Abstract: As the losses in this case incurred from the intentional conduct of the insured, the insurer, in principle, is relived from liability of paying proceeds pursuant to Section 2 of Article 29 of Taiwan Insurance Act which reads, "Insurer bear no obligation where losses is result from the intentional conduct of the insured". Nevertheless, the insured argued that her conduct? though intentional, is an act of performing moral obligation so that the insurer is still liable for the losses. Therefore, the issue of this case is whether the conduct the insured fall within the scope of Article 30 of the Insurance Act which provides that "The Insurer is liable for the losses incurred from the performance of moral obligation". This note introduces the "public conscience principle" from the Anglo-American Law and argued that weighing the losses incurred from the insured's injury due to donation of partial liver and the benefit of saving the life of the insured's husband, the benefit of life saving outweigh losses result from intentional conduct. Thus, the insurer still has the duty to indemnify the insured.