論人壽保險之豁免強制執行與介入權──比較法的觀點

A Study on the Exemption of Life Insurance from Compulsory Enforcement and Intervention Rights: A Comparative Law Perspective

對於保價金強制執行爭議，我國於2025年6月修正保險法，建立了豁免與介入權機制。本文乃就主要立法例進行比較分析，並對我國法提出建議。雖然多數見解認為受益人僅有期待之地位，但各國仍以豁免與介入權以維持保險契約。在具體設計上，美國大致採取原則（基礎）豁免，例外（超額）執行之架構。大陸法系亦多有設置豁免或介入權，法國對保險豁免執行持肯定態度，並排除稅務、犯罪相關債權。瑞士明確採取雙軌制，著重保護配偶與後代；德國則以介入權為主。日本則選擇介入效果較輕、尊重契約自由之立場。整體而言，各立法例有從強調保險特殊性而廣泛豁免，到重視債權平等偏重介入權的光譜。我國新法融合兩者，制度上與瑞士相近，而豁免額度設計則與美國相似，其強度屬於中上程度。而新法之介入權干涉效果較強，範圍與期間較寬鬆，可能引發風險控管的挑戰。本文認為，人壽保險有提供被保險人完全失能給付與喪葬費用之效果，法國與瑞士也肯定對親屬之扶助，故都可作為豁免之基礎。就豁免額度而言，應解釋為超過豁免額度者方得執行，或至少應維持一個豁免額度內的人壽保險契約為妥。就介入權部分，在整體修正前，建議增訂保險人未反對之條件，以兼顧權益保障與風險控制。

Regarding the long-standing disputes over the enforcement of insurance policy values, Taiwan amended its Insurance Act in June 2025, establishing mechanisms for exemption and intervention rights (Eintrittsrecht). This article comparatively analyzes major legislative examples and offers recommendations for Taiwan’s new law. Although the prevailing view holds that beneficiaries possess only an expectancy, various jurisdictions nonetheless employ exemption and intervention rights to uphold insurance contracts.
Specifically, the United States generally adopts a framework of principal (basic) exemption with exceptional (excess) enforcement. Civil law jurisdictions also widely implement exemption or intervention rights. France generally affirms the exemption of insurance from enforcement, with exceptions for tax-related and crime-related claims. Switzerland explicitly adopts a dual-track system, emphasizing the protection of spouses and descendants, while Germany primarily relies on intervention rights. Japan, conversely, opts for less intrusive intervention, respecting contractual freedom.
Collectively, legislative approaches span a spectrum, from those emphasizing the unique nature of insurance and granting broad exemptions, to those prioritizing creditor equality and leaning towards intervention rights. Taiwan’s new law integrates both, with its system resembling Switzerland’s, and its exemption limit design akin to that of the United States, placing its intensity at a medium-to-high level. However, the new law’s intervention rights are more assertive, with broader scope and duration, potentially posing risk management challenges.
This article posits that life insurance serves to provide disability benefits and funeral expenses for the insured, while France and Switzerland also affirm support for dependents, all of which can form the basis for exemption. Regarding exemption limits, it should be interpreted that only amounts exceeding the exemption limit are subject to enforcement, or at a minimum, a life insurance contract within the exemption limit should be maintained. Concerning intervention rights, prior to comprehensive revisions, it is suggested to add a condition where the insurer has not objected, balancing the protection of rights with risk control.