• The Journal of Industrial Distribution & Business
• /
• v.12 no.11
• /
• pp.33-50
• /
• 2021

Purpose: In South Korea, two kinds of mandatory insurance, Fierce Liability Insurance and Outdoor Advertising Liability Insurance sells as of February 2021 according to relevant codes. This study analyzed third party liability and personal living liability insurance in terms of various risks not corporation side but personal side arising from normal living and life. Research design, data and methodology: Some cases of drone accident hit man and fierce dog accident were taken into analysis to verify blame ratio and insurance claim money. The former case is that on the way down the elevator, the dog, American pit bull terrier rushed in and bit the lower part of the knee against the visitor. The latter case is that while flying in the sky as usual, the drone suddenly crashed, fell, and hit the head of a young child while walking on the street. Further previous studies such as third party liabilities, liability insurance, mandatory insurance were deeply analyzed. Results: Based on some case studies and previous studies, the author suggested valuable comments in turn realization of insurer as provider, exhaustive creation and operation of mandatory insurance, realization of insured as demanded, and arrangements of laws and systems in special consideration of amendment of companion animal and exhaustive execution of mandatory insurance by the government. Conclusions: This study was about third party liability, personal living liability insurance and expansion of mandatory insurance caused by relevant laws by the government. In this study the author verified what issues were observed from two cases drone accident and fierce dog accident and then suggested some valuable comment as above both systemic plans and practical plans. First of all, the individual should get Comprehensive Property Insurance(CPI) that covers the risks of his/her own property arising from the everyday life. And then the individual should further buy Personal Living Liability Insurance(PLLI) in order to prepare 'accidents that may happen when, where, or how' and overcome the said accidents. Moreover, the individual should take a look every single insurance contract whether he/she has a special terms and conditions of Personal Living Liability Insurance(PLLI) or not.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.23 no.1
• /
• pp.3-32
• /
• 2008

In proportion to recent developments in aviation technology and growth of the air transport market, the risk of damages to third parties caused by aircrafts and the likelihood of unlawful interference on an aircraft in flight has grown larger. The war risk insurance market was paralyzed by the 9/11 terror event. And if another event on the scale of 9/11 occurs, compensations for third party damages will be impossible. Recognizing the need to modernize the existing legal framework and the absence of a globally accepted authority that deals with third party liability and compensation for catastrophic damage caused by acts of unlawful interference, the ICAO and various countries have discussed a liability and compensation system that can protect both third party victims and the aviation industry for the 7 years. In conclusion, in order to provide adequate protection for victims and the appropriate protection for air transport systems including air carriers, work on modernizing the Rome Convention should be continued and the new Convention should be finalized in the near future. Korea has not ratified the relevant international treaties, i.e. Rome Convention 1933, 1952 and 1978, and has no local laws which regulate the damage caused by aircraft to third parties on land. Consequently, it has to depend on the domestic civil tort laws. Most of the advanced countries in aviation such as the United States, England, Germany, France and even China, have incorporated the International Conventions to their national air law and governed carriers third party liability within their jurisdiction. The Ministry of Justice organized the Special Enactment Committee for Air Transport chapter under Commercial Law. The Air Transport chapter, which currently includes third party liability, is in the process of instituting new legislation. In conclusion, to settle such problems through local law, it is necessary to enact as soon as possible domestic legislation on the civil liability of the air carrier which has been connected with third party liability and aviation insurance.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.32 no.1
• /
• pp.385-417
• /
• 2017

Insurances of space activities are divided into satellite insurance, astronaut insurance and third party liability insurance. Against the background of the rapid development of space commercialization, especially the increasing participation of private entities in space affairs, the present international and domestic mechanisms of space insurance are challenged. As a space-faring state which is in the process of developing space businesses, the regulations of space insurance in China are deserved to be discussed. Satellites insurance is at present well-developed, the "pre-launch", "launch" and "in-orbit" phases of satellites are all possible to be insured by related companies. China created the CAIA in 1997 to provide insurance for Chinese satellites. However, with more private entities start to involve in space as well as satellite industry, the regime established under the framework of CAIA is necessary to be modified, and the mechanism relating to space insurance brokers should be promoted. The astronauts are recognized as the envoy of humankind, and relevant international regulations are made to provide assistance to them in emergency circumstances. From the domestic perspective, astronauts will be fully insured. China creates a particular type of insurance for astronauts. However, once space tourism becomes a business, the insurance of the tourist will be demanded to be created. In order to promote China's space tourism, it is recommended to take the "Astronaut Group Insurance" as an optional model to space tourists, if the tourists are customers of a governmental-owned space company. Once private involvement of providing orbital/suborbital tourism service becomes a reality, new rules are required. Getting a third party liability insurance is deemed as an indispensable precondition for an applicant to get a launch permission. Domestic space laws will include provisions for the third party liability insurance. China's "Interim Measures" of 2002 realizes the importance of third party liability insurance and requires the permit holder to get it before entering the launching site. This regulation is different from the practices of other states. Concerning that China is the sponsor of APSCO, for the purpose of promoting commercial space cooperation, a harmonized approach to domestic law is recommended to be found.

• Journal of Distribution Science
• /
• v.14 no.3
• /
• pp.5-10
• /
• 2016

Purpose - This paper analyzed the accident of drone and related insurance goods which can be coverable with regard to drone accident. The study range is limited in the owner's care, custody, and the control of drone in South Korea, but military area and law and regulation of the drone would be exceptional. Research design, data, and methodology - With regard to drone's flight, drone can make possible risks and can give severe damage to the people. To carry out this research, literature survey and review such as journal, thesis and publications were adopted. Results - As for the insurance coverage from drone's accident involved in the purpose of business, insurance coverage depends on 'commercial general liability insurance'. However, in case of personal hobby including leasure intention, insurance coverage depends on 'living liability insurance'. Conclusions - From a drone's accident, operator and owner of the drone may face the property damage to the drone itself, and then can give severe damage or loss to the people such as physical injuries and property damage. Peoples should be concerned about having the awareness of drone's accident with insurance coverage.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.30 no.4
• /
• pp.111-130
• /
• 2014

The article 742(2) of the Korean Commercial Code allowed the third party to invoke a direct action against the insurer under a liability insurance. Meanwhile, the owners of the vessel enter into the P&I Insurance Contract with the P&I Club to indemnify all kinds of liability or expenses involved in the operation of its vessel. However, the Rule Book under the P&I Insurance mostly included the Pay to be Paid Clause which precludes the third party's direct action. Recently, the Seoul Central District Court passed a judgement on the validity of the Pay to be Paid Clause under the Korean law against the third party i.e. the cargo insurer having the right of subrogation. The court held that (1) the third party's right of direct action is not the right to claim insurance money but the right to claim damages against the P&I Club, (2) the insurer under a liability insurance is deemed to assume liability jointly and severally with the insured against the third party, (3) the Article 742(2) of the Korean Commercial Code is considered as a compulsory provision because it was invented to protect the innocent third party, the Paid to be Paid Clause is thus null and void. The purpose of this article is to evaluate the appropriateness of this court's judgments by comparative analysis of Korean and English law, and to suggest the relevant amendments of the Korean Commercial Code in order to prevent further legal disputes. The article criticizes the decision of the Seoul Central District Court, taking the attitude that, since the third party's right is the right to claim insurance money, the Paid to be Paid Clause is valid against the third party.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.22 no.2
• /
• pp.27-51
• /
• 2007

The cumulative result of the work by the ICAO Secretariat, the Secretariat Study Group and the Council Special Group on the Modernization of the Rome Convention of 1952 are two draft Conventions, namely: "Draft Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties, in case of Unlawful Interference", and "Draft Convention on Compensation for Damage Caused by Aircraft to Third Parties" The core provisions of the former draft Convention are as follows: The liability of the operator is strict, that is, without the necessity of proof of fault. It would be liable for damage sustained by third parties on condition only that the damage was caused by an aircraft in flight(Article 3). However, such liability is caped based on the weight of the aircraft(Article 4). It is envisaged to create an independent organization called the Supplementary Compensation Mechanism, with the principle purpose to pay compensation to persons suffering damage in the territory of a State Party, and to provide financial support(Article 8). Compensation shall be paid by the SCM to the extent that the total amount of damages exceeds the Article 4 limits(Article 19). The main issues on the farmer draft Convention are relating to breaking away from Montreal Convention 1999, no limits on individual claims but a global limitation on air carrier liability, insurance coverage, cap of operators' strict liability, and Supplementary Compensation Mechanism. The core provisions of the latter draft Convention are as follows: the liability of the operator is strict, up to a certain threshold tentatively set at 250,000 to 500,000 SDRs. Beyond that, the operator is liable for all damages unless it proves that such damage were not due to its negligence or that the damages were solely due to the negligence of another person(Article 3). The provisions relating to the SCM and compensation thereunder do not operate under this Convention, as the operator is potentially for the full amount of damages caused. The main issues on the latter draft Convention are relating to liability limit of operator, and definition of general risks. In conclusion, we urge ICAO to move forward expeditiously on the draft Convention to establish a third party liability and compensation system that can stand ready to protect both third party victims and the aviation industry before another 9/11-scale event occurs.

• Journal of the Korean Society for Aviation and Aeronautics
• /
• v.12 no.3
• /
• pp.41-63
• /
• 2004

The area covered by product liability in broadest sense is so vast that an attempt to analyse all its impact on the aviation world risk. Every effort has been made to confine our review of subject a closely as possible to its influence on aircraft manufacturers, airlines and passengers, in spite of strong connections with other spheres of commercial. Product Liability in aviation is the liability of aircraft's manufacturer, processor or non-manufacturing seller for injury to the person or property of a buyer or third party caused by a product which has been sold. Here-in a product is aircraft, third party is passengers who suffered damage by defective design, defective construction, inadequate instructions for handling in aircraft. Whenever a product turns out to be defective after it has been sold, there are under Anglo-American law three remedies available against the aircraft's manufacturer (1) liability for negligence (2) breach of warranty (3) strict liability in tort. There are Under continental law Three remedies available against the aircraft's manufacturer (1) liability for defective warranty (2) liability for non-fulfillment of obligation (3) liability in tort. It is worth pointing out here an action for breach of warranty or for defective warranty, for non-fulfillment of obligation is available only to direct purchaser on the basis of his contract with the aircraft's manufacturer, which of course weakness its range and effectiveness. An action for tort offers the advantage of being available also to third parties who have acquired the defective product at a later stage. In tort, obligations are constituted not only by contract, but also by stature and common law. In conclusion, There in no difference in principle of law. In conclusion I would like to make few suggestions regarding the product liability for aircraft's manufacturer. Firstly, current general product liability code does not specify whether government offices(e.g. FAA) inspector conducted the inspection and auditory certificate can qualify as conclusive legal evidence. These need to be clarified. Secondly, because Korea is gaining potential of becoming aircraft's manufacturer through co-manufacturing and subcontracting-manufacturing with the US and independent production, there needs legislation that can harmonize the protection of both aircraft's manufacturers and their injured parties. Since Korea is in primary stage of aviation industry, considerate policy cannot be overlooked for its protection and promotion. Thirdly, because aircraft manufacturers are risking restitution like air-carriers whose scope of restitution have widened to strict and unlimited liability, there needs importation of mandatory liability insurance and national warranty into the product liability for aircraft's manufacturers. Fourthly, there needs domestic legislation of air transportation law that clearly regulates overall legal relationship in air transportation such as carrier & aircraft manufacturer's liability, and aviation insurance.

• 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.

• Journal of Korea Port Economic Association
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.41-53
• /
• 2015

In Paracomon Inc. v. Telus Communication, Realice's anchor became entangled with a working fiber-optic submarine cable during its voyage and are presentative of the shipowner(the captain) cut the cable. The owner of the cable brought a claim for the repair cost against the shipowner. The shipowner then advanced a third party claim against a liability insurance underwriter. The Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) held that the shipowner was entitled to limit its liability under the 1976 Convention on the Limitation of Liability for Maritime Claims. The SCC also ruled that even though the misdeed of the shipowner was insufficient to break its right to limitation of liability, its wrongdoing constituted willful misconduct under the 1993 Canada Marine Insurance Act, allowing the underwriter to deny coverage for the incident. Thecasewasthefirsttoaddresstheinterrelationship between the shipowner's right to limit liability under the international convention regime and the availability of liability insurance with respect to such limited liability. This study analyzes the reasoning behind the SCC's judgment and evaluates the appropriateness of this court's decision based on the current maritime industry as well as prevailing maritime law. It concludes that the SCC's decision to declare that the shipowner retained the right to limit its liability is appropriate under the Limitation Convention (1976). However, its declaration that the liability insurer was discharged from liability is not correct in due consideration of the common recognition in the maritime industry, the intended purpose of a third party's right against the liability insurer, and the adoption process of the conduct barring limitation. Based on the SCC's decision, this study finally reviews the issue of the shipowner's right to limit and the coverage of the liability insurer in the Sewol case (2014).

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.29 no.2
• /
• pp.3-54
• /
• 2014

The Republic of Korea enacted the Air Transport Act in Commercial Law which was entered into force in November, 2011. The Air Transport Act in Korean Commercial Law was established to regulate domestic carriage by air and damages to the third party which occur within the territorial area caused by aircraft operations. There are some problems to be reformed in the Provisions of Korean Commercial Law for the aircraft operator's liability of compensation for damages to the third party caused by aircraft operation as follows. First, the aircraft operator's liability of compensation for damages needs to be improved because it is too low to compensate adequately to the third party damaged owing to the aircraft operation. Therefore, the standard of classifying per aircraft weight is required to be detailed from the current 4-tier into 10-tier and the total limited amount of liability is also in need of being increased to the maximum 7-hundred-million SDR. In addition, the limited amount of liability to the personal damage is necessary to be risen from the present 125,000 SDR to 625,000 SDR according to the recent rate of prices increase. This is the most desirable way to improve the current provisions given the ordinary insurance coverage per one aircraft accident and various specifications of recent aircraft in order to compensate the damaged appropriately. Second, the aircraft operator shall be liable without fault to damages caused by terrorism such as hijacking, attacking an aircraft and utilizing it as means of attack like the 9 11 disaster according to the present Air Transport Act in Korean Commercial Law. Some argue that it is too harsh to aircraft operators and irrational, but given they have also some legal duties of preventing terrorism and in respect of helping the third party damaged, it does not look too harsh or irrational. However, it should be amended into exempting aircraft operator's liability when the terrorism using of an aircraft by well-organized terrorists group happens like 9 11 disaster in view of balancing the interest between the aircraft operator and the third party damaged. Third, considering the large scale of the damage caused by the aircraft operation usually aircraft accident, it is likely that many people damaged can be faced with a financial crisis, and the provision of advance payment for air carrier's liability of compensation also needs to be applied to the case of aircraft operator's liability. Fourth, the aircraft operator now shall be liable to the damages which occur in land or water except air according to the current Air Transport Act of Korean Commercial Law. However, because the damages related to the aircraft operation in air caused by another aircraft operation are not different from those in land or water. Therefore, the term of 'on the surface' should be eliminated in the term of 'third parties on the surface' in order to make the damages by the aircraft operation in air caused by another aircraft operation compensable by Air Transport Act of Korean Commercial Law. It is desired that the Air Transport Act in Commercial Law including the clauses related to the aircraft operator's liability of compensation for damages to the third party be developed continually through the resolutions about its problems mentioned above for compensating the third party damaged appropriately and balancing the interest between the damaged and the aircraft operator.