保險理賠的爭訟事件中，常見保險公司以被保險人死亡出於自殺，而拒絕給付保險金；其法源基礎來自我國保險法第109條第1項、第2項之規定：「被保險人故意自殺者，保險人不負給付保險金額之責任。但應將保險之保單價值準備金返還於應得之人。保險契約載有被保險人故意自殺，保險人仍應給付保險金額之條款者，其條款於訂約二年後始生效力...。」此項自殺免責條款應經當事人間協商後寫入保險契約中。反觀美國法將自殺免責條款視為定型化契約文字，致契約顯失公平性，故由保險公司負舉證責任證明「自殺」；又「自殺」必須證明超越「自毀行為」，且該證據要能進一步確信行為是「自殺意圖」造成，即有目的性和意圖死亡的結果，否則免責條款無效。本文爰引介美國判例闡示被保險人自殺亦不能解除保險公司給付責任之法理，冀供我國法院參考。

In the litigations of insurance claims, the insurance company usually denies liability if the insured death is caused by suicide in which the basis of the legal source is according to Article 109(1)(2) of the Insurance Act, if the insured willfully commits suicide, the insurer is not obligated to pay the insured amount, but the non-forfeiture value shall be refunded to the person entitled to receive it. If an insurance contract contains a provision specifying that the insurer shall still pay the insured amount even if the insured willfully commits suicide, such a provision shall come into effect only two years after the date on which the contract is entered into. In the case of reinstatement of a suspended insurance contract, such two-year period shall commence from the date of reinstatement. In reliance on the clause that excludes coverage for "suicide" should be written in the policy after negotiations between the parties. From the viewpoint of American laws, the terms to avoid liability on the life insurance policy have been considered as contractual words, resulting in obvious unfairness, so the insurance company has the burden of proving suicide. Moreover, such burden, requires more than proof of the act of self-destruction, the proof must further establish that the act was committed with suicidal intent, that is, the purposeful or intentional causing of death, otherwise, the terms void. This paper, thus, aims to introduce the American court's conclusion of the insured suicide not able to relieve the liability of the insurance company for our courts' reference.