論氣候變遷責任之保險理賠爭議──以AES v. Steadfast案為中心

A Study on Insurance Claim of Climate Change Liability: A Focus on AES v. Steadfast

本文旨在探討因氣候變遷誘發保險事故發生時，責任保險人是否需就此理賠與負起抗辯義務之問題。在我國相關責任保單多源自美國之情形下，美國之指標判決AES v. Steadfast案實值得我國參考。本文乃針對本案之三大爭點進行分析：一、氣候變遷所致之損害是否屬於CGL保單之保險事故。二、氣候變遷所致之損害，是否為保險契約訂定前即已存在，並延續至保險期間，故依損害進行中原則，保險契約無效。三、溫室氣體是否屬於污染，而依污染除外條款，污染所致之損害應排除於承保範圍。對我國法而言，本文認為應確認保險人之抗辯義務，又現行法與條款難以將氣候變遷責任排除理賠，如欲除外應以更明確之條款為之。

This study aims to explore the liability and duty of defense of liability insurer when insurance occurrence is causes by climate change. Since many liability insurance policies in Taiwan originate from the U.S., the U.S. leading case AES v. Steadfast in this issue is worth more considerations. This study provides analysis for three main issues in this case: first, whether the loss contributed by climate change is the occurrence in CGL policy or not. Secondly, whether the loss contributed by climate change exits before insurance contract and extend to insurer period, then satisfying loss in progress doctrine and invalidating insurance contract. Third, whether greenhouse gas is equivalent to pollution and not within insurance coverage according to pollution exclusion clause. For Taiwanese law, this study suggests to confirm the duty of defense of insurer. Also, current law and insurance policy in Taiwan are not able to exclude the liability contributed by climate change, and thus more clear clauses are needed if insurer desire to exclude it.