|
The
Social Security Character of Life Insurance
--G
Gopalakrishna
The concept of insurance
is initiated to protect the people against the risks that
are uncertain. It has developed the risk transferability and
risk sharing model in order to secure the people, security
ensured by insurance. The nature of the security varies from
class to class of insurance products. Life insurance is considered
a tool of social security as it supports the destined dependent
of the insured after his sudden demise. It is considered valuable
as it provides safety and offers peace of mind to the beneficiaries
of the policy and also considered a profitable investment
and saving model. Married Women Property Act, 1874, contains
provisions to secure certain monetary benefits for the wife
and children of the insured after his demise. Thus, the author
opines that the life insurance and other types of insurance
act as a device of social security.
©
2008 The Icfai University Press. All Rights Reserved.
The
New European Conflict of Law Rules on Insurance Contracts
in Rome I: A Complex Compromise --Xandra
Kramer
The
Rome I regulation on law applicable to contractual obligation
replaces the Rome convention that contains new conflict of
law rules for insurance contract. This rule replaces the conflict
rule included in the various insurance directives. In fact,the
existing system of insurance contracts is more complex relating
to the place of the risk or the territory, choice of law and
enforceability of the law of the European community. The Rome
convention has addressed many of the above issues and also
contains a provision relating to consumer contracts. The new
Rome Regulations are effective from December, 2009. The author
makes an analysis, discusses and evaluates new conflict rules
on insurance contracts with special reference to Article 7
of Rome I regulation. The author opines that Article 7 of
the Rome I regulation is more disappointing.
©
2008 The Icfai University Press. All Rights Reserved.
Cross-Accountability
in Insurance Regulation --W
Jean Kwon
Debates
continue among Congressional members and industry leaders
regarding the form of insurance regulation in the US. Regardless
of the form of regulation they support—state regulation,
national regulation or optional federal chartering—they
all agree that the insurance industry must be subject to close
regulation/supervision, that the regulation must be effective,
and that the regulatory agency must be efficient. Nevertheless,
most of the bills submitted in recent years seem to reflect
mainly the political motives or business objectives of politicians
and industry leaders respectively. They fail to recognize
why regulation exists and who must be ultimate beneficiaries
of the regulation in the insurance market. This paper attempts
to offer answers to these questions. Particularly, the author
discusses the importance of insurance regulation from a theoretical
perspective and by examining the objectives stipulated in
the insurance acts and regulations of selected jurisdictions.
The discussion focuses on market (conduct) regulation, as
the measures in this area are less structured than in prudent
(financial and accounting) regulation. The author concludes
that all parties of interest—the regulator, the insurance
company (and the intermediary) and the consumer-need recognize
the importance of cross-accountability to each other for the
development of sound insurance market. The author recommends
that the government self-regulates its quality of consumer
services to improve regulatory efficiency, the insurance company
implements an effective internal risk management program to
minimize conflicts with clients (or cases of malpractices),
and the customer learns that he or she bears the consequences
of poor decisions for insurance consumption.
©
2008 Networks Financial Institute. This article was originallly
published in Networks Financial Policy Brief 2008-PB-01. Reprinted
with permission.
|
