Is Victim’s Drunk Drivingan Exclusion of Compulsory Automobile Liability Insurance?
|英文摘要||According to the literal interpretation of Article 28 of the Compulsory Automobile Liability Insurance Act (hereafter as Act), the insurer would not be liable for the drunk driving victim who committed offenses against public safety in traffic accident. By contrast, the insured who was not drunk driving has to assume the liability without the coverage of the compulsory automobile liability insurance. The judgment which is commented by this paper rules that article 28 of the Act should be interpreted as elimination of direct action of the victim without affecting the right to claim of the insured in accordance with the contract. In the meantime, the insurer could not ask for full refund if it paid the victim by mistake. This judgment holds the core issues regarding the legal status of the insured and the demand for protection of compulsory automobile liability insurance, and delivers the revised interpretation of the improper legislation. From this paper’s point of view, deletion of Article 28 of the Act is recommended after the refined analysis. Before deletion, Article 28 should be interpreted as: it can only be applied if the insured was no any responsibility for the traffic accident.|
|關鍵詞||酒後駕車、強制汽車責任保險、除外危險、不當得利、直接請求權、過失相抵、Drunk Driving、Compulsory Automobile Liability Insurance、Exclusions、Unjust Enrichment、Action Directe、Contributory Negligence|
|DOI||10.3966/102559312019010284004 複製DOI DOI申請|