請用此 Handle URI 來引用此文件：
http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/79754完整後設資料紀錄
| DC 欄位 | 值 | 語言 |
|---|---|---|
| dc.contributor.advisor | 汪信君(Hsin-Chun Wang) | |
| dc.contributor.author | Fang-Ting Chou | en |
| dc.contributor.author | 周芳廷 | zh_TW |
| dc.date.accessioned | 2022-11-23T09:09:57Z | - |
| dc.date.available | 2021-09-02 | |
| dc.date.available | 2022-11-23T09:09:57Z | - |
| dc.date.copyright | 2021-09-02 | |
| dc.date.issued | 2021 | |
| dc.date.submitted | 2021-08-18 | |
| dc.identifier.citation | 一、中文部分 （一）專書 孫森焱（2013），《民法債編總論上冊》，中華民國一〇二年七月修訂版，作者自版。 孫森焱（2013），《民法債編總論下冊》，中華民國一〇二年二月修訂版，作者自版。 嚴玉珠，(1996)，《成本會計（上）》，四版，台北：五南出版社。 （二）專書論文 汪信君（2014），〈氣候變遷與保險機制：議題研究與展望〉，收於：葉俊榮（編），《氣候變遷的制度因應：決策、財務與規範》，頁183-213，國立臺灣大學出版中心。 （三）期刊 王偉霖（2018），〈論英美法判決先例原則之運作—兼論我國現行作法及大法庭制度〉，《台灣法學雜誌》，351期，頁82-97。 江朝國（1996），〈初探兩岸保險契約法〉，《政大法學評論》，56期，頁133-57。 江朝國（2005），〈「自負共保條款」與「不足額理賠共保條款」〉，《月旦法學教室》，38期，頁30-31。 李志峰（2003），〈懲罰性賠償金之可保性——以美國法的發展為基礎來檢視我國應採取之立場〉，《消費者保護研究》，8期，頁63-117。 汪信君（2007），〈保險契約效力與重複締約行為〉，《月旦民商法雜誌》，16期，頁70-87。 汪信君（2015），〈保險詐欺與契約效力──日本與英國保險法制之發展〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，242期，頁150-72。 汪信君（2016），〈巨災風險與社會風險管理──以地震災害與保險機制為例〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，258期，頁61-75。 汪信君（2020），〈金融市場之揭露義務與適合度規範：由行為經濟學之視角論保險商品〉，《臺大法學論叢》，49卷3期，頁1063-1120。 吳從周（2018），〈法律行為解釋、契約解釋與法律解釋—以民法第98條之立法溯源與實務運用為中心〉，《中研院法學期刊》，23期，頁81-169。 張冠群（2012），〈保險契約條款「疑義」之認定與解釋⎯⎯評臺灣高等法院一○○年度保險上易字第一號判決〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，210期，頁187-213。 張冠群、李慧芳（2012），〈企業因氣候變遷而生損害賠償責任之成立可能性及其風險管理─以美國法律與實務為中心〉，《高大法學論叢》，7卷2期，頁41-98。 張冠群、李慧芳（2013），〈人為巨災風險之可保性及公私協力之風險承擔法制—以美國恐怖主義風險保險法為例兼評我國現行制度〉，《中正財經法學》，6期，頁65-136。 黃心怡（2005），〈閱讀英文判決書(二)—常見之民事訴訟程序專有名詞(上)〉，《月旦法學教室》，37期，頁97-99。 葉啟洲（2017），〈道德危險的除外界限與最大善意原則〉，《臺大法學論叢》，46卷4期，頁2015-83。 劉宗榮（2008），〈論保險契約的解釋⎯⎯兼論保險法第五四條的修正芻議〉，《月旦法學雜誌》，159期，頁112-30。 陳宜倩（2004），〈判決先例拘束原則〉，《月旦法學教室》，15期，頁121-24。 陳俊元（2018），〈併發症、保險理賠與合理期待原則〉，《靜宜法學》，7期，頁125-43。 陳炫宇、林勳發（2014），〈保險契約解釋原則及例外—以精明被保險人例外法則為中心〉，《銘傳大學法學論叢》，21期，頁133-80。 羅俊瑋（2008），〈論保險人之誠信義務(上)〉，《萬國法律》，162期，頁49-58。 羅俊瑋（2009），〈論保險人之誠信義務(下)〉，《萬國法律》，163期，頁80-94。 羅俊瑋（2010），〈論保險契約之特殊解釋原則〉，《萬國法律》，172期，頁1-18。 （四）學位論文 周志勳（2013），《論保險法上因果關係》，國立臺北大學法律學系碩士論文。 孫蔚雯（2006），《企業之營業中斷風險管理-以裕隆汽車為例》，國立政治大學風險管理與保險學系碩士論文。 歐千慈（2006），《保險法上對價平衡原則之研究》，國立中正大學財法所碩士論文。 蔡依沛（2006），《營業中斷保險法律問題之研究》，國立政治大學風險管理與保險學系碩士論文。 （五）網路文獻 今周刊(2/22/2021)，〈500元防疫神單停賣後，還能買什麼險？國泰推最低888元保單引市場關注〉，載於：https://www.businesstoday.com.tw/article/category/80405/post/。 第一產物保險股份有限公司，〈商業綜合火險〉，載於：https://www.firstins.com.tw/insurance/corporate/fire2。 華南產物保險公司，〈華南產險保險商品各項條款〉，載於：https://news.south-china.com.tw/p7-2_detail.asp?xtype=F。 經濟日報（7/22/2021），〈日本硬辦奧運代價…虧損200億美元〉，載於：https://udn.com/tokyo2020/story/122215/5618281。 二、英文部分 （一）Cases A S Corp. v. Centennial Ins. Co., 242 F. Supp. 584 (N.D. Ill. 1965). American Medical Imaging Corp. v. St. Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co., 949 F.2d 690 (3d Cir. 1991). Arco Indus. Corp. v. Am. Motorists Ins. Co., 448 (Mich. 1995). Ballas Nails Spa v. Travelers Cas. Ins. Co. of Am., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1101 (E.D. Mo. 2021). Bard's Apparel Mfg., Inc. v. Bituminous Fire Marine Ins. Co., 849 F.2d 245 (6th Cir. 1988) Bbms v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 233982 (W.D. Mo. 2020). Bel Air Auto Auction, Inc. v. Great Northern Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 72154 (D. Md. 2021). Bird v. St. Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co., 224 N.Y. 47 (N.Y. 1918). Blue Springs Dental Care v. Owners Ins. Co., 488 F. Supp. 3d 867 (W.D. Mo. 2020). Chatham Corp. v. Dann Ins., 351 Ill. App. 3d 353 (Ill. App 2004). Coexport Int’l, Inc. v. New Hampshire Ins. Co., 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6743 (N.D. Ill. 1991). Columbiaknit, Inc. v. Affiliated FM Ins. Co., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11873 (D. Or. 1999). Dictiomatic, Inc. v. United States Fid. Guar. Co., 958 F. Supp. 594 (S.D.Fla. 1997). Equity Planning Corp. v. Westfield Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 36452 (N.D. Ohio 2021). Elegant Massage, LLC v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 231935 (E.D. Va. 2020). Grinnell Mut. Reinsurance Co. v. Voeltz, 431 N.W.2d 783 (Iowa 1986). Hampton Foods, Inc. v. Aetna Casualty Surety Co., 787 F.2d 349 (8th Cir. 1986). Henderson Rd. Rest. Sys. v. Zurich Am. Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9521 (N.D. Ohio 2021). Henry's La. Grill v. Allied Ins. Co. of Am., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 188353 (N.D. Ga. 2020). Hillcrest Optical, Inc. v. Cont'l Cas. Co., 2020 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 195273 (S.D. Ala. 2020). Home Indem. Co. v. Hyplains Beef, L.C., 893 F. Supp. 987 (D. Kan. 1995). Jenkins v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 219 W. Va. 190 (W. Va. 2006). Levy v. Hartford Fin. Servs. Group, 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28446 (E.D. Mo. 2021). 1 S.A.N.T., Inc. v. Berkshire Hathaway, Inc., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 8590 (W.D. Pa. 2021). Lucky Lincoln Gaming LLC v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 71888 (S.D. Ill. 2021). Ilios Prod. Design v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 69843 (W.D. Tex. 2021). Maness v. Life Casualty Ins. Co., 161 Tenn. 41 (Tenn. 1930). Mashallah, Inc. v. W. Bend Mut., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 31816 (N.D. Ill. 2021). Mellin v. N. Sec. Ins. Co., 167 N.H. 544 (N.H. 2015). Murray v. State Farm Fire Cas. Co., 203 W. Va. 477 (W. Va. 1998). Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Hartford Fire Ins. Co., 360 F.2d 531 (8th Cir. 1966). Powers v. Detroit Auto. Inter-Insurance Exchange, 427 Mich. 602 (Mich. 1986). Protégé Rest. Partners LLC v. Sentinel Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24835 (N.D. Cal. 2021). Q Clothier New Orleans LLC v. Twin City Fire Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78244 (E.D. La. 2021). Quality Molding Co. v. American Nat'l Fire Ins. Co., 272 F.2d 779 (7th Cir. 1959). Rose's 1, LLC v. Erie Ins. Exch., 2020 D.C. Super. LEXIS 10 (D.C. 2020). Salon XL Color Design Grp., LLC v. W. Bend Mut. Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21298 (E.D. Mich. 2021). Sandy Point Dental, PC v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 488 F. Supp. 3d 690 (N.D. Ill. 2020). Skillets, LLC v. Colony Ins. Co., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45452 (E.D. Va. 2021). Southern Dental Birmingham LLC v. Cincinnati Ins., 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 61955 (N.D. Ala. 2021). Streamline Capital, L.L.C. v. Hartford Cas. Ins. Co., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14677 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). Studio 417 v. Cincinnati Ins. Co., 478 F. Supp. 3d 794 (W.D. Mo. 2020) S. Macomb Disposal Auth. v. Am. Ins. Co., 225 Mich. App. 635 (Mich. App. 1997). Turek Enters. v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 484 F. Supp. 3d 492 (E.D. Mich. 2020) Universal Image Prods. v. Chubb Corp., 703 F. Supp. 2d 705 (E.D. Mich. 2010). Valley Lodge Corp. v. Soc'y Ins. (In Soc'y Ins. Co. Covid-19 Bus. Interruption Prot. Ins. Litig), 2021 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 32351 (N.D. Ill. 2021). Visconti Bus Serv., LLC v. Utica Natl. Ins. Group, 2021 N.Y. Misc. LEXIS 546 (Sup. Ct. Orange Cnty. 2021). Witcher Constr. Co. v. St. Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co., 550 N.W.2d 1 (Minn. Ct. App. 1996). Zurich Am. Ins. Co. v. ABM Indus., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 28249 (S.D.N.Y. 2006). （二）Books Cloughton, D. (1999). Riley on business interruption insurance (8th ed.). London: Sweet Maxwell. Phillips, J. H. P. (1981). Interruption insurance. London: The CII Tuition Service. Weil, R. L., Lentz, D. G., Evans, E. A. (2017). Litigation services handbook: The role of the financial expert (6th ed.). John Wiley Sons, Inc. （三）Periodicals Anderson, E. R., Fournier, J. J. (1998). Why courts enforce insurance policyholders' objectively reasonable expectations of insurance coverage. Connecticut Insurance Law Journal, 5(1), 335-424. Bartik, A. W., Bertrand, M., Cullen, Z., Glaeser, E. L., Luca, M., Stanton, C. (2020). The impact of COVID-19 on small business outcomes and expectations. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 117(30), 17656-17666. Boardman, M. E. (2006). Contra proferentem: The allure of ambiguous boilerplate. Michigan Law Review, 104(5), 1105-1128. Borghesi, D. A. (1993). Business interruption insurance - A business perspective. Nova Law Review, 17, 1147-1165. Bruggeman, V., Faure, M., Heldt, T. (2012). Insurance against catastrophe: Government simulation of insurance markets for catastrophic events. Duke Environmental Law Policy Forum, 23, 185-241. Chen, J. M. (2014). Correlation, coverage, and catastrophe: The contours of financial preparedness for disaster. Fordham Environmental Law Journal, 26(1), 56-94. Conti-Brown, P. (2010). A proposed fat-tail risk metric: Disclosures, derivatives, and the measurement of financial risk. Washington University Law Review, 87, 1461-1474. Dominitz, E. J., Bentson, D. R. (2016). The Japanese earthquake and tsunami of 2011 and contingent business interruption coverage. Tort Trial Insurance Practice Law Journal, 52(1), 73-102. Faure, M., Liu, J. (2012). The tsunami of March 2011 and the subsequent nuclear incident at Fukushima: Who compensates the victims. William and Mary Environmental Law and Policy Review, 37, 129-218. Faure, M. G. (2007). Insurability of damage caused by climate change: Commentary. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 155(6), 1875-1900. Feinman, J. M. (2019). A user's guide to the Restatement of the Law, Liability Insurance. Connecticut Insurance Law Journal, 26(1), 93-112. French, C. (2014). The aftermath of catastrophes: Valuing business interruption insurance losses. Georgia State University Law Review, 30, 461-520. French, C. C. (2020). Covid-19 business interruption insurance losses: The cases for and against coverage. Connecticut Insurance Law Journal, 27(1), 1-35. French, C. C. (2020). Forum shopping COVID-19 business interruption insurance claims. University of Illinois Law Review Online, 2020, 187-202. Froot, K. A. (1999). The evolving market for catastrophic event risk. Risk Management and Insurance Review, 2(3), 1-28. Gay, R. (2005). Premium calculation for fat-tailed risk. ASTIN Bulletin, 35(1), 163-188. Hecht, S. B. (2008). Climate change and the transformation of risk: Insurance matters. UCLA Law Review, 55(6), 1559-1620. Hummer, P. M. (2002). Basics of business interruption insurance: The ins and outs of tricky coverage. Defense Counsel Journal, 69(3), 307-314. Jerry, R. H. II (1998). Insurance, contract, and the doctrine of reasonable expectations. Connecticut Insurance Law Journal, 5(1), 21-58. Jerry, R. H. II (2019). Managing hurricane (and other natural disaster) risk. Texas A M Law Review, 6, 391-452. Kahler, C. M. (1932). Business interruption insurance. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 161, 77-84. Kanaris, P. E. (2007). Analytical approach to business interruption, extra expense, and civil authority coverage issues. Tort Trial Insurance Practice Law Journal, 43(1), 113-138. Keeton, R. E. (1970). Insurance law rights at variance with policy provisions. Harvard Law Review, 83(5), 961-985. Klein, R. W., Wang, S. (2009). Catastrophe risk financing in the US and the EU: A comparative analysis of alternative regulatory approaches. Journal of Risk and Insurance, 76, 607-637. Koelzer, J. P. (2003). Is civil authority business interruption coverage soft risk in the post-9/11 world. TortSource, 5(2), 1-4. Kousky, C., Cooke, R. (2012). Explaining the failure to insure catastrophic risks. Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, 37(2), 206-227. Kousky, C., Light, S. E. (2019). Insuring nature. Duke Law Journal, 69, 324-375. Kousky, C. (2019). The role of natural disaster insurance in recovery and risk reduction. Annual Review of Resource Economics, 11, 399-418. Kunreuther, H. C., Michel-Kerjan, E. O. (2007). Climate change, insurability of large-scale disasters, and the emerging liability challenge. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 155(6), 1795-1824. Kunreuther, H., Pauly, M. V. (2005). Insurance decision-making and market behavior. Foundations and Trends in Microeconomics, 1(2), 63-127. Kunreuther, H. (1996). Mitigating disaster losses through insurance. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 12, 171-187. Lahav, A. D., Siegelman, P. (2019). The curious incident of the falling win rate. University of California (CA) at Davis Law Review, 52, 1371-1423. Lambert, P. M., Kleeman, J. L. (2006). An ill wind blows no good: The nuances of business-interruption claims. Business Law Today, 15(4), 49-55. Marr, N. A. (2020). Shook: Litigation, regulation, and legislation strategies to better protect Oklahoma’s earthquake insurance policyholders. Oklahoma Law Review, 72(4), 963-997. Mascali Jr., A. F. (2006). Contingent business interruption coverage. Tort Trial Insurance Practice Law Journal, 41(3), 843-856. Miller, A. G. (1975). Business interruption insurance, a legal primer. Drake Law Review, 24(4), 799-808. Moses, A. (2007). Business interruption claims in the Aftermath of the September 11 terrorist attacks - dispute as to scope of coverage in ambiguous insurance policies: United Airlines, Inc. v. Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania. Journal of Air Law and Commerce, 72, 409-417. O'Connor, P. J. Jr. (2007). Recent issues in property coverage. William Mitchell Law Review, 34, 176-244. Olshansky, R. B., Johnson, L. A., Topping, K. C. (2006). Rebuilding communities following disaster: Lessons from Kobe and Los Angeles. Built Environment, 32(4), 354-375. Park, A. J. (1980). What to reasonably expect in the coming years from the reasonable expectations of the insured doctrine. Willamette Law Review, 49, 165-188. Paudel, Y. (2012). A comparative study of public—private catastrophe insurance systems: Lessons from current practices. Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice, 37, 257–285. Rahder, M. C. (1986). Reasonable expectations reconsidered. Connecticut Law Review, 18(2), 323-392. Ramnath, S. (2020). What is business interruption insurance and how is it related to the Covid-19 pandemic?. Chicago Fed Letter - Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, 440, 1-5. Rice, J. C. (2006). Business interruption coverage in the wake of Katrina: Measuring the insured’s loss in a volatile economy. Tort Trial Insurance Practice Law Journal, 41(3), 857-883. Robb, W. O. (1927). Use and occupancy insurance. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 130, 108-113. Schirle, C. (2007). Time element coverages in business interruption insurance. Brief, 37(1), 32-42. Schwarcz, D., Schwarcz, S. L. (2014). Regulating systemic risk in insurance. University of Chicago Law Review, 81(4), 1569-1640. Schwartz, V. E., Appel, C. E. (2020). Restating or reshaping the law?: critical analysis of the Restatement of the Law, Liability Insurance. University of Pennsylvania Journal of Business Law, 22(3), 718-771. Seno, D. J. (2002). The doctrine of reasonable expectations in insurance law: What to expect in Wisconsin. Marquette Law Review, 85, 859-886. Simon, S. I. (1972). Proximate cause in insurance. American Business Law Journal, 10(1), 33-46. Stone, D. A. (1999). Beyond moral hazard: Insurance as moral opportunity. Connecticut Insurance Law Journal, 6(1), 11-45. Swedloff, R. (2020). The new regulatory imperative for insurance. Boston College Law Review, 61, 2031-2084. Swisher, P. N. (2002). Insurance causation issues: The legacy of Bird v. St. Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co.. Nevada Law Journal, 2, 351-385. Swisher, P. N. (2014). 'Why won't my homeowners insurance cover my loss?': Reassessing property insurance concurrent causation coverage disputes. Tulane Law Review, 88, 515-558. Teague, J. I. (1968). Recent opinions on business interruption. American Bar Association, Section of Insurance, Negligence and Compensation Law. Proceedings, 1968, 622-633. Ware, S. J. (1989). A critique of the reasonable expectations doctrine. The University of Chicago Law Review, 56, 1461-1493. Willis, A. R. (2010). Business insurance: First-party commercial property insurance and the physical damage requirement in a computer-dominated world. Florida State University Law Review, 37, 1003-1022. Wuerfel, M. D., Koop, M. (1998). Efficient proximate causation in the context of property insurance claims. Defense Counsel Journal, 65(3), 400-407. Zajdenweber, D. (1995). Business interruption insurance, a risky business: A study on some paretian risk phenomena, Fractals, 3(3), 601-608. （四）Internet Sources Barlyn, S. (2020, March 25). Lloyd’s, AIG, AXA sued by Native American casino owner over Coronavirus losses. Carrier Management. https://www.carriermanagement.com/news/2020/03/25/204834.htm Bruton, M. (2020, April 28). Financial ramifications of Coronavirus canceling Tokyo Olympics would be ‘massive’. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/michellebruton/2020/04/28/financial-ramifications-of-coronavirus-canceling-tokyo-olympics-would-be-massive/#28be6543772a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2021, July 23). United States COVID-19 cases and deaths by state. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases Covid Coverage Litigation Tracker. (2021). CCLT case list. https://cclt.law.upenn.edu/cclt-case-list/ Foggan, L. A. (2018, May 11). The Restatement of the Law, Liability Insurance: Illustrative issues. ARIAS·U.S. Spring Conference. https://www.arias-us.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/The-Restatement-of-the-Law-Liability-Insurance-Illustrative-Issues.pdf Henderson, T. W., Fogel, N., “Trip” Nistico III, J. F. (2020, September). Survey of COVID-19 insurance issues—part 1. Colorado Lawyer. https://cl.cobar.org/features/survey-of-covid-19-insurance-issues-part-1/ Hofmann, M. A. (2018, November 4). 2018 Innovation Awards: PathogenRX. Business Insurance. https://www.businessinsurance.com/article/20181104/NEWS06/912324901/Business-Insurance-2018-Innovation-Awards-PathogenRX-Marsh-Munich-Re-Metabiota Insurance Journal. (2020, April 13). Wimbledon shows how pandemic insurance could become vital for sports, other events. https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/international/2020/04/13/564598.htm Maxwell Locke Ritter. (2020, May 4). Should you file a business interruption claim for COVID-19 losses?. https://www.mlrpc.com/articles/should-you-file-a-business-interruption-claim-for-covid-19-losses/ Marsh. (2021). PathogenRX an innovative solution for pandemic and epidemic risks. https://www.marsh.com/us/campaigns/pathogenrx.html Pasour, E. C. (1991, June 1). The Samaritan's dilemma and the welfare state. Foundation for Economic Education. https://fee.org/articles/the-samaritans-dilemma-and-the-welfare-state/ Reynolds, I., Takeo, Y., Smith, G. (2021, June 8). Despite danger and cost, Japan gambles on successful Olympics. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-06-07/despite-danger-and-cost-japan-gambles-on-successful-olympics Sams, J. (2020, March 20). Restaurant suit tests business interruption insurance for Coronavirus shutdowns. Carrier Management. https://www.carriermanagement.com/news/2020/03/20/204695.htm United States Census Bureau. (2021, July 18). Small business pulse survey. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. https://portal.census.gov/pulse/data/#about United States Census Bureau. (2021, July 22). Small business pulse survey data. U.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Census Bureau. https://portal.census.gov/pulse/data/ University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. (2021). Covid coverage litigation tracker. https://cclt.law.upenn.edu/ U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020, September 4). Employment situation news release. U.S. Department of Labor, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. https://www.bls.gov/news.release/archives/empsit_09042020.htm Verisk Analytics. (2021). Manage wildfire risk at the address level. https://www.verisk.com/siteassets/media/downloads/underwriting/location/location-fireline.pdf?1 Verisk. (2021). Insurance Services Office (ISO). https://www.verisk.com/insurance/brands/iso/ World Health Organization. (2020, June 29). Listings of WHO’s response to COVID-19. https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/29-06-2020-covidtimeline World Health Organization. (2021). Pandemic (H1N1) 2009. https://www.who.int/csr/disease/swineflu/en/ World Health Organization. (2021). SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome). https://www.who.int/ith/diseases/sars/en/ World Health Organization. (2021). Definitions: emergencies. https://www.who.int/hac/about/definitions/en/ （五） Reports Cutler, D. M., Zeckhauser, R. (2004). Extending the theory to meet the practice of insurance. Brookings-Wharton Papers on Financial Services. Gollier, C. (2005). Some aspects of the economics of catastrophe risk insurance. CESifo Working Paper Series No. 1409. Horn, D. P., Webel, B. (2020). Business interruption insurance and COVID-19. Congressional Research Service. Johnson, D. L. (2004). Southern California wildfires October 20 to November 3, 2003. National Weather Service. Kousky, C. (2013). Revised risk assessments and the insurance industry. Insurance Law. Kunreuther, H., Michel‐Kerjan, E. (2009). Managing catastrophes through insurance: Challenges and opportunities for reducing future risks. Risk Management and Decision Processes Center, The Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania. Meyer, L., Thornsjo, D. (2019). The Restatement of the Law of Liability Insurance has been approved: Now what?. Minnesota Defense. OECD. (2004). OECD check-list of criteria to define terrorism for the purpose of compensation. Raschky, P., Schwindt, Manijeh. (2009). Aid, natural disasters and the Samaritan's dilemma. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 4952. Turnham, J., Burnett, K., Martin, C., McCall, T., Juras, R., Spader, J. (2011). Housing recovery on the Gulf Coast phase II: Results of property owners survey in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. Weisbart, S. (2018). How insurance drives economic growth. Insurance Information Institute. （六）Administrative Materials Bill de Blasio, New York City Mayor, Emergency Exec. Order No. 100 (Mar. 16, 2020). Bill de Blasio, New York City Mayor, Emergency Exec. Order No. 101 (Mar. 17, 2020). Karen Relucio, Health Officer of Napa County, Order of the Napa County Health Officer (Mar. 18, 2020). Bertha Henry, County Administrator, Emergency Order 20-03 (Mar. 26, 2020). | |
| dc.identifier.uri | http://tdr.lib.ntu.edu.tw/jspui/handle/123456789/79754 | - |
| dc.description.abstract | 自2019年底爆發的新冠疫情，不僅剝奪數百萬人命，對於各國經濟的衝擊更是前所未見地嚴重。又，各家企業所投保之商業保險大多會涵蓋「營業中斷險」，藉以承保因特定危險事故發生致營業中斷所生之營業收入損失，惟從目前美國訴訟現況觀察，新冠病毒在適用營業中斷險上面臨許多爭議問題，其中最大的癥結即在於營業中斷險的三大成立要件—財產損害、營業中斷及因果關係。 首先，本文認為營業中斷險之財產損害要件應包括「無形改變」，亦即將承保範圍擴張至微小分子等級之細菌、病毒等肉眼無法察覺之改變同屬財產損害。然而，考量新冠疫情的特殊性，要求被保險人提出「病毒確實殘留物體表面」之證據顯屬不切實際，故，應以「建物內有確診案例」作為新冠疫情下營業中斷險財產損害要件之標準，換言之，被保險人得以「建物內有確診案例」之事實取代「病毒確實殘留物體表面」之證據，一方面給予社會大眾在疫情困境下的彈性，另一方面也不至將保險人之責任無限上綱、危及保險產業的穩定性。 再者，本文認為營業中斷險之營業中斷要件應限於「完全停業」，申言之，唯有被保險人之營運受暫時性地全面停擺，始有適用營業中斷險之餘地，相反地，若僅是聚集人數受限或禁止內用之影響，則否。蓋與財產損害要件相比，「中斷」之解釋較無疑義，一般社會大眾應皆得理解為全面地無法經營，若僅係營業收入減少，當非屬中斷的情形。故，本文既已放寬財產損害要件，在較無疑義的營業中斷要件上則應限縮承保範圍，不讓營業中斷險在兩個成立要件上都門戶大開，適度地保護被保險人，但也不過度地侵害保險人的償付能力。 最後，本文認為營業中斷險之因果關係要件，在適用主力近因原則之前提下，即使有政府命令之限制，新冠疫情與營業收入損失間仍得通過因果關係之檢驗，蓋政府命令的推動追根究底都是為了因應疫情快速蔓延所做的防疫措施，且若被保險人沒有遵守政府命令關閉營業，將大幅提升社會大眾染疫的機率，從而被保險人的正常營運即使沒有暴露在直接危險之下，也有不幸確診的間接危險，因此新冠疫情與收入損失間的因果關係符合被保險人的合理期待。 | zh_TW |
| dc.description.provenance | Made available in DSpace on 2022-11-23T09:09:57Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 1 U0001-1708202122514500.pdf: 3008438 bytes, checksum: e3f29b2132acca02d46ed5e2bec9cf26 (MD5) Previous issue date: 2021 | en |
| dc.description.tableofcontents | 第一章 緒論 1 第一節 研究動機與問題意識 1 第二節 研究方法與限制 2 第三節 論文架構 3 第二章 巨災風險之可保性問題 5 第一節 以保險進行風險轉嫁的利與弊 5 第一項 保險制度之益處 6 第二項 保險制度之客觀上限制 8 第二節 影響可保性之因素 8 第一項 風險隨機性 9 第二項 定價可能性 9 第三項 風險可分散性 10 第四項 低道德危險和低逆選擇性 11 第五項 小結 13 第三節 新冠病毒引發的巨災風險可保性爭議 13 第一項 疫情對美國之經濟衝擊 14 第二項 疫情風險是否具可保性 15 第三項 小結 19 第三章 營業中斷險制度之設計 21 第一節 沿革 21 第二節 保單類型 23 第一項 商業和非製造業毛收益保單 23 第二項 製造業和礦業毛收益保單 24 第三項 營業收入和額外支出保單 25 第三節 成立要件 26 第一項 財產損害 26 第二項 營業中斷 26 第三項 因果關係 27 第四節 給付範圍之認定 27 第一項 所受之實際損失 28 第二項 營業中斷期間 30 第三項 為減少損失的額外支出費用 36 第四項 持續費用 39 第五節 小結 40 第四章 一般營業中斷險在新冠病毒下之檢驗 43 第一節 保險契約解釋的原理原則 43 第一項 一般契約解釋原則 43 第二項 疑義不利保險人解釋原則 45 第三項 合理期待原則 50 第二節 財產損害是否限於「有形」的改變 58 第一項 肯定說—財產損害須為有形的改變 59 第二項 否定說—財產損害包括無形的改變 62 第三項 本文見解 65 第三節 營業中斷是否限於「完全停業」 71 第一項 肯定說—營業中斷須為「完全停業」 71 第二項 否定說—營業中斷包括「部分停業」 73 第三項 本文見解 75 第四節 因果關係採主力近因原則 77 第一項 主力近因原則之內涵 78 第二項 Bird v. St. Paul Fire Marine Ins. Co. 79 第三項 本文見解 81 第五節 小結 86 第五章 美國實務案件分析 89 第一節 美國訴訟概況 89 第一項 準據法及選購法院 90 第二項 被保險人之主張 91 第二節 財產損害是否構成？—否定說 93 第一項 以財產受有結構性改變為必要 94 第二項 新冠病毒可透過一般清潔程序去除 95 第三項 政府命令或新冠疫情導致的無法使用財產不構成財產損害 96 第三節 財產損害是否構成？—肯定說 97 第一項 維吉尼亞州—因政府命令而無法使用財產得構成財產損害 97 第二項 密蘇里州—因病毒可能殘留物體表面得構成財產損害 102 第四節 小結 108 第六章 結論和建議 113 第一節 結論 113 第二節 我國保單之現況與建議 115 參考文獻 121 | |
| dc.language.iso | zh-TW | |
| dc.subject | 主力近因原則 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 新冠病毒 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 營業中斷險 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 風險可保性 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 疑義不利保險人解釋原則 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | 合理期待原則 | zh_TW |
| dc.subject | COVID-19 | en |
| dc.subject | proximate cause | en |
| dc.subject | reasonable expectation | en |
| dc.subject | contra proferentem | en |
| dc.subject | insurability | en |
| dc.subject | business interruption insurance | en |
| dc.title | 新冠病毒適用營業中斷險之研究—以美國法為中心 | zh_TW |
| dc.title | COVID-19 Business Interruption Insurance—from the Perspective of American Law | en |
| dc.date.schoolyear | 109-2 | |
| dc.description.degree | 碩士 | |
| dc.contributor.oralexamcommittee | 李志峰(Hsin-Tsai Liu),陳俊元(Chih-Yang Tseng) | |
| dc.subject.keyword | 新冠病毒,營業中斷險,風險可保性,疑義不利保險人解釋原則,合理期待原則,主力近因原則, | zh_TW |
| dc.subject.keyword | COVID-19,business interruption insurance,insurability,contra proferentem,reasonable expectation,proximate cause, | en |
| dc.relation.page | 136 | |
| dc.identifier.doi | 10.6342/NTU202102448 | |
| dc.rights.note | 同意授權(全球公開) | |
| dc.date.accepted | 2021-08-19 | |
| dc.contributor.author-college | 法律學院 | zh_TW |
| dc.contributor.author-dept | 法律學研究所 | zh_TW |
| 顯示於系所單位： | 法律學系 | |
文件中的檔案：
| 檔案 | 大小 | 格式 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| U0001-1708202122514500.pdf | 2.94 MB | Adobe PDF | 檢視/開啟 |
系統中的文件，除了特別指名其著作權條款之外，均受到著作權保護，並且保留所有的權利。