The Supreme Court rendered the 107-Tai-Shang-1854 Civil Decision of March 28, 2019 (hereinafter, the “Decision”), holding that even though a group insurance applicant has agreed with a worker not to make accurate filings, the monthly insurance salary should still be reported accurately; and since the worker cannot facilitate the occurrence of false filings or the aggravation of damage, the fault-balance principle certainly does not apply.
According to the facts underlying this Decision, the Appellee asserted as follows. He was employed by the Appellant on May 7, 1999 with a monthly salary of NT$38,000. Later when applying for retirement due to a stroke, he found that the Appellant had assessed his pension based on a monthly salary of NT$21,900, resulting in a shortfall of pension under the old system and had failed to make sufficient pension contribution under the new system. Since his monthly old-age benefit was reduced due to the Appellant’s failure to accurately report his labor insurance salary, the Appellee requested one-time payment. The original trial court ruled in favor of the Appellee. Dissatisfied, the Appellant appealed.
According to this Decision, the contributory negligence of a victim under Article 217, Paragraph 1 of the Civil Code requires that the victim’s and the wrongdoer’s behavior shall be the common cause of damage and the negligent behavior should contribute to the occurrence or aggravation of the damage. In addition, under Article 6, Paragraph 1 and Article 10, Paragraph 1 of the Labor Insurance Act, employers shall be group insurance applicants and shall handle insurance application formalities and other insurance-related matters for their employees; and the filing of an employee’s monthly insurance salary, which pertains to labor insurance matters, shall be made accurately by the group insurance applicant to the insurer pursuant to the Table on Grades of Insurance Salary. A group insurance applicant’s filing of an employee’s monthly insurance salary to the insurer pertains to the applicant’s public law obligation with no need to inform the employee in advance and no room for the employee’s consent to the inaccurate filing, as clearly indicated in Article 14, Paragraphs 1 and 2 and Article 14-1, Paragraph 1 of the same act. Therefore, even though a group insurance applicant agrees with its employees to under-report or over-report their insurance salaries, it is still required to accurately report the monthly insurance salaries pursuant to law, and the obligation to make accurate filings cannot be released. If an employee is injured due to inaccurate filings, since the employee cannot contribute to the occurrence or aggravation of the damage with respect to the false filing of the monthly insurance salary, which is the cause of the damage, the principle of fault-balance certainly does not apply when damages are sought in accordance with Article 72, Paragraph 3 of the Labor Insurance Act. Therefore, the original trial court was not erroneous when it concluded on such basis that the principle of fault-balance does not apply to the Appellee’s claim that the Appellant shall pay damages in the amount of the payment differences for old-age benefits and ordinary injury and illness benefits as a result of the Appellant’s under-reporting of the Appellee’s insurance salary.
In addition, it was also pointed out in this Decision that pursuant to the provisions on damages under the Civil Code, the monetary damages for restoring the original state when the damage is in a continuous state under the Civil Code are paid on a one-time basis with the exception of periodic payments. Therefore, since the damages from an employee’s shortfall of monthly old-age benefits as a result of the group insurance applicant’s failure to accurately report the insurance salary are also gradual ones in the future, the above provision may apply by way of analogy and the group insurance applicant may be requested to pay one-time compensation for the damage. According to the Decision, therefore, the original trial court concluded that since the insurance salary which should be reported by the Appellee should be used to calculate the damage that the Appellant shall compensate each year based on the deferred old-age pension claim standard, the Appellant was ordered to make a one-time payment, from which the interim interest should be deducted, according to the Appellee’s life expectancy and Huffman’s calculation. Since the original decision was not inappropriate, the Appellant’s appeal was dismissed.