Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/34117
|
| Title: | 論再保險契約中之同一命運原則 |
| Authors: | 張如雯
Chang,Ru Wen |
| Contributors: | 林建智
張如雯
Chang,Ru Wen |
| Keywords: | 同一命運原則
誠信原則
損害補償原則
再保險保障
Follow the fortunes/settlements
Good faith
Principle of indemnity
Reinsurance protection |
| Date: | 2004 |
| Issue Date: | 2009-09-18 |
| Abstract: | 再保險之目的，在於提供保險人保險保障。其方式乃再保險人就原保險人在原保險契約中所負之給付責任，予以部份或全部的補償。再保險契約就再保險人之再保險給付責任所為之約定，最常見者為「同一命運原則」之約定。依「同一命運條款」之字面解釋，此條款係指再保險人須與原保險人「同一命運」，於原保險人對被保險人為保險給付後，補償原保險人因對被保險人為保險給付所生之損害。
依據損害補償原則，須保險人之保險給付在保險契約及再保險契約之承保範圍內，再保險人始負再保險給付之責任。為了避免嚴格依據損害補償原則解釋再保險人之責任，造成保險人無法取得再保險保障之結果，並提高對於保險人之保障，再保險契約雙方乃藉由同一命運條款的相關約定，約定保險人只須證明其已向被保險人為補償給付且其給付係依「誠信」所為，再保險人即須同其命運，向保險人為補償給付。再保險人此一契約義務，乃再保險契約雙方當事人基於契約自由，於再保險契約中特別加入同一命運條款的結果。
保險人之「誠信」乃同一命運原則適用之基石，此為法院所共同肯認。然而，對於同一命運原則於個案中之具體適用，法院之看法似乎並無足夠的一致性。究竟，決定再保險契約雙方當事人權利義務的同一命運原則，法院如何解釋其適用上發生之爭議？又，法院對於抽象的誠信原則如何解釋？在同一命運原則的背景下，再保險人是否可以提出何種抗辯以免除其保險給付責任？最後，是否這些問題的解答可以有某程度的預測可能性，以供日後再保險契約雙方草擬同一命運條款之參考？
針對保險人對被保險人所應為之補償，再保險人與原保險人可能有不同解釋，前者認為再保險人與保險人同一命運之範圍，應以原保險及再保險約定之範圍為限；後者則認為凡保險人所給付與被保險人者，再保險人皆須與其同一命運，負擔給付責任。縱使再保險契約雙方皆主張其以再保險契約之約定為給付責任範圍之界定基礎，然基於利益彼此對立之立場，雙方對於「契約約定」往往有不同詮釋。再保險契約雙方間之爭議，實務上常見者如，原保險人對被保險人所給付之通融賠款（Ex-gratia payment）、懲罰性賠償（Punitive damages）等，是否屬於再保險人與保險人同一命運之範圍？將此類爭議一般化，須探究者為，同一命運條款何種程度限制了再保險人對原保險人之給付表示異議的權利？
另外，倘若再保險契約中沒有同一命運條款的約定，是否可認為此條款為再保險契約所「默示」（Implied）？此問題涉及同一命運原則的歷史背景，與再保險市場的運作實務息息相關，對於契約的解釋方法也有重要啟示。
同一命運原則為再保險交易發展史上，最常受到爭議的問題之一。現今之再保險交易環境已然愈趨複雜，不僅是所保危險之價額日趨提高，投入再保險交易之保險人數增加且交易類型複雜化，皆使得再保險交易雙方之風險分配及責任分擔，不再可以全然依賴保險人對於誠信原則之遵守。反之，應同時強調再保險與保險之不同，亦即，前者係由專業之保險人為交易雙方而進行之交易，故再保險人應可依其專業，對所保危險主動向保險人提出詢問，此亦顯示了保險人及再保險人間彼此合作愈趨重要，為再保險人負擔再保險給付責任之正當性基礎。本文嘗試處理以上提出的爭議問題，並對可能之解決提出建議。
The reinsurance loss settlement clause, which appears in a variety of forms of wordings, historically has been one of the most difficult aspects of reinsurance law and practice. In recent days, more and more litigation has arisen as a result of such clauses. This study centers upon the interesting and oftentimes confusing issue of the scope and effect of such clauses, and how they define both the reinsured’s and the reinsurers’ liability.
The purpose of reinsurance is to provide insurance protection by the reinsurer for the reinsured, namely, the insurer. At the beginning of reinsurance history when there were only a small number of insurers operating in the insurance market, insurers were fairly familiar with one another, and that resulted in a minimum of formality in doing business. In terms of reinsurance, reinsurers, when asked to pay by their reinsured, normally did not go out of their way to initiate a de novo review or assessment of the risk insured. The main reasons for such practice were, for one, insurers were so familiar with their business partners that they did not see the need for such re-assessment of the risk, and for another, in the past, the nature of the risks insured was not as complicated as those we are faced with nowadays.
With a view to enhancing business efficiency and providing better protection for insurers, the parties that engaged in a reinsurance agreement oftentimes would insert into the agreement a “follow the fortunes” or “follow the settlements” clause. Such clauses bound the reinsurers to follow the fortunes/settlements of their reinsured without the reinsured’s liability having been proved, and restrained the reinsurers from refusing to indemnify the reinsured on the ground that liability did not exist under the original policy, provided that the reinsured had acted in a bona fide and businesslike way. In a word, the existence of the loss settlement clause was a logical consequence of the purpose of reinsurance, and the reinsurers’ obligation under such clauses was conditioned on the reinsured’s good faith.
Reinsurance loss settlement clauses have been interpreted by the court rather favorably for the reinsured. Courts would normally find coverage for the reinsured, once they decided that the reinsured had acted in good faith in settling with the insured, even if they held that the reinsured had not been legally liable. This fact highlights the importance of the reinsured’s duty of utmost good faith in reinsurance law and practice. However, what exactly is good faith, and what are the reinsured’s obligations under the good faith requirement? Is there a general rule that the courts have developed to justify their finding of the reinsured’s good faith? If good faith, being abstract in itself and susceptible to courts’ subjective discretion, serves as the “standard” to evaluate or define the liability of the parties to a reinsurance agreement, how does it usually function? Does it at times seem so abstract and variable that the reinsurance agreement parties have a hard time predicting their liability under such a standard?
Also, in this study, the questions of the implication of loss settlement clauses and the scope or effect of such clauses are explored. The former question asks, where the reinsurance contracts do not contain any “follow the fortunes or settlements” provisions, does the law, custom or practice read into the contracts any obligation on the reinsurer to follow its reinsured’s fortunes or settlements? This question is important in that it deals with the applicability of loss settlement clauses, and thus has a fundamental impact on how reinsurance contracts are interpreted. The latter question aims at clarifying how loss settlement clauses are applied to pertinent areas such as ex gratia payments, punitive damages, reinsurers’ liability caps, payments related to the Wellington Agreement and claims cooperation clauses. Specific examples are given here in order to better understand how loss settlements clauses are put to practical use. Discussion concerned with this question also demonstrates how a loosely worded loss settlement clause could give rise to disputes between the parties.
To better define the parties’ rights and obligations under a reinsurance agreement, a more detailed review of how the reinsurance environment as a whole is functioning and how the courts interpret reinsurance loss settlement clauses is required. This issue will be even more worth pondering now that we are seeing a more complex reinsurance market where the parties’ interests are potentially conflicting, which is per se a challenge to the general view that the reinsurers should follow the fortunes or settlements of the reinsured. |
| Reference: | 一、中文部份
（一）專書
王澤鑑，〈民法總則〉，自版，民國九十年九月
王澤鑑，〈債法原理—基本理論債之發生〉，自版，民國八十八年十月
尹章華，〈保險法論文集〉，漢興，民國八十三年
江朝國，〈保險法論〉，瑞興，民國八十九年
江朝國，〈保險法基礎理論〉，瑞興，民國九十二年
何孝元，〈誠實信用原則與衡平法〉，三民，民國五十五年
邱聰智，〈民法債編通則〉，自版，六版，民國八十六年
邱潤容，〈保險學理論與實務〉，三民，民國九十一年
姚志明，〈誠信原則與附隨義務之研究〉，自版，民國九十二年
施文森，〈保險法論〉，自版，民國七十年
袁宗蔚，〈再保險論〉，自版，民國六十一年
袁宗蔚，〈保險學〉，合作經濟月刊社，民國八十七年
陳繼堯，〈再保險要義〉，富邦產物保險，民國八十一年
陳繼堯，〈再保險的演進〉，保險事業發展中心，民國八十一年
陳繼堯，〈再保險論－當前趨勢與型態研究〉，三民，七版，民國八十
二年
陳繼堯，〈再保險學〉，三民，民國八十五年
陳繼堯，〈再保險理論與實務〉，智勝文化，民國九十一年
孫森焱，〈民法債編總論新版〉上冊，自版，民國八十八年
孫森焱等，〈陳繼堯教授退休紀念論文集〉，繼耘保險文教基金籌備
會，民國八十六年
黃立，〈民法債編總論〉，自版，二版，民國八十八年
劉春堂，〈民法債編通則（一）契約法總論〉，自版，民國九十年
羅漢文譯，〈再保險要義〉，保險事業發展中心，民國八十一年
（二）論文
孫森焱，公序良俗與誠信原則，收於楊與齡主編，民法總則爭議問題研究，民國八十七年
陶德斌，定型化契約與誠實信用原則—誠實信用原則在定型化契約條款內容控制上的功能與效力，國立成功大學法律研究所碩士論文，民國九十二年
陳繼堯，論再保險契約中的同一命運條款，保險專刊第50輯，民國八十六年
蔡章麟，債編各論（債權契約）與誠實信用原則，法學叢刊二一期，民國五十年一月
蔡章麟，私法上誠實信用原則及其運用，收於鄭玉波主編，民法總則論文選輯（下），民國七十三年
蔡信華，再保險契約實務之研究，國立台灣海洋大學海洋法律研究所碩士論文，民國九十三年
蔡意文，論誠信原則於保險法之適用，私立東吳大學法律研究所碩士論文，民國八十三年
二、外文部份
（一）專書
1. Boland, Carol, Reinsurance: London Market Practice (1996)
2. Carter, R.L., Reinsurance (2nd ed., 1983)
3. Eggers, Peter MacDonald, Good Faith and Insurance Contracts (1998)
4. Gerathewohl, Klaus, Reinsurance Principles and Practice, translated by John Christofer La Bonte (1980)
5. Guest, A. G., ed., Anson’s Law of Contract (26th ed., 1984)
6. Hammesfahr, Robert W., & Wright, Scott W., The Law of Reinsurance Claims (1994)
7. Kramer, Henry T., The Nature of Reinsurance (1980)
8. Kiln, Robert, Reinsurance in Practice (3rd ed., 1991)
9. Lucas, Leslie, Reinsurance Management (1996)
10. Merkin, Robert, ed., Follow the Settlements, AIDA Reinsurance Working Party Report (2000)
11. O’connor, J.F., Good Faith in English Law (1990)
12. O’Neill, P. T., & Woloniecki, J. W., The Law of Reinsurance (1998)
13. Phifer, Ross, Reinsurance Fundamentals: Treaty and Facultative (1996)
14. Strain, Robert W., Reinsurance (5th printing, 1994)
15. Strain, Robert W., Reinsurance Contract Wording (Rev. ed., 1996)
16. Shernoff, William M., et al., Insurance Bad Faith Litigation (1984)
（二）期刊論文
1. Butler, John, No Room for Get-Out Clauses, Reinsurance (February, 2004)
2. Chaffetz, Peter, & Schwartz, Steven, To Follow or Not to Follow, Reinsurance Magazine (September, 2002)
3. Chaffetz, Peter, & Schwartz, Steven, Case Follows New Path, Reinsurance Magazine (June/July, 2002)
4. Chaffetz, Peter, & Schwartz, Steven, Sharing the Pain, Reinsurance Magazine (February, 2004)
5. Cotton, Stuart, Utmost Good Faith – Follow the Fortunes, The Theory and The Reality: What Are the Implications for Cedents and For Reinsurers? Practising Law Institute Commercial Law and Practice Course Handbook Series (September, 1999)
6. Hoffman, William C., Common Law of Reinsurance Loss Settlement Clauses: A Comparative Analysis of the Judicial Rule Enforcing the Reinsurer’s Contractual Obligation to Indemnify the Reinsured for Settlements, 28 Tort & Insurance Law Journal (Summer, 1993)
7. Hoffman, William C., On the Use and Abuse of Custom and Usage in Reinsurance, 33 Tort & Insurance Law Journal (1997)
8. Hoffman, William C., Facultative Reinsurance Contract Formation, Documentation, and Integration, Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal (Spring, 2003)
9. Hummer, Paul M., Common Reinsurance Issues: Follow the Fortunes, Late Notice and Rescission, Defense Counsel Journal (July, 1999)
10. Johnson, James A., Gentlemen`s Agreement: What Practitioners Should Know About Reinsurance, Michigan Bar Journal (August, 2002)
11. Knoerzer, Michael A., Introduction to Excess Insurance and Reinsurance, Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice Course Handbook Series (April, 2001)
12. Knoerzer, Michael A., Reinsurance, Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice Course Handbook Series (April, 2003)
13. Khawar, Rizvan, Reinsurance and Privity in the Past, Present, and Future: Privity of Contract in Reinsurance and the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999, Tulane Law Review (December, 2002)
14. Kennedy, Stephen M., Basics of Reinsurance, Practising Law Institute Litigation and Administrative Practice Course Handbook Series (April, 2004)
15. LaGory, Dennis G., et al., Recent Development in Excess, Surplus Lines, and Reinsurance Law, Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal (Winter, 2003)
16. Lopatto, Mary A., Recent Developments Concerning Reinsurance Allocation, Practising Law Institute Commercial Law and Practice Course Handbook Series (September, 2000)
17. Maloney, Pete, & Kohler, Jeanne, Technical Report: Legal Review 2003; US Reinsurance Watch, Reinsurance Magazine (December, 2003)
18. Merkin, Robber, Current Issues in Marine Insurance and Reinsurance Law, Yeditepe University (February, 2005)
19. Nedzel, Nadia E., A Comparative Study of Good Faith, Fair Dealing, and Pre-contractual Liability, Tulane European and Civil Law Forum (Winter, 1997)
20. Ozog, Edward J., et al., The Unresolved Conflict Between Traditional Principles of Reinsurance and Enforcement of the Terms of the Contractual Undertaking, Tort & Insurance Law Journal (Fall, 1999)
21. Paris, Stephen J., Reinsurance Issues, Massachusetts Liability Insurance Manual (2000)
22. Staring, Graydon S., Confused Seas: Admiralty Law in the Wake of Terrorism: Insurance and Reinsurance of Marine Interests in the New Age of Terrorism, Tulane Law Review (June, 2003)
23. Traynor, Paul E., Will the Historic Relationship Between Cedent and Reinsurer Become A Casualty of the War on Terrorism? Connecticut Insurance Law Journal (Fall, 2002)
24. Wilker, P. Jay, What Reinsureds Can Do to Collect Their Reinsurance, Practising Law Institute Commercial Law and Practice Course Handbook Series (Oct., 1998)
25. Zeller, Michael C., Divergent Conceptions of the Reinsurance Doctrine of Utmost Good Faith, Practising Law Institute Commercial Law and Practice Course Handbook Series (September, 1999) |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
風險管理與保險研究所
91358012
93 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0091358012 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [風險管理與保險學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 35801201.pdf | | 72Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 1020 | View/Open | | 35801202.pdf | | 150Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 1199 | View/Open | | 35801203.pdf | | 107Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 1155 | View/Open | | 35801204.pdf | | 47Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 798 | View/Open | | 35801205.pdf | | 624Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 2344 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
