論戰爭風險與保險事故因果關係——以英國艾克斯特大學爆裂物案為楔

A Study on Causal Relationship Between War Risk and Insurance Incidents: Taking the Case of Allianz Insurance Plc v. University of Exeter [2023] EWHC 630 (TCC) as an Example

本文以英國艾克斯特大學爆裂物案為楔，針對保險契約戰爭風險之相關概念、保險事故因果關係之判斷方法、英國高等法院商業法庭就英國艾克斯特大學爆裂物案之法律爭點判斷等為研究範圍，釐清戰爭風險涉及前述相關之爭議為討論。本文認為，英國高等法院商業法庭就主力近因原則之認定方式及判斷基礎，殊值臺灣保險法制日後以主力近因原則為保險事故因果關係判斷參酌；另既有傳統戰爭風險相關保險契約條款用語，已恐無法涵蓋如國家力量所授意或援助之網路駭客行為暨網路恐怖攻擊行為，此等新型態之損失態樣類型，為求周延，保險實務應加以研擬，宜以敵對網路活動之用語來定義此類型行為，否則日後將遭遇保險理賠之爭議。總上，僅盼本文研究成果可供為日後保險業界暨保險法制司法實務之運用。

This research paper takes the Case of Allianz Insurance Plc v. University of Exeter [2023] EWHC 630 (TCC) as an example. It analyzes the relevant issues, including the concept of war risk in insurance contracts and consider the insurance causation of whether a loss is caused by an insured peril in insurance contracts, and the judgment of the Commercial Court of High Court of England and Wales (EWHC) on the legal arguments in the Allianz Insurance Plc v. University of Exeter Case. In conclusion, the way the Commercial Court of EWHC of the United Kingdom examined the proximate cause of the loss and the basis of judgement is worth examining for Taiwan’s judicial practice to make reference to the principle of proximate cause in determining the insurance causation. Moreover, the general terms of the insurance contract related to the war risk may not suffice to cover such new types of losses as cyber hacking and cyber-terrorist attacks authorized or assisted by the states or de facto entities. For the sake of consistency, insurance practices should consider defining this type of insured peril in terms of hostile cyber activities; otherwise, there will be insurance coverage disputes over insurance claims in the future. This research paper argues that the relevant issues is worthy of consideration for Taiwan, and hopes this research paper would support the relevant legal dispute on insurance practice and the judicial practice in order to have a clearer understanding of these legal concepts and issues.