查詢結果分析
來源資料
頁籤選單縮合
題名 | 論住宅火災保險附加地震基本保險合併販售是否為違法之搭售=Earthquake Insurance Should Be Purchased with Home Fire Insurance--Could This be Viewed as a Tie-in by the Fair Trade Act? |
---|---|
作者 | 羅俊瑋; 廖家宏; | 書刊名 | 公平交易季刊 |
卷期 | 15:3 2007.07[民96.07] |
頁次 | 頁67-103 |
分類號 | 563.75 |
關鍵詞 | 地震保險; 共保組織; 搭售; 聯合行為; 公平交易法; Earthquake insurance; Co-insurance; Tie-in; Concerted action; Fair trade act; |
語文 | 中文(Chinese) |
中文摘要 | 88 年9 月21 日之921 大地震,造成台灣嚴重災情。根據統計,經濟損失金額達新台幣3000 餘億元,死亡2457 人、重傷679 人、房屋全倒5 萬2605 戶、半倒5 萬3133 戶。受災民眾面對此一劇變,親人死亡、家庭支離破碎,切身之痛無以復加,造成社會莫大的動盪。由此事件,使吾人體認到天災之可怕,事先無法預測與防範,事後又無力承擔此種巨大的災害,可行的辦法,便是借助保險制度來謀求危險的分散。因此地震保險制度的實施,可解決被保險大眾生命、財產損失,獲得適當的補償。政府遂積極推行辦理地震基本保險,視其為一政策性之保險,其目的在謀保障民眾生命財產之經濟生活安全,降低政府財政困窘衝擊。 現行地震基本保險制度為由保險業以共保方式承接,其係依據保險法第144 條之1 規定,其無違反公平交易法有關聯合行為禁止之規定。於民眾購屋向銀行貸款時,銀行通常要求貸款民眾投保住宅火災保險,以確保銀行債權。然於貸款民眾向產物保險公司投保住宅火災保險時,地震保險必須同時投保,此舉是否已構成公平交易法中有關搭售之規定?如其為搭售之行為,此行為適法與否?均值吾人加以關注。本文即就現行地震基本保險之相關制度,及我國公平交易法就搭售之規定加以探討。 |
英文摘要 | The devastating earthquake that struck Taiwan on September 21, 1999 severely damaged the island. According to the statistics compiled in relation to this disaster, over NT$300 billion in damage was caused, 2,457 lives were lost, 679 people were seriously wounded, 52,605 houses were demolished and a further 53,133 were unsuitable for occupation. In evoking the reality of trauma, death and destruction, the 921 earthquake had a tremendous impact on the community at all levels. Understanding this incident made me realize the fear that people have of the unpredictable, the unpreventable nature of the calamity and our helplessness in responding to it. A feasible way of responding to such a disaster would be to have a well-designed insurance system in order to defuse a potential hazard of such a magnitude. The implementation of earthquake insurance could appropriately offer protection against the losses of life and property of the insured by providing suitable and timely compensation. The introduction of primary earthquake insurance by the government is a strategy to ensure the security of the economic life of the general public and also to ease the financial difficulties resulting from the natural disaster. Currently, primary earthquake insurance is administered by an alliance of the members of the insurance industry based on Article 144 of the Insurance Act. It does not violate the spirit of the Fair Trade Act in banning the formation of an alliance in the industry. However, the earthquake insurance should be purchased together with home fire insurance. Can this be considered to be a tie-in according to the wording of the Fair Trade Act? Is it appropriate in light of the Fair Trade Act? In this study, I will focus on the current system of earthquake insurance and the spirit of tie-ins in accordance with the Fair Trade Act in so far as it relates to the insurance industry. |
本系統之摘要資訊系依該期刊論文摘要之資訊為主。