金融学assignment代写：Protection of Insurer in Insurance Contracts

金融学assignment代写-保险合同中保险人的保护。本文是一篇由本站代写服务提供的留学生金融学assignment写作范文，主要内容是讲述在任何类型的合同中，最重要的是信任，没有信任，双方都会无视他人的利益。本篇assignment指出在保险合同中，双方都有信托义务。保险人需要相信他们的客户正在向他们披露有关他们所保险标的的所有相关信息，作为回报，被保险人需要信任保险人会在发生合法索赔时支付费用。本篇assignment将讨论保险人如何在保险合同的订立中需要最大限度的保护。下面就一起来看一下这篇金融学assignment代写范文的具体内容。

One of the most important things in any type contract is trust, without which, both parties would disregard the others interests. In insurance contracts, there is a fiduciary obligation[1] for both parties. The insurer needs to trust that their client is disclosing all relevant information to them regarding the object that they are insuring and in return the insured needs to trust that the insurer will pay out in the event of a legitimate claim. This assignment will discuss how it is the insurer that requires utmost protection in the formation of an insurance contract.

It seems easy to place blame on insurers when there is an issue with a claim as they are assumed to have more knowledge regarding the insurance profession than a reasonable man/woman. This may be correct regarding more technical issues, however, when it comes to the object being insured, there is no doubt that the insured knows more information than the insurer, simply because it is their property. If the duty of disclosure was to be abolished and replaced by the duty to answer questions honestly and reasonably, the insurer is already at a disadvantage as they have little to no knowledge regarding the object looking to be insured. The duty to answer questions is a flawed system. Firstly, this process would take a lengthy amount of time. If it is the responsibility of the insurer to ask every relevant question regarding the object that is being insured, there is no limit to the amount of questions that they would be required to ask to guarantee that they have recorded all material facts that affect or could reasonably be expected to affect the price of the premium. Secondly, certain questions that the insurers ask may be open to interpretation. The insured may not fully understand what is being asked of them, and is more likely to provide incorrect information. In the case of MCPHEE v. ROYAL INSURANCE CO. LTD (1979), when the plaintiff was asked a question in the proposal form regarding the extreme length and breadth of the ship that he was insuring, he contacted the previous owner of the vessel instead of carrying out his own measurements and then passed on the information to the insurance company. Upon a loss occurring, an investigation revealed that the ships dimensions and the value of the ship were inaccurate in the proposal form. When insurers tried to void the policy, the plaintiff sued the insurance company stating that the questions relating to the dimensions of the ship were ambiguous and misleading, and that he had answered all questions on the proposal form to the best of his knowledge. Lord Stott believed the plaintiff did not approach the question with the attention that it required, and that he should have carried out his own measurements instead of relying on the information given by the previous owner. Therefore, the plaintiff could not state that the answers were to the best of his knowledge and belief. If the duty to disclose was removed, then it poses another question as to whether the insurer is financially liable for a claim in which a material fact was not discovered in the drawing up of a proposal form.

本篇assignment认为当索赔出现问题时，似乎很容易将责任归咎于保险公司，因为他们被认为比一个理性的男人/女人更了解保险行业。对于更多的技术问题，这可能是正确的，然而，当涉及到被保险对象时，毫无疑问，被保险人比保险人知道更多的信息，仅仅因为这是他们的财产。如果取消披露义务，代之以诚实合理地回答问题的义务，保险人就已经处于不利地位，因为他们对被保险对象几乎一无所知。回答问题的义务是一个有缺陷的制度。首先，这一过程需要很长时间。如果保险人有责任询问有关被保险标的的每一个相关问题，则他们需要询问的问题数量没有限制，以保证他们已经记录了影响或合理预计会影响保费价格的所有重大事实。第二，保险公司提出的某些问题可能需要解释。被保险人可能不完全理解他们被要求做什么，更有可能提供不正确的信息。在MCPHEE诉皇家保险有限公司一案中，当原告在建议书中被问及他所投保的船舶的极端长度和宽度时，他联系了该船的前船东，而不是自己进行测量，然后将信息传递给保险公司。在发生损失后，调查显示，建议书中的船舶尺寸和船舶价值不准确。当保险公司试图使保单无效时，原告起诉保险公司，称与船舶尺寸有关的问题含糊不清且具有误导性，据他所知，他已经回答了提案表上的所有问题。斯托特勋爵认为，原告在处理这个问题时没有给予应有的关注，他本应该自己进行测量，而不是依赖前所有者提供的信息。因此，原告不能声称这些答案是他所知所信的。如果取消了披露义务，那么就提出了另一个问题，即保险人是否对在起草提案表格时没有发现重大事实的索赔负有财务责任。

If the burden is on the insurer to collect all material facts through the process of questions during the writing up stage of a proposal form, then it poses the question as to whether the insurer should still be financially responsible for a claim if there is an omission of a material fact. If the insurer does not ask a specific question, therefore not including a material fact in the proposal form then they will charge a different premium than they would have if the material fact that increased the possibility of a loss occurring had been included.  The premium that is charged, and the risk profile of the client depends on the facts disclosed in the proposal form. Therefore, an incorrect, and cheaper premium would be charged. The insurer also looks at the probability of a loss occurring based on the proposal form, which affects the amount of money kept in reserves to pay out compensation for a claim the event of a loss occurring. If the insurance company miscalculates the amount of reserves needed based on an omission of a material fact, then if a claim arises they will not be able to pay out in full the compensation owed. If there are several miscalculations of the risks attached to clients, then the insurers may not have enough funds available to pay all their clients, potentially forcing them into bankruptcy. This would have a detrimental effect on the economy as it depends on insurance to grow. Firms depend on the insurance industry also, for example, if a company did not have a public liability[2] insurance policy and a member of the public seriously injured themselves on the company’s property, then the business would be financially liable to pay any compensation due to the injured party. A large compensation fee could be the difference between a firm being able to remain in trade and being forced to shut down.

本篇assignment提出如果保险人有责任在建议书的撰写阶段通过提问过程收集所有重大事实，那么这就提出了一个问题，即如果遗漏了重大事实，保险人是否仍应对索赔承担财务责任。如果保险人没有提出具体问题，因此没有在建议书中包含重大事实，那么他们将收取与包含增加损失发生可能性的重大事实不同的保费。收取的保费和客户的风险状况取决于建议书中披露的事实。因此，将收取不正确且更便宜的保费。保险公司还根据建议书表格来考虑损失发生的可能性，这会影响在发生损失时为支付索赔而保留的准备金金额。如果保险公司因遗漏一个重大事实而误判了所需准备金的金额，那么如果出现索赔，他们将无法全额支付所欠赔偿。如果对客户的风险有几次误判，那么保险公司可能没有足够的资金来支付所有客户，这可能会迫使他们破产。这将对经济产生不利影响，因为它依赖保险来增长。公司还依赖于保险业，例如，如果一家公司没有公共责任保险单，并且一名公众在公司财产上严重受伤，那么该公司将承担向受害方支付任何赔偿的经济责任。一大笔补偿费可能是一家公司能够继续经营和被迫关闭之间的区别。

Another danger of abolishing the duty to disclose is the increased tendency to commit fraud. When consumers can pass on their legal responsibilities to insurance companies, there is a tendency to increase their moral hazard, meaning they may be less likely to try to prevent a loss from occurring. However, if the insured was liable for a claim if they failed to disclose something to the insurer then they would guarantee that the insurer is aware of the fact even if it affects their premium. The principle of Utmost Good Faith is required so that both parties are protected from fraud and misrepresentation. Despite this there is still a culture to commit fraud where the insured purposefully lies to insurers. This was seen in the Green’s Wholesale Ltd v American Home (1985) case. When insuring a sports car, the plaintiff realised that the defendant insurance company did not provide cover for sports cars. He then changed the classification of the car on the proposal form to ‘two-door car’. Upon a loss occurring, the plaintiff attempted to claim off his insurance, however the insurer was entitled to avoid the contract due to the concealment of a material fact. If the duty to disclose was replaced with the duty to answer questions honestly and reasonably, even if consumers are aware of a detail that would alter the insurance cover available to them, they would not be obliged to tell the insurer unless asked which could lead to an increased fraud culture.

本文assignment认为取消披露义务的另一个危险是欺诈行为的增加趋势。当消费者可以将他们的法律责任转嫁给保险公司时，他们的道德风险就会增加，这意味着他们可能不太可能试图防止损失的发生。然而，如果被保险人在没有向保险人披露某些信息的情况下对索赔负有责任，那么他们将保证保险人知道这一事实，即使这会影响他们的保费。为了保护双方不受欺诈和虚假陈述的影响，需要遵守最大诚信原则。尽管如此，仍然存在一种文化，即被保险人故意向保险公司撒谎。这在格林批发有限公司诉美国住宅案中可以看到。在为跑车投保时，原告意识到被告保险公司没有为跑车提供保险。然后，他将提案表上的汽车分类改为“双门车”。发生损失后，原告试图要求取消其保险，但由于隐瞒了一个重大事实，保险人有权撤销合同。如果披露的义务被诚实合理地回答问题的义务所取代，即使消费者知道某个细节会改变他们可获得的保险范围，他们也没有义务告诉保险公司，除非被问及这可能会导致欺诈文化的增加。

Even if insurers require protection in the formulation of an insurance contract, it could be argued that the insured has less knowledge about the insurance industry than the insurer and therefore needs more protection than the insurer. This may be true in the sense that insured do not know what is required of them in terms of disclosing information during the formulation of an insurance contract. However, the advance in technology in recent decades has allowed the common man/woman more access to information, and even scholarly writing from the comfort of their own home. This increased access to information means increased access to knowledge. This increased access to information can also be seen in the increased propensity to sue in Ireland and the U.K. Kritzer’s paper which includes his ‘Developmental Theory of Litigation’ provides barriers that are being crossed with more ease than before in recent years. One reason for this is that insured have more access to information regarding the insurance industry, which means that they now know what a legitimate claim is, how much they could receive in compensation and how to go about making a claim. The argument that an insured may not know what a material fact is can be countered with the fact that there is a section in the Marine Insurance Act stating that the assured must know everything that is deemed to be available in the ordinary course of business. This means that when looking for insurance, insureds need to know certain details that they are expected to disclose to the insurer when drawing up an insurance contract.

本篇assignment指出即使保险公司在制定保险合同时需要保护，也可以说，被保险人对保险业的了解不如保险公司，因此需要比保险公司更多的保护。这可能是真的，因为被保险人不知道在制定保险合同期间披露信息需要他们做什么。然而，近几十年来技术的进步使普通男女能够在舒适的家中获得更多的信息，甚至学术写作。获得信息的机会增加意味着获得知识的机会增加。这种信息获取的增加也可以从爱尔兰起诉倾向的增加中看出，英国Kritzer的论文（包括他的“诉讼发展理论”）提供了近年来比以前更容易跨越的障碍。其中一个原因是，被保险人有更多的机会获得有关保险业的信息，这意味着他们现在知道什么是合法索赔，他们可以获得多少赔偿，以及如何进行索赔。被保险人可能不知道什么是实质性事实的论点可以与《海上保险法》中有一条规定被保险人必须知道在正常业务过程中被视为可用的一切的事实相反驳。这意味着，在寻找保险时，被保险人需要知道他们在起草保险合同时应向保险人披露的某些细节。

It is understandable that the insured is not as knowledgeable as an insurer and may need some protection, however, as the insurer bears the financial burden of claims then it is reasonable to conclude that they require more protection in the formation of an insurance contract. Furthermore, if the insurers were to be irreparably damaged due to the abolishment of the duty to disclose, then the economy would also suffer.

[1] An obligation to act in the best interests of one another.

[2]Protects the insured against injuries sustained by customers, the public or people that you visit.

被保险人的知识不如保险人，可能需要一些保护，这是可以理解的，然而，由于保险人承担索赔的经济负担，因此可以合理地得出结论，他们在订立保险合同时需要更多的保护。此外，如果保险公司因取消披露义务而受到不可挽回的损害，那么经济也将受到影响。本站提供各国各专业assignment格式范文，assignment代写以及assignment写作指导，如有需要可咨询本平台。