工程財物損失保險設計瑕疵不保事項研探

On Defective Design Exclusion in Contract Works Coverage

傳統上工程保險人大都無意願承保設計瑕疵或設計錯誤導致之財物損失。早期用 以決定設計有無瑕疵或錯誤係採用“一切可預見危險”標準。如危險係“可預見”者，設 計未能承受該危險，即“有瑕疵或錯誤”。現今有些國家用以判斷設計瑕疵不保事項之 標準，已由“一切可預見危險”轉變為“先進技術”。所謂“先進技術”標準，高於過失標 準，低於完美標準。目前已有許多營造綜合保險單或安裝工程綜合保險單提供寬廣之 承保範圍，其承保範圍取決於設計瑕疵不保事項如何界定，是故不能忽視前述轉變。 至今保險業界尚無設計瑕疵或設計錯誤之適切定義，本文之目的乃在借鏡國外經驗以 改進國內設計瑕疵不保事項。

Traditionally, most of engineering insurers were unwilling to cover material damage resulting from defective design or faulty design. The early standard applied to determine whether design is ''defective or faulty'' is that of ''all foreseeable risks''. If the risk was ''foreseeable'', then design that failed to accommodate that risk was ''defective or faulty''. Nowadays the standard for application of the defective design exclusion has altered from ''all foreseeable risks'' to ''state of the art'' in some countries. The ''state of the art'' standard is higher than a negligence standard but below a standard of perfection. Many CAR and EAR policies currently provide broad cover defined by defective design exclusion and therefore we cannot ignore the said alteration. There is no proper definition of defective design or faulty design in insurance industry, the purpose of this article is to draw on foreign experience as a reference for improving domestic defective design exclusion.