Research On The Insurer’s Obligation Of Explanation In Internet Insurance

After the gradual rise of online shopping,Internet insurance as a new way of selling insurance has become increasingly popular among the insurance community in various countries.Since 2013 China has been piloting Internet insurance companies.The combination of traditional insurance with Internet technology,cloud computing and big data has produced Internet insurance.However,with the rapid development of internet insurance,legal issues and legal risks need to be taken seriously.In recent years,the number of litigation cases regarding internet insurance has been rising and disputes are frequent.Among them,the high incidence of disputes is focused on the performance of the duty to state.The duty to explain is a classic issue studied in the field of insurance law and can be further divided into a general duty to explain and a duty to prompt a clear explanation,and a special duty to prompt exists for internet insurance.This article focuses on the issues relating to the insurer’s duty to prompt and make clear in the internet environment,covering the scope,timing,manner and evidence of prompting and making clear.Internet insurance is special in that there is no actual face-to-face communication between the insurer and the policyholder,and both parties do not understand each other’s thoughts and intentions.Although the theory underlying the duty to explain has not changed,some new problems have arisen in the way of performance,performance standards and proof standards,which are not well resolved under the current legal regulation.Based on the clarification of the basic theory of the duty of care,this article summaries the case law and identifies the problems specific to the duty of care of internet insurers,Analysis of the reasons for this and proposed measures to improve it in response to the current problems.For problems with the performance of the duty of express statement,the scope of performance should be expanded,the time of performance should be clarified,the manner of performance should be improved,and the criteria for determination should be clarified;in addition,for laws and regulations,return to the original purpose of rule-making.