本研究之主要貢獻為發展適合台灣營造綜合險保單（本體損失險）之風險曲線。 先前由Salzmann (1963)及Ludwig (1998)之相關研究，係採用美國市場之損失經驗，考量不同保單之承保範圍、不同保險標的、及不同之承保風險，直接引用美國市場風險曲線於台灣市場之通用性值得釐清。 本研究回顧台灣營造綜合險保單之承保範圍及除外條款，依據西元一九九六年至兩千年之損失經驗，發現台灣營造綜合險之損率深受天然災害如地震、颱風、豪雨所影響。 再保險安排可分成兩大類，一是比例再保險; 另一是非比例再保險。風險曲線是非比例再保險常用之計價方式之一。 比較先前之研究，本研究之風險曲線分佈集中在低層其主要之原因如下:- 一、 分析標的之可能最大損失(PML)偏低: PML代表某一特定危險所可能造成之可能最大損失。以道路工程為例，其可能最大損失小於30%之保額。由於道路工程大多綿延數十公里甚或更長，其工程本身呈線狀之分佈。換言之，非常不可能會有單一損失其損失金額超過保額之30%。 因此，道路工程之損失分佈不平均且分佈集中在低層。 二、 營造綜合險保期偏長: 營造工程其中一個特性為多年期的保險期間。 因為工程之進行往往需要花超過一年的時間來完成，因此，營造綜合險全損(損失金額等於保額)之機率，遠小於財產險因火災造成全損之機率。 三、 分析之承保風險不同: Salzmann (1963)僅針對火災此一危險因子來從事她的研究。就我們所知，美國大多數住宅皆是木造，屬可燃性建材，火災造成之影響相當大。 相反地，本研究標的大多利用不可燃性建材來興建，如鋼鐵或混凝土，故火災之影響性相對較小。 關鍵字: 非比例再保險、風險基礎計價、營造綜合保險 / The major contribution of this research is to develop the exposure curves suitable for the Taiwan Contractor’s All Risks (CAR) Insurance (Material Damage Cover). The exposure curves generated in Salzmann (1963) and Ludwig (1998) were originated from the loss experience in the United States. Considering the different types of policies, different types of risks, and different types of perils, the applicability of those curves in Taiwan market is discussable. This study reviews the scope of coverage, insuring clause and exclusions of the Taiwan Contractor’s All Risks Insurance. According to the loss records between 1996 and 2000, it’s understood that the result of the Contractor’s All Risks Insurance is highly influenced by the natural catastrophic perils, such as earthquake, typhoon and heavy rains. The reinsurance placement can be categorized into proportional and non-proportional reinsurance or called excess of loss reinsurance. Exposure rating is one of the common pricing methods for the excess of loss reinsurance. Compared with those two previous researches done by Salzmann (1963) and Ludwig (1998), the outcome of this analysis shows an unbalanced loss distribution which leans to the lower layers that is mainly because of the following reasons: - (1) Low PML percentage of analyzed risks: The PML represents the Probable Maximum Loss subject to a certain type of peril. Taking a road construction project as an example, the PML of a road construction project is less than 30% of the total sum insured. Usually, the length of a road construction project is tens of kilometers or even much longer. In consideration of its linear shape, it’s very unlikely to have a loss exceeding 30% of its total sum insured. Therefore there was very few or nil loss data above the 30% of the total sum insured that’s the reason why the loss distribution is unbalanced and leans to the lower layers. (2) Long Construction Period of a CAR Project: A character of a CAR project is having a multiple-year policy period because the construction work usually takes more than one year to be completed. Therefore the possibility to have a total loss case, loss amount equal to the total sum insured, is much less than a property risk with a fire scenario. (3) Types of Perils Analyzed: Salzmann (1963) carried out her research by analyzing the peril of fire covered under the homeowners’ policies. As we know, most of the houses in the United States are the wooden structures, which are combustible. Oppositely, the risks in this research are mostly constructed by using the non-combustible materials, such as steel or reinforced concrete. Keywords: excess of loss, non-proportional reinsurance, exposure rating, and contractor’s all risks insurance.

本文係以我國財政部核准之營造綜合保險基本條款為主題，條款內容依險種性質分類為營造工程財物損失險及營造工程第三人意外責任險兩大區塊加以研析。並就保險法理、我國現行司法判決、外國立法例、中華人民共和國建築工程一切險條款與外國再保險公司工程保險條款，探討營造綜合保險基本條款中相關法律爭議及嘗試提出相關修正建議。

本篇論文首先以我國保險法當事人定位所產生之問題檢視我國營造綜合保險當事人之定位，以促使我國保險法與營造綜合保險在當事人定位之部分能相互融合，減少衝突。再來即以營造綜合保險基本條款第一章承保範圍中有關營造工程財物損失險之條文歷年變動就其保險期間、保險金額、損失賠償方式及自負額等議題，輔以營造綜合保險相關之特約條款、批單，以及德國慕尼黑再保險公司營造綜合保險之英文保單加以研究探討，以期能使我國營造工程財物損失險的條文內容能更佳完善，符合時代及業界所需。 / This paper is about the coverage of Contractors' All Risks Insurance, and mainly focused on the Material Damage of the Code of Contractors' All Risks Insurance. By observing the development of Contractors' All Risks Insurance policy in the context of its historical documents and relevant endorsements, it is found that the Code was influenced mainly by the Munich policy wording and still has some important problems to improve. Accordingly, this paper discusses the positions of the insurer, the insured, the applicant and the beneficiary in the Contractors' All Risks Insurance firstly. With regard to the Material Damage of Contractors' All Risks Insurance, some aspects of the coverage are examined. Then, the author suggests some proposals for solving the existing difficulties in the Coverage of Contractors' All Risks Insurance.

本論文係以工程風險及我國工程保險之現況與發展作為基礎，先予敘明目前當代工程保險的起源與趨勢，鑒古知今，推論出工程保險應回歸以安全檢查與損害防阻作為思考核心，並強調工程風險管理的重要性，進而有發展工程界與保險界聯合行動模式之可能性，使工程從策劃階段即獲得風險管理，而保險人亦得依保險法第九十六條以下之規定，於施工過程中介入安全檢查措施，共同防範出險。 再者，就工程保險之本質以言，應強調工程保險係屬於損失填補保險，故於處理相關實務爭議時，必須考量到工程保險應受到損失填補原則之限制。且因工程保險係採取全險保單的方式為之，是以，本文認為應得參酌美國立法例，而特別強調保險利益有無之判斷。 此外，現今工程保險實務上所面臨之諸多爭議，實得以「保險責任期間」作為軸心而貫穿之。即本文認為，應辨明保險期間並非完全等同於保險責任期間，而於探究保險人是否應負理賠責任時，其重點之一應係在於保險責任期間是否開始、終止或延長。對此，本文認為，應可從下列幾個主要之面向加以觀察：一者，若自工程契約之關係以論，首須探討者，係民法相關概念（如交付、受領）與工程實務上所使用之「啟用」、「接管」、「驗收」之概念是否相同？有無歧異之處？更為重要者，係工程風險究應如何合理分配？二者，若自工程保險契約之角度以觀，則需分析保險契約所承保的危險是否增加？保險利益是否變動？具權威性之地位，而被譽為工程契約「聖經」的國際規範FIDIC標準契約條款之相關內容為何？ 本文認為，由於判斷工程保險契約時往往將受到工程契約內容之影響，而工程契約又多係由定作人一方所主導擬定，故而在判定保險人是否應依工程保險契約負擔理賠責任時，毋寧應本著公平合理之精神，配合工程慣例，從工程契約、工程保險契約所關涉之定作人、承攬人，以及保險人三方關係而為綜合審酌認定。換言之，不應使業主人有機會利用工程契約之約定，而將本應由業主承擔之風險移轉至承包商一方，進而間接地影響保險人應否理賠之判斷。 歸納以言，本文認為，我國工程保險實務爭議的解決方向，應以保險責任期間作為保險人是否需予理賠的主要判斷基準之一；再者，並應認知到工程保險本質上係屬於損失填補保險，而需受到損失填補原則之限制；另參酌美國立法例，需強調工程保險之保險利益有無之判斷；又於配合我國國情之前提下，應得適時適度地引進國際規範FIDIC標準契約條款之相關內容，以使我國與國際之接軌能更為緊密切實。