國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
以追認，使保險契約發生效力。惟保險經紀人於契約招攬時，要保人通常不知其 處於雙方代理之狀態，易使法律關係長久處於不確定狀態，而影響保險市場之運 作，為使要保人及保險人之法律關係早日確定計，宜認於保險人通知要保人繳交 保費時，若要保人不為違反雙方代理之抗辯，即得解釋為要保人有使契約效力發 生之意思，進而使法律關係予以確定。50
第三項 外國法例
〈一〉英國
參考外國之法例，以保險經紀行業之發源地英國為例，保險經紀人與其客戶 間之關係基本上係成立本人與代理人之法律關係(principal and agent)51。保險經紀 人與其他之專門職業人員相同，其與客戶間均存在一個信任與忠實關係(fiduciary relationship)，保險經紀人所負之專業責任亦係經由法律實務中對於一般專門職業 人員所課予之善良管理人之注意義務來理解。保險經紀人與客戶間關係之本質係 一種信任與忠實之關係(fiduciary relationship)，故而客戶期待保險經紀人係將客 戶之利益優先於其自身之利益為考量。保險經紀人所負善良管理人注意義務之內 涵部分係基於代理之法理，此可參考 Millett 法官於 Bristol and West Building
Society v. Mothew
52一案中之見解：“忠實義務存在於當一方承諾為他方處理特定 事項時，於其間所產生之一種信任與信賴之關係。忠實義務之特徵為忠心與誠實 之義務，本人基於此原則得享有代理人獨一無二之忠實義務。基於忠實義務之核 心所產生之義務包括但不限於：忠實義務人須依善意為本人為管理事務之行為、
50 江朝國，何謂保險經紀人？（之三），現代保險雜誌第 82 期，頁 88 - 89，1995 年 10 月 1 日。
51 CMS CAMERON MCKENNA, INSURANCE BROKING PRACTICE AND THE LAW. Informa UK Ltd., para 1-5, P 1-2. (2013).
52 “A fiduciary is someone who has undertaken to act for or on behalf of another in a particular matter in circumstances which give rise to a relationship of trust and confidence. The distinguishing obligation of a fiduciary is the obligation of loyalty. The principal is entitled to the single undivided loyalty of his fiduciary. This core liability has several facets. A fiduciary must act in good faith; he must not make a profit out of his trust; he must not place himself in a position where his duty and his interest may conflict; he may not act for his own benefit or the benefit of a third person without the informed consent of his principal . This is not intended to be an exhaustive list…”
Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew (t/a Stapley & Co) [1998] Ch 1; [1997] 2 WLR 436, CA.
‧
53 於英國法中有二大類之默示授權係與保險中介人最為相關(Incidental authority, Usual authority or Customary authority). See FMB Reynolds, Bowstead and Reynolds on Agency, para 3-006, (17th ed 2001).
54 Reforming Insurance Contract Law, Scottish Law Commission, P.23 (March 2009).
55 Reforming Insurance Contract Law, Scottish Law Commission, P.25 (March 2009).
於 Arif v Excess Insurance Group, 1986 SC 317 一案中，一個合夥旅館之所有人經由保險經紀人(銀行)購買 保險，保險人因該保險之部分被保險人無保險利益，而欲解除保險契約，被保險人抗辯銀行對於此旅館 為合夥之情形早已知悉，且對其為合夥人之利益購買保險亦為知悉。法院認為銀行為被保險人之代理人，
而非保險人之代理人，因而此資訊並未告知於保險人。法院認為銀行雖然係從保險人處獲得佣金，且係 為保險人安排保險，亦不足以改變其為被保險人之代理人之身分。
於Winter v Irish Life Assurance plc, (1995) 2 Lloyd’s Rep 274 一案中，法院亦採相同之見解。
於 Whitlam v Hazel, (2004) EWCA Civ 160 (CA) 一案中，關於保險經紀人將手寫要保書轉換成電子檔案時 所發生之錯誤，其責任負擔法院認為，因保險經紀人於訂定保險契約時，為被保險人之代理人，因此認 為其法律責任應由被保險人承擔。
56 CMS CAMERON MCKENNA, INSURANCE BROKING PRACTICE AND THE LAW, Informa UK Ltd., para 1-26, P 1-8. (2013).
‧
在 Anglo-African Merchants Ltd v Bayley58一案中，經紀人拒絕將其處理賠案 時所收到之第三人評估報告提供給被保險人，因為在處理賠案時，經紀人有可能 產生同時代表客戶與保險人之情形。Megaw 法官指出，並非係指經紀人於賠案 中即可進行雙方代理，而是該雙方代理之情形是否經雙方明白表示同意該雙方代 理之情形。
參考 Fullwood v Hurley59一案中 Scrutton 法官之見解：法律上代理人不得在 與其第一委託人間之受任義務有衝突之情形下，接受第二委託人之受任，除非代 理人已將其雙方代理所可能產生之利益衝突揭露予委託人並獲其同意。〈No agent who has accepted an employment from one principal can in law accept an engagement inconsistent with his duty to the first principal, from a second principal…unless he makes the fullest disclosure to each principal of his interest and consent of each principal to the double employment.〉。
參考 North and South Trust Co v Berkeley60一案中之情形，保險人主張被保險 人不得調閱經紀人所持有之理賠案件相關報告，因為就該等報告之製作而言，經 紀人並非代理客戶之關係。Donaldson 法官承認在 Lloyd’s 保險市場中確實存在 經紀人雙方代理之情形，但這個情形與前述案例所揭示之原則並不相當61，實務 這個情形並不能作為經紀人對於客戶義務違背之抗辯。
經紀人係屬客戶代理人之通則，常因經紀人與保險人間之類似代理關係而 產生重疊與混淆之情形。例如在 Goshawk v Tyser62一案中就此種衝突之發生為
57 實務中，保險經紀人可能將此情形亦告知予客戶知悉：“Circumstances may arise where we may find we have a conflict of interest or otherwise have a material interest in or related to a matter in respect of which we are acting. For example, we may be asked to act on behalf of a reinsurer in the appointment of a loss adjuster; or, we may find that the interests of two of the clients for whom we act conflict. We have conflict management
procedures and we seek to avoid conflicts of interest but where a conflict is unavoidable we will explain the position fully and manage the situation in such a way as to avoid prejudice to any party. The reinsurance market is complex and there could be other relationships not described here which might create conflicts of interest.
Whatever the circumstances, we will act in your best interests; and, if a conflict arises for which there is no practicable solution, we will withdraw unless you wish us to continue to act for you and provide us with your written consent to that effect.”
General Terms of Business Agreement for our Reinsurance Clients, Willis Limited, Version: 1 June 2013.
58 [1969] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 268
59 [1928] 1 KB 498
60 [1970] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 467
61 Fullword v Hurley [1928] 1 KB 498, Rozanes v Bowen (1928) 32 LI L Rep 98.
62 [2005] Lloyd’s Rep IR 379 and [2006] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 566 (CA).
‧ 國
立 政 治 大 學
‧
N a tio na
l C h engchi U ni ve rs it y
例，保險人要求經紀人提供相關文件，但一些客戶之同意並無法取得，法院一開 始認為，除非保險人已看過該等文件，否則保險人無權要求經紀人提供，此時經 紀人應將客戶之利益優先考量。在上訴法院的審理中，上訴法院則無異議的推翻 了下級法院之見解，他們認為在Lloyd’s 的市場中，保險人與被保險人之契約關 係中存在一個原則，在情況需要的時候，經紀人有義務提供保險人相關文件。上 訴法院也指出，在經紀人與保險人間也存在一個契約，經紀人應將關於被保險人 之文件資訊揭露予保險人知悉，以為其業主維持保險契約之效力。在 Goshawk v
Tyser 一案中，這個原則被經紀人與保險人間之標準交易條件(TOBA)所混淆了，
在 TOBA 條件中，經紀人有將客戶資訊揭露給保險人之義務，但仍應以客戶利 益為優先考量。基於上訴法院認為被保險人本身即有揭露資訊之義務，故而無庸 另行討論經紀人揭露資訊給保險人是否與維持客戶利益間產生利益衝突之情形。
在 HIH Casualty & General Insurance Ltd. v JLT Risk Solutions Ltd.一案中
63，上訴法院討論了關於經紀人為客戶安排保險與經紀人為保險公司安排再保險 間所可能發生之潛在利益衝突，法院承認於倫敦市場中經紀人同時為數個客戶提 供服務是市場之慣行，經紀人同時為二個客戶服務的同時會發現他可能亦處於一 個利益衝突的狀態中，但無論如何這都不解除經紀人須同時對二個業主均負善盡 職守之責任64。Longmore 法官說到：若有一個會影響保險契約效力的因素存在，
此時二個客戶都會想知道且應被告知該事實，當然在一些罕見的案例中可能遇到 需同時告知二個客戶是有實際困難的，但這並不排除這個基本原則的存在。事實 上，經紀人既然對二個業主均承擔了責任，他就必須為二個業主均妥適的善盡職 責，當有利益衝突狀況發生時，經紀人就必須清楚他的立場。當然在客戶被告知 有影響保險效力之因素存在時，通常可以想見該客戶會要求經紀人與其保險人研 商解決此情形並避免保險效力受到影響，這也是保險市場通常之運作方式…但基
63 [2007] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 278.
64 North and South Trust Co v Berkeley [1971] 1 WLR 470, Youell v Bland Welch (No 2) [1990] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 431, General Accident Fire & Life Assurance Corporation and Others v Tanter (“The Zephyr”) [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 58, Kelly v Cooper [1993] AC 205.
‧
65 Reforming Insurance Contract Law, Scottish Law Commission, P.26 (March 2009).
66 實務中，保險經紀人可能將此情形亦告知予客戶知悉：” As a reinsurance intermediary, we normally act for you and we arrange reinsurance with leading reinsurers, recommending one or more from a limited range, according to the nature of the product required. However, we sometimes act as an agent of the reinsurer in relation to the coverage proposed, or the reinsurer may have outsourced to us certain work related to the administration of your contract. We will disclose to you where we act as agent of the reinsurer or provide services to the reinsurers when providing you with information on the coverage proposed. Generally we act as agent of a reinsurer when reinsurers have granted us a binding authority or managing general agency, which enables us to accept business on their behalf and immediately provide coverage for a risk. Further, we may arrange lineslips, which enable a reinsurer to bind business for itself and other reinsurers and we may manage these lineslips for such reinsurers. We may place your reinsurance business under a binding authority, managing general agency, lineslip or similar facility where we reasonably consider these match your reinsurance
requirements / instructions. We shall inform you whenever we bind your reinsurance risk under a facility.”; “We advise that we may be granted authority by reinsurers, for example under a binding authority, managing general agency or a lineslip agreement, to settle claims on your reinsurance. We settle such claims made within the terms and conditions of the authority granted and your contract. It is our policy to refer claims to reinsurers for settlement decision where we are not able to settle the claim on a 100% basis. Further, if there is a conflict of interest we shall manage it in accordance with our conflicts policy.”; “We or other members of the Willis Group have contracts with various reinsurers under which we provide certain services, such as those under binding authorities, managing general agency and lineslip arrangements (for example, providing statements of the business accepted and the issuance of certificates of reinsurance cover). We may also provide reinsurance broking services for reinsurers. We may also enter into service agreements with certain reinsurers in order to assist the development of reinsurance products for our clients.”
General Terms of Business Agreement for our Reinsurance Clients, Willis Limited, Version: 1 June 2013.
67 羅俊瑋，英、美、德商業保險告知義務之歷史發展與差異比較，國會月刊，卷 37，期 3，頁 59-75，2009 年 3 月。
68 The McCarran–Ferguson Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1011-1015.
‧
69 Reforming Insurance Contract Law, Scottish Law Commission, P.13 (March 2009).
於 Saunders v Allstate Insurance Co 一案中，被保險人告知保險經紀人有關保險標的之真實與正確資訊，但 保險經紀人於要保書中卻填寫錯誤，被保險人仍於該要保書中簽名。俄亥俄州最高法院判決，其並無證 據證明被保險人知悉，或應知悉保險人遭受詐欺。被保險人基於誠信原則相信保險經紀人，且其無證據 顯示被保險人有欺詐之行為，保險人不得以告知或說明有錯誤，而主張解除保險契約之責任。(1958) 151 NE 2d 1 (Ohio).
70 ROBERT H JERRY II, UNDERSTANDING INSURANCE LAW, 283 (2002).
71 Reforming Insurance Contract Law, Scottish Law Commission, P.13 (March 2009).
71 Reforming Insurance Contract Law, Scottish Law Commission, P.13 (March 2009).