死亡保險給付請求之考察：以德國法之法律架構為借鏡

Abstract

近年來，我國實務現狀上，要保人以自己為被保險人投保人身保險，並賦予他人受益權，作為安排其死後遺族生活之方式與日俱增，故應釐清要保人、保險人、受益人間之權利義務關係，進而避免死亡保險金之分配反而導致繼承人間之紛爭。 首先，由我國保險法第111條第1項以契約或遺囑變更受益人之規定為出發，觀察我國實務判決中適用此條文之情形，發現當事人多會以此條文之內容，認為只要是要保人的遺囑或契約等相類之書面形式中，有提及欲將受益權或死亡保險金分配給他人時，即能向保險人或保單上指定之受益人請求保險給付。惟通常情形下，法院卻又會依保險法第111條第2項之規定，認定要保人未於保險事故發生前通知保險人之受益權內容，不生效力。 為了理解我國保險法第111條規定之意涵，本文考察德國法上死亡保險關係。德國法的死亡保險契約為利益第三人契約，並未脫免於利益第三人契約法理之適用。故將要保人指定或變更受益權，解為補償關係中有相對人之單獨行為，並於對價關係中討論，受領保險金之受益人與要保人間是否具有保有保險給付之法律上原因。而關於要保人與受益人間如何建構對價關係，以及特留分補足請求權於死亡保險關係適用之疑義，便需要透過解釋論，藉由保險人之介入，間接導致要保人與受益人間之連結。 而在參照德國法後，本文認為，我國保險法第110條、第111條關於指定或變更受益權之規定，應視為決定補償關係中保險人有效給付利益第三人之基礎。至於對價關係中，要保人與受益人間之無償行為，應解釋為透過保險人成立的「間接贈與」，並肯認死亡保險給付得適用民法繼承編特留分之規範。最後，依保險契約法2008年修正後之條文脈絡，針對我國現行保險法第110條至第113條之規定提出修法之建議，期盼能使我國人身保險契約之相關規範更為清晰。

In Taiwan, many proposers set themselves as the insured when purchasing life insurance and designate the bereaved as beneficiaries to ensure their living. It is necessary to clarify the rights and obligations among the proposer, the insurer, and the beneficiary so as to mitigate disputes arising out of distribution of life insurance payment. Firstly, this study observes the judgements in Taiwan about the application of Paragraph 1, Article 111 of the Insurance Act, which regulates change of beneficiary by contract or by will. It is found that due to the literal construction of this Article, most parties consider that, as long as the intent of changing distribution of life insurance payments or beneficiaries present in a proposer’s will, contract or other similar written forms, they may be entitled to claim life insurance payments from the insurer. However, the court often cites Paragraph 2, Article 111 of the Insurance Act, and determines that, without prior notifying the insurer, the alleged change is invalid. To clarify the meaning of Article 111 of the Insurance Act, this study reviews the rights and obligations of life insurance contract in German law. In German law, the life insurance contract is a kind of Third Party Beneficiary contract and the interpretation of life insurance contract should be hence subject to the third party beneficiary theory. The designation and change of the beneficiary shall be interpreted as a unilateral expression of intention which should reach the opposite party in the relationship between the insurer and the proposer (Deckungsverhältnis). Subsequently, in the relationship between the proposer and the beneficiary (Valutaverhältnis), there shall be a legal basis between both parties for the beneficiary to keep the insurance payment. The construction of the legal basis between the proposer and the beneficiary, as well as the application of the Compulsory Portions Compensation Claim (Pflichtteilsergänzungsanspruch) in mortality insurance, needs to be explained throughout the intervention from the insurer, which indirectly builds the connection between the proposer and the beneficiary. After referring to the German law, this study opines that Article 110 and Article 111 of the Taiwan Insurance Act, which govern designation and change of beneficiary, shall be explained as the basis for determining the validity of payment from the insurer to the third party in the relationship between the insurer and the proposer (Deckungsverhältnis). Furthermore, in the relationship between the proposer and the beneficiary (Valuta-verhältnis), the gratuitous act between the proposer and the beneficiary should be regarded as an 'Indirect Gift' constituted by the participation of the insurer, thereby acknowledges that the mortality insurance can apply to the provisions with regard of the compulsory portions. In the end, according to the Articles of the German Insurance Contract Act as revised in 2008, this study suggests that amendments should be made to Article 110 to Article 113 of the Taiwan Insurance Act, with an aim to add clarity to relevant Articles about life insurance contracts.