The application of principles of European insurance contract law to policyholders of the Baltic States: A measure for the protection of policyholders
Kuupäev
2016-06-29
Autorid
Ajakirja pealkiri
Ajakirja ISSN
Köite pealkiri
Kirjastaja
Abstrakt
EL üheks eesmärgiks on toimiv ühtne siseturg. Samas ühine turg baseerub suuresti lepinguõigusel. EL ühtse kindlustusturu puhul eeldati, et turu liberaliseerimine võimaldab kindlustusandjatel enda kindlustusportfelli jagada rahvusvaheliselt laiemalt, mis toob kaasa madalamad kulud ja seega ka madalamad hinnad ning kohalikud kindlustusandjad teevad enda tooted kõigile Euroopa Liidu tarbijatele kättesaadavaks ning suuremal turul saab spetsiaalseid eritooteid efektiivsemalt turustada (Hess, Thomas, Trauth, Thomas, Towards A Single European Insurance Market, International Journal of Business, 3 (1), 1998, 89-102.). Praktika näitab käesoleval hetkel, et piireülese kindlustusteenuse pakkumine on tarbijatele probleemne, kuna EL-s on 28 erinevat lepinguõigust ja see teeb piiriülese tegevuse keeruliseks ja kalliks. Seega omab kindlustuslepinguliste tsiviilõiguslike suhete harmoniseerimine olulist tähtsust, et tagada reaalselt EL ühtse kindlustusturu toimima hakkamine. Ilma harmonsieerimiseta ei saa ühtne EL kindlustusturg hakata reaalselt ja sisuliselt toimima kuna tarbijatel on keeruline erinevaid õigussüsteeme endale selgeks teha ja kindlustusandjatel puudub majanduslik mõttekus väiksemate turgude jaoks enda tooteid piireülelt pakkuda. Väitekirjas analüüsitakse PEICL-it, kui optional instrumenti, mille eesmärk on kindlustuslepinguõiguse ühtlustamine EL-is, küsimuses, et kas kindlustusvõtjat kaitstakse liiga radikaalselt, uurides PEICL erisusi võrreldes Eesti võlaõigusseaduse kindlustuslepingu regulatsiooniga, Läti kindlustuslepingu seadusega, Leedu tsiviilkoodeksiga ja Leedu kindlustusseadusega. Autor piirab PEICL-i analüüsi Eesti, Läti ja Leedu kindlustuslepinguõigusega a) lepingueelsete suhetega teavitamiskohustuse kontekstis, b) lepinguliste suhetega seoses kindlustusmakse tasumisega, c) kindlustusjuhtumi eelsete suhetega kindlustusriski muutumise ja ohutusnõuete täitmise kontekstis, d) kindlustusjuhtumi järgsete õigussuhetega. Töö eesmärgiks on leida vastus järgmisele põhimõttelisele küsimusele: „Milline on mõistlik standard, milles seadus peab kaitsma kindlustusvõtja kui kindlustuslepingu nõrgema poole huve? Kas PEICL-is on kindlustusvõtja huvide kaitse laialdasem kui Eesti, Läti või Leedu kindlustuslepinguõiguses? Kui jah, kas see on põhjendatud?“
With the introduction of the single European insurance market it was assumed that market liberalisation would allow insurers to diversify their insurance portfolios on an international level, which would result in lower costs and also lower prices, local insurers would make their products available for all EU consumers, and specialised product could be more marketed in a more effective manner on a bigger market (T. Hess, T. Trauth. Towards A Single European Insurance Market. International Journal of Business, 3 (1), 1998, pp- 89–102). The current practice shows that providing cross-border insurance services is problematic since 28 different contract laws make cross-border activities very difficult and expensive. That is why harmonising civil law relationships with regard to insurance contracts has a significant role in ensuring the actual functioning of the single European insurance market. Without harmonisation, the single European insurance market cannot take a real and substantial effect as it would prove to be too complex for consumers to acquaint themselves with various legal systems and insurers would find that providing cross-border products for smaller markets is not economically feasible. This dissertation purports is to analyse whether the PEICL, as an optional instrument, is more consumer-friendly in terms of obligations under an insurance contract, compared to the insurance contract laws of the Baltic States. The author limits the scope of this research comparing the PEICL with regard to the insurance law of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to the following issues: (a) pre-contractual relations in the context of the information duty; (b) contractual relations concerning the payment of insurance premium; (c) contractual relations in the context of aggravation of risk and compliance of precautionary measures; and (d) legal relationships after insured events. The author’s aim, in his dissertation, is to find an answer to the following fundamental research questions: “What is the reasonable standard, in which the law must protect the policyholder´s interests, as the weaker party, in an insurance contract? Does PEICL protect the policyholder’s interests more widely than Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian insurance contract laws? If yes, then is that reasonable?”
With the introduction of the single European insurance market it was assumed that market liberalisation would allow insurers to diversify their insurance portfolios on an international level, which would result in lower costs and also lower prices, local insurers would make their products available for all EU consumers, and specialised product could be more marketed in a more effective manner on a bigger market (T. Hess, T. Trauth. Towards A Single European Insurance Market. International Journal of Business, 3 (1), 1998, pp- 89–102). The current practice shows that providing cross-border insurance services is problematic since 28 different contract laws make cross-border activities very difficult and expensive. That is why harmonising civil law relationships with regard to insurance contracts has a significant role in ensuring the actual functioning of the single European insurance market. Without harmonisation, the single European insurance market cannot take a real and substantial effect as it would prove to be too complex for consumers to acquaint themselves with various legal systems and insurers would find that providing cross-border products for smaller markets is not economically feasible. This dissertation purports is to analyse whether the PEICL, as an optional instrument, is more consumer-friendly in terms of obligations under an insurance contract, compared to the insurance contract laws of the Baltic States. The author limits the scope of this research comparing the PEICL with regard to the insurance law of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania to the following issues: (a) pre-contractual relations in the context of the information duty; (b) contractual relations concerning the payment of insurance premium; (c) contractual relations in the context of aggravation of risk and compliance of precautionary measures; and (d) legal relationships after insured events. The author’s aim, in his dissertation, is to find an answer to the following fundamental research questions: “What is the reasonable standard, in which the law must protect the policyholder´s interests, as the weaker party, in an insurance contract? Does PEICL protect the policyholder’s interests more widely than Estonian, Latvian and Lithuanian insurance contract laws? If yes, then is that reasonable?”
Kirjeldus
Väitekirja elektrooniline versioon ei sisalda publikatsioone.
Märksõnad
Euroopa Liit, kindlustusõigus, kindlustuslepingud, piiriülesed teenused, Baltimaad, European Union, insurance law, insurance contracts, cross-border services, Baltic States