- 學位論文
業主主控保險計畫(OCIP)統保之法律問題研究-以營造工程綜合保險為例
Legal Issues of Wrap-up in Owner Controlled Insurance Programs - Based on Construction All Risks Insurance
摘要
公共工程投標廠商依法必須投保適當之保險，其中又以營造綜合險最為常見；一般民間建築工程，雖未強制，但其運用亦甚普遍。營造綜合險之要保人及被保險人，原則上由主承包商為之。然而因工程參與廠商眾多，且任一人發生風險均可能連帶影響整體工程進度，是以實務上多將相關承商（包括平行承商、次承包商）一併納為共同被保險人。次者，又因機關、定作人認為其既已將保險費計價與承包商，且列名為被保險人似較有保障，故多指示承包商將其亦列為共同被保險人。此為工程保險之縱向統保。 此外，因眾承包商涉及不同專業，所需保險不一，倘任由承包商各自覓保，將生重複投保及雙方作業成本之浪費，同時亦不利投保條件之磋商談判。甚者，常有不法承包商濫用要保人身分，私自提高自負額，或變更承保範圍，據以向保險人索取回。是以，現今已有業主引進「業主主控保險計畫」概念，由業主自行擔任要保人，就其自身工程風險為所有工程參與者一併規劃保險契約。我國高速鐵路、高雄大眾捷運系統，以及台電近年大型專案工程，即可為例。 在業主主控保險計畫概念實施下，土木工程、機電工程，或電子儀器等風險，以及上開材料、設備運送風險，甚至完工後保存風險、營運所生之責任風險，均有賴業主統一規劃，援用不同功能之保險。此為工程保險之橫向統保。 對於上述縱向、橫向統保，將可能產生下列爭議：保險金請求權歸屬?保險人得否向共同被保險人行使代位權?其他共同被保險人是否為保險契約所指之第三人?共同被保險人其一違反保險法義務、共同被保險人其一故意導致事故發生，保險人得否對其他共同被保險人抗辯之?營造綜合險下之各部分，其一生得解除效果，是否連帶影響另一部分?土木工程之營造綜合險不保事項發生，導致機電工程之安裝工程綜合保險承保事項發生，是否理賠?土木工程部分未據實說明，或有違反特約義務情事，導致機電工程事故發生，得否解除契約? 以上種種爭議，本研究以實務最常見，同時也是業主主控保險計畫基礎架構之營造綜合險為例，於第二章分析其條款內容，探詢契約目的及保險利益，併同說明我國實務常見之投保安排，第三章介紹業主主控保險計畫於國、內外運用之情形，以及業主主控概念對工程保險實務可能之影響。末者，於第四章、第五章，分別就縱向統保、橫向統保逐一探討法律爭議，並以複雜統保關係下保險利益的釐清，作為上述問題解決之核心概念。
並列摘要
Contractors’ all risks insurance (CAR) is the most widely used engineering insurance policy , moreover, it is compulsory in public construction programs, which covers material damage and third party liability. Both the applicants and the insured in CAR are the main contractors, but due to complex and multiple of the construction participants, the sub-contractors and the relative contractors shall be named in the insured list in case, so as to manage the whole project risk thoroughly. Owner-controlled insurance programs(OCIP) is a new concept for the owner to wrap up all risk of the project. The difference between CAR and OCIP is that the applicant is the owner in OCIP, so as to manage it’s own risks and profits, prevent contractors from abusing applicant position to damage owner’s interests, and enhance it’s own bargain power involved in the negotiation with the insurer. The Features of OCIP are that the programs manage all insurance policy of the owner and all contractors at once, usually including Erection All Risks Insurance, Machinery insurance, Electronic equipment insurance , Transportation insurance and Commercial third party liability insurance. With the composite insured and the insured subject mentioned above, it will arise many legal issues, such as: When the peril occurs, which composite insured has the right to make claim? Whether the insurer can subrogate to the composite insured who cause the damage? Is the composite insured the so called “Third party” in the policy? Can the insurer refuse to pay any insured when the damage was caused by one of the composite insured? Can the insurer terminate the policy while one of the composite insured breach the duties of Insurance Act article §§ 64, 68? Can the insurer refuse to pay in the CAR policy while the peril is caused by the exclusion of EAR policy? When the insured breach the clause of the section I (Material damage) of the CAR policy, can the insurer terminate the section II (Third party liability) simultaneously? This thesis will start on study of CAR’s clause, trying to figure out the core concept and main purpose of the policy, and then introduce the practice of the CAR in Taiwan in the Chapter 2. In Chapter 3, OCIP will be introduced, and the practice both in modern countries and Taiwan. The author will also predict the impact on engineering insurance field by the owner-controlled concept. In Chapter 4 and Chapter 5, legal issues mentioned above will be discussed. The author will try to conclude a concept of the insurance interests in the complex insured and insured subjects in the engineering insurance , and clear up legal issue herein.