An Examination of the Relations between Insurance Policies Coverage Type and the Allocation of the Burden of Proof in Insured Peril

按保險人是否負有保險理賠責任，應端視保險事故發生之保險契約效力；確實有損失之發生；該損失與保險事故具有因果關係之連結。而在民事訴訟程序，舉證責任制度為法院無法確信事實是否存在，而課以當事人負擔此真偽不明之不利益。在保險事故紛爭事件爭訟之場合，舉證責任之分配亦會因保險契約為概括保險或列舉保險而有所不同。本文即以保單條款承保模式之解釋與保險事故舉證責任分配兩者之法律上互動關係為探討，期可作供參日後法律修正暨實務之適用。

A sustainable insurance claim requires a valid policy, an incidence loss, and a causation between loss and insured peril. In civil procedure, the regime of burden of proof means if the court is left in doubt on a fact in issue, the doubt is resolved by a rule that one party or the other carries the burden of proof. Under insurance claim of insured peril, assured and insurers undertake different matters and standards of proof, depend on all risk insurance policy or named insurance policy.This article will focus on legal issues between interpretation of insurance policies coverage type and allocation of the burden of proof in insured peril. The author hopes this article would lay the foundation of relevant legal provisions amending and the practice of court.