|Abstract: ||本文係以商業火災保險費率在費率自由化期間的市場競爭與行政管制交互運作下產生的法律競合問題做探討。保險是具有安定個人及穩定社會秩序功能的社會制度 ，其係運用大數法則，聚合多數人資金共同分擔少數人未來風險損失之制度，如因競爭造成保費不足夠，風險無法分散轉嫁，一旦業者宣告破產倒閉，必然損及消費者權益。但競爭有引導、節約、激勵、淘汰與制衡之作用，故以競爭做為推動與調整經濟活動之工具或方法，將能促進資源之合理分配及提高事業之經營效率以及生產科技之進步，而有助於社會整體經濟之安定與繁榮。 產險費率自由化時期，監理機關以公共利益為目的管制費率作為保護消費者避免保險業者失卻清償能力，此管制費率的行為可能因公平交易法上的限制競爭的聯合行為，同時使消費者利益受損。正當歐盟逐漸取消競爭法上對保險的集體豁免 ，保障消費者權益，提昇保險業者自由化及國際化的競爭力之際，我國卻在產險費率自由化第三階段後跳過保險豁免的立法程序，直接採行政機關所公布的配套措施和相關的法規命令或行政規則並透過屬強制入會的中華民國產物保險同業公會(以下稱產險公會)自律及財團法人保險事業發展中心(以下稱保發中心)每年所公布的參考基本危險費率及其結構公式的方式，從偏向費率自由化的業者自行釐訂費率「使用後申報制」 的監理方式，改為天災費率採天災模組費率的「申報後使用費率制」或直接參考保發中心費率的「強制局定費率制」及非天災費率採參考保發中心費率訂定下限的「彈性費率制」之偏向費率管制的監理方式，重新再管制起商業火災保險商品的保險費率。此行政的再管制是否有其合法性、正當性及必要性?再管制未來是否有可能再度回到全面開放競爭的市場? 本文以商業火災保險為中心，先探討憲法、行政法、公平交易法等相關管制價格的法源及基本原則，並以保險法144條費率監理的法條及其相關的行政命令探討合法性問題、以保險監理理論，各保險業者獲利能力相關數據、風險資本適足率及國華及華山產險公司兩個費率自由化期間失卻清償能力個案的實證方式來探討管制費率目的的必要性及正當性。然後參考比較歐、美、日各國在自由化及保險豁免的法制及現況探討先進國家保險開放的自由競爭市場。最後提出對我國在保險費率價格管制法制上及商業火災保險費率實務上的建議。 關鍵詞：費率自由化、保險、競爭、管制、保險豁免。|
This thesis discusses the legal issues arising from the interaction between market competition and administrative regulation during the liberalization of the rate of fire insurance premiums. Insurance is a social system that has the function of stability of individuals and of social order. It adopts the law of large numbers and aggregates the majority of funds to share the system of minority risk losses in the future. If the premium is not sufficient due to competition, the risk cannot be diverted. Once the industry declares bankruptcy, it will inevitably damage consumer rights. However, competition has the role of guidance, savings, incentives, elimination, and checks and balances. Therefore, using competition as a tool or method to push and adjust economic activities will promote the rational allocation of resources and improve the operational efficiency of the business and the progress of production technology. Furthmore, it makes the contribution to the stability and prosperity of the economy as a whole. In the period of premium rate liberalization of Non-Life insurance, the Supervision authority regulated the insurane rate to avoid the insolvency of the insurance industry for the public interests. However, accordings to the Fair Trade Act, it may lead to concerted action and further harm the interests of customers. Therefore, the EU gradually withdraws the block exemptions of insurance industry from anti-competition law for the purpose of enhancing the liberalization and internationalization. In contrast, after the third stage of the property insurance premium rate liberalization, there is an absence of the legislation process of the insurane exemption in our country. We adopt the supporting measures announced by regulation , and passed the Non-Life Insurance Association’s self-discipline and the reference structure formulas of rates is published by Taiwan Insurance Institute.We have been re-regulated to insurance premium rate by Supervision authority. In the countries of Europe, the United States, and Japan, it is considered that such administrative regulation of insurance rates violates competition law and provides partial exemption from insurance legislation. Taiwan has no explicit exemption from insurance provisions and it uses laws to authorize executive orders. In this thesis focuses on commercial fire insurance，there are discussion in Chapter Two the rate regulation for law source from the aspects of the constitution, administrative law, fair trade law, and insurance law. In Chapter Three and Five about the Insurance Supervision Public Welfare and Article 144 of Insurance Law and, with relate data over the profitability of insurance companies from Risk Based Captital, is demonstrated that the regulatory rate is not essential through empirical approach. In Chapter Six, there is a comparison over the liberalization and insurance exemptions in various countries. The last Chapter is about suggestions for current legal system and commercial fire rates practice. Keywords: Liberalization of rates, Insurance, Competition, Regulation, Insurance exemption.