保險利益、道德危險與人身保險契約

Insurable Interest, Moral Hazard and Life Insurance

於人身保險中，於現行保險法第16條即已規定，要保人（契約當事人）對於該條各款規定之人具有保險利益，惟如要保人與被保險人間如未具有此條各款規定之關係時，保險契約效力是否有所影響？往往即與保險法第17條所規定「對於保險標的物無保險利益者，保險契約失其效力。」有關。於契約訂立時，如要保人與被保險人間無第16條所列之身分關係時，保險契約則恐有無效之問題。但保險契約性質上為繼續性契約，但如為契約存續期間，如要保人與被保險人間身分關係一旦變動，單就保險法第17條之「失其效力」，是否即指契約向後失其效力之終止效或契約自始無效，實難得出確切毫無爭議之解釋結果。而不少學說與實務判決則多就人身保險之保險利益（身分關係）僅需於契約訂立時存在即已足，但契約訂立後身分關係如有變動則在所不問（例如訂約時夫妻身分關係，但契約存續期間離婚），契約仍屬有效，僅被保險人得另外依保險法第105條第2項撤銷其同意權而依同條第3項使契約終止。但國內亦有學說另由國外立法例而認為人身保險無保險利益概念之必要性，而強調應側重於保險法第105條同意權規範，據此於人身保險契約中保險法第16條各款之身分關係，不論於契約訂立時抑或契約存續期間，其存在與否皆不影響契約效力。
近來實務判決中，不少案例出現類如民法借名契約相關爭議，原本與被保險人間並無保險法第16條各款身分關係之人，由其實際出資而勸誘被保險人，並以該被保險人為要保人向保險人訂立人身保險契約，嗣後則產生不同類型之爭議與判決甚至學說見解尚有不少歧異。本文即藉由此類爭議重新檢視人身保險與保險利益間是否存在之必要性與對於契約效力之影響，並藉由道德危險與保險制度及契約效力為核心嘗試提出另一不同觀點，並試圖建構以被保險人為保險契約真正保障對象為基礎，並據以延伸分析此類爭議應有之規範。

The requirement of insurable interest for life insurance contract is codified in the Article 16 of Taiwan Insurance Code. Lack of valid insurable interest recognized by the Court, policies are deemed to be null and void. If their relationship is terminated during the life policy (e.g., marriage), it is agreed that the validity of life policy still remains unchanged. In this case, those whose lives have been insured can terminate the life policy by the right of revoking the consent. In Taiwan, it is argued that there is no need to establish the requirement of insurance interest in life policies. Learned from other jurisdictions, it is recognized that insurance on the life of a third party is valid with written consent of the life insured. Although the requirement of the written consent is also required by the Insurance Code, moral hazard and insurance fraud still remain an essential issue. In this regard, this article will revisit the requirement of insurance interest in life policies and to suggest the possible approaches to prevent moral hazard and insurance fraud.