The Right of Consent to a Settlement in Compulsory Automobile Liability Insurance Act

• Main Authors: Chi-Heng Chu, 朱繼亨
• Other Authors: Chi-Chou Yeh
• Format: Others
• Language: zh-TW
• Published: 2012
• Online Access: http://ndltd.ncl.edu.tw/handle/03372722569387705514

碩士 === 東吳大學 === 法律學系 === 100 === Abstract After the amendment of Compulsory Automobile Liability Insurance Act (CALIA) issued in 2005, the non-liability insurance in Taiwan has established. In order to protect the accidentally injured party, the law had set up some system to protect the injured. But the most important problem is what the liability foundation of Compulsory Automobile Liability Insurance is, and how to be subrogated to the claimant's right of claim against the party liable for damages? According to Article 7 of CALIA, parties injured or dead in an automobile traffic accident can claim insurance benefit from the Motor Vehicle Accident Compensation Fund ("the Compensation Fund") without the consideration of traditional fault system in tort law. However, if the insured party complies with the condition of Article 29 of CALIA, the insurer can take the law status of the original injured party for compensation. Another alike mechanism also existed in Article 42 of CALIA, which is the Compensation Fund can subrogate the claimants for compensation. According to Article 217 of Civil Code, if the injured person has contributory negligence, the court may reduce or release the amount of the compensation. The rule can also apply in case of CALIA. Therefore, in the automobile traffic accident, if the injured party has contributory negligence, the offender, also the liable compensational party like insured and the party liable for damages may claim the reduction of on the amount of compensation. In practice, the compromise of two parties to renounce the rights is pretty common. Because of Article 30 and Article 43, the insurer and the Compensation Fund shall not be bound by any settlement, waiver of rights, or other agreement between a claimant and the party liable for damages made without the previous consent of the insurer and the Compensation Fund. So, Article 30 and Article 43, the right of consent to a settlement, can let the insurer and the Compensation Fund to secure their right of subrogation. In this Master Thesis, the author shall discuss the dispute of the value of Act and deliver legal opinions and amending suggestions on CALIA. The author will tackle the following problems. How to prejudice to the claim for subrogation? Whether Article 30 and Article 43 are disadvantageous to the party liable for damages excessively? Do Article 30 and Article 43 protect the right of subrogation of the insurer and the Compensation Fund too much? And last but not least, in every automobile traffic accident, be the party liable for damages or the claimant, to make a compromise and settlement or not?