論責任保險人協助防禦之行為與程序參與

The Assisting Defense and the Procedure of Participation by the Insurer

朱耀華(Yao- Hua Chu)

指導教授 ： 江朝國

國立臺北大學/法律學院/法律學系一般生組/碩士(2015年)

摘要

責任保險為保險人就被保險人依法應對受害第三人負損害賠償責任，而受請求時，填補其損害。起初，傳統見解討論著重在責任保險之損害填補功能，然而，隨著責任保險法制之成熟化，學界及實務從責任保險之本質及目的為脫離不利請求權之論點下，均加以承認責任保險之權利保險功能。如德國法將損害填補義務及權利保護義務併列為責任保險之給付義務。英美法上更是從保單條款、法院判決到學說理論均肯認保險人之防禦義務(抗辯及和解義務)，令具有較高專業知識及資力之保險人為被保險人進行防禦，以減免其賠償責任。
而我國責任保險之防禦給付規定在保險法第91條，保險人應負擔被保險人抗辯所生之必要費用，而非由保險人積極介入責任關係求償程序進行抗辯或和解之方式。如此，雖然有學者批評我國現行保險法對於被保險人之防禦提供不足，但不可否認者為，勢必減少保險人與被保險人間防禦決定意見不ㄧ致，或保險人故意或過失未盡力防禦之利益衝突情形產生。由此可知，我國保險法規定將抗辯或和解權利交由被保險人自行決定，具有以上之優點，應予維持。但正因為被保險人具有責任關係訴訟或和解之決定權，為避免被保險人藉有保險之保護而任意或與第三人共謀承擔不合理或不存在之責任，進而損及保險人權益，故保險法第93條賦予保險人參與權，關於保險人之參與權之要件規定與效力，亦於本文加以討論，並從契約的附隨義務推論出保險人具有同意適當和解條件之義務。

關鍵字

防禦義務 ； 權利保護功能 ； 和解義務

並列摘要

When the insured is legally obligated to indemnify a third party and receives a claim in connection therewith, the liability insurer is liable to provide indemnification. Originally, the function of indemnification is emphasized by the legal interpretation . However, with the development of the legality in liability insurance, there are more proposition by scholars and judgment affirm the function of protection of rights against the claimant based on the purpose of liability insurance. For example, the main contractual obligation contains either the duty to indemnification or the duty to right protection in German law. Besides, it is confirmed the duty to defend (defend against the claimant and the duty to settle) in U.S .and U.K.
Article 91 of Insurance Act in R.O.C providing that all necessary expenses incurred by the insured to raise a defense against a third party's claim shall be borne by the insurer instead of participating in the claim proceeding to defend against or settle with the claimant. Although it is criticized that it is insufficient to provide the defense, undeniably, whether going defense or settlement decided by the insured indeed reduce the conflict of interest between the insurer and the insured. It should be prevented that the insured do unreasonable acknowledgement, settlement with the claimant intentionally or conspiratorially owing to the decision right of the insured above, so the insurer is entitled the right to participate and consent stipulated by article 93-1 of Insurance Act. However, the insurer should accept the reasonable settlement offer in the specific circumstances derived from collateral obligation.
This paper will focus on the issue of the defense form and action comparing R.O.C. with U.S. law, and also discuss and analyze the legality elements, effect of article 91 & 93 of Insurance Law in this paper.

並列關鍵字

Duty to Defend ； The Function of Protection of Right ； Duty to Settle

參考文獻

44.陳聰富，誠信原則的理論與實踐，政大法學評論，第104期，2008年8月。

46.黃國昌，民事訴訟法教室Ｉ，元照，2010年。

48.葉啟洲，保險法實例研習，元照，2013年。

7.沈冠伶，爭點效之主觀範圍與第三人之程序參與--最高法院101年度台上字第994號判決及最高法院99年度台上字第1701號判決之評釋，台灣法學第239期，2014年1月。

10.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卷第2期，2011年3月。