Research On Insurer’s Obligation Of Explanation System

The law stipulates the Insurer’s Obligation of Explanation according to the principle of good faith,in order to eliminate the information asymmetry in the process of concluding the insurance contract,protect the legitimate rights and interests of the insurance applicant,and reasonably restrict the behavior of the insurer.But for a long time,there are a lot of disputes about the theory and practice of the insurer’s obligation of explanation system.With the continuous changes of insurance forms,insurance products and social environment,the system also needs to be continuously improved.By sorting out the focus of disputes,it is found that the problems in the operation of the insurer’s obligation of explanation system are concentrated in what aspects.Combined with the study of different types of insurance contracts,it explores the practical application of legal provisions,and analyzes the deficiencies of the insurer’s obligation to explain system.This paper summarizes the theoretical research results and explores the legislative purpose and essence of insurer’s obligation of clearly stating.That will provide theoretical basis and value guidance for the solution of the problem.Insurer’s obligation of explanation is conducive to clearly defining the rights and obligations of all parties,fully explaining the contents of the insurance contract,realizing the purpose of insurance,and promoting the healthy and sustainable development of the insurance industry.This paper adopts the methods of normative research,case analysis,summary and value analysis.By referring to a large number of cases to summarize the focus of the dispute,we find the problems in the operation of the insurer’s obligation to explain system.Explore its true meaning and legislative purpose,taking the legal provision of the obligation of explanation in our country as the research object.Examine the current situation and the existing problems of the obligation of explanation systematically,through the analysis of the causes of the problems,so as to solve the problem and perfect the system suggestions and fully demonstrate.The preliminary conclusions are as follows:According to the different degree of importance,the contract is divided into general clauses and disclaimer clauses,which respectively give the insurer the obligation of general explanation and explicit explanation.That emphasizes the emphasis on the disclaimer clause.In practice,it is mainly applicable to the relevant provisions of the insurer’s obligation of explanation,because the existing law does not have practical operation for the general explanation.The scope of the insurer’s obligation of explanation is controversial in practice,the main reason is that there is no real understanding of the legislative purpose of setting up different degrees of obligation to explain.In addition to the exclusion clause,there are other clauses need to be performed insurer’s obligation of clearly stating.The standard is that the clause materially limits the benefits of the policyholder and is difficult to understand at the level of ordinary understanding.The material criterion causes insurer’s obligation of clearly stating scope is moderately expanded.This inevitably increases the subjectivity of the court’s judgment.Therefore,it is necessary to strengthen the interpretation of judgment documents and fully demonstrate the result of judgment.This will help raise reasonable expectations of the parties concerned.The difference between the formal standard of signature or seal and the substantive standard that ordinary people can understand has led to a dispute on the judicial practice of the insurer to clearly state the standard of performance of obligations.So the legislation should further improve the relevant provisions,unify the rules of judgment,and protect the reasonable expectations of the parties.The judicial judgment can use the substantial standard to judge and fully demonstrate in the reason of judgment for improving the authority and reference of the judicial adjudication.At the same time,legislation should strengthen the supervision and management of insurance sales personnel,take advantage of recording technology,provide sufficient evidence for the judgment of substantive standards,reduce disputes.The law does not provide for the legal consequences of breaching the general obligation explanation.In case of violation of the explanatory obligation of the insurer’s general terms,the insurance applicant shall be granted the right of cancellation according to the basic principles of civil law.But,the claim of this fact should be borne by the policyholder.The legal consequence of violating insurer’s obligation of clearly stating is "terms have no effect".The provision should be understood to have no effect on the limitation of an policyholder person imposed by a provision.From the perspective of professionalism and the degree of difficulty of burden of proof,in card insurance,if the policyholder claims that activated by the insurer,then the insurer should bear the burden of proof for not participating in the insurance process.The insurer can save the transaction process through sound recording,video recording and other forms.The subject of activated by the insurer includes insurer and other the principal of the policyholder.The insurer activates the insurance card on behalf of the situation can be divided into the applicant’s substantial participation and the applicant’s non-substantial participation.If the policyholder person is actually involved in the activation process,then insurer’s obligation of clearly stating and traditional internet insurance is no different.The insurer only plays an operational role.In essence,the policyholder participates in the process of making insurance contract.Therefore,the act of agent activation does not affect the insurer’s obligation of clearly stating.If the policyholder does not participate in the material,the insurer cannot be deemed to have performed the obligation to specify.If the insurer claims that it has performed insurer’s obligation of clearly stating,it shall continue to provide sufficient evidence to prove that the offline and online contract contents are completely consistent.The inherent nature of the insurer’s explicit obligation to state and the rule of doubtful interpretation leads to a lot of disputes on the relationship between the two clauses and the applicable rules in practice.If there is a disputed content in the escape clause itself and the insurer cannot prove that it has been specifically stated,then it is proved that the insurer has not performed the duty of explicit statement.The appearance of substance is sufficient to counter the effect of the formal standard of signature in the policyholder person’s declaration.The situation that the clause has multiple meanings and is not clear can itself be regarded as a material criterion for the insurer’s failure to perform the explanation obligation.All the above points need to be further perfected in legislation.