English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Post-Print筆數 : 20 |  Items with full text/Total items : 90029/119959 (75%)
Visitors : 24031873      Online Users : 331
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version
    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/53911

    Title: 保險關係中之平等待遇原則
    Other Titles: Discrimination in the Insurance Transaction
    Authors: 葉啟洲
    Contributors: 國立政治大學風險管理與保險學系
    Keywords: 保險關係;平等待遇
    Date: 2011
    Issue Date: 2012-10-22 15:45:05 (UTC+8)
    Abstract: 在現代社會中,某些保險種類(例如健康保險),已經形同一種生活必需品。在國 家現實上無法廣泛建制社會保險或社會福利來滿足每一個國民的基本生活需求及 生活風險的情況下,保障人民得藉由投保商業保險之方式以自行分散風險,可以說 是國家在現代社會中一項新任務。 憲法第七條所宣示的平等原則,在私人間之交易活動中亦有其適用,已成通說。在 商業保險契約關係中,保險人卻常以某些弱勢族群之被保險人(例如身心障礙者) 係屬高風險族群為由,對於不同年齡、性別或身心狀況之人,實施不同之加重費率 或承保條件,嚴重者甚至拒絕承保。對於此一情況,保險人固然均以對價平衡原則 作為其差別處理的說詞,但事實上保險人對於不同之被保險人所為之差別待遇,是 否確實均有其統計精算之基礎,則甚有疑問。 我國現行保險法中,對於商業保險中之平等待遇原則並無任何規定。晚近歐美國家 陸續制訂有關保護弱勢者在商業保險交易中受平等對待的法律,保障弱勢人民藉由 投保商業保險自行分散風險的機會,並且能夠在交易條件中獲得公平的對待,進一 步在私法關係中落實平等原則,甚具啟示性。例如德國在2006 年制訂「一般平等 待遇法」,英國亦於2010 年實行部分之「平等法」,二者均特別針對弱勢族群投保 商業保險設有禁止歧視的原則性規定。此等新法之背景、內容與實施成效,甚有研 究價值,並可作為我國處理相關問題之借鏡。
    There are certain types of insurance (such as health insurance) that are indispensable in the modern society. Due to the fact that it is almost practically impossible for the country to establish a wide scope of social insurance or social welfare that can satisfy every citizen on daily basis. It is a brand new task for the modern nations to safeguard and to scatter the risk by purchasing business insurance. The principle of equal protection in article seven of constitution is also generally applied to private trade and dealing. In aspect of private insurance, the insurer frequently raises the premium, restricts the coverage or even refuse to undertake the risk when encounter specific insured (such as mentally or physically disable). Whether these insured been fairly treated or discriminated due to their peculiar conditions by the insurer seems ambiguous. Not to mention whether there is actually an actuarial result for the insurer to assert the principle of equivalence. In Taiwan insurance act, there is no such regulation to standardize the “equality of treatment” in private insurance. Thus, it is quite stimulating that western countries are establishing certain “equality of treatment” regulations to protect the minority by leaps and bounds, in which offering those minority a chance to scatter the risk and obtain a fair treatment. Take Germany “General Equality Act” (2006) and UK “Equality Act” (2010) for instance; they both explicitly declare the principle of “non discrimination” in business insurance specifically to safeguard the minority. These new regulations backgrounds, contents and outcomes can be an essential reference for the domestic regulations in the future.
    Relation: 基礎研究
    研究期間:10008~ 10107
    Data Type: report
    Appears in Collections:[風險管理與保險學系 ] 國科會研究計畫

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    100-2410-H-004-024.pdf678KbAdobe PDF793View/Open

    All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.

    社群 sharing

    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback