論直接請求權在任意責任保險下之定位及相關問題之研究

A Study of the Direct Action Statute under Optional Liability Insurance and Its Related Issues

劉北芳(Bei-Fang Liu)

指導教授 ： 江朝國

國立臺北大學/法律學院/法律學系/碩士(2013年)

摘要

保險法第94條第2項直接請求權之規定，賦予因被保險人之不法行為致受有損害之第三人得越過被保險人、直接向保險人為保險金請求之權利，為契約相對性原則之突破。而其立法目的，向來皆認為係為保障受害第三人而設。惟保險法為任意性質之商業保險，是否締結責任保險契約乃出於被保險人之自由意願，此與以強制締約為基礎之義務責任保險並不相同。是以所謂｢責任保險保障被害人｣，於任意責任保險中僅屬反射、附帶之效力，在義務責任保險中始扮演主要任務。縱基於責任保險社會化之考量，而欲在任意責任保險中賦予保障被害人之規定，亦以不違反相關契約法理論及不增加保險人及被保險人負擔之前提下，始具正當性。
直接請求權除了突破分離原則為契約相對性原則之例外而與契約法理論不盡相符外，在關於直接請求權性質爭議的問題上，不論採取何一學說，均難覓得一令人滿意之結論。本文認為，此乃肇因於直接請求權本為政策性考量下之產物，在義務責任保險下基於被害人保障之目的，相關契約法理論及制度設計，均須退讓於被害人保障之大旗下；相對的，任意責任保險並非以保障被害人為主要目的，而仍係以保險法之｢被保險人之保障｣為思考中心，故｢第三人地位之不同｣，應為責任保險保障被害人在制度設計及學說爭議之採擇上的思考關鍵所在。因此，在義務責任保險中賦予被害人直接請求權，有助於保障被害人之目的迅速且確實的達成，尚屬合理；但在任意責任保險下，本文認為賦予被害人如此強烈的保護手段除了正當性不足外，亦有過度侵害保險人之自由權而有違反比例原則之嫌。更有甚者，因為直接請求權之性質定位不明、目前詮釋直接請求權的各項學說均有所不足、現行法亦缺乏整體性的配套規定，凡此種種均導致保險法第94條第2項產生解釋適用上的困難且迭生疑義，如此法適用之不安定及預見不可能，均非國家社會及人民之福。
職是之故，本文主張，任意責任保險不應賦予被害人直接請求權，故保險法第94條第2項之規定應予刪除，並同時修正保險法第95條之規定，以周全並呼應原本本條項增訂之目的。至於是否另外賦予保護被害人之規定諸如禁止被保險人處分保險金處分、被害人對保險金享有優先權等，則為立法形成空間。在本條項規定未刪除前，本文主張應將保險法第94條第2項解釋為任意規定，而其性質則採法定固有權說。

關鍵字

直接請求權 ； 強制責任保險 ； 任意責任保險 ； 保障被害人 ； 分離原則 ； 歸責原則

並列摘要

Article 94-2 of the Insurance Act providing for indemnification through right of claim on insurer’s by third persons injured in consequence of illegal acts by the insured, permitting direct claims to be made on the insurer for compensation, and such a right represents a breakthrough in third party beneficiary law. The legislative purpose underlying this amendment is widely regarded as being designed to serve to protect the rights of third parties. But the Insurance Act provides for optional commercial insurance, which differs in character from mandatory liability insurance contracts which may not reflect voluntariness on the part of the insured, so such remains different in kind from the mandatory liability insurance. This practice relies on the notion of “liability insurance protects victims”, as for any optional liability insurance it is merely reflective as an incidental effect of liability insurance which from the beginning undertakes this important obligation. From the perspective of the social utility of liability insurance, the allowance of third-party beneficiary right in optional liability insurance serves to protect such persons, which neither can be deemed to violate any principles of law nor to increase the burdens on either the insurer or insured, and thus is wholly reasonable.

In addition to direct claims representing a breakthrough in the exceptional principle of separation, from the contractual principle of relativity and compatible with contract law theory, but in terms of the controversial issue of the nature of direct claims, regardless of whichever jurisprudential theory one adopts, one is hard-pressed to obtain a satisfactory conclusion. This paper argues that since the right of direct claim for third-party beneficiaries represents the result of public policy considerations, and given that mandatory liability insurance aims to protect victims, and thus in terms of the applicable contractual theory and insurance system design, it becomes imperative to accept the principle of broadly protecting victims’ rights to compensation; and conversely, for optional liability insurance where the objective is not primarily to protect victims, but rather focuses on “protecting the insured” as the core calculation, thus the role and status of the third-party is distinguishable, and this difference sufficiently explicates the controversy in terms of the treatment of victims in liability insurance systems both as regards design and academic arguments.

Therefore, in mandatory liability insurance policies the third party beneficiary direct right of compensation may help to achieve the important public policy goals of expeditiously compensating victims, which is certainly reasonable; but in terms of optional liability insurance, this paper argues that provision of third party beneficiary status is an excessive measure to protect victims which lacks sufficient justification, and also vitiates the insured’s rights of volition and the legal principle of proportionality. Moreover, in consequence of the ambiguity surrounding the third party right of direct claim, and the inadequate nature of the diverse academic disputations on the subject, along with the lack of a complete set of complementary policy measures, it is difficult in practice for adequate practical interpretations of Article 94-2 of the Insurance Act to emerge to resolve difficulties. Thus, the lack of stability of the law in practice, and impossibility to foresee resolution soon, signifies that the law is hardly a blessing to the society and our peoples.

As it may be, this paper argues that optional liability insurance ought not be deemed to provide direct claim rights for third party beneficiaries, and Article 94-2 of the Insurance Act ought to be amended to delete such provision, with concomitant amendment of Article 95 thereof, to provide for full realization of that additional Article in the first place. As for other matters such as providing for protection of victims by prohibiting penalties to insureds, providing superior right in claim of insurance proceeds for victims, these remain open to further legislation. Prior to amendment of this Article, this paper argues that Article 94-2 should be interpreted as an optional provision, and in nature should be deemed as if a statutory right.

並列關鍵字

Direct Action Statute ； Mandatory Liability Insurance ； Optional Liability Insurance ； Liability Insurance Protects Victims ； Separation Principle Doctrine of Liability Fixation

參考文獻

葉啟洲，德國強制汽車責任保險之法律性質及第三人直接請求權之構造，風險管理學報，第11卷第1期，頁5，2009年6月。

汪信君，論動力車輛事故之侵權行為責任、責任保險與無過失補償：以經濟抑制理論為基礎，國立臺灣大學法學論叢，第39卷第1期，2010年3月。

黃義豐，論美國責任保險保險人之責任，國立臺灣大學法學論叢，第17卷第2期，頁261，1988年6月。

葉啟洲，保險法實例硏習，元照，2011年2版。

黎家興，論責任保險之事故發生與通知義務，保險專刊，第27卷第2期，頁171，2011年12月。