| Summary: | 碩士 === 國立臺北大學 === 法律學系一般生組 === 105 === The primary function of insurance is to indemnify the loss of the insured in order to stabilize their financial lives, which could be well described as “no loss, no insurance.” Insurance is the collection of risk premiums paid by policyholders, which is to pay for those who suffer from loss due to the risk. The fee that insurer asks from proposers to indemnify the loss is premium.
Within the field of life insurance, parts of the premium paid by the proposer are categorized as nonforfeiture value or cash value. Since nonforfeiture value are property rights that the proposer owns, the creditor could file for compulsory execution of nonforfeiture value if the proposer is in debt. If the proposer neglects to exercise his or her own rights against the insurer, to protect obligation rights, the creditor could exercise the subrogation rights for not only terminating the insurance contract between the proposer and the insurer but also requesting compulsory execution as well as payments from the insurer for liquidating debts.
There are still doubts that the court would reject the creditor’s compulsory execution of the proposer’s nonforfeiture value based on the reason that the rights of terminating contracts belong solely to the proposer. However, it would be more appropriate to clarify the qualities of nonforfeiture value before we dive into the question whether nonforfeiture value could be processed with compulsory execution or not. This thesis will first analyze the concept of nonforfeiture value as well as the disputes occurred due to the compulsory execution of nonforfeiture value in order to
more appropriately apply the concept. Furthermore, this thesis also tries to investigate whether there is a balance between rights of the beneficiary and the creditor both practically and legall.
|
|---|
