Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/33047
標題: 以米堤飯店土砂災害判例探討土石流相關保險條款之適宜性
Suitability of insurance articles related to debris flow using case study of sediment disaster in Hotel Lemidi
作者: 吳昱甫
Wu, Yu-Fu
關鍵字: 土石流
Debris Flow
颱風及洪水保險
地層下陷
滑動或山崩保險
Typhoon & Flood Insurance
Subsidence Landslip or Landslide Insurance
出版社: 水土保持學系所
引用: 中文 1.中華民國大地工程學會會訊(2001),「桃芝颱風造成之土石流災害」,中華民國大地工程學會,5(2):1-2。 2.王一雄、陳尊賢、李達源(2001),「土壤資源利用與保護」,國立空中大學,p.15-16,293。 3.王永安(2005),「主力近因原則之研究-兼論米堤飯店火災保險附加颱風及洪水險之理賠糾紛」,淡江大學保險學系保險經營研究所碩士論文。 4.吳嘉俊、盧光輝、林俐玲(1996),「土壤流失量估算手冊」,國立屏東科技大學,p.11-13。 5.宋明哲(2000),「保險學-純風險與保險」,五南圖書,p.145。 6.李立文(1997),「保險百科」,金錢文化,p.108。 7.李珍穎(2002),「建立臺灣綜合天然災害風險管理與保險規劃之研究」,國立高雄第一科技大學風險管理與保險研究所碩士論文。 8.李秋憙(2006),「土石流之家戶損失評估」,國立台北大學自然資源與環境管理研究所碩士論文。 9.李毅宏 (2004),「土石流預警與降雨關係之研究」,國立中興大學水土保持學研究所碩士論文。 10.洪明瑞、段賢麟、廖新興、張惠文(1998),「臺灣山坡地災害類型及產生因素之探討(四)」,現代營建,226:61~68。 11.張立憲(1985),「土石流特性之探討」,中華水土保持學報,16(1):135-141。 12.許文彥(2012),「保險學-風險管理與保險」,新陸書局,p.146。 13.許榮賢(2007),「保險契約條款解釋與合理期待原則之研究-兼論米堤飯店賠案之理賠爭議」,國立政治大學經營管理碩士(EMBA)論文。 14.陳志誠、范國勇、董正談、顏志平、葉思縈(2002),「臺灣歷年來土石流災害及相關救災資料之查詢展示分析系統」,內政部消防署編號A9103-018計畫。 15.溫怡玲(2007),「我國綜合天然災害保險制度之研究-將坡地(土石流)災害納入承保範圍之可行性分析」,中華民國財產保險同業公會第五屆財產保險業金筆獎論文。 16.萬鑫森(2005) ,「基礎土壤物理學」,國立編譯館。 17.詹錢登(2004),「土石流概論」,93 年國中小教師水土保持專業成長與宣導成果發表,p.19。 18.農委會水土保持局(2005),「94年土石流年報」,行政院農委會水土保持局。 19.壽險公會(2012),「人身保險業務員資格測驗統一教材」,中華民國保險商業同業公會,p.157。 20.廖偉民(2001),「土石流潛勢判定模式及土石壩滲流破壞之研究」,國立中央大學土木工程研究所博士論文。 21.臺灣高等法院民事判決93年度保險上字第22號。 22.鄭微宣、官廷霖、陳孜萍、鍾文萍(2010),「那些土石流教我的事」,行政院農委會水土保持局。 23.謝正倫 (1993),「土石流預警系統之研究II」,國立成功大學台南水工試驗所研究試驗第139 號報告。 24.饒哲銘(2009),「土石流潛勢溪流評估模式之研究」,國立暨南國際大學土木工程學系碩士論文。   外文 1. 池谷浩(1980),「土石流災害調查法:土石流対策のための」,山海堂,P.135~141。 2. 高橋和雄、河內健吾、近藤久泰、中村聖三(2008),「 2005年台風14号における土砂災害警戒情報の運用と鹿児島県内市町村および住民の対応」,自然災害科学,J.JSNDS 26-4 ,pp.343~352。 3. Daniel J.C. and D. Grenham (2013), “Micro insurance and natural disasters: Challenges and options”, Environmental Science & Policy,Volume 27, Supplement 1, March 2013,pp. 89–98. 4. Gregoretti, C.(2000),“Experimental Evidence from the Triggering of Debris Flow Along a Granular Slope”, Phys. Chem. Earth (B), Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 387-390. 5. Hansell, D.S.(1985), “Elements of Insurance” 4th ed., Macdonald & Evans Ltd.,pp.185~192. 6. Johnson, A.M. and J.R. Rodine(1984), “Debrisflow, in: Brunsden, D. and Prior, D.B. eds.”, Slope Instability, pp.251-361. 7. Liang, W.C., D.F. Zhuang, D.Jiang, J.J. Pan, and H.Y. Ren (2012), “Assessment of debris flow hazards using a Bayesian Network”, Geomorphology, Volumes 171–172, 15 October 2012, pp.94–100. 8. Lin, P.S., J.C. Hung, J.Y.Lin, and M.D. Yang(2000), “Risk assessment of potential debris-flow using GIS”, Debris-Flow Hazards Mitigation: Mechanics, Prediction, and Assessment., A.A. Balkema, Rotterdam. 9. Lin,X. and J. Lei(2003), “A method for assessing regional debris flow risk: an application in Zhaotong of Yunnan province(SW China)”, Geomorphology, Volume 52, Issues 3-4:181-191. 10. Olshansky, R.B. and Y. Wu(2001),“Earthquake risk analysis for Los Angeles County under present and planned land uses”, Environment and Planning B, 28:419-432. 11. Pasuto A. and M. Soldati(2004),“An integrated approach of hazard assessment and mitigation of debris flows in the Italian Dolomites”, Geomorphology, Volume 61, Issues 1-2: 59-70. 網站 1. MBA智庫百科網站http://wiki.mbalib.com/zh-tw/%E9%81%93%E5%BE%B7%E9%A3%8E%E9%99%A9 2. 中華民國產物保險商業同業公會網站/火險委員會/火險費率規章/第八章火災保險附加條款http://www.nlia.org.tw/modules/smartsection/item.php?itemid=77 3. 內政部消防署全球資訊網災害專區網頁http://www.nfa.gov.tw/main/history.aspx 4. 水土保持及荒廢地復育網站http://grassland.agron.ntu.edu.tw/Erosion_Control_&_Phytoremediation.htm 5. 水土保持局土石流防災資訊網http://246.swcb.gov.tw/debrisClassInfo/toknew/toknew1.aspx 6. 司法院法學資料檢索系統http://jirs.judicial.gov.tw/FJUD/ 7. 財團法人住宅地震保險基金網站http://www.treif.org.tw/ 8. 財團法人保險事業發展中心保險資料庫保險商品查詢http://insprod.tii.org.tw/database/insurance/query.asp
摘要: 親近山林是都會區人們渴望的休憩型態,遊憩環境提供者往往對環境風險,並無完全正確之認知。面對逐年加劇的坡地災害,冀望政府扮演無限責任彌補的角色,等同將災害損失轉嫁全民買單,肯定無法獲得支持。遊憩業者對於無法承擔的可能損失,必須透過保險機制尋求適當彌補,然而目前保險市場仍屬供應者主導之市場取向,保單之設計多依據經驗法則,面對坡地環境日趨複雜的複合型災害,本研究試從保險理賠案衍生之爭論,探討複合型災害,特別是土石流,在保險理論及商品理解上之差異,以及法界對保險理賠之看法與相關天然災害之心證,並以南投縣鹿谷鄉內湖村米提坑野溪於2001年桃芝颱風期間對米堤飯店造成災損之理賠訴訟為例,對國內土石流相關保險條款之適宜性進行探析。 分析米堤賠案五次法院判決,並配合水土保持領域的相關專業並製表分析討論發現,司法系統解決紛爭的真締,實不在完全拘泥於文字,而在探求契約之真實本意。然而藉此分析討論,並擴大檢視產物保險其他險種中土石流的定位,發現有些改善空間:首先是砂及土壤流失與土石流在相關條文上實不宜相提並論,再來是米提案當時苦於未挑明土石流之理賠與否,更改後卻被颱風及洪水保險列為不保事項,實有不妥,恐再生爭議。概保險最怕買了不賠,賠了不夠,而且『爭議條款』易生『爭議理賠』,建議予以修正。惟再考量各式天然災害環環相扣之特性,目前卻被保險生硬分割,應為暫時之無奈,實務上目前土石流被歸為地層下陷、滑動或山崩保險理賠也不盡然沒有道理,只是深究土石流之成因後,建議分短中長三期改善相關天然災害保險。
Getting close to forests is the desired leisure style of metropolitan people. The suppliers of recreation environment have absolutely no correct cognition about environmental risks. Facing the gradually increasing slope disaster, we hope the government can play the role of unlimited liability. It certainly can’t be supported if all the residents have to pay for the disaster loss. The recreation industry has to seek for appropriate remedy through insurance mechanisms about the possible loss. Nevertheless, the current insurance market is still dominated by the market-oriented of suppliers. The design of insurance is according to the experience rules. Facing the increasingly complex disaster of slope environment, my research tries to discuss the complex disaster from the derived dispute of insurance claims, especially the landslides, the difference on the insurance theory, the understanding commodities, as well as the view of legislation on the insurance claims and the relevant natural disasters. The insurance claims of Hotel Lemidi damaged by Toraji typhoon in 2001 at the streams of Midi-Keng, Nehu Village, Lugu Township, Nantou County have been researched as an example on the property of insurance terms about the domestic mudflow. This article makes a painstaking investigation on the five judgments of the court about the Hotel Lemidi case, unravels the key reasons of judgment, and even more, cooperates with the related professions on the soil and water conservation area, and makes tabulation, analysis, and discussion. We discover that the judicial system does not only resolve disputes through adhering to the words, but also through finding the true intention of the contracts. However, through this analysis and discussion, and through examinations of other types of insurance and the position of debris flow, we find some room to improve: First, it’s not appropriate to put sand and soil erosion and debris flow in the relevant rules on par. Second, the Hotel Lemidi case didn’t focus on the claims of debris flow. It’s really not appropriate to be seen as an affair of exclusion by typhoon and flood insurance provision, and it could regenerate controversy. For insurance, it’s denounced not to pay after buying the insurance or pay not enough. “Controversial Clause” makes easily “Controversial Claims”. We propose to amend the rules. However, in further consideration, all kinds of natural disasters are split bluntly by the insurance. It should be seen as temporary with no help. Practically, it’s not entirely without reason to classify the debris flow as claims of layer cave, sliding, or landslide. Nevertheless, after analyzing the causes of debris flow, I suggest to improve the insurance of related natural disasters by short, medium, and long terms.
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/11455/33047
其他識別: U0005-1408201320303300
文章連結: http://www.airitilibrary.com/Publication/alDetailedMesh1?DocID=U0005-1408201320303300
Appears in Collections:水土保持學系

文件中的檔案:

取得全文請前往華藝線上圖書館



Items in DSpace are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.