- 學位論文
論美國法上禁反言原則在我國保險法之適用
A Study on the Application of American Estoppel Doctrine in Taiwan’s Insurance Law
摘要
我的研究動機是因為觀諸我國法治，雖對於誠信原則有比較完整介紹，但並未對禁反言原則有詳細的介紹，而美國法上卻對於禁反言原則多所著墨，並且建立一套完整的體制結構，是否意味著此原則有其重要性，禁反言原則與誠信原則是否有所不同，要如何適用在我國的法治中，都是本文的主要研究動機。接著本文的研究目的，是希望藉由禁反言原則來補充、建構我國誠信則不足之部分。而關於研究方法，則是以比較法為原則，介紹外國之立法例來補充我國法治之不足。 我國實務上認為，被保險人授權保險人查閱其病歷，無法免除據實說明義務，此時是否與保險法第六十二條有所抵觸，不無疑問。保險人若查閱被保險人之病歷，則可得知被保險人之身體狀態，但保險人並未調閱被保險人之病歷資料，僅依照被保險人或要保人之書面回答事項，就予以承保，此時被保險人或要保人雖然有第六十四條據實說明義務之違反，但保險人是否因為第六十四條，即可以使自己之注意義務降低，本文認為，第六十四條並不當然排除第六十二條之適用，兩者應可並存。最後本文將此案例套入禁反言原則之要件中檢驗，則可發現本案例之事實符合禁反言原則要件，故，即使認為保險人不能適用保險法第六十二條之規定，但仍有禁反言原則之適用，故保險人不得解除契約，仍有給付保險金之義務。 最後本文有三點建議，第一點是將保險法第六十四條增列第四項規定「保險人可得知悉被保險人之危險狀態時，而保險人因重大過失未為知悉，此時被保險人雖未正確告知保險人所詢問之事項，兩者為與有過失，保險人不得解除契約，僅得請求法院減少保險金之給付」。第二點是或是引進英美法上的禁反言原則，將禁反言原則之要件套入既有的事實中，使法官能當庭判斷是否有其適用，使用法理來衡平不公平的現象，將其視為一般原理原則來適用。第三點是在目前法未明文規定時，法官在判斷上也應該更詳細的區別不同的情形來認定之，尋找其適用之法條，不應將所有情形都等同視之。
並列摘要
My research motion is that in viewing our law, although there is a more complete introduce in the principle ot Good Faith, but does not have a introduce about principle of Estoppel at length. And then, in Amerian`s law they discuss a lot about principle of Estoppel, and build a complete frame of structure, dose it means this principle has it`s dimension, and whether the principle of Estoppel and the principle ot Good Faith is different？ How to use in our law？ All these question are my context`s major research motion . Second, my research intention is hoping that our principle ot Good Faith can be support and construct by principle of Estoppel. Third, my research function is based on the Comparative Law to introduce foreign law to supply the insufficient of our law. Our court held that, although the Insured authorize the insurance company to investigate the anamnesis, but it can`t excused the duty of TruthfulRepresentations of the Applicant. At this time, dose it collide to our Insurance Law §62 is doubtfully. If the insurance company investigate the Insured`s anamnesis, he will know the Insured`s health condition. But the insurance company does not do the investigation, it accept the insurance just according to the written answering coveage. In this time, although the Insured contravene §64（the duty of Truthful Representations of the Applicant）, but can the insurance company reduce it`s obligative of attention, because of the §64？ In my opinion, the §64 doesn`t deservedly eliminate §62, they should can be coexist. At last, this context will put the case into the principle of Estoppel, and inspected it. And then we can find that, this case cohere with the essentials of Estoppel. So, even though the insurance company can`t apply the §62, but it still can use the principle of Estoppel. So, the insurance company can`t rescind the insurance contract, the insurance company still need to pay the insurance benefits. At last, there have three advise. First, we should add extra rule in §64「When the insurance company should know the Insured`s adventurous condition, but it dosen`t know. At this time, although the Insured doesn`t tell the truth, but the insurance company can`t rescind the insurance contract. Both of each has demerit. the insurance company can only reduce the insurance benefits.」; Second, we can introduction the principle of Estoppel, to let the judge to estimate and apply. In order to balance the unfair condition. Third, because we don`t have a law to rule case like this, so the judge have to distinguish it more carefully, and find the most suitable rules. The judge can`t adjudge all kind of case in the same way.