《強制汽車責任保險法》明訂的被保險人範圍，僅包括「要保人」與「經要保人同意而使用管理被保險汽車之人」，未包括「經被保險人同意而使用管理被保險汽車之人」。臺灣新北地方法院一則判決據此認為，經被保險人同意而駕駛汽車者，非該法所稱被保險人，保險人對其駕駛被保險汽車所致交通事故，不負保險責任；並認為具被保險人身分之乘客，亦非該法所稱「受害人」；縱有駕駛人有無照駕駛的法定代位事由，保險人對受傷之乘客因無給付義務，故不得於給付保險金之後向駕駛人代位追償。本件判決涉及強制汽車責任保險被保險人與受害人的認定，以及保險人代位追償的消滅時效問題，有研究必要。本文認為應將《強制汽車責任保險法》的被保險人擴大解釋為包括「經被保險人同意使用管理被保險汽車之人」，才不至於產生保障漏洞。保險人代位追償時，被保險人對之仍可主張其對受害人原有的消滅時效抗辯。

The word ＂insured＂ in Compulsory Automobile Liability Insurance Act (hereafter as Act) was referred to ＂insurant＂ and ＂any person using or managing the insured automobile with the insurant's consent.＂ Taiwan New Taipei City District Civil Court Decision held that someone driving insured automobile with insured consent couldn't be referred to ＂insured＂ in Act, liability insurer would not responsible for the car accident. Furtherly, the Court held if that insured was a passenger in the car accident, the insured would not be referred to ＂victim＂ in Act. Even liability insurer could subrogate in accordance with the Act in case of driver without license, liability insurer has no responsibility to wounded passenger. So liability insurer couldn't subrogate and recover from the driver after paying insurance money to third party. It's important to note the Decision, which was involved with the identity of compulsory automobile liability insured and victim, and statute of limitation for subrogation. This Article contended that we should take extended explanation approach to include ＂any person using or managing the insured automobile with the insured consent＂ as ＂insured＂ in Act, so we could fix the protection loophole. And when the liability insurer subrogate against the insured, the insured might use statutory of limitation defense against the insurer.