論協會條款之準據法及適航性擔保──簡評臺灣高等法院103年度保險上易字第23號民事判決

A Study on “Choice of Law Clause” and “Warranty of Seaworthiness” of Institute Clauses: Comment on Taiwan High Court 103 Pao-Hsien-Shang-Yi -Zi No. 23 Civil Judgment

海運實務上，由於英國海上保險業發展悠久，故多數保險人均選擇以英國協會條款作為契約內容或用作附約，然此等條款咸具指定準據法條款之內容， 且大多係奠基於英國海事法律及實務而訂定，倘若在未具有涉外因素之海上保險事件中，當事人以該等協會條款作為契約之主要內容或內容之一部，則前開條款應如何解釋？是否須作一定之調整？
對此，臺灣高等法院103 年度保險上易字第23 號民事判決不僅予以忽視， 亦逕以被保險人違反最大善意原則為由，認定本件保險事故並非合法發生、被保險人不得請求保險人給付保險金。學說上對此判決，有認為雖保險事件中未具有涉外因素，惟既當事人已選擇協會條款作為契約之內容，則本於私法自治原則、當事人意思自主原則，即應尊重其指定準據法之契約自由。
然本文認為，於無涉外因素之保險事件中，如允許當事人任意指定準據法， 恐無益於糾紛之解決，反治絲益棼，使問題複雜化，實非妥當。且本案之保險契約尚有殷馬里條款之訂定，此亦會影響審理之邏輯、順序。是以，上開判決及學說見解應有檢討之必要，本文爰分作三個層面切入檢視之。

In the practice of shipping, most underwriters use Institute (of London Underwriters) Clauses as insurance contract or attachment of the insurance contract owing to the prevailing and thriving development of British marine insurance. Those Institute Clauses include choice-of-law clauses, and most of which are predicated on English maritime law and practice.
But how should above-mentioned clauses be delineated and illustrated if the parties use the clauses as insurance contract or attachment of the insurance contract in the no-foreign-element scenario? Do they need modifications when used in the case which contains no foreign element? Nevertheless, Taiwan High Court 103 Pao-Hsien-Shang-Yi-Zi No.23 Civil Judgment not only ignored these questions, but also pointed out that the insurer didn’t need to pay the insured amount on the grounds that the insured violated the principle of utmost good faith.
Some academics opine the freedom of making applicable law clauses shall be respected based on the principle of party autonomy even if the parties of insurance contract use Institute Clauses as insurance contract or attachment of the insurance contract in the no-foreign-element scenario. So, according to their opinions, the parties are admitted to make a choice-of-law clause in that scenario.
However, I believe that in an insurance case without foreign elements, it is not appropriate to allow the parties to appoint the applicable law at will, which may not be beneficial to the settlement of disputes, counteract the benefits, and complicate the problem instead. Moreover, there is the “Inchmaree Clause” in the insurance contract of this case. This clause will affect the logic and order of the trial. Therefore, it is necessary to review the above-mentioned judgment and academic opinions. This article is divided into three levels to examine them: the validity of choice-of-law clause, the seaworthiness warranty and the correctness of admitting utmost good faith principle.