Reassessing Accountability and Sophistication of Insured in Insurance Misrepresentation: Lessons and Implications for Taiwan

Chen Chun-Yuan ()
Additional contact information
Chen Chun-Yuan: National ChengChi University, Department of Risk Management and Insurance, No.64, Sec.2, ZhiNan Rd.,Wenshan District, Taipei City, Taiwan

Asian Journal of Law and Economics, 2018, vol. 9, issue 3, 21

Abstract: This paper argues that the “necessity of protection” should be seriously considered when evaluating the effect of misrepresentation, but a substantial criterion or a formal standard with rebuttable and substantial exception is recommended. The weakness of insured is a key characteristic in insurance law. This feature leads to the typical idea that the insured should deserve more protection in insurance contract. However, the necessity of protection may vary in different types of insurance and occasions. Thus, many jurisdictions use consumer or business insurance, sophisticated or unsophisticated insured and similar standard to differentiate the levels of protection for insured. For misrepresentation, one of the most important issue in insurance law, many jurisdictions also use this criterion in designing misrepresentation’s elements and consequences. This paper aims to find justification for this standard theoretically and empirically for Taiwan. The paper starts with the general discussion for distinguishing consumer insurance and business insurance. Then, the focus will be moved on to misrepresentation, especially about the distinction between consumer insurance and business insurance, and its effect on misrepresentation’s elements and consequences. Afterwards, this paper argues the inefficiency of the bright-rule for evaluating the necessity of protection and the distinction between business insurance and consumer insurance. Empirical evidence is also provided to assess the effects of elements in Taiwan. Finally, the study proposes that a substantial criterion or a bright-line rule which can be rebutted by substantial evidence may be a more proper and efficient model.

Keywords: accountability; attorney; consumer protection; empirical legal study; fraud; intention; misrepresentation; negligence; sophistication; voidance of contract (search for similar items in EconPapers)
Date: 2018
References: View references in EconPapers View complete reference list from CitEc
Citations:

Downloads: (external link)
https://doi.org/10.1515/ajle-2018-0011 (text/html)
For access to full text, subscription to the journal or payment for the individual article is required.

Related works:
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.

Export reference: BibTeX RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan) HTML/Text

Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:bpj:ajlecn:v:9:y:2018:i:3:p:21:n:1

Ordering information: This journal article can be ordered from
https://www.degruyter.com/journal/key/ajle/html

DOI: 10.1515/ajle-2018-0011

Access Statistics for this article

Asian Journal of Law and Economics is currently edited by Noriyuki Yanagawa

More articles in Asian Journal of Law and Economics from De Gruyter
Bibliographic data for series maintained by Peter Golla ().