• Asia pacific journal of information systems
• /
• v.31 no.4
• /
• pp.527-542
• /
• 2021

The government-driven open data policies are on the rise to protect consumers from misunderstandings and monitor the companies. However, in contract-based industries such as insurance, the contract-inherent characteristics make information asymmetry between consumers and companies. Our paper focuses on insurance contracts where the contingency has high uncertainty of occurrence, and the clauses may incur high costs of reading. Given those contracts, we hypothesized that the contract's clear statement decreases customer dissatisfaction and lowers the number of complaints. To empirically support the claim, we collected customers' complaint documents of insurance companies and insurance contracts from 2005 until 2017. Our econometric models showed that clearer statements and words significantly reduce the complaints after controlling for firm-specific heterogeneity and time-specific heterogeneity. We identify that insurance companies' complaint ratio significantly differ depending on the insurance contract, including specific clauses and words.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.53
• /
• pp.135-153
• /
• 2012

Incoterms is a standard transaction terms and conditions which is established to provide goods delivery, cost and risks between the seller and the buyer as a principle concerned. Incoterms is made of international rules about regular uses of transaction terms and condition. It removes uncertainty of misunderstanding and applying rules, commercial customs and etc, between nations. Incoterms does not have an enforcement like an unified rules or an agreements established between different nations. Therefore, it is just considered as a standard formal terms and conditions from International Chamber of Commerce. For those reasons, validity of Incoterms applies only when parties of contract come to an agreement not by officially adopted or applied by law in each nation. Incoterms 2010 contains specific and clear articles which is fixed version of incoterms 2000, it has insufficient points on insurance contract article. Though, insurance contract belongs to sales contract, it sustains independence itself. It is difficult to sustain perfection until establishment of insurance contract and expiration by fixing the articles. As a result, it is necessary for sellers and buyers take a full responsibility of making complete insurance contract. This paper is written for those reasons in this filed.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.25 no.5
• /
• pp.39-57
• /
• 2021

Purpose - This research uses ocean marine insurance (OMI) statistics, international emails, focus-group interviews, and surveys to fill the gap between the theory of behavioral insurance, particularly status quo bias (SQB), and the practice of OMI in Korea. The contractual forms of OMI, the oldest and most globalized form of commercial insurance, were developed in the UK as the Institute Cargo Clauses in 1906 and revised in 1963, 1982, and 2009. SQB has been academically explored, mostly in health insurance and the financial services sector, but never in OMI. Thanks to the availability of OMI statistics in Korea, we can conduct SQB research here for the first time in this field. Design/methodology - We show the existence of SQB in the OMI of Korea through Korean statistics between 2009 and 2018, email correspondence with experts in the UK, Germany, and Japan, focus-group interviews with Korean OMI underwriters, an in-depth interview with one underwriter, and a survey of 15 OMI insureds (company representatives). Findings - We find that Korean foreign traders rely on the old-type OMI contracts developed in 1963, whereas other industrialized countries use the newest type of OMI contract developed in 2009. With a simple loss ratio analysis during 2009-2018, we show that the behavior of insurers has little to do with rational profit maximization and is instead driven by irrational bias, as they forgo the more profitable contracts provided by the new clauses by keeping the old clauses. The consistent addiction to old types of contracts in the OMI market suggests strong SQB among Korean exporters, importers, bankers, or insurers, which we confirmed in our interviews and survey. Originality/value - This research has significant originality and academic value because it reports new findings with crucial implications for the development of efficient trade practices and policy. First, this research is based on actual statistics that have not been used in previous Korean research on OMI. Second, this research shows that all-risk OMI policies provide more value to insureds, in terms of coverage given premium, than partial coverage policies, which differs from arguments previously made in Korea. Third, this research reveals strong SQB in Korea, where foreign trade plays a pivotal role in economic growth. That bias could be attributable to uninformed traders, informed but idle insurers, or conservative bankers. Fourth, to further develop foreign trade, policy initiatives are needed to review the current practices of OMI contracts and move forward with the new contract forms. All of these findings and arguments are both new and important.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.26
• /
• pp.173-199
• /
• 2005

The MIA 1906, s.78(4) provides that it is the duty of the assured and his agents, in all cases, to take such measures as may be reasonable for the purpose of averting or minimising a loss. In many cases the statutory duty will be unimportant, since rights, duties and liabilities declared by the Act or implied into marine insurance contracts by law may be modified by agreement, and many contracts contains a sue and labour clause which effectively reproduces and/or to modifies the statutory duty. The effect of such contractual provisions will, of course, be a matter of construction, though modern sue and labour clauses tend to reflect the principles contains in section 78. However, it must not be assumed that the terms of all contractual sue and labour clauses are, or will remain, identical, either with each other or with the statutory duty. The purpose of this study is to clarify the ambit of sue and labour.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.43
• /
• pp.239-273
• /
• 2009

Marine insurance contracts, which intended to provide indemnity against marine risks upon the payment of a premium, originated in Northern Italy in the late 12th and early 13th centuries. The law and practice of Italian merchants were later introduced into England through Lombard merchants. It is, therefore, quite exact that English and Continental marine insurance law have common root. Nevertheless, some significant divergences between English and Continental marine insurance systems occurred since the late 17th century, mainly due to different approaches adopted by English courts. The rule of warranty in English marine insurance was established in the second part of the 18th century by Lord Mansfield, who laid the foundations of the modern English law of marine insurance and developed different approaches, especially in the field of warranty in marine insurance law. Since the age of Lord Mansfield, English marine insurance law has developed a unique rule on warranty. Bearing in mind the realities of the 18th century, it could easily be understood why Lord Mansfield afforded such a strict legal character to marine warranties. At that time, the 'promise' given by the assured, played an important role for the insurer to assess the scope of the risk. Legal environments, however, have changed dramatically since the times of Lord Mansfield. Of course, it is still important that the assured keep his promises to the insurer under the insurance contract, which is based upon utmost good faith. Nevertheless, the remedy of automatic discharge from liability, regardless of existence of a casual link between the breach and loss seems harsh in the realities of the 21st century. After examining the warranty regime adopted by the German and Norwegian hull clauses, it is fair to say that they provide a more equitable approaches for the assured than does English law. Therefore, this article suggests that English warranty regime needs overall reform and it is time to reform.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.5
• /
• pp.101-118
• /
• 1993

Generally there is no law and liability system which applies particulary to commercial space ventures. There are several international treaties and national statutes which deal with space ventures, but their impact on the liability of commercial space ventures has not been significant. Every state law in the United States will impose both tort and contract liability on those responsible for injuries or losses caused by defective products or by services performed negligently. As with the providers of other products and services, those who participate in commercial space ventures have exposure to liability in both tort and contract which is limited to the extent of the resulting damage The manufacturer of a small and cheap component which caused a satellite to fail to reach orbit or to operate nominally has the same exposure to liability as the provider of launch vehicle or the manufacturer of satellite into which the component was incorporaded. Considering the enormity of losses which may result from launch failure or satellite failure, those participated in commercial space ventures will do their best to limit their exposure to liability by contract to the extent permitted by law. In most states of the United States, contracts which limit or disclaim the liability are enforceable with respect to claims for losses or damage to property if they are drafted in compliance with the requirements of the applicable law. In California an attempt to disclaim the liability for one's own negligence will be enforceable only if the contract states explicitly that the parties intend to have the disclaimer apply to negligence claims. Most state laws of the United States will refuse to enforce contracts which attempt to disclaim the liability for gross negligence on public policy grounds. However, the public policy which favoured disclaiming the liability as to gross negligence for providers of launch services was pronounced by the United States Congress in the 1988 Amendments to the 1984 Commercial Space Launch Act. To extend the disclaimer of liability to remote purchasers, the contract of resale should state expressly that the disclaimer applies for the benefit of all contractors and subcontractors who participated in producing the product. This situation may occur when the purchaser of a satellite which has failed to reach orbit has not contracted directly with the provider of launch services. Contracts for launch services usually contain cross-waiver of liability clauses by which each participant in the launch agrees to be responsible for it's own loss and to waive any claims which it may have against other participants. The crosswaiver of liability clause may apply to the participants in the launch who are parties to the launch services agreement, but not apply to their subcontractors. The role of insurance in responding to many risks has been critical in assisting commercial space ventures grow. Today traditional property and liability insurance, such as pre-launch, launch and in-orbit insurance and third party liability insurance, have become mandatory parts of most space projects. The manufacture and pre-launch insurance covers direct physical loss or damage to the satellite, its apogee kick moter and including its related launch equipment from commencement of loading operations at the manufacture's plant until lift off. The launch and early orbit insurance covers the satellite for physical loss or damage from attachment of risk through to commissioning and for some period of initial operation between 180 days and 12 months after launch. The in-orbit insurance covers physical loss of or damage to the satellite occuring during or caused by an event during the policy period. The third party liability insurance covers the satellite owner' s liability exposure at the launch site and liability arising out of the launch and operation in orbit. In conclusion, the liability in commercial space ventures extends to any organization which participates in providing products and services used in the venture. Accordingly, it is essential for any organization participating in commercial space ventures to contractually disclaim its liability to the extent permitted by law. To achieve the effective disclaimers, it is necessary to determine the applicable law and to understand the requirements of the law which will govern the terms of the contract. A great deal of funds have been used in R&D for commercial space ventures to increase reliability, safety and success. However, the historical reliability of launches and success for commercial space ventures have proved to be slightly lower than we would have wished for. Space insurance has played an important role in reducing the high risks present in commercial space ventures.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.73
• /
• pp.65-90
• /
• 2017

The rule of warranty in English insurance law was established in the second part of the $18^{th}$ century by Lord Mansfield, who laid the foundations of the modern English law of insurance contract and developed very different rule of insurance law, especially in the field of warranty. At the time of Lord Mansfield, warranty, that is, the promise given by the assured, played an important role for the insurer to assess the scope of the risk. Legal environments, however, have changed since the age of Lord Mansfield. English and Scottish Commissions proposed very dramatic reform of law in the field of warranty law to reflect the changes of legal environment through the Insurance Act 2016. This article intends to consider the legal implications through the comparative analysis between the new regime of warranty in the Insurance Act 2015 and MIA 1906. The major changes in the Insurance Act 2015 are summarized as following. First, Basis of the contract clauses in non-consumer insurance contracts should be of no effect and representations should not be capable of being converted into warranties by means of a policy term or statement on the proposal form. This requirement should not be capable of being avoided by the use of a contract term and the arrangement of contracting out by parties should be of no effect. Secondly, The existing remedy for breach of warranty, that is, automatic discharge of the insurer's liability, should be removed. Instead, the insurer's libility should be suspended from the point of breach of warranty and reattach if and when a breach of warranty has been remedies. Thirdly, A breach of warranty should genally be regarded as remedied where the insured ceases to be in breach of it. In the other hand, for time-specific warranties which apply at or by an ascertainable time, a breach should be regarded as remedies, if the risk to which the warranty relates later, becomes essentially the same as that originally contemplated by the parties. Fourthly, where a term of an insurance contract relates to a particular kind of loss, or loss at a particular location/time, the breach of that term should only give the remedy in relation to loss of that particular kind of loss, or at a particular location/time. Finally, whether a term of an insurance contrat relates to loss of a particular kind of at a particular location/time should be determined objectively, based on whether compliance with that ther would tend to reduce the risk of the occurrence of that category of loss.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.139-175
• /
• 2017

The Assembly plenary session on December 3, 2017 passed a Product Liability Amendment bill that introduced clauses concerning consumer burden of proof and punitive damage reimbursement. More specifically, these newly approved provisions will reduce the burden of proof placed on consumers and levy triple punitive damage on suppliers. Significant increases in the number of product-liability lawsuit and the number of related insurance contracts are expected. Since military aircraft are designed for operational purpose(seeking greater combat effectiveness over greater safety) and used in high-risk environment, it is practically impossible to obtain an affordable product-liability insurance, Without having any backup plan, military aircraft manufacturers directly face all sort of liability risks under Product Liability Act, Warrant Liability Act and Non-Performance of Contract Act. The U.S. experienced similar problems when they first implemented their product-liability law in 1970s. There had been a big dispute among legal practitioner, insurance professionals and scholars concerning military aircraft manufacturer's liability. In order to settle the issue, the U.S. Supreme Court has established a new precedent of Government Contractor Defense(GCD). The U.S. government also included an indemnity clause for military aircraft manufacturers in their FMS Contract with the Korean government. Likewise, Korean military aircraft manufacturers should 1) clearly understand their current position that they cannot afford expensive product-liability insurance and the cost is not accounted in the military procurement calculation, 2) estimate potential liability risks with the ongoing overseas export expansion in mind, 3) set up appropriate risk management measures through regulatory reform and policy development.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.18
• /
• pp.27-62
• /
• 2002

The international sale contract is the central contracts in export-import transactions. A good sale contract or set of general conditions of sale will cover all the principal elements of the transaction, so that uncertainties are avoided. The parties' respective duties as concern the payment mechanism, transport contract and insurance responsibilities, inter alia, will all be clearly detailed in the contract. The following key clauses should be included in international contracts of sale and general conditions of sale: ${\bullet}$ preamble ${\bullet}$ identification of parties ${\bullet}$ description of goods ${\bullet}$ price and payment conditions ${\bullet}$ delivery periods and conditions ${\bullet}$ inspection of the goods - obligations and limitations ${\bullet}$ quantity or quality variations in the products delivered ${\bullet}$ reservation of title and passing of property rights ${\bullet}$ transfer of risk - how accomplished ${\bullet}$ seller's warranties and buyer's complaints ${\bullet}$ assignment of rights ${\bullet}$ force majeure clause and hardship clause ${\bullet}$ requirement that amendments and modifications be in writing ${\bullet}$ choice of law ${\bullet}$ choice of dispute resolution mechanism Under most systems of law, a party can be excused from a failure to perform a contract obligation which is caused by the intervention of a totally unforeseeable event, such as the outbreak of war, or an act of God such as an earthquake or hurricane. Under the American commercial code (UCC) the standard for this relief is one of commercial impracticability. In contrast, many civil law jurisdictions apply the term force majeure to this problem. Under CISG, the standard is based on the concept of impediments to performance. Because of the differences between these standards, parties might be well advised to draft their own force majeure, hardship, or excusable delays clause. The ICC publication, "Force Majeure and Hardship" provides a sample force majeure clause which can be incorporated by reference, as well as a hardship clause which must be expressly integrated in the contract. In addition, the ICC Model provides a similar, somewhat more concise formulation of a force majeure clause. When the seller wishes to devise his own excusable delays clause, he will seek to anticipate in its provision such potential difficulties as those related to obtaining government authorisations, changes in customs duties or regulations, drastic fluctuations in labour, materials, energy, or transportation prices, etc.