意外原因之舉證、證明度減低及表見證明–從台灣高等法院100年度保險上字第18號判決談起 The Burden of Proof and Prima Facie About The Cause

摘要
　　關於傷害保險「意外事故」之要件，向來有原因說與結果說的爭議。在比較法上，英、美、德諸國已改採結果說，以擴大傷害保險對於被保險人的保障功能，但我國司法實務仍以原因說為多數見解，並將本屬保險人舉證範圍之「自願性」轉化為意外事故的「原因」，從而變為原告的舉證責任，明顯加重被保險人及受益人的舉證負擔。本文認為，在意外事故的要件上，應採結果說之理論，以還原「故意行為」應由保險人舉證的基本原則。
關鍵詞：傷害保險、原因說、結果說、舉證責任、複保險
Abstract
　　With regard to the definition of “accident” in personal injury insurance, there are disputes among “Accident Means” and “Accident Result”. In comparative law, England, America and Germany have adopted the “Accident Result”, thus to expand the scope of protection to the insured. However, most of our domestic courts have summited the “Accident Means”, by modifying the “voluntary act” into the “cause of the accident” which is supposed to be considered as the insurers’ burden of proof. Consequently, this modification alters the burden of proof into insured’s accountability, augmenting the insured and the beneficiary’s liability. In conclusion, in order to amend “the intentional wrongdoing” as the burden for the insurer. “Accident Result” should be adopted as a fundamental element within “injury insurance” for future reference.
Keywords: Accident Insurance, Accident Means, Accident Result, Injury insurance, burden of proof, Double Insurance