|
|
|
|
|
Newsletter | February 2016, Issue 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Insurance
|
|
|
|
Accidental Death Claim Litigations – Insurance Companies Continue to Receive Favorable Judgments
|
|
|
|
Insurance companies are continuing to receive favorable judgments in appeals of accidental death claim litigations brought against them on restrictive clauses concerning suicide indemnity. And recently, Kim & Chang successfully represented some of these insurance companies in obtaining favorable court rulings for our clients.
|
|
|
|
Background:
|
|
|
|
On October 7, 2015, the Appellate Division of the Seoul Central District Court revoked the judgment from the court of first instance, and dismissed the appeal brought by the claimant, the beneficiaries, against the defendant, an insurance company.
|
|
|
|
On January 13, 2016, the Chuncheon Civil Division 1 of the Seoul High Court also revoked the judgment from the court of first instance and dismissed the claimant’s request for an appeal.
|
|
|
|
These cases were accidental death claims based on an accidental death rider clause,39 together with the main insurance contract, which provides for a general sum payable at death.
|
|
|
|
Recent trends & case analysis:
|
|
|
|
Recently, there have been numerous insurance claim litigations between insurance companies and beneficiaries concerning accidental death clauses.
|
|
|
|
|
Concerning the claims made by the claimant:
| - |
In its ruling, the appellate court stated that, based on the understandability of the clause by an average customer, suicides would not be considered as an insured accident.
|
| - |
Further, the court opined that the restrictive clause concerning suicide indemnity is merely an “erroneous statement” when considering the relevant factors.
E.g., the purpose of the accidental death rider clause, the true intention of both parties, and the details of how the terms and conditions were established.
|
|
|
|
|
Regarding a claim for declaration of non-existence of liability related to accidental death settlement:
| - |
The appellate division of the Seoul Southern District Court also revoked the judgment from the court of first instance, and confirmed to the claimant that the settlement liability does not exist.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| - |
This judgment is significant, because it explicitly confirms that restrictive clause concerning suicide indemnity should be interpreted as an erroneous statement even when it is found in the terms and conditions of the insurance policy covering only accidental injuries and deaths40.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 39 |
|
The clause reads as: ““[T]his shall not be the case if the insured commits suicide over two years after the commencement date of liability[.]”
|
|
| 40 |
|
Not only in the rider clause attached to a general life insurance policy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Back to Main Page
|
|
|
|
|
|
For more information, please visit our website:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|