• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.19 no.1
• /
• pp.89-112
• /
• 2003

In this article, 1'd like to analyse the principal distinctions between the duty of disclosure and warranty which are based on the same legal principles, utmost good faith(uberrima fides). Although the duty of disclosure and warranty have a same legal principle to protect insurance contract, they have several difference in appliance actually. Through these comparative analysis, 1 want to reveal the character of warranty which is unfamiliar to us under our commercial law. Warranty has some peculiarity, these are (a)A warranty does not have to be material to the risk, (b)A warranty must be exactly complied with, (c)It is impossible to defence for a breach of warranty, the breach of warranty is irremediable, and A casual connection between breach and loss needs not be shone, (d)A breach of a warranty may be waived by insurer. Sometimes in Korea like those stringent principles of warranty make Korean's small fishing or shipping company suffer from difficult because of insistence of discharge from liability by insurer. So I expect that all of them acknowledge the character of warranty and can make them protect their insurance money by themselves.

• Proceedings of the Korea Port Economic Association Conference
• /
• 2003.07a
• /
• pp.271-294
• /
• 2003

In this article, 1'd like to analyse the principal distinctions between the duty of disclosure and warranty which are based on the same legal principles, utmost good faith(uberrima fides). Although the duty of disclosure and warranty have a same legal principle to protect insurance contract, they have several difference in appliance actually. Through these comparative analysis, I want to reveal the character of warranty which is unfamiliar to us under our commercial law. Warranty has some peculiarity, these are (a)A warranty does not have to be material to the risk, (b)A warranty must be exactly complied with, (c)It is impossible to defence for a breach of warranty, the breach of warranty is irremediable, and A casual connection between breach and loss needs not be shone, (d)A breach of a warranty may be waived by insurer. Sometimes in Korea like those stringent principles of warranty make Korean's small fishing or shipping company suffer from difficult because of insistence of discharge from liability by insurer. So I expect that all of them acknowledge the character of warranty and can make them protect their insurance money by themselves.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.49
• /
• pp.257-281
• /
• 2011

The duty of utmost good faith is found in sections 17-20 of MIA 1906. Critics of the current legal regime on the pre-contractual duty from the viewpoint of the assured, have been concentrated on two points in particular. First, the scope of the duty is so wide that it imposes too high burden on the assured. The second criticism is directed at the remedy, prescribed by the MIA 1906, s.17, against breach of the duty. This article intends to analyse the legal implications of proposals in CP 2007 for reforming pre-contractual duty of utmost good faith of business assured in English insurance contracts law and the problems of proposals. The Law Commissions are proposing four fundamental changes to meet the long-standing criticism and the results of analysis are as following. First, the Law Commissions are proposing a change in the test of constructive knowledge in relation to the duty of disclosure so that a business assured will be obliged to disclose facts which he knows or a reasonable ought to know in the circumstances. Secondly, deviating from the current legal position, the Law Commissions are proposing that if a business assured has made a misrepresentation, but the assured honestly and reasonably believe what it said to be true, the insurer should not have any remedy due to the misrepresentation. The proposal is designed to protect the reasonable expectations of business assured at the pre-contractual stage. Thirdly, the Law Commissions are proposing to change the test for materiality by replacing the "prudent insurer" test by a "reasonable assured" test. The proposed test would focus on the question of what a reasonable assured in the circumstances would think what is relevant to the judgment of the insurer. Finally, the Law Commissions are proposing flexible remedies in case of the breach of the duty. The Law Commissions are proposing no remedy when an assured is acting honestly and reasonably, while avoidance in case of dishonesty. On the other hand, The Law Commissions seem to have an intention to introduce a compensatory remedy in case of negligent breach of the duty.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.69
• /
• pp.407-426
• /
• 2016

The Marine Insurance Act 1906 (MIA 1906) has been a successful piece of legislation, having rarely been amended and having established, or served as an influence in the development of, the basis of marine insurance legislation in several countries. However, it has been recognised that some parts of the MIA 1906 have begun to show their antiquated nature, especially where established principles which were once thought to reflect undoubted propositions of law are now being openly criticised. Since 2006, the Law Commission and Scottish Law Commission (the 'Law Commissions') have been engaged in a major review of insurance contract law, finally leading to the Insurance Act 2015. The Insurance Act 2015 received Royal Assent on 12 February 2015, and was based primarily on the joint recommendations of the Law Commissions. The 2015 Act made substantial changes to several main areas of marine insurance law & practice: (i) the replacement of the pre-contractual duty of disclosure with a duty to make a "fair presentation of the risk"; (ii) the abolition of the "insurance warranty" under the Marine Insurance Act 1906, s.33, and provision of a new default remedy of suspension of liability until the breach is cured; (iii) partial codification of the fraudulent claims rule in insurance contract law, etc. The Act did not provide for any new statutory duty for insurers to investigate or pay claims in a timely fashion, although this may be revisited in the next Parliament. Moreover, the Law Commissions have reopened their consideration of the doctrine of insurable interest. The 2015Actmay not then signal the end of the legislative programme in this area.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.44 no.3
• /
• pp.137-154
• /
• 2019

This study analyzes the major provisions of the UK Insurance Act 2015 and Marine Insurance Act 1906 on the duty of disclosure under the doctrine of utmost good faith. Marine insurance contracts are based on "utmost good faith" and one aspect of this is that MIA 1906 imposes a duty on prospective policy holders to disclose all material facts. In the Insurance Act 2015 of the United Kingdom, the contents of the precedent were enacted such that we have borrowed the legal principles of common law until now. The insurer is required to more actively communicate with the insurer rather than passively underwriting and asking questions of the insured. The Act details the insured's constructive knowledge of the material circumstance by reviewing the current case law and introduces a new system for the insurer's proportionate remedy against the insured's breach of the duty of fair presentation of risk. This is a default regime, which may be altered by agreement between the parties.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.44 no.2
• /
• pp.83-94
• /
• 2019

Article 17 of the Marine Insurance Act (MIA) states that "A contract of marine insurance is a contract based upon the utmost good faith, and if the utmost good faith be not observed by either party, the contract may be avoided by the other party." In the Carter v. Boehm case, Lord Mansfield was the first to provide a comprehensive description of the duty of utmost good faith, which is analyzed here. This judgement not only laid the foundation for the Modern English Insurance Act, but it also influenced the draft of the English Insurance Act of 2015, which aimed at correcting distortions that occurred during the application of statue law and common law thereafter. The duty of utmost good faith, applied between Lord Mansfield's insured and insurer presents the context of information asymmetry of the insured and insurer entering contracts. In the absence of information asymmetry, in contrast to the effects of being in both sides of the duty of utmost good faith, alleviating the duty of disclosure of the insured, and it is also clear that the warning of the severity of the retrospective avoidance of the breach of duty of disclosure and the need for its limited application have already been pointed out. Furthermore, considering the principle of retrospective avoidance, the duty of utmost good faith should be understood as a concept limited to the duty of disclosure before a contract is concluded

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.13
• /
• pp.365-387
• /
• 2000

One of the central and primary doctrine of the law of marine insurance is that the contract of indemnity entered into by assured and insurer is a contract of the utmost good faith. The notion of utmost good faith is a well established doctrine derived from the celebrated case of Carter v. Boehm(1766), decided long before the inception of the Marine Insurance Act(MIA). With the codification of the law, the principle found expression in sections $17{\sim}20$ of the MIA 1906. In section 17 is presented the general duty to observe the utmost good faith, with the following sections introducing particular aspects of the doctrine, namely, the duty of the assured and brokers to disclose material circumstances, and to avoid making misrepresentations. It is somewhat surprising that section 17, being a long founded doctrine, has not attracted the attention of the courts until very recently. Given that the most significant manifestations of uberrimae fidei are non-disclosure and misrepresentations, fulfillment of the obligation of utmost good faith was, not unreasonably, for a long time perceived in terms of the duty to disclose and not to misrepresent. However, Black King Shipping Corporation v. Massie, 'Litsion Pride'(1985) has clarified that the duty of disclosure stems from the duty of utmost good faith, and not vice versa. The duty of utmost good faith is an independent and overriding duty, with the ensuring sections on disclosure and representations providing mere illustrations of that duty. It is now clear that there are important questions with regard to the general doctrine and as to the nature and scope of any duty of good faith continuing after the contract of insurance is made which require separate and fuller discussion. The purpose of this paper is to review the nature and scope of the duty of utmost good faith.

• Proceedings of the Korea Institute of Fire Science and Engineering Conference
• /
• 2011.11a
• /
• pp.462-465
• /
• 2011

최근 우리나라에서는 대형 화재사고가 빈번히 발생함에 따라 그로 인한 재산 및 인명피해가 날로 증가하고 있는 실정이다. 따라서 건축물 내에서 화재가 발생할 경우 인명피해를 최소화하기 위하여 피난유도설비의 설치를 의무화하고 있다. 지금까지 일반적으로 가장 널리 사용되고 있는 피난유도설비로는 유도등이 있으며, 최근 들어 피난유도선의 설치도 다중이용업소를 중심으로 점차 확대되어가고 있는 추세이다. 피난유도설비는 평상시 이용되는 교류 상용전원에 의해서뿐만 아니라 비상시 이용되는 직류 비상전원에 의해서도 정상적으로 작동되어야 하기 때문에, 피난유도설비의 전원장치는 주어진 전원으로부터 주어지는 교류 또는 직류를 발광부에 맞게 일정한 전압과 주파수로 변환시켜주어야 한다. 실제로 LED(발광다이오드) 유도등은 상용전원으로부터 220V의 교류를 받아서 전원장치에서 정류변환을 통해 얻어지는 낮은 전압 24V의 직류를 이용하며, 대부분의 유도등 백라이트로 사용되고 있는 CCFL(냉음극형광램프)에는 상용전원으로부터 220V, 60Hz 교류를 인가받아 전원장치에서 정류 역변환을 통해 만들어진 100kHz의 고주파 교류가 공급된다. 더욱이 유도선의 전원장치에서는 상용전원 220V, 60Hz의 교류를 인가받아 정류 역변환 및 교류변환 과정을 차례로 거쳐 최종적으로 100V, 400Hz의 교류로 전환하여 TFEL(박막전계발광) 소자로 전송하게 된다. 한편, 상용전원이 차단된 상태에서도 전원장치는 마찬가지로 비상전원으로부터 24V의 직류를 공급받아 인버터를 통해 역변환 하여 100kHz의 고주파 교류를 만들어 주거나 추가적인 교류변환을 거쳐 100V, 400Hz의 교류로 변환시켜 내보낸다. 본 연구에서는 상대적으로 복잡한 전력변환 회로들을 포함하고 있는 유도선의 전원장치를 개선하여, 전원장치의 연결가능길이를 기존의 60m에서 최대 100m까지 연장시킴으로써, 터널이나 지하도와 같은 곳에서 특히 경쟁력을 갖게 될 것으로 기대된다.

• Journal of the Korea Society of Computer and Information
• /
• v.6 no.4
• /
• pp.188-205
• /
• 2001

Insurer's duty of declaration is based on reciprocity of principle of the highest good, and recently it is widely recognized in the British and American insurance circles. The conception of fiduciary relationship is no longer equity or the legal theory which is only confined to the nations with Anglo-American laws. Therefore, recognizing the fiduciary relationship as the essence of insurance contract, which is more closely related to public interest than any other fields. will serve an efficient measure to seek fair and reasonable relationship with contractor, and provide legal foundation which permits contractor to bring an action for damage against violation of insurer's duty of declaration. In the future, only when the fiduciary relationship is approved as the essence of insurance contract, the business performance and quality of insurance industry is expected to increase. Therefore, to keep well this fiduciary relationship, or increase the fiduciary relationship persistency rates seems to be the bottom line in the insurance industry. In this paper, we developed a fiduciary relationship maintenance ratio based on comparison by case, which is represented with usually maintained contract months to paid months, based on each contract of the basis point. In this paper we have developed a new business model seeking the maximum profit with low cost and high efficiency, management policy of putting its priority on its substantiality, as an improvement measure to break away from the vicious circle of high cost and low efficiency, and management policy of putting its priority on its external growth(expansion of market share).