Research On Preservation Or Abolishment Of The Insurable Interest Doctrine

Since the establishment of the principle of insurable interest,it has experienced a development process from formal standards to substantive standards.Its development is accompanied by the rapid development of social economy.The general trend is that the connotation of the principle of insurable interest is constantly expanding,and the judgment test of insurable interest is becoming more and more loose.Its manifestation is different in civil law countries and regions and Anglo-American law countries.Specifically: in the countries of the civil law system,the criteria for judging insurable interest have gone from “the general theory of insurable interest” to “the theory of technical insurable interest” to “the theory of economic insurable interest”;in the countries of Anglo-American law system,the criteria for judging insurable interest has experienced the development process from “the legal interest test” to “the expanded legal interest test” to “the factual expectation test”.Today,the principle of insurable interest has always faced criticism from scholars and legislators.First of all,it is believed that the principle of insurable interest cannot fulfill its traditional basic functions,cannot effectively distinguish between insurance and gambling,cannot effectively prevent moral hazard,and cannot play a role in limiting the degree of compensation and preventing unjust enrichment.Secondly,it is believed that it has caused some new practical problems,such as the uncertainty of the insurable interest judgment test,the insurer’s reverse moral hazard,the obstacle to the realization of the insurance market efficiency goals,and the obstacle to the realization of the insurance market equity goals.Finally,legislation in a few countries that repealed the principle of insurable interest gave them powerful weapons of attack.Judging from the legislative status quo of major countries and regions in the world,Germany,Japan,Chinese Taiwan,the United Kingdom and the United States all have reservations about the principle of insurable interest.Although Australia “repeals” the principle of insurable interest in form and adopts a new “economic loss test”,it actually conforms to the trend of loosening the connotation of insurable interest and takes the lead in adopting more flexible and loose judgment standards.The essence is actually not to abolish the principle of insurable interest,but to develop on the basis of "sublation".Therefore,China should also follow the mainstream trend and continue to retain the principle of insurable interest.The necessity of our country to continue to retain the principle of insurable interest is also expressed in the following: Firstly,in fact,if you look closely,the principle of insurable interest can still effectively distinguish between insurance and gambling;although moral hazard cannot be completely avoided,it at least can effectively alleviate the occurrence of moral hazard;although it cannot play the basic function of limiting the degree of damage compensation alone,it can work with the insurance amount to "support" the principle of indemnity to play a role in limiting the degree of damage compensation.Secondly,alternative mechanisms such as the principle of indemnity,the insured’s consent,the purpose of insurance,and the insurer’s self-prevention mechanism proposed by scholars cannot truly replace the function of the principle of insurable interest.Thirdly,perfecting the existing insurable interest system is sufficient to meet the needs of practice.Specific improvement measures include: firstly,expand the connotation of insurable interest;secondly,expand the scope of attribution of personal insurable interest;thirdly,improve the rules of the insured’s consent;and fourthly,prevent domestic violence from sneaking into personal insurance contracts.