不利解釋原則非每次皆作不利於保險人之解釋

Contra Proferentem Rule Doesn't Be Always Interpreted 〞Against the Insurer〞

王志鏞(Jyh-Yong Wang)

不利解釋原則 ； 疑義 ； 四角原則 ； 歧義 ； 內行被保險人 ； contra proferentem rule ； doubt ； four corners rule ； ambiguity ； sophisticated insured

保險專刊

35卷1期（2019 / 03 / 01）

29 - 47

繁體中文

於保險人與被保險人發生承保範圍爭執時，保險單之用詞、片語或條款有疑義，一般係作有利於被保險人之解釋。不利解釋原則常被用作不利於保險人即保險單起草者之解釋。如保險單之文字係由內行被保險人草擬者，適用不利解釋原則作不利於保險人之解釋不盡合理。又保險單之文字係由保險經紀人代表被保險人草擬者，適用不利解釋原則可謂毫無意義。因此，被保險人係一位擁有對等磋商能力之內行被保險人，適用不利解釋原則有所不宜。除此之外，兩保險人間之爭執，亦不適用不利解釋原則。

In the coverage contest between an insurer and its insured, doubtful words, phrases and terms in the policy were usually interpreted in favor of the insured. The contra proferentem rule was frequently applied against the insurer who was the drafter of the policy. Application of the rule against the insurer makes little sense where the policy language drafted by sophisticated insured. And it makes no sense at all to apply the rule where the policy language was drafted by an insurance broker working on behalf of the insured. Thus, the application of the rule is not appropriate when an insured is a sophisticated insured with equal bargaining power. In addition, the rule does not apply in disputes between insurers.

1. Abraham, Kenneth S.(1990).Insurance Law and Regulation Cases and Materials.USA:The Foundation Press, Inc..
2. Bennett, Carol S. C.(1992).Dictionary of Insurance.UK:Pearson Education Limited.
3. Bennett, Richard C., 2015, Fifth Circuit refuses to predict Texas will adopt a sophisticated insured exception to contra proferentum: http://www.donatominxbrown.com/blog-TheDoctrine-of-Contra-Proferentem，搜尋日期：2019年01月24日。
4. Cooper, R. B.,Sheffield, D.,McClelland, K.(2005)。Algorithm for Construction of Insurance Policies under Texas Law。10th Annual Insurance Law Institute
5. Ivamy, E. R. Hardy(1979).General Principles of Insurance Law.UK:Butterworths & Co.(Publishers)Ltd..
6. Johnson, Scott G., 2015, Consider This Commonsense On Contra Proferentem: https://www.robinskaplan.com/~/media/pdfs/consider%20this%20commonsense%20on%20contra%20proferentem.pdf?la=en, 搜尋日期：2019年02月02日。
7. Paar, Christopher R., & Kniffen, Elizabeth V., 2012, The Underwriter’s Role Against Contra Proferentem: https://www.zelle.com/newspublications-168.html，搜尋日期：2019年01月21日。
8. Stempel, Jeffrey W.(1994).Interpretation of Insurance Contract.USA:Little Brown & Company Limited.
9. Stewart, Amy Elizabeth, 2013, Insurance 101: Recent Cases Resolving Ambiguities in Insurance Contracts: http://apps.americanbar.org/litigation/committees/insurance/articles/julyaug2013-recent-cases-resolving-ambiguities.html，搜尋日期：2018年02月08日。
10. York, H. Kenneth,Whelan, John W.(1988).Insurance Law.USA:West Publishing Co..
11. Young, William F.(1971).Case and Materials on The Law of Insurance.USA:The Foundation Press, Inc..
12. Zulkey, Edward J.(2010).Litigating Insurance Disputes.USA:Juris Publishing, Inc..
13. 王志鏞(2017)。保險契約之疑義所指為何。保險大道，74，92-96。
14. 王志鏞(2016)。何謂內行被保險人。保險大道，71，11-18。
15. 王志鏞(2016)。機關應透過保險經紀人採購大額財產保險。保險大道，72，60-67。
16. 何美歡（譯）,吳志攀（譯）,Clarke, M. A.(2002).保險合同法.北京:北京大學出版社.
17. 李之彥（譯）,Jerry, R. H.,Richmond, D. R.(2009).美國保險法精解.北京:北京大學出版社.
18. 姜志俊,姜炳俊,馮震宇,謝穎青(2005).消費者保護法解讀.臺北:元照出版公司.
19. 賴清祺,吳小平(2013).保險英漢辭典.臺北:財團法人保險事業發展中心.

1. (2023)。要保人之資訊權保障與保險契約特別解釋原則之關係。中原財經法學，50，1-65。