chenclaw

Taiwan's 2025 Insurance Act Reform: Recalibrating Enforcement Against Insurance Assets 2025 保險法修法三大要點：當保單遇上強制執行，債權人與被保險人的新平衡

Tue, 19 May 2026 09:13:54 GMT

Taiwan's 2025 Insurance Act Reform:

Recalibrating Enforcement Against Insurance Assets

2025 保險法修法三大要點：當保單遇上強制執行，債權人與被保險人的新平衡

A Commentary on Articles 123-1, 123-2, 129-1, and 132-1 of the Insurance Act

Key Takeaways

• Health and accident insurance surrender values are now fully exempt from compulsory execution.

• Life insurance surrender values are executable only above a statutory threshold.

• Eligible family members and beneficiaries may intervene and assume policyholder status within

three months of attachment or insolvency proceedings.

• The reform significantly narrows the scope of insurance assets available to creditors in

enforcement proceedings.

Abstract

This article explains the 2025 amendments to Taiwan's Insurance Act and their practical impact on enforcement against insurance assets. Promulgated on 18 June 2025 and effective from 20 June 2025, the amendments materially reconfigure the extent to which insurance assets may be subjected to compulsory execution. The reform introduces categorical exemptions for health and accident insurance, establishes a statutory threshold for the execution of life insurance surrender values, and creates a novel intervention mechanism allowing designated family members and beneficiaries to assume policyholder status in enforcement scenarios. Collectively, these measures reflect a legislative shift toward strengthening insurance protection while preserving a calibrated enforcement framework for creditors.

1. How Insurance Policies Are Treated in Debt Enforcement

Under Taiwan's compulsory execution regime, a debtor's assets are generally subject to attachment and liquidation unless expressly exempted. Insurance contracts, particularly life insurance policies with accumulated cash surrender value, have long occupied a structurally ambiguous position within this framework: they function both as protection instruments and as latent financial assets.

The tension between creditor recovery and the protective purpose of insurance has been central to enforcement jurisprudence. The 2025 reform represents a legislative response to this tension, recalibrating the balance in favour of policy protection while preserving limited enforceability in defined circumstances.

2. The Supreme Court's Position Before the Reform: Grand Chamber Judgment 108-Tai-Kang-Da-897

In its decision of 9 December 2022 (108-Tai-Kang-Da-897), the Supreme Court Grand Chamber confirmed that a life insurance policy may, in appropriate circumstances, be terminated through enforcement proceedings, with the resulting cash surrender value made available to creditors:

"The enforcement court may, where necessary, issue an order to terminate a life insurance

policy in which the debtor is the policyholder and direct the third-party insurer to pay the

cash surrender value."

The Court grounded its reasoning in the economic structure of level-premium life insurance, under which accumulated premiums generate a realizable cash value. It simultaneously emphasised, however, that enforcement courts must exercise discretion with due regard to the protective function of insurance for the policyholder and dependents.

The 2025 amendments may be understood as a partial codification and refinement of this jurisprudential position, replacing discretionary balancing with more structured statutory rules.

3. What the 2025 Reform Changes

The amendments introduce Articles 123-1, 123-2, 129-1, and 132-1. Pursuant to Article 178 of the Insurance Act, the amended provisions take effect on the date of promulgation; under Article 13 of the Central Regulations Standard Act, this means the provisions become effective on the third day following promulgation — i.e., 20 June 2025. While formally discrete, these provisions operate as an integrated enforcement regime governing insurance assets.

3.1 Health and Accident Insurance: Fully Exempt from Enforcement (Articles 129-1 and 132-1)

Articles 129-1 and 132-1 establish an absolute exemption from compulsory execution for the cash surrender values of health and accident insurance policies. The text of the two provisions is materially parallel:

Article 129-1: "The cash surrender value of a health insurance contract in which the debtor is

the policyholder shall not be subject to attachment or compulsory execution."

Article 132-1: "The cash surrender value of an accident insurance contract in which the

debtor is the policyholder shall not be subject to attachment or compulsory execution."

Although such policies rarely generate substantial surrender values in practice, the legislative effect is not merely symbolic. It eliminates residual uncertainty in enforcement practice and prevents the disruption of coverage that serves immediate protective and social welfare functions.

3.2 Life Insurance: A New Threshold for Enforceability (Article 123-1)

Article 123-1 introduces a quantitative threshold governing the executability of life insurance surrender values. The statutory formula, expressly set out in Article 123-1, Paragraph 1, is:

Threshold = Minimum monthly living standard (as published by the Ministry of Health and

Welfare or by a municipal government) × 1.2 × 6 months — taking the highest applicable

standard.

Applying the 2025 Taipei City figure of NTD 20,379 per month (the highest among municipal standards), the threshold computed under the statutory formula is approximately NTD 146,729 (NTD 20,379 × 1.2 × 6 = 146,729). The figure is subject to annual adjustment in line with the published minimum living standards.

Where the surrender value falls below this threshold, the policy is insulated from execution. The provision replaces the prior case-by-case proportionality analysis under Article 122 of the Compulsory Execution Act with a more administrable, rule-based mechanism — reflecting a broader trend in Taiwanese enforcement law toward the objectification of previously discretionary assessments.

3.3 The Right of Intervention (Article 123-2)

Article 123-2 introduces a novel "Right of Intervention," permitting designated persons to assume policyholder status in the context of enforcement proceedings. Eligible parties are:

• Persons with an insurable interest in the insured;

• Named beneficiaries designated by the policyholder;

• The spouse, parents, or children of either the policyholder or the insured.

The third category is narrowly drawn — it is limited to spouse, parents, and children, and does not extend to siblings, grandparents, or grandchildren.

The mechanism is subject to two cumulative requirements: (i) written consent of both the policyholder and the insured, and (ii) payment of an amount equivalent to the projected surrender value to the enforcement authority or its designated recipient.

A critical feature of the provision is its temporal limitation. The right must be exercised within three months of the triggering enforcement event. This period is generally understood as a preclusive (peremptory) window — meaning, in principle, it is not subject to the suspension or interruption rules that apply to ordinary statutes of limitation. The legislative intent is to ensure procedural finality in enforcement proceedings.

4. Before and After: A Summary

The table below summarises the legal position before and after the 2025 reform:

Category Pre-2025 Position Post-2025 Position

(Promulgated 18 June 2025;

effective 20 June 2025)

Health insurance Generally attachable Fully exempt (Art. 129-1)

surrender value

Accident insurance Generally attachable Fully exempt (Art. 132-1)

surrender value

Life insurance Subject to discretionary Executable only above

surrender value execution statutory threshold (Art. 123-1)

Family substitution Not recognised Statutory intervention right

mechanism (Art. 123-2)

Investment-linked Generally exempt under Unchanged

policy assets prior rules (Art. 123 III)

5. What This Means in Practice

5.1 For Creditors

For judgment creditors, the reform narrows the enforceable insurance asset base in two respects: the categorical exclusion of certain policy types and the threshold-based limitation for life insurance.

Enforceability is not eliminated but restructured. Life insurance remains a viable enforcement target where the surrender value exceeds the statutory threshold. In such cases, creditors must also account for the possibility of intervention by eligible third parties, which may alter the procedural timeline without necessarily affecting ultimate recovery value.

An unresolved issue concerns whether ancillary contractual rights — particularly the policyholder's entitlement to take a policy loan from the insurer — fall within the scope of attachable assets, a question likely to be shaped by future judicial interpretation.

5.2 For Policyholders and Beneficiaries

From the perspective of policyholders and their families, the reform enhances asset protection in three respects:

• Absolute protection of health and accident insurance;

• Statutory insulation of low-value life insurance policies;

• A structured mechanism enabling preservation of policies through substitution in

enforcement contexts.

The introduction of the intervention mechanism is particularly significant, as it transforms what was previously a passive risk of liquidation into an actively manageable legal option.

5.3 How to Exercise the Right of Intervention

The exercise of the right of intervention requires compliance with a tightly structured sequence:

• Occurrence of a triggering enforcement event (attachment of the surrender value, or the

policyholder's bankruptcy/insolvency proceedings);

• Written consent of both policyholder and insured;

• Payment of the surrender-value equivalent to the enforcement authority or its designated

recipient;

• Formal notification to the insurer, upon delivery of which the substitution takes effect.

Failure to complete these steps within the three-month window results in forfeiture of the right. The mechanism thus combines substantive preservation rights with strict procedural discipline.

5.4 Transitional Rule: Cases Predating the Amendment

Article 123-2, Paragraph 3 extends limited protection to cases where the triggering enforcement event occurred prior to the amendment's effective date. Where the insured event has not yet occurred, eligible parties may exercise the right of intervention within three months from 20 June 2025. This window provides a remedial opportunity for families whose policies were attached before the reform took effect, and is of considerable practical importance.

6. Conclusion

The 2025 amendments to Taiwan's Insurance Act represent a deliberate recalibration of enforcement policy rather than a wholesale reallocation of rights between creditors and policyholders.

By introducing a categorical exemption regime for health and accident insurance, a threshold-based model for life insurance execution, and a structured intervention mechanism, the legislature has replaced case-by-case balancing with clearer, rule-based standards. Enforcement against insurance assets is no longer a purely judicial balancing exercise but a procedurally structured system incorporating both quantitative thresholds and time-bound substitution rights.

For creditors and insurers alike, the reform shifts insurance enforcement from a discretionary regime to a more rule-based system.

Several practical questions remain open, particularly regarding the treatment of policy loan rights and the interaction between enforcement law and complex insurance products such as investment-linked policies. These issues are likely to be resolved through subsequent judicial interpretation and administrative guidance.

Tags

#InsuranceLaw #TaiwanLaw #LifeInsurance #DebtRecovery #WealthProtection #LegalUpdate

#保險法修正 #強制執行 #人壽保險 #解約金 #介入權 #債權回收 #家事資產規劃

2025 保險法修法三大要點：當保單遇上強制執行，債權人與被保險人的新平衡 Taiwan's 2025 Insurance Act Reform: Recalibrating Enforcement Against Insurance Assets

Tue, 19 May 2026 07:05:37 GMT

2025 保險法修法三大要點：當保單遇上強制執行，債權人與被保險人的新平衡

Taiwan's 2025 Insurance Act Reform:

Recalibrating Enforcement Against Insurance Assets

保險法第 123 條之 1、第 123 條之 2、第 129 條之 1、第 132 條之 1 新增條文評析

關鍵要點

• 健康保險、傷害保險之解約金完全免於強制執行。

• 人壽保險解約金須達一定門檻方可執行。

• 被保險人之配偶、父母、子女或受益人，得於扣押或破產程序開始後 3 個月內介入，接手保單。

• 本次修正大幅限縮債權人於強制執行程序中得執行之保單範圍。

重點速覽

2025 年 6 月 18 日公布之保險法修正大幅限縮可被強制執行之保單範圍：健康保險、傷害保險之解約金全面除外（保險法第 129 條之 1、第 132 條之 1）；人壽保險解約金須達一定門檻方可執行（保險法第 123 條之 1，依民國 114 年標準約新台幣 14 萬 7 千元，以衛福部及直轄市政府年度公告為準）；並引入「介入權」制度，被保險人之配偶、父母、子女、受益人或具保險利益之第三人，得於事由發生後 3 個月內取得書面同意並支付解約金額度後接手保單（保險法第 123 條之 2）。對債權人而言是新限制，對被保險人及家屬而言則是保全保單之新工具。

一、修法背景：保險解約金為何成為強制執行標的

在債權人取償之程序中，當債權人取得法院判決或仲裁判斷等強制執行名義後，便進入強制執行階段。如何選擇執行標的，往往是能否順利取償之關鍵。

依強制執行法之原則，債務人之財產，凡具金錢價值者，除法令明文禁止扣押或讓與，或依其性質不得讓與者外，均屬其責任財產，得作為強制執行之標的。除典型之不動產、動產等實體財產外，無形之保險契約解約金債權，亦屬執行標的之一種。

惟人壽保險等保險契約透過保險機制提供被保險人保障，對於被保險人個人甚至社會秩序之安定，皆有相當重要性。由此產生債權人取償權利與保險契約核心保障之衝突——此即本次修法所欲調和之核心議題。

二、最高法院 108 年度台抗大字第 897 號民事大法庭裁定：司法解釋之基礎

最高法院民事大法庭 108 年度台抗大字第 897 號裁定（2022 年 12 月 9 日作成）揭示：

「執行法院於必要時，得核發執行命令終止債務人為要保人之人壽保險契約，命第三人保險公司償付解約金。」

此一見解之法理基礎在於：人壽保險因採平準保費制，要保人預（溢）繳之保費累積而形成保單現金價值，得作為強制執行標的；惟壽險契約常兼具保障要保人及其家屬生活、安定社會之功能，執行法院於裁量是否行使終止權執行解約金債權時，應審慎為之。本次保險法修正即係承襲並具體化此大法庭之見解。

三、2025 年保險法修正三大要點

立法院於 2025 年（民國 114 年）6 月 3 日三讀通過、6 月 18 日總統公布之保險法部分條文修正，新增第 123 條之 1、第 123 條之 2、第 129 條之 1、第 132 條之 1 等關鍵條文。依保險法第 178 條，本次修正之條文自公布日施行；並依中央法規標準法第 13 條規定，自公布之日起算至第三日（即 2025 年 6 月 20 日）起發生效力。修正內容可歸納為三大要點：

3.1 健康保險、傷害保險之解約金全面除外（保險法第 129 條之 1、第 132 條之 1）

新增保險法第 129 條之 1 規定：「要保人為債務人之健康保險契約之解約金債權，不得作為扣押或強制執行之標的。」

新增保險法第 132 條之 1 規定：「要保人為債務人之傷害保險契約之解約金債權，不得作為扣押或強制執行之標的。」

須留意者，健康保險與傷害保險多屬保障型短年期商品，本身少有解約金可言。本次修法之主要意義在於「明文化」——確立執行機關不得就此類解約金為扣押或執行，以避免實務操作之爭議，保障被保險人維持基本健康及意外保障之經濟安定。

3.2 人壽保險解約金之執行門檻（保險法第 123 條之 1）

新增保險法第 123 條之 1 第 1 項規定：

「要保人為債務人之人壽保險契約，各有效契約之解約金債權金額未逾最近一年衛生福利部

或直轄市政府所公告每人每月最低生活費一點二倍計算之六個月金額中最高標準者，不得

作為扣押或強制執行之標的。」

換言之，僅當解約金「達一定門檻以上」方得作為執行標的。上開條文第 1 項已明定門檻金額之計算公式：

門檻金額 = 最近一年衛生福利部或直轄市政府公告之每人每月最低生活費 × 1.2 × 6 個月

（取各公告中最高標準者）

以民國 114 年度臺北市公告之每人每月最低生活費新台幣 20,379 元為例（為現行各直轄市公告中之最高標準），依上開條文公式計算，門檻金額約為新台幣 146,729 元（20,379 × 1.2 × 6 = 146,729）。實際金額每年隨衛生福利部及各直轄市政府公告調整。

此規範之政策考量在於：以「客觀定額化」之保護機制，取代強制執行法第 122 條「維持生活所必需」之個案認定，避免低額解約金保單仍遭執行致被保險人保障盡失。

3.3 介入權制度：家屬接手保單之機制（保險法第 123 條之 2）

新增保險法第 123 條之 2 第 1 項規定，於保險事故發生前，要保人為債務人之人壽保險契約之解約金債權經扣押、要保人受破產宣告或經依消費者債務清理條例裁定開始清算或更生程序時，下列各款之人，取得要保人及被保險人之書面同意，並向執行機關或執行命令所指定之人支付以保險契約終止後預計可獲保險人償付之解約金額度者，得以書面通知保險人變更為新要保人：

• 第一款｜對被保險人有保險利益者

• 第二款｜要保人具名指定之受益人

• 第三款｜要保人或被保險人之配偶、父母或子女

第 3 款之親屬範圍以「配偶、父母、子女」為限，不包含兄弟姊妹、祖父母或孫子女等其他親屬。實務應用時須留意。

保險法第 123 條之 2 第 2 項規定：「前項通知保險人變更為新要保人，應於該項所定事由發生之日起三個月內為之；並於書面通知送達保險人之日起生變更要保人之效力。」

此 3 個月為「除斥期間」，性質上不適用時效中斷或不完成之規定，逾期則喪失介入權。

3.4 修法前後對照表

項目修法前修法後

（2025-06-18 公布、2025-06-20 施行）

健康保險解約金可作為強制執行標的全面除外（第 129 條之 1）

傷害保險解約金可作為強制執行標的全面除外（第 132 條之 1）

人壽保險解約金原則上可執行須達門檻方可執行

(依大法庭裁定審酌） (第 123 條之 1，約 14 萬 7 千元以上）

家屬接手保單機制無明文，僅得依民法明文化介入權（第 123 條之 2），

概念協商 3 個月除斥期間內得行使

投資型保險投資資產非該保險受益人不得維持不變

主張或扣押（第 123

條第 3 項，原有規定）

四、實務影響

4.1 對債權人之影響

債權人於規劃強制執行標的時，須額外評估下列事項：

• 債務人之保險組合：若僅持有健康險、傷害險，則保單解約金不再屬於可執行範圍；應改

尋其他執行標的。

• 人壽保險解約金門檻：低於門檻之保單不得執行，應先調閱保單條款及保單價值準備金確

認金額。

• 介入權之風險：縱使解約金達門檻得以扣押，被保險人之配偶、父母、子女或受益人仍得

於 3 個月內介入並支付對應金額接手保單，債權人取得之金額不變但取償時程可能稍延。

• 替代執行標的：保單借款請求權之扣押、債務人對保險人之其他債權，是否同受限制，現

行條文未明文規定，仍有解釋空間。

4.2 對被保險人與家屬之影響

被保險人與家屬獲得下列保障：

• 健康險與傷害險保障之穩定性：縱使要保人發生債務問題，此二類保單之解約金不再受執

行波及。

• 低額人壽保單之保留：解約金未達門檻者不得執行，避免基本保障之喪失。

• 介入權之保全機制：縱使解約金已遭扣押，配偶、父母、子女或指定受益人仍可於 3 個月

內以支付解約金額度方式接手保單，保險效力得以延續。

4.3 介入權行使流程

依新修正第 123 條之 2 規定，介入權之行使流程如下：

• 第一步｜事由發生：解約金債權經扣押，或要保人受破產宣告，或經消費者債務清理條例

裁定開始清算／更生程序。

• 第二步｜取得同意：擬介入之人取得要保人及被保險人之書面同意（兩方同意缺一不可）。

• 第三步｜支付解約金額度：向執行機關或執行命令所指定之人支付以保險契約終止後預計

可獲保險人償付之解約金額度。

• 第四步｜書面通知保險人：以書面通知保險人變更為新要保人，於送達保險人之日起生變

更效力。

上述全部步驟須於「事由發生之日起 3 個月內」完成；逾期則喪失介入權。

4.4 過渡條款：修法施行前已扣押之案件

保險法第 123 條之 2 第 3 項另設過渡規定：

「本法中華民國一百十四年六月三日修正之條文施行前，有第一項所定事由，於修正施行後，

保險事故發生前，該項所定各款之人得於修正施行之日起三個月內，適用第一項及前項後段

規定。」

即修法施行前（修正條文之施行日為 2025 年 6 月 20 日）已發生扣押或破產等事由者，配偶、父母、子女或受益人等仍得於修正施行之日起 3 個月內行使介入權，使保單延續。對於修法前保單已遭執行之家庭，此一過渡條款提供了補救之機會，實務上具重要意義。

五、結論

本次保險法修正為強制執行制度與保險保障功能之衝突，提供了一套明確之調和機制。其核心精神在於：以客觀定額化之保護標準（保險法第 123 條之 1 門檻）、明文化之介入機制（保險法第 123 條之 2），取代過往依強制執行法第 122 條維生條款之個案認定。

執行程序中，須掌握以下三個關鍵時點與金額：

• 人壽保險解約金門檻金額（114 年北市標準約新台幣 14 萬 7 千元，每年依衛福部公告調整）

• 介入權之 3 個月除斥期間（事由發生日起算）

• 過渡條款之 3 個月行使期間（修正施行日 2025-06-20 起算）

立法雖已大幅推進，惟保單借款請求權之扣押、投資型保單之適用範圍等實務細節，仍有待後續判決與行政解釋逐步釐清。

關鍵字標籤｜Tags

#保險法修正 #強制執行 #人壽保險 #解約金 #介入權 #債權回收 #家事資產規劃

#InsuranceLaw #TaiwanLaw #LifeInsurance #DebtRecovery #WealthProtection #LegalUpdate

民間企業應了解之個人資料保護法修正重點 Key Amendments to the Personal Data Protection Act That Private Enterprises Should Be Aware Of

Wed, 03 Dec 2025 14:03:18 GMT

民間企業應了解之個人資料保護法修正重點

Key Amendments to the Personal Data Protection Act That Private Enterprises Should Be Aware Of

總統已於2025年11月11日公布修正「個人資料保護法」(下稱個資法)，施行日期尚待訂定。本次個資法之修正目的在於配合憲法法庭111年憲判字第13號判決要求，建立個資保護獨立監督機制即個人資料保護委員會（下稱個資會）以完足憲法保障人民之資訊隱私權保障，除有針對公部門使用個資為相關監管增修之外，就本次修法涉及民間企業（非公務機關，即非公務機關之自然人、法人或其他團體）之部分，謹就相關規範重點說明如下：

On 11 November 2025, the President promulgated the amendments to the Personal Data Protection Act (“PDPA”), with the effective date to be announced. The purpose of this amendment is to comply with Constitutional Court Judgment, Hsien Pan Tze No. 13 of 2022, which requires the establishment of an independent supervisory authority for personal data protection—the Personal Data Protection Commission (“PDPC”)—in order to fully safeguard the constitutional right to informational privacy. In addition to strengthening the regulatory framework applicable to the use of personal data by public sector agencies, the amendments introduce several changes relevant to private-sector entities (i.e., non-public agencies, including natural persons, legal persons, or other organizations). The key points of the amendments concerning private enterprises are summarized below:

1. 個資事故通報及通知等義務

Obligations Regarding Personal Data Incident Notification and Reporting

(1) 對個資當事人之通知義務：原個資法僅規定民間企業為查明個資事故時，應通知當事人，因此實務上時有因各種因素而造成通知上的延遲，本次修法通知時點提前為於『知悉』有個資事故時，即應通知當事人。至於具體應通知個資當事人的內容及細部事項，尚待進一步規範。

Obligation to Notify Data Subjects: Under the previous PDPA, private-sector entities were only required to notify data subjects when investigating a personal data incident. In practice, this often resulted in delays in notification due to various factors. Under the amended PDPA, the timing for notification has been moved forward—private-sector entities must notify data subjects immediately upon becoming aware of a personal data incident. The specific content and detailed requirements for such notifications will be further stipulated in subsequent regulations.

(2) 對個資會之通報義務：對於符合一定通報範圍內的個資事件，民間機關應通報個資會，個資會並應轉知目的事業主管機關。

Obligation to Report to the PDPC: For personal data incidents falling within a specified reporting threshold, private-sector entities will be required to report such incidents to the PDPC. The PDPC, in turn, must forward the report to the competent authority overseeing the relevant industry.

針對個資事故，民間企業應採取即時有效之應變措施以防止事故之擴大，記載相關事實、影響、以採取之因應措施，並保存相關紀錄等。具體之應通知與應通報之內容、時限、範圍等相關事項則授權個資會訂定之。

Private-sector entities must adopt prompt and effective response measures to prevent the escalation of any personal data incident, document the relevant facts, impacts, and responsive actions taken, and retain the relevant records. The specific requirements regarding the content, timeframe, and scope of notifications to data subjects and reports to the PDPC will be prescribed by the PDPC.

如民間企業有違反就個資事故之通知當事人之義務，個資會將令限期改善，未改正即處罰鍰；如係違反個資事故之通報個資會義務，或應變措施、紀錄保存等義務者，則逕處罰鍰並得按次處罰。

If a private-sector entity violates its obligation to notify data subjects of a personal data incident, the PDPC will order the entity to remedy the violation within a specified period, and if it fails to do so, a fine will be imposed. In contrast, if the entity violates its obligation to report a personal data incident to the PDPC or fails to comply with its obligations relating to incident response measures or record retention, the PDPC may directly impose a fine and may continue to impose fines on a per-violation basis.

2. 修正行政檢查相關規定

Amendments to Administrative Inspection Provisions

細緻化對民間企業為行政檢查之相關規定，包括提供個資會干預程度不同之檢查方式，且增訂會同檢查機制，個資會得會同目的事業主管機關或其他有關機關進行檢查。並且授權個資會得就行政檢查作業之規劃、評估方式、考量因素及有賴其他機關協力之事項，得另訂辦法以為規範，

The amendments refine the rules governing administrative inspections of private-sector entities, including providing different inspection methods corresponding to varying levels of intervention by the PDPC. A joint-inspection mechanism has also been added, under which the PDPC may conduct inspections together with the competent industry authority or other relevant government agencies. In addition, the PDPC is authorized to formulate separate regulations governing the planning and evaluation methods for administrative inspections, the factors to be considered, and matters requiring cooperation from other agencies.

3. 監管過渡規定

Transitional Regulatory Provisions

個資會將直接監管目前沒有明確目的事業主管機關的業者。而有明確目的事業主管機關的業者，基於個資會監管資源尚未齊備，於個資會成立六年內，針對民間企業之個資相關監管事宜，個資會得公告一定範圍之民間企業，仍由中央目的事業主管機關或地方政府管轄之。

The PDPC will directly regulate businesses that currently do not have a clearly designated competent authority. For businesses that do have an expressly designated competent industry authority, given that the PDPC’s regulatory resources may not yet be fully established, the PDPC may, within six years from its establishment, announce certain categories of private-sector entities for which personal data–related regulatory matters shall continue to fall under the jurisdiction of the central competent industry authority or local government.

針對個資會公告仍由中央目的事業主管機關或地方政府管轄之民間企業範圍，中央目的事業主管並得就該一定範圍之民間企業指定訂定「個人資料檔案安全維護計畫」或「業務終止後個人資料處理方法」，且針對前開計畫或辦法相關事項之辦法，由中央目的事業主管機關比照個資會訂定之辦法訂定，並得為更為嚴格之規定。民間企業若未訂定相關計畫、辦法，或係違反中央目的事業主管所訂辦法中有關計畫或處理方法應具備之內容、基準或執行方式之規定，個資會得處罰鍰，並得按次處罰。

For those private-sector entities announced by the PDPC as remaining under the jurisdiction of the central competent industry authority or local government, the central competent industry authority may require such entities to prepare a “Personal Data File Security Maintenance Plan” or a “Personal Data Processing Method After Business Termination.” The regulations governing such plans or methods shall be formulated by the central competent industry authority by reference to the rules established by the PDPC, and may impose stricter requirements. If a private-sector entity fails to establish the required plan or method, or violates the content, standards, or implementation requirements set forth in the regulations issued by the central competent industry authority, the PDPC may impose an administrative fine and may continue to impose fines for each instance of noncompliance.

4. 個資會為獨立機關，依法獨立行使職權，除法律另有規定外，不受其他機關指揮監督，因此，若對個資會所為之行政處分不服，應直接適用行政訴訟程序。

The PDPC is an independent authority that exercises its powers independently in accordance with the law and, unless otherwise provided by law, is not subject to the direction or supervision of any other government agency. Accordingly, if a party disagrees with an administrative disposition rendered by the PDPC, the appropriate remedy is to directly pursue administrative litigation procedures.

由本次修正內容可知，個資事務監管事權將漸行移轉並集中至個資會。除上開說明之修法重點外，民間企業應特別注意的係，本次修法明定將由個資會針對個資事故應變措施、安全控管事項統一訂定原則規範，因此民間企業現行依循現行各中央目的事業主管機關依修正前之個資法第27條第2項（本次修正已刪除本項）訂定發布的個人資料檔案安全維護管理辦法而所訂定個資相關內規，很可能須為相應調整。然而，因個資會尚未制定發布該原則規範，且亦不清楚個資會於個資法監管過渡期間，暫將如何劃分民間企業範圍予中央目的事業主管機關監管等，建議仍應持續關注本次個資法修法後續，以資及時因應調整。

Based on the amendments, it is clear that regulatory authority over personal data matters will gradually be transferred to and centralized within the PDPC. In addition to the key amendments outlined above, private-sector entities should pay particular attention to the fact that the PDPC is now expressly tasked with formulating unified principles governing personal data incident response measures and security control requirements. As a result, internal policies currently adopted by private-sector entities—based on the “Personal Data Security Maintenance and Management Regulations” issued by their respective central competent industry authorities under former Article 27, Paragraph 2 of the PDPA (which has been deleted in this amendment)—may need to be adjusted accordingly. However, because the PDPC has not yet promulgated these unified principles, and because it remains unclear how the PDPC will delineate the scope of private-sector entities that will continue to fall under the jurisdiction of the central competent industry authorities during the regulatory transition period, it is advisable for private-sector entities to closely monitor subsequent developments under the amended Personal Data Protection Act to enable timely compliance and adjustment.

未經台灣主管機關許可之外國保險業，就在台灣之保險契約關係，所受主管機關監管範疇及契約效力 Regulatory Scope and Validity of Unadmitted Insurance Contracts in Taiwan Involving Foreign Insurers Without Approval from the Taiwanese Regulator

Wed, 03 Dec 2025 06:19:48 GMT

未經台灣主管機關許可之外國保險業，就在台灣之保險契約關係，所受主管機關監管範疇及契約效力

Regulatory Scope and Validity of Unadmitted Insurance Contracts in Taiwan Involving Foreign Insurers Without Approval from the Taiwanese Regulator

1. 在台灣規定外國保險業非經主管機關許可，並依法為設立登記，繳存保證金，領得營業執照後，不得開始營業(保險法第137條第3項)，且欲在台灣發行的保單，都需送交台灣金融監管機關FSC核准或備查後，方可正式發行。

然因為保險業務依據險種或是契約特性，也常有未經台灣主管機關許可設立之外國保險公司，因故在台灣境內發生一定保險契約關係的情況(如台灣要保人透過保險經紀人向外國保險公司投保，保險計劃中有被保險人/受益人位於台灣等)，而該保險契約因未曾經過FSC核准或備查，而可能構成所謂unadmitted insurance contract。此時，台灣金融監管機關FSC是否可能認定外國保險公司在台灣違法經營保險業務而受處罰，自應加以留意。

2. 台灣金融監管機關的基本立場是，在台灣經營保險業務是指在台灣從事招攬、核保、締約等保險核心業務，若未在台灣從事上述業務則不至於違反保險法之規定。但若外國保險業違反上揭規定而於未經許可、辦理設立登記之情形下於台灣從事招攬保險業務，主管機關將可依保險法第166條規定處以停業、新台幣300萬以上1500萬以下等罰鍰行政處分。若替未經許可的外國保險業在台灣代理、經紀或招攬保險業務之行為人，將受刑事追訴，雇用該行為人之法人，也將被課予罰金，此則規範於保險法第167-1條:

為非本法之保險業或外國保險業代理、經紀或招攬保險業務者，除屬配合政府政策需要且經主管機關公告之保險，透過保險經紀人向國外之保險業投保者外，處三年以下有期徒刑，得併科新臺幣三百萬元以上二千萬元以下罰金；情節重大者，得由主管機關對保險代理人、經紀人、公證人或兼營保險代理人或保險經紀人業務之銀行停止一部或全部業務，或廢止許可，並註銷執業證照。

法人之代表人、代理人、受僱人或其他從業人員，因執行業務犯前項之罪者，除處罰其行為人外，對該法人亦科該項之罰金。

3. 至於與未經許可設立的外國保險公司成立之保險契約，台灣法院判決則傾向認為並非概為無效，而屬於民事契約範疇。此點，也可從目前台灣現行相關法令，並未明文禁止台灣人民向外國保險公司投保、簽訂保險契約或加以否認其保險契約效力，得到印證。

1. Under Taiwanese law, a foreign insurance company may not commence business in Taiwan unless it has obtained approval from the competent authority, completed the incorporation and registration procedures, deposited the required guarantee bond, and obtained a business license (Insurance Act, Article 137, Paragraph 3). In addition, any insurance policy intended to be marketed in Taiwan must be submitted to the Financial Supervisory Commission (“FSC”) for approval or filing before it can be officially issued.

However, due to the nature of insurance business and certain policy structures, it is not uncommon for a foreign insurer that has not been authorized to operate in Taiwan to nonetheless become involved in insurance contract relationships connected to Taiwan. Examples include a Taiwanese policyholder purchasing insurance from a foreign insurer through an insurance broker, or situations in which the insured or beneficiary under an insurance program is located in Taiwan. Because such contracts have not been approved or filed with the FSC, they may be considered “unadmitted insurance contracts.” In such circumstances, whether the FSC may deem the foreign insurer to be conducting insurance business in Taiwan without authorization—thereby triggering potential penalties—has drawn considerable attention.

2. The FSC’s general position is that “conducting insurance business in Taiwan” refers to engaging in core insurance activities within Taiwan, such as solicitation, underwriting, or contract execution. If the foreign insurer does not perform such activities in Taiwan, it would not be deemed in violation of the Insurance Act. However, if a foreign insurer engages in solicitation of insurance business in Taiwan without obtaining the required approval or registration, the competent authority may impose administrative sanctions under Article 166 of the Insurance Act, including an order to cease business and an administrative fine ranging from NT$3 million to NT$15 million.

Furthermore, any person who acts in Taiwan as an agent, broker, or solicitor for an unapproved foreign insurer will be subject to criminal liability. A corporate entity that employs such a person will also be subject to monetary penalties. These matters are governed by Article 167-1 of the Insurance Act, which provides:

A person who acts as an agent, broker, or solicitor for an insurance enterprise that is not an insurance enterprise under this Act or a foreign insurance enterprise—except for insurance procured from foreign insurers via insurance brokers in accordance with government policy as publicly announced by the competent authority—shall be subject to imprisonment of up to three years and/or a criminal fine between NT$3 million and NT$20 million. For serious violations, the competent authority may order insurance agents, brokers, notaries, or banks concurrently engaging in insurance agent or broker activities to suspend part or all of their business or revoke their licenses and cancel their registration certificates.
Where the representative, agent, employee, or other personnel of a legal entity commits the above offense in the course of its business, the legal entity shall be subject to the same monetary penalties in addition to the punishment imposed on the individual offender.

3. With respect to insurance contracts concluded with a foreign insurer that has not been approved to establish operations in Taiwan, Taiwanese court decisions generally do not consider such contracts automatically invalid; rather, they are treated as ordinary civil contracts. This approach is consistent with the fact that current Taiwanese laws do not expressly prohibit Taiwanese individuals from purchasing insurance, entering into contracts with foreign insurers, nor do they provide that such contracts are void.

修法動態 - 公開發行公司取得或處分資產處理準則修正 Regulatory Update – Amendments to the Regulations Governing the Acquisition and Disposal of Assets by Public Companies

Thu, 30 Oct 2025 02:36:04 GMT

修法動態 - 公開發行公司取得或處分資產處理準則修正

Regulatory Update – Amendments to the Regulations Governing the Acquisition and Disposal of Assets by Public Companies

金融監督管理委員會（下稱金管會）於2025年7月24日修正公布「公開發行公司取得或處分資產處理準則」(下稱處理準則)第31、35條規定，以針對實收資本額達新臺幣五百億元以上之公開發行公司，放寬其應公開申報取得或出售之資產等。本次修正重點如下：

1. 考量公開發行公司取得或處分供營業使用之設備屬於正常營運行為，並且考量資訊揭露重大性原則，爰修正放寬實收資本額達新臺幣五百億元以上之公開發行公司，於交易金額達公司實收資本額百分之五以上者，始須辦理公開申報。

2. 考量鑑於公開發行公司有透過投資固定收益債券進行資金調節以提升現金收益率之需求，並且考量資訊揭露重大性原則，衡酌商品風險屬性，亦修正放寬實收資本額達新臺幣五百億元之公司與非關係人於證券交易所或證券商營業處所買賣之公債、普通公司債及未涉及股權之一般金融債券(不含次順位債券)，於交易金額達公司實收資本額百分之五以上者，始須辦理公開申報。

3. 配合上開兩點關於實收資本額達新臺幣五百億元以上公開發行公司之相關修正，亦明訂公司股票無面額、或每股面額非屬新台幣十元者，其實收資本額百分之五及實收資本額達新台幣五百億元之交易金額之計算方式。

本次修正自發布日施行。金管會表示，經由本次放寬措施，應可簡化公開發行公司取得或處分資產申報作業之負擔，且預計將減少未來重訊之數量。

另，為配合本次修正，公開發行公司應提交董事會通過，送交監察人並提報股東會同意，以為相應調整原公司內部之「取得或處分資產處理程序」以資適法因應調整。

On July 24, 2025, the Financial Supervisory Commission (the “FSC”) amended Articles 31 and 35 of the Regulations Governing the Acquisition and Disposal of Assets by Public Companies (the “Regulations”), relaxing certain public disclosure and reporting requirements for public companies with paid-in capital of NT$50 billion or more in relation to the acquisition or disposal of assets. Key points of the amendments are summarized as follows:

1. In consideration that the acquisition or disposal of equipment used for business operations by a public company constitutes part of its normal course of business, and in line with the principle of material information disclosure, the Regulations have been amended to relax the public disclosure requirement for public companies with paid-in capital of NT$50 billion or more. Such companies are now required to make a public filing only when the transaction amount reaches 5% or more of the company’s paid-in capital.

2. In recognition of the need for public companies to engage in cash management and enhance cash yield through investments in fixed-income bonds, and in line with the principle of material information disclosure while taking into account the risk characteristics of such products, the Regulations have also been amended to relax the reporting requirement for companies with paid-in capital of NT$50 billion or more. Specifically, transactions involving government bonds, straight corporate bonds, and general financial bonds without equity features (excluding subordinated bonds) that are traded with non-related parties on the stock exchange or over the counter through securities firms are now required to be publicly reported only when the transaction amount reaches 5% or more of the company’s paid-in capital.

3. In line with the above two amendments applicable to public companies with paid-in capital of NT$50 billion or more, the Regulations further clarify the calculation methods for determining (i) the 5% threshold of paid-in capital and (ii) the transaction amount equivalent to NT$50 billion of paid-in capital, in cases where a company has no par value shares or where the par value per share is not NT$10.

These amendments take effect from the date of promulgation. According to the FSC, the relaxation measures are expected to simplify the reporting procedures for public companies when acquiring or disposing of assets and are anticipated to reduce the number of future material information disclosures.

In addition, to comply with the amendments, public companies must obtain approval of their board of directors, submit the revised procedures to supervisors, and present them to the shareholders’ meeting for approval, so as to make corresponding adjustments to their internal “Procedures for Acquisition or Disposal of Assets” to ensure legal compliance.

海洋汙染法治法修正 Amendments to Marine Pollution Legislation

Fri, 21 Feb 2025 08:30:41 GMT

海洋汙染防治法修正

Amendments to Marine Pollution Legislation

海洋汙染防治法於2023年修正通過，除設置海汙基金、建立吹哨者制度外，也參考了部分國際制度，強化了汙染管理及加重罰則，用以達到維持海洋環境永續性的政策方向，此在修法通過後，已有諸多面向的詳實討論。

而對於營運船舶的船東、傭船人或其他船舶營運人(包含P&I Clubs)而言，主要關切面向仍多在於船舶源污染責任及P&I LOU的運用部分。

1. 責任限制規範並未納入台灣海洋汙染防治法中。

依據此次修法所參考的1992年IOPC公約，以及IMO的1992年CLC公約，其制度設計原是雙層的責任分擔制度所構成。第一層是船東損害賠償及責任，藉由具體規定船東和其保險人的責任限制，為船東及其保險人提供了確定性，同時，在極少數索賠超過船東責任限制的情形，損害賠償請求權人，仍能從本次修正新增的海洋污染防治基金就超過的部分取償，而保障索賠人之權益。不過，本次海洋汙染防治法修正，並未納入責任限制條款，油汙損害船東及其保險人，在新法通過後，仍無法主張責任限制，而與相關公約下的雙層責任制度，在操作上有重大區別。至於相關法令例如海商法，在後續修法中是否可能加入油汙之責任限制，仍待觀察。

2. P&I Clubs的Letter of Undertaking(LOU)仍可作為海洋汙染案件中之擔保。

LOU作為海洋汙染事故中提供損害賠償擔保的方式，被港務單位所接受已然行之有年，這自然是本於海洋汙染事件具有國際性，且船東責任保險幾乎全由國外P&I Clubs承保，以及油汙案件具急迫性所致。本次修正海洋汙染防治法中雖未就擔保方式做規定，但實務上接受P&I Clubs LOU作為擔保方式則未見改變。至於海洋汙染防治法施行細則第23條文義上是對於海洋汙染防治法第三十六條第二項所做的擔保規定，是否可作為所有擔保使用LOU的法源，解釋上似有其侷限性。

另，原本依據海洋污染防治法第三十六條第三項所公告的「船舶污染損害賠償責任保險或擔保之額度」，亦隨著海洋汙染防治法修訂，一併修正內容並變更名稱為「船舶污染責任保險或擔保之額度」，在內容上略有更動。 https://www.oac.gov.tw/ch/home.jsp?id=67&parentpath=0,6&mcustomize=bulletin_view.jsp&dataserno=202309210003&mserno=201906300001

#長立國際法律事務所# #海洋汙染# #海事案件# #海商#

The Marine Pollution Control Act was amended in 2023. In addition to establishing the Marine Pollution Control Fund and introducing a whistleblower mechanism, the amendments draw upon certain international systems to strengthen pollution management and increase penalties, with the policy objective of promoting the sustainability of the marine environment. Since the passage of these amendments, various aspects of the changes have been widely discussed in detail.

For shipowners, charterers, or other vessel operators (including P&I Clubs), the primary concerns continue to focus on liability for ship-source pollution and the use of P&I Letters of Undertaking (LOUs).

1. Limitation of Liability Provisions Were Not Incorporated into Taiwan’s Marine Pollution Control Act

The recent amendments were made with reference to the 1992 IOPC Convention and the International Maritime Organization’s 1992 CLC Convention, both of which are structured around a two-tier liability allocation system. Under this system, the first tier consists of the shipowner’s liability for damages, with explicit limitations placed on the liability of both the shipowner and its insurer. This provides certainty and predictability for shipowners and their insurers. At the same time, in the rare event that claims exceed the liability limit, claimants are able to recover the excess amount from the Marine Pollution Control Fund newly established under the amendments, thereby safeguarding their rights. However, the 2023 amendments to the Marine Pollution Control Act did not incorporate any limitation of liability provisions. As a result, shipowners and their insurers involved in oil pollution damage cases remain unable to invoke limitation of liability under the amended law. This creates a substantial operational difference from the two-tier liability system under the aforementioned international conventions. Whether related legislation, such as the Maritime Act, may introduce oil pollution liability limitation provisions in future amendments remains to be observed.

2. P&I Clubs’ Letters of Undertaking (LOUs) Remain Acceptable as Security in Marine Pollution Cases

The use of Letters of Undertaking (LOUs) issued by P&I Clubs as security for compensation in marine pollution incidents has long been accepted by port authorities. This practice naturally arises from the international nature of marine pollution events, the fact that shipowners’ liability insurance is almost entirely underwritten by foreign P&I Clubs, and the urgent nature of oil pollution cases. Although the recent amendments to the Marine Pollution Control Act do not expressly address the forms of security that may be provided, there has been no change in practice regarding the acceptance of P&I Club LOUs as a means of providing security.

As for Article 23 of the Enforcement Rules of the Marine Pollution Control Act, which appears to provide for security under Article 36, Paragraph 2 of the Act, its wording raises questions as to whether it can serve as a sufficient legal basis for the use of LOUs as security in all circumstances. There may be limitations in interpreting it in such an expansive manner.

In addition, the “Amount of the Liability Insurance Coverage or Guarantee for Compensation for Ship-Source Pollution Damage,” which had originally been announced pursuant to Article 36, Paragraph 3 of the Marine Pollution Control Act, was also amended in conjunction with the revisions to the Act. Its title has been changed to “Amount of the Liability Insurance Coverage or Guarantee for Ship-Source Pollution Damage,” with certain adjustments made to its content.

Link:

https://www.oac.gov.tw/ch/home.jsp?id=67&parentpath=0,6&mcustomize=bulletin_view.jsp&dataserno=202309210003&mserno=201906300001

#Chen Chang & Associates #MarinePollution #MaritimeCases #Maritime

貨物錯誤申報與船舶安全：船上爆炸事故下的法律責任探討 Misdeclaration of Cargo and Ship Safety: Legal Liabilities Arising from Onboard Explosions

Wed, 24 Jul 2024 03:15:07 GMT

貨物錯誤申報與船舶安全：船上爆炸事故下的法律責任探討

Misdeclaration of Cargo and Ship Safety: Legal Liabilities Arising from Onboard Explosions

貨物錯誤申報與船舶安全：船上爆炸事故下的法律責任探討

在海上運輸實務中，船舶的安全仰賴各方履行其應盡的義務，其中尤以託運人如實申報貨物性質為關鍵。特別是在涉及危險品運送時，貨物的正確申報不僅攸關船舶本身的安全，更直接影響船員生命、其他貨物、港口設施的安全。

實務上曾發生多起因託運人錯誤申報或隱匿危險品性質，導致船舶於航行或裝卸作業期間發生爆炸或火災的事故，造成嚴重財產損失與人身傷亡。面對此類事件，運送人／船東該如何主張損害賠償？貨主將可能面臨哪些法律責任？

本文就託運人錯誤申報貨物時，可能涉及的契約責任與侵權行為責任，提供釐清責任歸屬的參考。

一、依據運送契約所生的契約責任

多數運送條款明確要求託運人申報危險物品，並提供正確且完整的貨物資訊。託運人若違反此等義務，即構成違約責任。此外，海上運送，依台灣法律體系，應優先適用《海商法》之規定。

依《海商法》第55條第1項，託運人有義務向運送人保證其就貨物名稱、數量、包裝種類、件數及標誌等所為之通知內容正確。若貨主錯誤申報貨物（如實際為危險品卻未揭露）而致貨物引發爆炸，運送人證明託運人通知的貨物內容與實際貨物狀況不符（不正確性），且該錯誤申報與爆炸損害間具因果關係，即得依《海商法》第55條主張損害賠償。

除《海商法》外，運送人亦可依《民法》第631條規定主張契約責任。該條明定，若運送物依其性質可能對人或財產造成損害，託運人應於締約前將其性質告知運送人，否則應負損害賠償責任。而實務判決（例如臺灣高等法院92年度上易字第1260號判決）曾指出，該條文適用須以「貨物之性質」確實具備致損害之虞為前提，若貨物本質非危險物，或損害非由貨物性質直接引起，則無法據以請求賠償。

二、侵權行為責任

運送人亦可依《民法》第184條主張侵權行為責任。該條規定，凡因故意或過失、不法侵害他人權利，應負損害賠償責任。倘若託運人違反《海商法》第55條第1項所課予之告知義務，即可作為其主觀上具有一定過失之佐證。

進一步而言，運送貨物若屬《船舶危險品裝載規則》所定義之危險品，託運人須依該規則第37條向船東或船長提交「危險品託運書」並且揭露必要資訊。若託運人錯誤將危險品申報為一般貨物，未履行法定告知義務，亦可認其具有過失（參照臺灣高等法院82年度海商上字第13號判決）。

三、舉證責任

運送人主張前述契約責任或侵權行為責任時，應證明託運人具有過失。法院實務上曾認定，將危險物品誤報為一般貨物，已構成託運人未履行申報義務，足以推定其有過失。故當運送人能證明託運人未正確申報貨物，即完成初步舉證責任，舉證責任即轉由託運人負擔，證明其並無過失或已善盡告知義務。

小結

在海上運輸中，正確申報貨物是託運人不可推卸的基本義務。若因錯誤申報導致船上發生爆炸或其他災損事件，不僅將面臨契約責任與侵權責任的追究，甚且可能因此衍生行政或刑事責任。運送人／船東在發生事故後，宜儘早蒐集相關證據，包括提單、裝箱單、貨物申報文件與貨物實際狀況等，釐清事實並評估主張權利之法律依據。

反之，託運人若遭受求償，亦應審慎檢視自身申報流程及內部控管機制，並視需要提出反證或主張責任減輕。

Misdeclaration of Cargo and Ship Safety: Legal Liabilities Arising from Onboard Explosions

In maritime transport practice, the safety of a vessel relies heavily on the proper fulfillment of obligations by all parties involved. Among these, the shipper's duty to accurately declare the nature of the cargo is of particular importance. This is especially critical when dangerous goods are involved, as proper declaration not only affects the safety of the vessel itself but also has a direct impact on the lives of crew members, the safety of other cargo, and the integrity of port facilities.

There have been multiple incidents where a shipper’s misdeclaration or concealment of dangerous goods has led to explosions or fires during the voyage or loading/unloading operations, resulting in significant property loss and personal injuries. When such accidents occur, what claims for compensation can the carrier or shipowner pursue? What legal liabilities might the shipper face?

This article provides an overview of the contractual and tortious liabilities that may arise under Taiwanese law when a shipper misdeclares cargo, and offers guidance on how responsibility may be assessed.

1. Contractual Liability Under the Carriage Contract

Most carriage terms expressly require shippers to declare dangerous goods and provide accurate and complete cargo information. A shipper’s failure to fulfill such obligations constitutes a contractual breach. Additionally, under Taiwan’s legal framework, maritime matters are governed primarily by the Maritime Act.

According to Article 55, Paragraph 1 of the Taiwanese Maritime Act, the shipper is obligated to guarantee the accuracy of the cargo’s name, quantity, packaging type, number of packages, and markings provided to the carrier. If a shipper misdeclares cargo (e.g., conceals that it is dangerous goods) and an explosion subsequently occurs, the carrier may claim compensation under this provision, provided that the carrier can prove:
(1) the shipper’s declaration was inaccurate (i.e., the declared cargo did not match the actual cargo); and
(2) a causal link exists between the misdeclaration and the resulting explosion or damage.

Apart from the Maritime Act, carriers may also invoke Article 631 of the Civil Code to claim contractual liability. This provision states that if the nature of the goods may pose a risk of harm to persons or property, the shipper must disclose such nature before concluding the contract. Failure to do so results in liability for any resulting damage. However, court practice (e.g., Taiwan High Court Civil Judgment, Shang-Yi-Zi No. 1260 of 2003) has clarified that the application of this article is limited to goods whose inherent nature poses a risk of harm. If the cargo is not dangerous by nature, or if the damage was not directly caused by such nature, this article may not be applicable.

2. Tortious Liability

The carrier may also bring a claim under Article 184 of the Civil Code, which provides for liability arising from intentional or negligent acts that unlawfully infringe on the rights of others. If a shipper violates the declaration obligation under Article 55, Paragraph 1 of the Maritime Act, such violation may support a finding of negligence.

Furthermore, if the cargo in question qualifies as "dangerous goods" under the Regulations for the Carriage and Stowage of Dangerous Goods by Ships, the shipper is required under Article 37 of the Regulations to submit a Dangerous Goods Shipping Declaration to the shipowner or master, disclosing required information in the prescribed format. If the shipper misdeclares dangerous goods as general cargo and fails to fulfill this statutory duty of disclosure, such conduct may be deemed negligent (see Taiwan High Court judgment, Maritime-Shang-Zi No. 13 of 1993).

3. Burden of Proof

When asserting claims based on contractual or tortious liability, the carrier bears the burden of proving the shipper’s negligence. In practice, Taiwanese courts have found that misdeclaring dangerous goods as general cargo constitutes a failure to fulfill the shipper’s duty of disclosure and gives rise to a presumption of negligence. Therefore, once the carrier proves that the shipper failed to accurately declare the cargo, the initial burden of proof is met, and the burden shifts to the shipper to prove that they were not negligent or had otherwise fulfilled their duty of disclosure.

Conclusion

In maritime transport, accurate cargo declaration is a fundamental and non-delegable duty of the shipper. When explosions or other damages occur onboard as a result of misdeclaration, the shipper may face both contractual and tortious liability, and in some cases, administrative or even criminal consequences.

Following such incidents, the carrier or shipowner should promptly collect relevant evidence - including bills of lading, packing lists, cargo declarations, and inspection records - to ascertain the facts and evaluate possible legal claims. Conversely, shippers facing claims should carefully review their internal declaration procedures and control mechanisms and, if necessary, present rebuttal evidence or argue for a reduction of liability.

Through mutual adherence to legal obligations and responsible risk management, both parties can contribute to safer and more reliable maritime operations.

chenclaw

Taiwan's 2025 Insurance Act Reform: Recalibrating Enforcement Against Insurance Assets 2025 保險法修法三大要點：當保單遇上強制執行，債權人與被保險人的新平衡

1. How Insurance Policies Are Treated in Debt Enforcement

2. The Supreme Court's Position Before the Reform: Grand Chamber Judgment 108-Tai-Kang-Da-897

3. What the 2025 Reform Changes

3.1 Health and Accident Insurance: Fully Exempt from Enforcement (Articles 129-1 and 132-1)

3.2 Life Insurance: A New Threshold for Enforceability (Article 123-1)

3.3 The Right of Intervention (Article 123-2)

4. Before and After: A Summary

5. What This Means in Practice

5.1 For Creditors

5.2 For Policyholders and Beneficiaries

5.4 Transitional Rule: Cases Predating the Amendment

6. Conclusion

2025 保險法修法三大要點：當保單遇上強制執行，債權人與被保險人的新平衡 Taiwan's 2025 Insurance Act Reform: Recalibrating Enforcement Against Insurance Assets

一、修法背景：保險解約金為何成為強制執行標的

二、最高法院 108 年度台抗大字第 897 號民事大法庭裁定：司法解釋之基礎

三、2025 年保險法修正三大要點

3.1 健康保險、傷害保險之解約金全面除外（保險法第 129 條之 1、第 132 條之 1）

3.2 人壽保險解約金之執行門檻（保險法第 123 條之 1）

3.3 介入權制度：家屬接手保單之機制（保險法第 123 條之 2）

3.4 修法前後對照表

四、實務影響

4.1 對債權人之影響

4.2 對被保險人與家屬之影響

4.3 介入權行使流程

4.4 過渡條款：修法施行前已扣押之案件

五、結論

民間企業應了解之個人資料保護法修正重點 Key Amendments to the Personal Data Protection Act That Private Enterprises Should Be Aware Of

Key Amendments to the Personal Data Protection Act That Private Enterprises Should Be Aware Of

未經台灣主管機關許可之外國保險業，就在台灣之保險契約關係，所受主管機關監管範疇及契約效力 Regulatory Scope and Validity of Unadmitted Insurance Contracts in Taiwan Involving Foreign Insurers Without Approval from the Taiwanese Regulator

Regulatory Scope and Validity of Unadmitted Insurance Contracts in Taiwan Involving Foreign Insurers Without Approval from the Taiwanese Regulator

修法動態 - 公開發行公司取得或處分資產處理準則修正 Regulatory Update – Amendments to the Regulations Governing the Acquisition and Disposal of Assets by Public Companies

修法動態 - 公開發行公司取得或處分資產處理準則修正

海洋汙染法治法修正 Amendments to Marine Pollution Legislation

貨物錯誤申報與船舶安全：船上爆炸事故下的法律責任探討 Misdeclaration of Cargo and Ship Safety: Legal Liabilities Arising from Onboard Explosions

貨物錯誤申報與船舶安全：船上爆炸事故下的法律責任探討

﻿