保單審閱期可行不可行──兼評臺灣高等法院一○三年度保險上更（一）字第四號民事判決

The Feasibility of Insurance Contract’s Reviewing Period: Comments on the Taiwan High Court’s Civil Judgment of July 19, 2016

消費者保護法第十一條之一明定消費者之定型化契約審閱權，並於同條第二項明定企業經營者未提供合理審閱期間之法律效果。雖上開規定之目的係在保障消費者知的權利，使其於訂立定型化契約前，有充分了解定型化契約條款之機會，惟因其法效果是否妥適，實有討論之必要。又保險契約已受高度監理，且保險商品與一般消費性商品有別。本文認為法院能透過司法審查建立合理解釋原則，如此，方可透過保單審閱期之實施達到保障要保人知的權利之目的，進而減少甚至避免對契約內容認知不同所生糾紛，以健全我國保險市場之交易發展。

Article 11-1 in the Consumer Protection Act stipulates the consumers’ reviewing period in standard contracts as well as the legal effects when traders fail to provide a reasonable period. Although these provisions aim at protecting consumers’ right of information by providing reviewing opportunity before entering into contracts, whether the legal effect is appropriate is worth discussing. In addition, insurance contracts are heavily regulated and insurance policy differs from consumer goods. This article argues that courts can establish reasonable explanation principle by judicial review, which can consequently protect the applicant’s right of information by implementing reviewing period, decrease or avoid arguments arising out of different understandings of contracts, and benefit the transactional development of our insurance markets.