Discuss "Information Disclosure Obligation" In Concluding An Insurance Contract

The most basic principle of insurance law is good faithdoctrine. The good faith doctrine of the insurance law in ourcountry contains the legal concept including honesty, goodness,just and justice. The information disclosure obligation inconcluding the insurance contract is the major reflection of thegood faith doctrine. It includes two basic systems: one isinsurer's duty of explanation; the other is the insured's dutyof telling the truth. Since the research of these two systems bythe insurance law theorist group in our country still remains ina relative messy and elementary stage. The dispute emerges in anendless stream in practice. The incompletion of legislation isconcerned as the most fundamental cause which would do great harmto the healthy development of insurance.The regulation which the insurer's duty of explanation couldbe applied to all kinds of insurance contracts is not appropriate.In those insurance contracts with nonstandard clauses the insurershould not undertake the explanation obligation. As for thesubject performing the duty of explanation, the legislation in ourcountry should stipulate that insurer, agent, insurancebusinessman ought to bear this duty. Insurance agents include notonly those agents who are authorized the representationqualificationandpermittedpracticebutalsothoseapparentagentwho haven't gotten the qualification while in acting as agent.Insurance businessman should be remained at the certain positionin our country's insurance law. It should be stipulated clearlythat insurance businessman is the agents of insurer, insuranceagent and insurance broker. The regulation of 'personalagent 'in the trade rule should be abolished. For stating thecontent of duty of explanation, we should give up the 18th provisioninInsuranceLawwhichhasnotexplainedclearlythattheexceptionclause is invalid. On the other hand, we should put them into theexplaining way, standard and formatting clauses and etc. Whendecidingwhethertheinsurerhasperformtheexplainingobligationin good faith, the standard for judge should be appropriateaccording to the insured stratum with common and general level ofunderstanding. For the way of explanation, besides keeping thetraditional writtenandoralway,itshouldbeencouragedthatbothsides could adopt other performing ways which have more effect ofevidence. At the same time, the related regulation and methodshould be made according to the direction which can strengthen thecontrol of standard clauses. For the legal consequence ofviolatingthedutyofexplanation, theinsurancelawinourcountryshould add the related regulation which could endow themodification right and the cancellation right to insurer and theinsured and apply the adverse explanation principle in standardclauses to restrict the insurer. The person who bears the responsibility to tell the truth inthe system of the insured's duty of telling the truth shouldinclude insurant. On the issue of the content of telling, thelegislation should definite no matter what kind of intent ornegligence those persons have in subjective aspect, the violationof the responsibility of telling the important truth would berequired. At the same time, the determining standard and theproving method on important truth should also be fixed. InsuranceLaw in our country must provide the exception regulation on theduty of telling the truth in order to comply with the spirit ofgood faith and fair doctrine. The deadline for performance oftelling should have a clear boundary in legislation, which means,the person who bears the responsibility should tell the truthbefore the insurer accepts insurance. The legal consequence of theviolation of responsibility must be intentional and in grossnegligence in subjective aspect. General negligence would notcausethelegalconsequenceofcancelingacontract.Sincethedutyof telling the truth is one kind of pre-contract duty, no matterwhether the violation has causality with the...