• Journal of the Korean Institute of Navigation
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.111-127
• /
• 1994

A Contract of marine insurance is a contract whereby the insurer undertakes to indemnity the assurd, in manner and to the extent thereby agreed, against marine losses that is to say, the losses incident to marine adventure. But the matter is that whether the problem of increased risk in insurance law should be understood by matching to nay state under general principle of contract law and whether that we should give any effect is more proper to the original object of the system. For this, it is understood that it is a case to be applied a "clausula rebus sic stantibus" in general today, but it is regarded as the matter that whether "clausula rebus sic stantibs" is charging any position in change of risk and whether we should understood the concept of the risk on the substance of the risk. Accordingly the recognition for the problem like this, study should examine closely into whether any system for the effect of increase in change of risk is more proper and rational system provide the supplementing points through our principle of insurance law and the study by comparing method.by comparing method.

• The Journal of the Korean life insurance medical association
• /
• v.2 no.1
• /
• pp.3-16
• /
• 1985

Necessity of life insurance is stronger for people who feel some anxiety of their health. However, in fact, it is not permitted for them to get a contract, because life insurance stands on the mutual benefit system. Life insurance must be impartial to all applicants. However, it is very reasonable that an applicant, who has high medical impairment like heart infarction or cancer, is rejected, to have a contract by underwriting decision. On the other hand, if his medical impairment is not so severe, we might accept his application by giving some restriction. Numericalratingsystem by hunter-rogers gave us one of solutions to this problem. We can keep impartiality by using more restrictive decision, in order that we demand additional payment to the impairment applicant according to his mortality. We call this system as substandard life insurance. In this system we need detail information about impairments of applicants in order to decide the condition of substandard risks. Therefore, medical examiners are required to have high diagnostic technique.

• The Journal of Information Technology
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.121-136
• /
• 2004

The purpose of this paper is to study the current situations of trade financial EDI based on The BOLERO system, New BOLERO system, The NACCS system in Japan and The EDEN(Electronic DElivery Negotiable document) system and problems in application of marine insurance contracts. Entwined with the contracts of carriage in international sale transactions is a contract of marine insurance by which the goods are insured against maritime perils. In the thesis I tried to explain the problems of paperless marine insurance contracts based on problems in relating to formation of the transit insurance contract and replication the functions of the marine insurance policy electronically.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.44 no.2
• /
• pp.83-94
• /
• 2019

Article 17 of the Marine Insurance Act (MIA) states that "A contract of marine insurance is a contract based upon the utmost good faith, and if the utmost good faith be not observed by either party, the contract may be avoided by the other party." In the Carter v. Boehm case, Lord Mansfield was the first to provide a comprehensive description of the duty of utmost good faith, which is analyzed here. This judgement not only laid the foundation for the Modern English Insurance Act, but it also influenced the draft of the English Insurance Act of 2015, which aimed at correcting distortions that occurred during the application of statue law and common law thereafter. The duty of utmost good faith, applied between Lord Mansfield's insured and insurer presents the context of information asymmetry of the insured and insurer entering contracts. In the absence of information asymmetry, in contrast to the effects of being in both sides of the duty of utmost good faith, alleviating the duty of disclosure of the insured, and it is also clear that the warning of the severity of the retrospective avoidance of the breach of duty of disclosure and the need for its limited application have already been pointed out. Furthermore, considering the principle of retrospective avoidance, the duty of utmost good faith should be understood as a concept limited to the duty of disclosure before a contract is concluded

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Navigation
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.129-149
• /
• 1994

Sea casualties may happen in ship, cargo and the others concerned with sea transportation. : the shipo-wer, marine insurer and salvage company have been endeavored to compensate salvage award with some rule and regulation such as Marine Insurance Act, York Antwerp Rules and Average adjustment rules. Once sea casualties happened, the salvage contract is established between the owners, marine insurance and salvage company, the contract are divided into so many kinds of them. In this paper, we have an analysis on the character of the salvage contract whether the characteristic contents of them are in benefit to any party or not. In this connection with these positive or negative character of the contract, it is worthwhile to compare the actual salvage expenses contract with no cure no pay contract. LOF 1990 has been revised recently, which is based on no cure no pay, expecially, the special compensation, safety net clause of LOF 1990 could be understood in the view of the prevention of sea pollution and the preservation of sea circumstances in the world. Salvage has the complicated and quality, because the adjustment of almost salvage charges have been treated through the other sea casualties which is accompanied by and mixed with. Besides of the importance of salvage contracts, we are in need to understand that what the diversified character of salvage charges are. Furthermore the owners should carefully select the insured conditions on Hull Insurance according to the type of his company, operating ocean route, loading cargo and etc. In this paper, we would try to analyze the character of the salvage award such as General Average, Sue and Labour Charges and Particular charges. We would like to propose that the uniformed system of the salvage award. Compensation should be built up for the effective and efficient salvage operation and for reducing the claims and conflicts from the concerned parties. To this end, we could expect that the uniformed system for salvage award compensation will come to be the benefit of all owners, insurers, salvage company.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.24
• /
• pp.25-49
• /
• 2004

English contract law has traditionally taken the view that it is not the duty of the parties to a contract to give information voluntarily to each other. In English law, one of the principal distinctions between insurance contract law and general contract law is the existence of the duty of disclosure in insurance law. This article is, therefore, designed to analyse the scope or extent of the duty of disclosure and the remedy for breach of the duty in English marine insurance law. The main purpose of this article is also to seek the alternative remedy for the breach. The results of analysis are as following : First, the scope of the duty of disclosure is closely related to the test of materiality and the concept of a hypothetical prudent insurer. The assured is required to disclose only material circumstances subject to MIA 1906, s. 18(1). The test of materiality, which had caused a great deal of debate in English courts over 30 years, was finally settled by the House of Lords in Pan Atlantic and the House of Lords rejected the 'decisive influence' test and the 'increased risk' test, and the decision of the House of Lords is thought to accept the 'mere influence' test in subsequent case by the Court of Appeal. Secondly, an actual insurer is, in order to avoid contract, required to provide proof that he is induced to enter into the contract by reason of the non-disclosure of the assured. But this subjective test of actual inducement is somewhat meaningless in sense that English court takes the test of materiality as a starting point and assumes the presumption of inducement even in case of no clear proof on the inducement. Finally, MIA 1906, s. 18 provides expressly for the remedy of avoidance of the contract for breach of the duty of disclosure. This means rescission or retrospective avoidance of the entire contract, and the remedy is based upon a fairly crude 'all-or-nothing' approach. The remedy of rescission is too draconian from the point of view of the assured, because he can be deprived of all cover despite he is innocent perfectly. An inadvertent breach from an innocent mistake is as fatal as wilful concealment. What is, therefore, needed in English marine insurance law with respect to remedy for the breach is to introduce a more sophisticated or proportionate remedy ascertaining degrees of fault.

• The Korean Journal of Applied Statistics
• /
• v.31 no.6
• /
• pp.771-783
• /
• 2018

The life insurance industry is interested in various factors that influence the long-term extensions of insurance contracts such as the necessity for the advisors' long-term management of consumers, product consulting, and improvement of the investment aspects. This paper investigates important factors leading to a long-term contract that forms an important part of the life insurance industry in Korea. For this purpose we used the data of contents (i.e., data from Jan 1, 2011 to Dec 31, 2016) of the contracts of xxx insurance company. In this paper, we present how to select important variables to influence the duration of the contract maintenance via a penalized Cox's proportional hazards (PH) modelling approach using insurance life data. As the result of analysis, we found that the selected important factors were the advisor's status, the reward type 2 (annuity insurance) and tendency 4 (safety-pursuing type).

• Health Policy and Management
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.1-30
• /
• 2009

Korean medical fee contract system between the insurer and healthproviders was introduced in 2000. However, a continuous discord among contracting parties concerned and an irrational operation of an arbitration committee of Ministry for Health, Welfare and Family Affairs (MIHWAF) have made it difficult for them to reach to an agreement over last 8 years. The purpose of this study is to observe the current problems of contract system from the view of health insurance law and actual examples. Furthermore, I examined the of breakdown of negotiation by analyzing the eligibility of contracting parties, rationality of Resource Based Relative Value System (RBRVS) and contracting method and fairness of arbitration method in case of negotiation rupture. The results were as follows: First, since the introduction of medical fee contract system, there has been a problem in that both the president of National Health Insurance Corporation (NHIC) and health care provider association have not held strong negotiation power. Second, the frequent changes and notifications of Relative Value Units (RVUs) without any mutual consent between the insurer and provider association negatively have influenced the conversion factors and finally hindered the agreement of contract. Third, a current process that the conversion factors are mediated and determined at the arbitration committee of MIHWAF in the case of contract breakdown between contracting parties has some flaw in that the irrational composition of committee provoked the lack of fairness and objectivity of mediation. Fourth, we can not prospect a satisfactory outcome of arbitration committee because the mediation always has failed to proceed smoothly due to boycott of both committee members from insurer and providers over last 8 years. As a result, we have to make an every effort to resolve problems mentioned above and then dream of an advanced national health insurance system.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.73
• /
• pp.65-90
• /
• 2017

The rule of warranty in English insurance law was established in the second part of the $18^{th}$ century by Lord Mansfield, who laid the foundations of the modern English law of insurance contract and developed very different rule of insurance law, especially in the field of warranty. At the time of Lord Mansfield, warranty, that is, the promise given by the assured, played an important role for the insurer to assess the scope of the risk. Legal environments, however, have changed since the age of Lord Mansfield. English and Scottish Commissions proposed very dramatic reform of law in the field of warranty law to reflect the changes of legal environment through the Insurance Act 2016. This article intends to consider the legal implications through the comparative analysis between the new regime of warranty in the Insurance Act 2015 and MIA 1906. The major changes in the Insurance Act 2015 are summarized as following. First, Basis of the contract clauses in non-consumer insurance contracts should be of no effect and representations should not be capable of being converted into warranties by means of a policy term or statement on the proposal form. This requirement should not be capable of being avoided by the use of a contract term and the arrangement of contracting out by parties should be of no effect. Secondly, The existing remedy for breach of warranty, that is, automatic discharge of the insurer's liability, should be removed. Instead, the insurer's libility should be suspended from the point of breach of warranty and reattach if and when a breach of warranty has been remedies. Thirdly, A breach of warranty should genally be regarded as remedied where the insured ceases to be in breach of it. In the other hand, for time-specific warranties which apply at or by an ascertainable time, a breach should be regarded as remedies, if the risk to which the warranty relates later, becomes essentially the same as that originally contemplated by the parties. Fourthly, where a term of an insurance contract relates to a particular kind of loss, or loss at a particular location/time, the breach of that term should only give the remedy in relation to loss of that particular kind of loss, or at a particular location/time. Finally, whether a term of an insurance contrat relates to loss of a particular kind of at a particular location/time should be determined objectively, based on whether compliance with that ther would tend to reduce the risk of the occurrence of that category of loss.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.76
• /
• pp.125-145
• /
• 2017

Where an insurer has unreasonably refused to pay a claim or paid it after unreasonably delay, the existing law in England does not provide a remedy for the insured. Accordingly, the insured is not entitled to damages for any loss suffered as a result of the insurer's unreasonable delay. This legal position differs from the law in Scotland and most major common law jurisdictions. LC thought that the legal position in England is anomalous and out of step with general contractual principles. LC considered that a policyholder should have a remedy where an insurer has acted unreasonably in delaying or refusing payment of claim, and, therefore, recommended a statutory implied term in every insurance that the insurer will pay sums due within a reasonable time and breach of that term should give rise to contractual remedies, including damages. More detailed recommendations of LC are as followings. First, it should be an implied term of every insurance contract that, where an insured makes a claim under the contract, the insurer must pay sums due within a reasonable time. Secondly, a reasonable time should always include a reasonable time for investigating and assessing a claim. Although a reasonable time will depend on all the relevant circumstances, for example, the following things may need to be taken into account, that is, (1) the type of insurance, (2) the size and complexity of the claim, (3) compliance with any relevant statutory rules or guidance, and (4) factors outside the insurer's control. Thirdly, if the insurer can show that it had reasonable grounds for disputing the claim(whether as to pay or not, or the amount payable), the insurer does not breach the obligation to pay within a reasonable time merely by failing to pay the claim while the dispute is continuing. In those circumstances, the conduct of the insurer in handling the dispute may be a relevant factor in deciding whether the obligation was breached and, if so, when. Fourthly, Normal contractual remedies for breach of contract should be available for breach of the implied term to pay sums due within a reasonable time. Finally, In non-consumer insurance contracts, the insurer should be permitted to exclude or limit its liability for breach of the obligation to pay sums due within a reasonable time, unless such breach was deliberate or reckless, and such an insurer's right to contract out will be subject to satisfying the transparency requirements.