）？此問題涉及同一命運原則的歷史背景，與再保險市場的運作實務息息相關，對於契約的解釋方法也有重要啟示。同一命運原則為再保險交易發展史上，最常受到爭議的問題之一。現今之再保險交易環境已然愈趨複雜，不僅是所保危險之價額日趨提高，投入再保險交易之保險人數增加且交易類型複雜化，皆使得再保險交易雙方之風險分配及責任分擔，不再可以全然依賴保險人對於誠信原則之遵守。反之，應同時強調再保險與保險之不同，亦即，前者係由專業之保險人為交易雙方而進行之交易，故再保險人應可依其專業，對所保危險主動向保險人提出詢問，此亦顯示了保險人及再保險人間彼此合作愈趨重要，為再保險人負擔再保險給付責任之正當性基礎。本文嘗試處理以上提出的爭議問題，並對可能之解決提出建議。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.abstract (摘要) | The reinsurance loss settlement clause, which appears in a variety of forms of wordings, historically has been one of the most difficult aspects of reinsurance law and practice. In recent days, more and more litigation has arisen as a result of such clauses. This study centers upon the interesting and oftentimes confusing issue of the scope and effect of such clauses, and how they define both the reinsured’s and the reinsurers’ liability.The purpose of reinsurance is to provide insurance protection by the reinsurer for the reinsured, namely, the insurer. At the beginning of reinsurance history when there were only a small number of insurers operating in the insurance market, insurers were fairly familiar with one another, and that resulted in a minimum of formality in doing business. In terms of reinsurance, reinsurers, when asked to pay by their reinsured, normally did not go out of their way to initiate a de novo review or assessment of the risk insured. The main reasons for such practice were, for one, insurers were so familiar with their business partners that they did not see the need for such re-assessment of the risk, and for another, in the past, the nature of the risks insured was not as complicated as those we are faced with nowadays.With a view to enhancing business efficiency and providing better protection for insurers, the parties that engaged in a reinsurance agreement oftentimes would insert into the agreement a “follow the fortunes” or “follow the settlements” clause. Such clauses bound the reinsurers to follow the fortunes/settlements of their reinsured without the reinsured’s liability having been proved, and restrained the reinsurers from refusing to indemnify the reinsured on the ground that liability did not exist under the original policy, provided that the reinsured had acted in a bona fide and businesslike way. In a word, the existence of the loss settlement clause was a logical consequence of the purpose of reinsurance, and the reinsurers’ obligation under such clauses was conditioned on the reinsured’s good faith.Reinsurance loss settlement clauses have been interpreted by the court rather favorably for the reinsured. Courts would normally find coverage for the reinsured, once they decided that the reinsured had acted in good faith in settling with the insured, even if they held that the reinsured had not been legally liable. This fact highlights the importance of the reinsured’s duty of utmost good faith in reinsurance law and practice. However, what exactly is good faith, and what are the reinsured’s obligations under the good faith requirement? Is there a general rule that the courts have developed to justify their finding of the reinsured’s good faith? If good faith, being abstract in itself and susceptible to courts’ subjective discretion, serves as the “standard” to evaluate or define the liability of the parties to a reinsurance agreement, how does it usually function? Does it at times seem so abstract and variable that the reinsurance agreement parties have a hard time predicting their liability under such a standard?Also, in this study, the questions of the implication of loss settlement clauses and the scope or effect of such clauses are explored. The former question asks, where the reinsurance contracts do not contain any “follow the fortunes or settlements” provisions, does the law, custom or practice read into the contracts any obligation on the reinsurer to follow its reinsured’s fortunes or settlements? This question is important in that it deals with the applicability of loss settlement clauses, and thus has a fundamental impact on how reinsurance contracts are interpreted. The latter question aims at clarifying how loss settlement clauses are applied to pertinent areas such as ex gratia payments, punitive damages, reinsurers’ liability caps, payments related to the Wellington Agreement and claims cooperation clauses. Specific examples are given here in order to better understand how loss settlements clauses are put to practical use. Discussion concerned with this question also demonstrates how a loosely worded loss settlement clause could give rise to disputes between the parties.To better define the parties’ rights and obligations under a reinsurance agreement, a more detailed review of how the reinsurance environment as a whole is functioning and how the courts interpret reinsurance loss settlement clauses is required. This issue will be even more worth pondering now that we are seeing a more complex reinsurance market where the parties’ interests are potentially conflicting, which is per se a challenge to the general view that the reinsurers should follow the fortunes or settlements of the reinsured. | en_US |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 1第一節 研究目的 1第二節 研究方法 1第三節 問題意識 2第一項 同一命運原則之適用及其基礎 2第二項 同一命運原則之界限 2第三項 同一命運原則是否為再保險契約所默示？ 3第四節 研究範圍 4第五節 研究限制 6第二章 同一命運原則之意義、背景、目的與效果 7第一節 同一命運原則之意義—初探 7第二節 同一命運條款之背景 8第一項 再保險之起源、意義與功能 8第一款 再保險之起源、意義及其與原保險之不同 8第一目 再保險之起源與意義 8第二目 再保險與原保險之不同 9第二款 再保險之功能 10第一目 提供承保能量（Underwriting capacity） 11第二目 創造穩定性（Stabilization） 11第三目 強化財務基礎（Financial strength） 11第四目 小結 12第二項 再保險契約之性質、分類及其與原保險契約之關係 13第一款 再保險契約之基本性質 13第一目 無名契約 13第二目 雙務契約 13第三目 有償契約 13第四目 不要式契約 14第五目 不要物契約 14第六目 繼續性契約 14第七目 射倖契約 15第八目 自主契約 15第二款 再保險之分類 16第一目 合約再保險與臨時再保險 16第二目 比例性再保險與非比例性再保險 17第三目 比率再保險、溢額再保險及超過損失再保險 19第三款 再保險契約與原保險契約之關係 20第一目 再保險契約之獨立性 20第二目 再保險契約之從屬性 21第三目 原保險契約與再保險契約之承保範圍是否相同？ 21第四目 小結—特殊的再保險契約 23第四款 再保險契約在契約法上的定性 23第一目 主要學說 23第二目 小結 26第三項 同一命運原則之起源 27第一款 再保險運作之便宜考量 27第二款 配合錯誤遺漏條款 28第三款 小結 29第四項 同一命運原則之意義—再探 29第一款 原保危險原則及同意行動的義務 29第一目 原保危險原則 30第二目 同意行動的義務 30第三目 小結 30第二款 “Settlements”與”Fortunes”之區別 31第三款 保險上的命運 32第四款 小結 33第三節 同一命運原則之目的 33第一項 確保原保險人獲得再保險保障 34第二項 轉嫁「有疑義的責任」對保險人產生之風險 35第三項 小結 36第三章 同一命運原則之基礎—誠信原則，及相關重要案例 37第一節 同一命運原則與誠信原則 37第一項 誠信原則 37第一款 誠信原則之意義、功能及其與先契約義務之關係 38第一目 誠信原則之意義 38第二目 誠信原則之功能 39第三目 誠信原則與先契約義務之關係 39第二款 誠信原則之適用 41第一目 一般原則 41第二目 誠信原則於保險法之適用 42第三目 誠信原則於再保險法之適用 42第二項 同一命運原則與誠信原則之關係 44第二節 誠信原則在英美法院實務之發展 46第一項 基本原則 46第一款 英國法院之解釋 46第二款 美國法院之解釋 48第三款 小結 50第二項 誠信原則之適用—以原保險損害之「累積」及「分配」為例 50第一款 「累積」、「分配」及「事故發生」之意義 51第二款 損害「累積」及「分配」之影響 52第三款 案例 53第一目 損害之累積 53第二目 損害之分配 57第三目 小結 59第三節 同一命運原則之默示性 60第一項 肯定說 61第一款 美國法院判解 61第二款 英國法院判解 63第二項 否定說 63第一款 美國法院判解 63第二款 英國法院判解 66第三項 小結 67第一款 美國法院判解 67第二款 英國法院判解 68第四節 同一命運原則適用之界限 68第一項 通融賠款 68第一款 通融賠款之意義 68第二款 美國法院判解 69第三款 英國法院判解 71第四款 小結 72第二項 懲罰性賠償 73第一款 法院判解 73第二款 小結 74第三項 責任限額 75第一款 法院判解 75第二款 小結 76第四項 威靈頓協議（Wellington Agreement） 77第一款 威靈頓協議之內容 77第二款 代表判決：Unigard Security Ins. Co. v. North River Ins. Co. 77第一目 案例事實 78第二目 地方法院之見解 79第三目 上訴法院之見解 84第三款 小結 87第五項 理賠合作條款 88第一款 代表判決：Insurance Co. of Africa v. SCOR (U.K.) Reinsurance Co. Ltd. 88第一目 案例事實 88第二目 原審法院之判解 89第三目 上訴法院之判解 91第三款 新近判解：Eagle Star v. JN Cresswell & Others 92第一目 案例事實 92第二目 原審法院之判解 94第三目 上訴法院之判解 94第三款 小結 95第六項 小結 96第四章 同一命運原則之重新詮釋 98第一節 同一命運原則與再保險交易環境 98第一項 同一命運原則乃再保險交易實務需求而起 98第二項 再保險交易環境之改變 99第三項 深受政策影響之再保險交易環境 100第二節 同一命運原則基礎之再檢討 101第一項 在不同的再保險環境下重新檢視法院見解 101第二項 對誠信原則適用之檢討 102第一款 與時俱進的誠信原則 102第一目 保險人之主觀要件 102第二目 資訊不對稱 105第二款 誠信原則之具體適用 106第一目 損害累積、分配及事故發生次數及誠信原則 107第二目 誠信原則具體化之依據—當事人真意 109第三款 小結 110第一目 誠信原則在再保險交易中是否仍有適用？ 110第二目 個案正義及法律安定性 111第三節 同一命運原則之重新詮釋 111第一項 利益不同，何來命運同一？ 111第一款 比例性再保險及非比例性再保險 111第二款 合約性再保險及臨時性再保險 112第三款 小結 113第二項 同一命運原則是否必然為再保險契約「默示」？ 113第一款 法院判解及學說見解 113第二款 對於法院判解之質疑 114第一目 「默示」之要件 114第二目 認為「再保險契約必然默示同一命運原則」是否剝奪當事人風險分配之自由 115第三項 同一命運原則之界限 116第一款 再保險人之法律責任 116第二款 理賠合作條款及同一命運條款 117第四項 小結 118第五章 結論與建議：法院新解之啟示及同一命運條款相關爭議解決之道 120第一節 結論 120第二節 建議 122第一項 著眼再保險契約之性質並回歸再保險契約之約定 123第二項 舉證責任轉換之效果 125第三項 力求契約文字明確清楚 127附錄： AIDA Reinsurance Working Party Report－Questionnaires and Notes for Guidance 138 | zh_TW |
| dc.format.extent | 74434 bytes | - |
| dc.format.extent | 153875 bytes | - |
| dc.format.extent | 109749 bytes | - |
| dc.format.extent | 48133 bytes | - |
| dc.format.extent | 639307 bytes | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.format.mimetype | application/pdf | - |
| dc.language.iso | en_US | - |
| dc.source.uri (資料來源) | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0091358012 | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 同一命運原則 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 誠信原則 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 損害補償原則 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | 再保險保障 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Follow the fortunes/settlements | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Good faith | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Principle of indemnity | en_US |
| dc.subject (關鍵詞) | Reinsurance protection | en_US |
| dc.title (題名) | 論再保險契約中之同一命運原則 | zh_TW |
| dc.type (資料類型) | thesis | en |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 一、中文部份 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | （一）專書 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 王澤鑑，〈民法總則〉，自版，民國九十年九月 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 王澤鑑，〈債法原理—基本理論債之發生〉，自版，民國八十八年十月 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 尹章華，〈保險法論文集〉，漢興，民國八十三年 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 江朝國，〈保險法論〉，瑞興，民國八十九年 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 江朝國，〈保險法基礎理論〉，瑞興，民國九十二年 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 何孝元，〈誠實信用原則與衡平法〉，三民，民國五十五年 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 邱聰智，〈民法債編通則〉，自版，六版，民國八十六年 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 邱潤容，〈保險學理論與實務〉，三民，民國九十一年 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 姚志明，〈誠信原則與附隨義務之研究〉，自版，民國九十二年 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 施文森，〈保險法論〉，自版，民國七十年 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 袁宗蔚，〈再保險論〉，自版，民國六十一年 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 袁宗蔚，〈保險學〉，合作經濟月刊社，民國八十七年 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 陳繼堯，〈再保險要義〉，富邦產物保險，民國八十一年 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 陳繼堯，〈再保險的演進〉，保險事業發展中心，民國八十一年 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 陳繼堯，〈再保險論－當前趨勢與型態研究〉，三民，七版，民國八十 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 二年 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 陳繼堯，〈再保險學〉，三民，民國八十五年 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 陳繼堯，〈再保險理論與實務〉，智勝文化，民國九十一年 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 孫森焱，〈民法債編總論新版〉上冊，自版，民國八十八年 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 孫森焱等，〈陳繼堯教授退休紀念論文集〉，繼耘保險文教基金籌備 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 會，民國八十六年 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 黃立，〈民法債編總論〉，自版，二版，民國八十八年 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 劉春堂，〈民法債編通則（一）契約法總論〉，自版，民國九十年 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 羅漢文譯，〈再保險要義〉，保險事業發展中心，民國八十一年 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | （二）論文 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 孫森焱，公序良俗與誠信原則，收於楊與齡主編，民法總則爭議問題研究，民國八十七年 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 陶德斌，定型化契約與誠實信用原則—誠實信用原則在定型化契約條款內容控制上的功能與效力，國立成功大學法律研究所碩士論文，民國九十二年 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 陳繼堯，論再保險契約中的同一命運條款，保險專刊第50輯，民國八十六年 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 蔡章麟，債編各論（債權契約）與誠實信用原則，法學叢刊二一期，民國五十年一月 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 蔡章麟，私法上誠實信用原則及其運用，收於鄭玉波主編，民法總則論文選輯（下），民國七十三年 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 蔡信華，再保險契約實務之研究，國立台灣海洋大學海洋法律研究所碩士論文，民國九十三年 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 蔡意文，論誠信原則於保險法之適用，私立東吳大學法律研究所碩士論文，民國八十三年 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 二、外文部份 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | （一）專書 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 1. Boland, Carol, Reinsurance: London Market Practice (1996) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 2. Carter, R.L., Reinsurance (2nd ed., 1983) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 3. Eggers, Peter MacDonald, Good Faith and Insurance Contracts (1998) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 4. Gerathewohl, Klaus, Reinsurance Principles and Practice, translated by John Christofer La Bonte (1980) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 5. Guest, A. G., ed., Anson’s Law of Contract (26th ed., 1984) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 6. Hammesfahr, Robert W., & Wright, Scott W., The Law of Reinsurance Claims (1994) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 7. Kramer, Henry T., The Nature of Reinsurance (1980) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 8. Kiln, Robert, Reinsurance in Practice (3rd ed., 1991) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 9. Lucas, Leslie, Reinsurance Management (1996) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 10. Merkin, Robert, ed., Follow the Settlements, AIDA Reinsurance Working Party Report (2000) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 11. O’connor, J.F., Good Faith in English Law (1990) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 12. O’Neill, P. T., & Woloniecki, J. W., The Law of Reinsurance (1998) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 13. Phifer, Ross, Reinsurance Fundamentals: Treaty and Facultative (1996) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 14. Strain, Robert W., Reinsurance (5th printing, 1994) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 15. Strain, Robert W., Reinsurance Contract Wording (Rev. ed., 1996) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 16. Shernoff, William M., et al., Insurance Bad Faith Litigation (1984) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | （二）期刊論文 | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 1. Butler, John, No Room for Get-Out Clauses, Reinsurance (February, 2004) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 2. Chaffetz, Peter, & Schwartz, Steven, To Follow or Not to Follow, Reinsurance Magazine (September, 2002) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 3. Chaffetz, Peter, & Schwartz, Steven, Case Follows New Path, Reinsurance Magazine (June/July, 2002) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 4. Chaffetz, Peter, & Schwartz, Steven, Sharing the Pain, Reinsurance Magazine (February, 2004) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 5. Cotton, Stuart, Utmost Good Faith – Follow the Fortunes, The Theory and The Reality: What Are the Implications for Cedents and For Reinsurers? Practising Law Institute Commercial Law and Practice Course Handbook Series (September, 1999) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 6. Hoffman, William C., Common Law of Reinsurance Loss Settlement Clauses: A Comparative Analysis of the Judicial Rule Enforcing the Reinsurer’s Contractual Obligation to Indemnify the Reinsured for Settlements, 28 Tort & Insurance Law Journal (Summer, 1993) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 7. Hoffman, William C., On the Use and Abuse of Custom and Usage in Reinsurance, 33 Tort & Insurance Law Journal (1997) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 8. Hoffman, William C., Facultative Reinsurance Contract Formation, Documentation, and Integration, Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal (Spring, 2003) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 9. Hummer, Paul M., Common Reinsurance Issues: Follow the Fortunes, Late Notice and Rescission, Defense Counsel Journal (July, 1999) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 10. Johnson, James A., Gentlemen`s Agreement: What Practitioners Should Know About Reinsurance, Michigan Bar Journal (August, 2002) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 11. Knoerzer, Michael A., Introduction to Excess Insurance and Reinsurance, Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice Course Handbook Series (April, 2001) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 12. Knoerzer, Michael A., Reinsurance, Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice Course Handbook Series (April, 2003) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 13. Khawar, Rizvan, Reinsurance and Privity in the Past, Present, and Future: Privity of Contract in Reinsurance and the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, Tulane Law Review (December, 2002) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 14. Kennedy, Stephen M., Basics of Reinsurance, Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice Course Handbook Series (April, 2004) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 15. LaGory, Dennis G., et al., Recent Development in Excess, Surplus Lines, and Reinsurance Law, Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal (Winter, 2003) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 16. Lopatto, Mary A., Recent Developments Concerning Reinsurance Allocation, Practising Law Institute Commercial Law and Practice Course Handbook Series (September, 2000) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 17. Maloney, Pete, & Kohler, Jeanne, Technical Report: Legal Review 2003; US Reinsurance Watch, Reinsurance Magazine (December, 2003) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 18. Merkin, Robber, Current Issues in Marine Insurance and Reinsurance Law, Yeditepe University (February, 2005) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 19. Nedzel, Nadia E., A Comparative Study of Good Faith, Fair Dealing, and Pre-contractual Liability, Tulane European and Civil Law Forum (Winter, 1997) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 20. Ozog, Edward J., et al., The Unresolved Conflict Between Traditional Principles of Reinsurance and Enforcement of the Terms of the Contractual Undertaking, Tort & Insurance Law Journal (Fall, 1999) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 21. Paris, Stephen J., Reinsurance Issues, Massachusetts Liability Insurance Manual (2000) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 22. Staring, Graydon S., Confused Seas: Admiralty Law in the Wake of Terrorism: Insurance and Reinsurance of Marine Interests in the New Age of Terrorism, Tulane Law Review (June, 2003) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 23. Traynor, Paul E., Will the Historic Relationship Between Cedent and Reinsurer Become A Casualty of the War on Terrorism? Connecticut Insurance Law Journal (Fall, 2002) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 24. Wilker, P. Jay, What Reinsureds Can Do to Collect Their Reinsurance, Practising Law Institute Commercial Law and Practice Course Handbook Series (Oct., 1998) | zh_TW |
| dc.relation.reference (參考文獻) | 25. Zeller, Michael C., Divergent Conceptions of the Reinsurance Doctrine of Utmost Good Faith, Practising Law Institute Commercial Law and Practice Course Handbook Series (September, 1999) | zh_TW |
