- 學位論文
責任保險第三人直接請求權之研究
The Study on the Third Party Direct Claim in the Liability Insurance
摘要
責任保險是指以被保險人對第三人承擔之賠償責任為標的之財產保險。責任保險本來以填補被保險人因承擔對第三人責任而產生的財產損失。而現代責任保險制度逐漸向填補第三人損失，維護其權利而發展。第三人直接請求權制度，是責任保險之其最重要之內容之一，故本文從三個方面來具體討論直接請求權。 本文首先於第二章介紹作為第三人直接請求權產生之背景的責任保險之基本概念，包括責任保險之意義、責任保險之發展與功能，以引入直接請求權制度。第三章、第四章和第五章主要針對直接請求權三個重要內容進行討論。 關於直接請求權之適用範圍，有認為直接請求權不得適用於任意責任保險之見解，其理由在於強制責任保險才需要保護第三人之利益，而任意責任保險應以保護被保險人利益為重。本文持相反觀點，認為直接請求權並非以強制責任保險為限制，亦得適用於任意責任保險中。 關於直接請求權之制度架構，包括直接請求權之行使主體、保險人得否對第三人抗辯、直接請求權之時效和請求權競合等問題。鑑於本文認為直接請求權既然得適用於強制責任保險，亦得適用於任意責任保險，惟不同制度下之直接請求權有不同之制度構造，如就保險人得否對第三人直接請求權抗辯，強制責任保險下之保險人，因其側重保護第三人之目的，而不得對第三人之直接請求權為保險關係之抗辯；但任意責任保險下之保險人，因第三人之權利係有被保險人對保險人權利移轉而來，保險人得基於保險關係對抗第三人之直接請求權。 最後回歸到保險法第94條第2項關於直接請求權之規定，有論者認為此規定對直接請求權定性不明，從而帶來諸多問題，應刪除之。本文認為，保險法第94條第2項，在被保險人無資力，且不為保險法第95條之通知保險人，第三人無法獲償時，具有重要意義，不應刪除。至於保險法第94條第2項不足之處，亦有通過對直接請求權性質之釐清與架構之建設而有逐步發展完善之可能。
並列摘要
The liability insurance is a kind of property insurance of which the object is the liability to indemnities of the insured to the third parties. The original aim of liability insurance is to disperse and transfer compensation liability of the insured for the third parties. However, with development of the liability insurance, the function of the modern liability insurance tends to center on fulfilling third parties’ loss. The third parties’ direct claim against insurers will become one of the most important respects of liability insurance. So this paper discuss three respects of third parties direct claim against insured. Before talking about the main content, Chapter2 will introduce the fundamental legal problems of liability insurance, including the concept, characters, functions and defects of liability insurance. Then chapter3, chapter4 and chapter5 will discuss three important respect of direct claim. The first important respect of my paper is about the scope of third parties direct claim. The point is whether the optional liability insurance ought to be deemed to provide direct claim rights for third parties. Some think that optional liability insurance should focus on “protecting the insured” instead of “protecting third parties”, only compulsory liability insurance which has important public policy goals such as ”protecting victims” can provide the direct claim. The paper hold the opposite view that the direct claim can be provided not only in the compulsory liability, but optional liability. The second important respect of this paper is about the enforcement of this direct claim, including the nature, content, conditions affecting, limitation and prescription and so on. The requirements above may be different depending that direct claim apply to the optional liability or compulsory liability. For example, the insurer can be against direct claim of third parties if the insured can be against in the optional liability insurance, but the insurer could not be against direct claim even if the insured can be against. The last part of the paper discuss Article 94-2 of the Insurance Act permitting direct claim of third parties to be made on the insure for compensation. Even Article 94-2 is a breakthrough in liability insurance, but it still has many questions. Some are argue that the Article 94-2 should be deleted, with concomitant amendment of Article 95. This paper do not agree with this opinion because the Article 94-2 is necessary to solve the difficulties that third parties may not achieve any compensation when the insured is without money or the insured do not notify the insurer. In addition, the defects of Article 94-2 may be consummated by the improvement of third parties direct claim.