本文歸納目前保險市場仍有銷售之保險商品內容及最高法院相關判決，企圖分析此等條款於解釋適用上引發問題之癥結點，並進一步從行政監理及司法審查兩層面切入，嘗試於修法前提供足以緩和前揭弊端之解決方案。詳言之，現行實務保險人往往擬定文義模糊不清抑或名實不符之「允諾契約條款」；而最高法院亦經常採取「形式主義」解釋爭議契約條款，未能正確掌握約款本質。本文以為，在此制度修正前吾人仍可透過行政審查暨司法解釋方式，適度矯正並緩和前述允諾特約條款衍生之弊端。

The article not only aims at illustrating the phenomenon of and reasons for why insurers misuse promissory warranties in insurance policies, and Supreme Court frequently has hardship on differentiating promissory warranties from other types of terms in insurance contracts, such as excepts or conditions, but also provides some solutions in respect of regulation and contract interpretation for judges and regulators. In practice, insurers tend to use ambiguous and vague context in order to garner unfair benefits either on pretext of other types of terms in policies by the title of warranties, or by harnessing technical words to transform exclusions into promissory warranties. What’s even worse, the Supreme Court of Taiwan is inclined to interpret these disguised or equivocal terms in a formalistic fashion, as triggers unpredictable and unstable results. As a consequence, both practical blurred warranties and judicial formalistic interpretation give rise to unnecessary trade costs probably impeding insurance trade. The author figures out two approaches to mitigate the problem: one is through screening mechanism of insurance products exercised by regulators to delete ambiguous and problematic terms in advance； the other is via special principles of interpretation set forth in Article 54 of Insurance Act and Article 11 and 12 of Consumer Protection Law.