Research On The Internet Insurer’ Obligation Of Statement

As a new direction and trend of the development of the insurance industry,Internet insurance is changing the insurance industry,but Internet insurance has not changed the nature of insurance,and the obligation of Internet insurers to explain has not changed the nature of the obligation to explain,so Internet insurance is still regulated by the Insurance Law and other laws.However,due to the particularity of Internet insurance itself and the problems in the design of China’s legislative system,there are a series of problems in China’s Internet insurance explanation obligation system.Based on the analysis of the existing problems in the current system of the obligation to explain in Internet insurance,this paper puts forward corresponding suggestions to achieve the balance between maintaining the insured’s right to know and considering the cost of Internet insurer’s performance,so as to promote the long-term and healthy development of Internet insurance in China.The first chapter is the basis of this thesis.This chapter makes a comparative study of the Internet disclosure obligation and the traditional insurance disclosure obligation.The first section points out that the legal origin,pre-contractual and statutory nature of the two obligations of explanation are the same.The second section illustrates the differences between the two obligations of disclosure.Compared with traditional insurance,the explanation obligation of Internet insurance has some new features,such as the weakened mandatory,the highly asymmetric information of both parties and the weakened initiative,which put forward new requirements for Internet insurers to fulfill the explanation obligation,and the legislation of Internet insurance explanation obligation in China should also adapt to the above new features.The second chapter directly points out the problems existing in the current system of the obligation of explanation of Internet insurance in China,mainly including three aspects: the scope of explanation is not clear enough,the way of explanation has many shortcomings,and the standard of performance of the obligation of explanation is not clear enough.Whether the Internet insurer fulfills the obligation of explanation through the way of "link" and confirms the fulfillment of its obligation through the way of "general confirmation" of the insured,or the different understanding of the standard of fulfilling the obligation of explanation in judicial practice,it is not conducive to protecting the insured’s right to know,thus it is difficult to realize the autonomy of the insured.The third chapter analyzes the main reasons for the problems of the system of the obligation to explain of Internet insurance in China.First of all,the Internet insurance model itself has its own particularity,such as innovation,virtuality,product diversity and procedural features,but the current legislative system of the Internet insurance explanation obligation and the common practice of the insurer to fulfill the explanation obligation can not adapt to these new features.Then,the author also studies the relevant extraterritorial systems in detail,including the "judgment standard of important matters" in Japanese law,the "principle of reasonable expectation" in American law and the "consultation obligation" in German law,and points out the problems existing in the current legislative system design in China.The fourth chapter provides suggestions for the improvement of the above problems.First of all,the author proposes to introduce the "criteria for judging important matters" in Japanese law,and to study its feasibility and the connection with the current Internet insurance explanation obligation system in China,in order to solve the problem of unclear scope of clear explanation.At the same time,the author suggests that Internet insurers should optimize the insurance procedures,set up compulsory reading procedures for important clauses such as "exemption clauses",typify the insurer’s obligation to explain and broaden the diversified scenarios of explanation,so as to better fulfill its obligation to explain clearly and reduce the corresponding disputes.In addition,the author proposes to establish a separate mechanism of "active explanation" and "inquiry explanation",and further clarify the standard of performance of the obligation of explanation,in order to solve the problem of unclear scope of explanation and unclear standard of performance of explanation.