| 關 鍵 詞： |
特約條款；擔保條款；基本條款；保險契約條款解釋原則；最大善意原則 |
| 中文摘要： |
我國實務上認定所謂保險法特約條款向來多流於形式主義而缺乏實質論證過程，本文所檢討之最高法院 96 年台上字第 394 號判決案例即為著例。詳言之，綜觀最高法院歷來涉及解釋保險契約條款之案例，該院往往在缺乏深入透徹論證過程下，直接判定冠有「特約條款」名稱之契約條款為特約條款，殊少有何實質之涵攝或說理過程。然而，由於違反特約條款法律效果極為嚴苛，適用之結果往往將導致保險人無頇負擔伕何責伕，且令他方遭摒除於保險制度保護傘外之嚴重後果。職是，最高法院在欠缺明確有力之論理基礎下，即率然令被保險人陷於此等不利益地位，往往導致此等判決難昭當事人之折服並斲傷其對司法之信賴基礎。本文認為，如此判決結果極可能肇因於我國保險法學界對特約條款殊少論述，導致我國實務界對特約條款原理、內涵及相關外國立法例之認知極為匱乏所致。準此，本文擬先深入剖析特約條款之源頭－即英國擔保條款制度，詳細闡述該制度淵源、內涵及近期英國實務見解，並整理、對照我國現今學說實務所累積對特約條款之見解為論述基礎，繼之提出現行特約條款規定之修正建議。接著，再以法學方法詮釋角度切入分析系爭契約條款之法律性質及其效力，最後得出結論，俾供為後續學者研究素材及實務判決參考依據。
|
| 英文關鍵詞： |
Special provisions；Basic provisions；Principles of interpreting insurance contracts；Principle of utmost good faith（uberrimae fidei） |
| 英文摘要： |
Courts in Taiwan tend to determine in a formalistic way instead of a substantial one whether clauses in insurance contracts are special provisions or not. The Supreme Court case T.S.T. No.394 (Supreme Court 2007), which the study deals with, is a remarkable example. In particular, after reviewing whole related cases, we would discover that the court has been prone to regard clauses adhered to by the title “special provisions” as special provisions of the insurance act in the absence of profound reasoning and substantial judgment. Based upon the operation and process of current practice, the insured was frequently afflicted with strict effect of breach of special provisions, namely being excluded from protection of insurance due to the effect that insurer is entitled to avoid insurance contracts. What‘s worse, the result may well trigger the insured‘s doubt about insurance system and debase basis of trust in judiciary. The phenomenon is likely to result from a paucity of scholars introducing and expounding relevant theories. In view of that, this study plans to illustrate warranties of English insurance act at first, the prototype of special provisions of the insurance act in Taiwan. In addition, this paper will provide an overview of related theories and practice about special provisions in Taiwan, then comparing current development of special provisions with that of England. Ultimately, the final part of this paper is to analyze character and effect of the clause by means of the aforementioned theories. The author hopes this paper would lay the foundation of further studies and practice.
|
| 目 次： |
壹、事實摘要
貳、判決要旨
參、評釋
一、前言
二、英國擔保條款制度之簡介
（一）擔保條款之意義
（二）擔保條款之法理基礎
（三）擔保條款之類型
（四）違反擔保條款之法律效果
（五）擔保條款與其他類型契約條款之區別
三、我國保險法之特約條款簡介
（一）特約條款定義
（二）特約條款之性質
（三）義務人之範圍
（四）特約條款要件
（五）特約條款禑類
（六）違反特約條款之法律效果
（七）保險法特約條款乙節之修法建議
四、本案判決評析
（一）系爭契約條款是否構成本件保險契約之一部
（二）系爭契約條款定性問題
（三）系爭保險契約條款效力
（四）小結
肆、結論
|
| 相關法條： |
 |
| 相關判解： |
|
| 相關函釋： |
|
| 相關論著： |
|