金融學assignment代寫：Protection of Insurer in Insurance Contracts

金融學assignment代寫-保險合同中保險人的保護。本文是一篇由本站代寫服務提供的留學生金融學assignment寫作范文，主要內容是講述在任何類型的合同中，最重要的是信任，沒有信任，雙方都會無視他人的利益。本篇assignment指出在保險合同中，雙方都有信托義務。保險人需要相信他們的客戶正在向他們披露有關他們所保險標的的所有相關信息，作為回報，被保險人需要信任保險人會在發生合法索賠時支付費用。本篇assignment將討論保險人如何在保險合同的訂立中需要最大限度的保護。下面就一起來看一下這篇金融學assignment代寫范文的具體內容。

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認為當索賠出現問題時，似乎很容易將責任歸咎于保險公司，因為他們被認為比一個理性的男人/女人更了解保險行業。對于更多的技術問題，這可能是正確的，然而，當涉及到被保險對象時，毫無疑問，被保險人比保險人知道更多的信息，僅僅因為這是他們的財產。如果取消披露義務，代之以誠實合理地回答問題的義務，保險人就已經處于不利地位，因為他們對被保險對象幾乎一無所知。回答問題的義務是一個有缺陷的制度。首先，這一過程需要很長時間。如果保險人有責任詢問有關被保險標的的每一個相關問題，則他們需要詢問的問題數量沒有限制，以保證他們已經記錄了影響或合理預計會影響保費價格的所有重大事實。第二，保險公司提出的某些問題可能需要解釋。被保險人可能不完全理解他們被要求做什么，更有可能提供不正確的信息。在MCPHEE訴皇家保險有限公司一案中，當原告在建議書中被問及他所投保的船舶的極端長度和寬度時，他聯系了該船的前船東，而不是自己進行測量，然后將信息傳遞給保險公司。在發生損失后，調查顯示，建議書中的船舶尺寸和船舶價值不準確。當保險公司試圖使保單無效時，原告起訴保險公司，稱與船舶尺寸有關的問題含糊不清且具有誤導性，據他所知，他已經回答了提案表上的所有問題。斯托特勛爵認為，原告在處理這個問題時沒有給予應有的關注，他本應該自己進行測量，而不是依賴前所有者提供的信息。因此，原告不能聲稱這些答案是他所知所信的。如果取消了披露義務，那么就提出了另一個問題，即保險人是否對在起草提案表格時沒有發現重大事實的索賠負有財務責任。

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提出如果保險人有責任在建議書的撰寫階段通過提問過程收集所有重大事實，那么這就提出了一個問題，即如果遺漏了重大事實，保險人是否仍應對索賠承擔財務責任。如果保險人沒有提出具體問題，因此沒有在建議書中包含重大事實，那么他們將收取與包含增加損失發生可能性的重大事實不同的保費。收取的保費和客戶的風險狀況取決于建議書中披露的事實。因此，將收取不正確且更便宜的保費。保險公司還根據建議書表格來考慮損失發生的可能性，這會影響在發生損失時為支付索賠而保留的準備金金額。如果保險公司因遺漏一個重大事實而誤判了所需準備金的金額，那么如果出現索賠，他們將無法全額支付所欠賠償。如果對客戶的風險有幾次誤判，那么保險公司可能沒有足夠的資金來支付所有客戶，這可能會迫使他們破產。這將對經濟產生不利影響，因為它依賴保險來增長。公司還依賴于保險業，例如，如果一家公司沒有公共責任保險單，并且一名公眾在公司財產上嚴重受傷，那么該公司將承擔向受害方支付任何賠償的經濟責任。一大筆補償費可能是一家公司能夠繼續經營和被迫關閉之間的區別。

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認為取消披露義務的另一個危險是欺詐行為的增加趨勢。當消費者可以將他們的法律責任轉嫁給保險公司時，他們的道德風險就會增加，這意味著他們可能不太可能試圖防止損失的發生。然而，如果被保險人在沒有向保險人披露某些信息的情況下對索賠負有責任，那么他們將保證保險人知道這一事實，即使這會影響他們的保費。為了保護雙方不受欺詐和虛假陳述的影響，需要遵守最大誠信原則。盡管如此，仍然存在一種文化，即被保險人故意向保險公司撒謊。這在格林批發有限公司訴美國住宅案中可以看到。在為跑車投保時，原告意識到被告保險公司沒有為跑車提供保險。然后，他將提案表上的汽車分類改為“雙門車”。發生損失后，原告試圖要求取消其保險，但由于隱瞞了一個重大事實，保險人有權撤銷合同。如果披露的義務被誠實合理地回答問題的義務所取代，即使消費者知道某個細節會改變他們可獲得的保險范圍，他們也沒有義務告訴保險公司，除非被問及這可能會導致欺詐文化的增加。

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指出即使保險公司在制定保險合同時需要保護，也可以說，被保險人對保險業的了解不如保險公司，因此需要比保險公司更多的保護。這可能是真的，因為被保險人不知道在制定保險合同期間披露信息需要他們做什么。然而，近幾十年來技術的進步使普通男女能夠在舒適的家中獲得更多的信息，甚至學術寫作。獲得信息的機會增加意味著獲得知識的機會增加。這種信息獲取的增加也可以從愛爾蘭起訴傾向的增加中看出，英國Kritzer的論文（包括他的“訴訟發展理論”）提供了近年來比以前更容易跨越的障礙。其中一個原因是，被保險人有更多的機會獲得有關保險業的信息，這意味著他們現在知道什么是合法索賠，他們可以獲得多少賠償，以及如何進行索賠。被保險人可能不知道什么是實質性事實的論點可以與《海上保險法》中有一條規定被保險人必須知道在正常業務過程中被視為可用的一切的事實相反駁。這意味著，在尋找保險時，被保險人需要知道他們在起草保險合同時應向保險人披露的某些細節。

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.

被保險人的知識不如保險人，可能需要一些保護，這是可以理解的，然而，由于保險人承擔索賠的經濟負擔，因此可以合理地得出結論，他們在訂立保險合同時需要更多的保護。此外，如果保險公司因取消披露義務而受到不可挽回的損害，那么經濟也將受到影響。本站提供各國各專業assignment格式范文，assignment代寫以及assignment寫作指導，如有需要可咨詢本平臺。