• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.61
• /
• pp.113-137
• /
• 2014

For a contract of insurance to be valid, the insured needs to have an insurable interest. This means that someone taking out insurance must stand to gain a benefit from the preservation of the subject matter of the insurance or to suffer a disadvantage should it be lost. Although the principle is simple, the detail is difficult. English Law Commission proposed some changes to provide certainty on the rule of insurable interest in LCCP 201. This article is, therefore, designed to examine the proposals for reforming trends in English insurance contract law. The proposals on Law Commission in summarized as following. First, LC proposed to retain the requirement for insurable interest because it was thought to fulfil four useful functions. Secondly, LC proposes to repeal the Marine Insurance Act 1788 and the Marine Insurance (Gambling Policies) Act 1909 to confirm that the requirement of insurable interest applies to all forms of insurance. Thirdly, LC proposes to retain the provisions on insurable interest in the Marine Insurance Act 1906. Finally, LC proposes to define insurable interest and thinks that full definition of insurable interest should remain flexible.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.42
• /
• pp.275-305
• /
• 2009

Marine insurance contracts, which intended to provide indemnity against marine risks upon the payment of price, known as a premium, originated in Northern Italy in the late 12th and early 13th centuries. The law and practice were later introduced into England through the Continent. It is, therefore, quite exact that English and European marine insurance law have common roots. Nevertheless, significant divergences between English and European insurance systems occurred since the late 17th century, mainly due to different approaches adopted by English courts. The rule of warranty in English marine insurance was developed and clarified in the second part of the 18th century by Lord Mansfield, who laid the foundations of the modern English law of marine insurance, and developed different approaches, especially in the field of warranty in marine insurance law. Since the age of Lord Mansfield, English marine insurance law has a unique rule on warranty. This article is, therefore, designed to analyse the overall rule of the rule of warranty in English marine insurance law. The result of analysis are as following. First, warranties are incorporated to serve a very significant function in the law of insurance, that is, confining or determining the scope of the cover agreed by the insurer. From the insurer's point of view, such the function of warranties is crucial, because his liability, agreed on the contract of insurance, largely depend on in, and the warranties, incorporated in the contract play an essential role in assessing the risk. If the warranty is breached, the risk initially agreed is altered and that serves the reason why the insurer is allowed to discharge automatically further liability from the date of breach. Secondly, the term 'warranty' is used to describe a term of the contract in general and insurance contract law, but the breach of which affords different remedies between general contract law and insurance contract law. Thirdly, a express warranty may be in any form of words from which the intention to warrant is to be inferred. An express warranty must be included in, or written upon, the policy, or must be contained in some document incorporated by reference into the policy. It does not matter how this is done. Fourthly, a warranty is a condition precedent to the insurer's liability on the contract, and, therefore, once broken, the insurer automatically ceases to be liable. If the breach pre-dates the attachment of risk, the insurer will never put on risk, whereas if the breach occurs after inception of risk, the insurer remains liable for any losses within the scope of the policy, but has no liability for any subsequent losses. Finally, the requirements on the warranty must be determined in according to the rule of strict construction. As results, it is irrelevant: the reason that a certain warranty is introduced into the contract, whether the warranty is material to the insurer's decision to accept the contract, whether or not the warranty is irrelevant to the risk or a loss, the extent of compliance, that is, whether the requirements on the warranty is complied exactly or substantially, the unreasonableness or hardship of the rule of strict construction, and whether a breach of warranty has been remedied, and the warranty complied with, before loss.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.61
• /
• pp.139-163
• /
• 2014

Recently with making of 'The Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012(hereunder CIA)', the UK revised the duty of disclosure especially with the consumer insurance contract. According to the CIA, if the misrepresentation was careless, the insurer may have the three options based upon what the insurer would have done had the consumer taken care to answer the question accurately; a compensatory remedy, avoidance of the insurance contract or, amendment of the contract. I realized that the establishment of CIA has been exposed to pro-actively relieve the breach of Warranty and Disclosure, Representations as far as required by the Global Insurance market. It was found that it is expected to bring significant changes in UK Insurance Act system of the 21st century, and prepares competition from neighboring countries. On the other hand, in the common law system, countries under MIA(1906) are trying to address the breach of warranty and Disclosure, Representations, except the UK cannot completely adhere with a positive attitude.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.14
• /
• pp.103-152
• /
• 2000

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 doctrine of utmost good faith in insurance law. The doctrine gives rise to a variety of duties, some of which apply before formation of the contract while others apply post-formation. This article is, therefore, designed to analyse the overall structure and problems of the doctrine of utmost good faith in English marine insurance law. The results of analysis are as following : First, the requirement of utmost good faith in marine insurance law arises from the fact that many of the relevant circumstances are within the exclusive knowledge of the assured and it is impossible for the insurer to obtain the facts to make a appropriate calculation of the risk that he is asked to assume without this information. Secondly, the duty of utmost good faith provided in MIA 1906, s. 17 has the nature as a bilateral or reciprocal, overriding and absolute duty. Thirdly, the Court of Appeal in Skandia held that breach of the pre-formation duty of utmost good faith did not sound in damages since the duty did not arise out of an implied contractual term and the breach did not constitute a tort. Instead, the Court of Appeal held that the duty was an extra-contractual duty imposed by law in the form of a contingent condition precedent to the enforceability of the contract. Fourthly, the scope of the duty of utmost good faith is closely related to the test of materiality and the assured is required to disclose only material circumstances subject to MIA 1906, s. 18(1) and 20(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. Fifthly, the 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 or misrepresentation of the assured. Sixthly, the duty of utmost good faith is, in principle, terminated before contract is concluded, but it is undoubtful that the provision under MIA 1906, s. 17 is wide enough to include the post-formation duty. The post-formation duty is, however, based upon the terms of marine insurance contract, and the duty lies entirely outside s. 17. Finally, MIA 1906, s. 17 provides expressly for the remedy of avoidance of the contract for breach of the duty. This means rescission or retrospective avoidance of the entire contract, and the remedy is based upon a fairly crude 'all-or-nothing' approach. What is needed in English marine insurance law is to introduce a more sophiscated or proportionate remedy.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.50
• /
• pp.139-161
• /
• 2011

The retroactive insurance is the system that the Assured, the principal of insurance contract shall be entitled to recover for insured(beneficiary in insurance of persons) loss during the period of insurance covered by this insurance, not withstanding that the loss had occurred before the contract of insurance concluded. The retroactive insurance is applicable to both property insurance and insurance of persons. The commercial law of Korea stipulates its rules in the insurance volume. The ultimate and definite articles of cargo insurance about the retroactive insurance are stipulated in MIA and ICC. In general insurance of persons stipulates relevant articles in the clause. Even though articles pertinent to the retroactive insurance are written explicitly in relevant law, it is difficult to settle the claim just by using specified rules of related regulations. Therefore, a claim is settled down based on the actual facts. After studying some of the actual dispute facts connected with the retroactive insurance having properties mentioned, this paper suggests controversial points and alternative ideas.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.55
• /
• pp.209-240
• /
• 2012

Since the age of Lord Mansfield, who laid the foundation of the modern English insurance contract law in the second part of the 18th century, English insurance law has developed a unique rule of warranty. Lord Mansfield adopted very different approach and afforded such a strict legal character to insurance warranty, because the promise, given by the insured, played an important role for the insurer to assess the scope of the risk insured at that time. It is still important that the insured keep his promises strictly to the insurer under the insurance contract, but legal environments have changed dramatically since the times of Lord Mansfield. English Law Commission proposed some proposals for reforming the warranty regime to reflect the changes of legal environment in CP 2007. This article is, therefore, designed to examine the proposals and consider their legal and practical implications. The proposals of Law Commission is summarized as following. First, in CP 2007, Law Commission made two principal proposals for reform of the law on warranty. The first is that the insurer should not be entitled to rely on a breach of warranty unless the insured has been provided with a witten statement of what they have undertaken under warranty. The second is that the insurer should not be entitled to reject a claim on the ground that the insured has breached a warranty unless there was a causal connection between the breach and the loss. Secondly, for consumer insurance, the rule requiring a causal connection would be mandatory, whereas for business insurance, it would be possible for the parties to agree on the effect a breach of warranty should have, provided they use clear language to express their intentions. Thirdly, where the insured contracted on the insurer's written standard terms of business, some statutory controls would be afforded to the contract to ensure that the cover was not substantially different from what the insured reasonably expected. Finally, Law Commission propose that a breach of warranty give the insurer the right to terminate the contract, rather than automatically discharging it from liability, but (unless otherwise agreed) only if the breach has sufficiently serious consequences to justify termination under the general law of contract. Having evaluated the proposals of the Law Commission and considered their legal and practical implications, it is quite clear that the proposed rule interfere with freedom of contract and create legal uncertainty. But change can not made without any victims, so Law Commission's attempt to change severe and injust aspects of the warranty regime would be very welcomed and respected.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.53
• /
• pp.207-229
• /
• 2012

In IP 7 and LCCP 201, Law Commission considers the insured's duty of good faith after the formation of the contract. This article intends to review and analyse the legal implications of proposals in IP 7 and LCCP 201. The results of analysis are following. First, Law Commission propose to end the remedy of avoidance under MIA 1906 section 17, because avoidance of past claims is unprincipled, impractical and unnecessarily harsh. Secondly, LC proposes that an insured who makes a fraudulent claim should forfeit the whole claim which the fraud relates, but that the fraud should not invalidate previous and legitimate claims. Thirdly, LC proposes to introduce a statutory right for the insurer to claim damages for the reasonable, foreseeable costs of investigate a fraudulent claim in specific circumstances and that damages would be limited to those cases where the insurer can show an actual, net loss. Finally, LC provisionally propose that an express fraud clause should be upheld in business insurance, whereas in consumer insurance, any term which purports to give the insurer greater rights in relation to fraudulent claims that those set out in statute would be of no effect.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Navigation
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.83-103
• /
• 1983

The duty of disclosure it is a preliminary requirement to effect marine insurance contract between the assured and the underwriter. The contract of Marine Insurance is called a uberrimae fidei contract, the assured, therefore, in the law of marine insurance, shall communicate a material circumstances to the latter before the policy to be effected. As growing the maritime industries in Korea, there is forming a larger marine insurance market, accordingly, and having a wide relation with the practice of the marine insurance in England. It means that the most of the legal theories of the marine insurance would be adopted by the English Marine Insurance Case Law and M.I.A., 1906. From the viewpoint of the said this author has tried out to study what is the duty of disclosure of the marine insurance based upon the English Marine Case Law.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.53
• /
• pp.135-153
• /
• 2012

Incoterms is a standard transaction terms and conditions which is established to provide goods delivery, cost and risks between the seller and the buyer as a principle concerned. Incoterms is made of international rules about regular uses of transaction terms and condition. It removes uncertainty of misunderstanding and applying rules, commercial customs and etc, between nations. Incoterms does not have an enforcement like an unified rules or an agreements established between different nations. Therefore, it is just considered as a standard formal terms and conditions from International Chamber of Commerce. For those reasons, validity of Incoterms applies only when parties of contract come to an agreement not by officially adopted or applied by law in each nation. Incoterms 2010 contains specific and clear articles which is fixed version of incoterms 2000, it has insufficient points on insurance contract article. Though, insurance contract belongs to sales contract, it sustains independence itself. It is difficult to sustain perfection until establishment of insurance contract and expiration by fixing the articles. As a result, it is necessary for sellers and buyers take a full responsibility of making complete insurance contract. This paper is written for those reasons in this filed.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.46
• /
• pp.211-235
• /
• 2010

According to the commercial law in Korea, a marine cargo insurance contractor (policyholder, insured person, agent) has the duty to disclose risks before establishing an insurance contract and the obligation to notify changes in risks after before establishing the contract. Marine cargo insurance policy clauses include one about the obligation to notify changes in risks. This clause assumes that an insurance contract should be implemented according to what has been answered to the important questions asked by the insurer in connection with the insurant's duty to disclose before establishing an insurance contract, and it stipulates that, if any change in what has been disclosed should be notified to the insurer since it is regarded as a change in risks. Neglecting the obligation to notify may lead to the termination of the appropriate insurance contract by the insurer. The problems here concern the clauses about changes in risks and about the obligation to notify. The problems are like these. Can it be that the circumstances which might be seen in the past as changes in risks according to the territorial sea laws and institute cargo clauses stipulated long ago are considered as such still today? And a marine cargo insurance policy till valid when changes in risks have not been properly notified by the original discloser of risks to the insured who currently holds the marine cargo insurance policy, which, unlike other insurance policies, is a marketable security? In Korea, the commercial law has a clause the obligation to notify changes in risks established based on the territorial sea laws and institute cargo clauses. In this regard, this study aims to consider if the clause still valid today or not and, if not, to propose alternatives to the clauses.