Korea Trade Review (무역학회지)

Korea Trade Research Association (한국무역학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A study on the Application of the Contra Proferentem Rule in the Interpretation of Marine Insurance Policies

해상보험증권의 해석상 작성자 불이익의 원칙의 적용에 관한 연구

  • Seong-Hoo Kim (Department of Management Information System, Kyungnam University) ;
  • Nak-Hyun Han (Department of International Trade and Logistics, Kyungnam University)
  • 김성후 (경남대학교 경영정보학과) ;
  • 한낙현 (경남대학교 국제무역물류학과 )
  • Received : 2020.10.06
  • Accepted : 2020.10.29
  • Published : 2020.10.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

In the absence of any guidance under statutory law, such as the Rules for Construction of Policy, MIA 1906, judges should follow the general principles of interpretation that apply to all contracts. In simple terms, Contra Proferentem Rule means that if the contents of the terms and conditions are ambiguous, they are interpreted against the writer of the terms and conditions. In the Anglo-American Contract Law, the 'default rule' is an important judicial tool that can supplement defects in contract norms and reinforce the principle of private autonomy through gap-filling techniques related to the interpretation of contracts. In Korea, it is sometimes mentioned in case of precedent, and it has been established as a clear rule. This study analyzes the interpretation of terms and conditions is not in the form that the interpretation of other general contracts and other interpretation principles are valid, but contracts based on terms and conditions are also contracts, and as a general rule, the interpretation of terms and conditions is explained like the general contract interpretation.

Keywords

References

  1. Abraham, K. S. (1996), "A Theory of Insurance Policy Interpretation", Michigan Law Review, 95(3), 531-557. https://doi.org/10.2307/1290161
  2. Ayres, I. (2006), "Ya-Huh: There Are and Should Be Penalty Defaults", Florida State University Law Review, 33, 589-597.
  3. Ayres, I. and R. Gertner (1989), "Filling Gaps in Incomplete Contracts: An Economic Theory of Default Rules", Yale Law Journal, 99(1), 81-97.
  4. Baker, T. and K. D. Louge (2015), "Mandatory Rules and Default Rules in Insurance Contracts", in Schwarz, D. and Siegelman, P.(eds.), Research Handbook on the Economics of Insurance Law, London: Edward Elgar Publishing, 379-401.
  5. Ben-Shahar, O. (2009), "A Bargaining Power Theory of Default Rules", Columbia Law Review, 109(2), 396-430.
  6. Ben-Shahar, O. (2011), "Fixing Unfair Contracts", Stanford Law Review, 63, 869-906.
  7. Boardman, M. E. (2006), "Contra Proferentem: The Allure of Ambiguous Boilerplate", Michigan Law Review, 104(5), 1105-1126.
  8. Boardman, M. E. (2013), "Penalty Default Rules in Insurance Law", Florida State University Law Review, 40(2), 305-348.
  9. Burton, S. J. (2016), "Collapsing Illusions: Standards for Setting Efficient Contract and Other Defaults", Indiana Law Journal, 91(3), 1062-1080.
  10. Calfee, J. E. and R. Craswell(1986), "Deterrence and Uncertain Legal Standards", Journal of Law, Economics, & Organization, 2(2), 279-303.
  11. Choi, Jun-Gyu (2011), "Interpretation of Insurance Contract and Contra Proferentem Rule-Focused on the Recent Supreme Court Cases-", Business Finance Law, 48, Center of Finance Law, 39-53.
  12. Cohen, G. M. (2011), "Interpretation and Implied Terms in Contract Law", in De Geest, G., et al.(eds.), Contract Law and Economics, London: Edwards Elgar Publishing, 130-141.
  13. Fischer, J. M. (1992), Why Are Insurance Contracts Subject to Special Rules of Interpretation?: Text Versus Context", Arizona State Law Journal, 24, 995-1023.
  14. Gilman, J., et al. (2018), Arnould's Law of Marine Insurance and Average, 19th ed., London: Sweet & Maxwell.
  15. Horton, D. (2009), "Flipping the Script: Contra Proferentem and Standard form Contracts", University of Colorado Law Review, 80(1), 431-479.
  16. Lee, Jae-Hyun (2012), "The Features of Contra Proferentem as the Interpretational Principle of an Insurance Agreement and its Applicable Limits-Review on the Validity of the Verdicts Recently Made Based upon Contra Proferentem-", Korea Insurance Law Journal, 6(2), 7-37.
  17. Keeton, R. E. (1970), "Insurance Law Rights at Variance with Policy Provisions", Harvard Law Review, 83, 961-969. https://doi.org/10.2307/1339729
  18. Kim, Chin-Woo (2011), "Eine uberlegung zur Auslegungsregel von AGB-Ein Rechtsvergleich zum europaischen Recht im Hinblick auf die objektive Auslegung und contra proferentem-Regel-", The Journal of Property Law, 28(3), 179-206.
  19. Kurita, Sho (2017), "On the Ambiguity of the Rules of Interpretation in the General Terms and Conditions of the Transaction-the Effect of the Change in the Concept of Contract in the German Common Law on the Rules of Interpretation-", Shinshu Economics and Law Review, 2, Nagano: Shinshu University, 121-144.
  20. Miller, D. S. (1988), "Insurance as Contract: The Argument for Abandoning the Ambiguity Doctrine", Columbia Law Review, 88(8), 1849-1872. https://doi.org/10.2307/1122606
  21. Nardoni, S. C. (2013), "A Study of Ambiguity: Does Illinois Law Permit Insurers to Submit Extrinsic Evidence to Resolve Insurance Policy Ambiguities?", Loyola Consumer Law Review, 25(4), 378-402.
  22. Park, Sirl-A (2016), A Study of the Interpretation of Standard Form Contracts(Doctoral Dissertation), Seoul: Seoul University.
  23. Posner, E. A. (2006), "Default Rules in Private and Public Law: An Exchange on Penalty Default Rules: There Are No Penalty Default Rules in Contract Law", Florida State University Law Review, 33, 563-580.
  24. Posner, R. A. (2004), "The Law and Economics of Contract Interpretation", Texas Law Review, 83, p.1581-1614.
  25. Rahdert, M. C. (1986), "Reasonable Expectations Reconsidered", Connecticut Law Review, 18, 323-351.
  26. Rappaport, M. B. (1995), "The Ambiguity Rule and Insurance Law: Why Insurance Contracts Should not Be Construed Against the Drafter", Georgia Law Review, 30, 171-233.
  27. Schwarcz, D. (2007), "A Product Liability Theory for the Judicial Regulation of Insurance Policies", William & Mary Law Review, 48, 1389-1433.
  28. Schwarcz, D. (2011), "Reevaluating Standardized Insurance Policies", University of Chicago Law Review, 78(4), 1263-1348.
  29. Seo, Hee-Sok (2017), "Regulation on Standard Terms and Conditions and Contract Law", Law Review, 41(3), 41-82.
  30. Solan, L., T. Rosenblatt and D. Osherson (2008), "False Consensus Bias in Contract Interpretation", Columbia Law Review, 108, 1268-1300.
  31. Stempel, J. W. (1994), Interpretation of Insurance Contracts, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
  32. Stempel, J. W. (2010), "The Insurance Policy as Social Instrument and Social Institution", William & Mary Law Review, 51, 1489-1582.
  33. Swisher, P. N. (2000), "A Realistic Consensus Approach to the Insurance Law Doctrine of Reasonable Exception", Tort & Insurance Law Journal, 35(3), 729-779.
  34. Ueda, Seiichirou (2003), Limitations of Contract Interpretation and Rules for Interpretation of Unclear Terms, Tokyo: Nihonhyouronnsya.
  35. Yamammoto, Tomonobu (2018), Insurance Law(1), Tokyo: Yuuhikaku.
  36. Yamamoto, Tetsuo (2020), "On the Contra Proferentem Rule", Study of Non-Life Insurance, 81(4), Tokyo: The General Insurance Institute of Japan, 9-38.
  37. Zamir, E. (2013), "Contract Law and Theory: Three Views of the Cathedral", University of Chicago Law Review, 81, 2077-2123.