| Abstract [eng] |
Problematics of Online Insurance Contracts Insurance is not only a form of business, but a unified combination of economic, financial and social relations, as it involves offering consumer protection services to those in distress. However, the range of online insurance products poses certain legal problems associated with pre-contractual relationships. The unique nature of these contracts stems from the policyholder’s position as the weaker party in comparison with the insurer, as well as from the demand for the policyholder to fulfill their obligations. The legislator who has created the existing legal regulations has established that the policyholder and the insurer have mutual rights and obligations and that the fulfillment thereof is mandatory. Prior to concluding the insurance contract, the insurer is required to familiarize the policyholder with the terms and conditions thereof, but this is a mere legal fiction which is not implemented in actual mutual relations. Despite efforts to present insurance rules and non-standard conditions in a more appropriate manner, these efforts have so far been unsuccessful. A reference to a particular document which is integral to the insurance contract is insufficient for providing the customer with an appropriate amount of information. Such a position is expressed, inter alia, in the case-law, which, in the author’s opinion, must be adhered to. In addition, insurance contracts concluded by electronic means often fall short of another requirement, in that they lack of proper verification. Along with the due expression of the party’s will, appropriate verification implies the electronic equivalent of the traditional signature, known as an electronic signature, which is used to verify the document’s authenticity. Proper authentication with an electronic signature would prevent identity theft for the purpose of engaging in illicit action. Although the policyholder is interested in safeguarding their insurance cover, this does not necessarily mean that their identity, as well as that of any other person, should be presumed. These have also been expressed by overseas authors and are believed to be correct, since, before a person’s identity is properly verified, the insurer cannot be certain that they are dealing with the same individual. The problem is that insurers do not demand proper identity verification while concluding contracts by electronic (automated) means, i.e. they do not require the contract to be confirmed with an electronic signature. Thus, the fact that an insurance contract has been concluded in an automated manner means, first and foremost, that its legal force cannot be called into question merely because it was drawn up electronically. Secondly, a document prepared by electronic means is subject to the same legal principles as one that was prepared physically. It should be noted that insurers frequently fail to perform their duties properly, whereas policyholders are required to provide as much detail as possible. Thirdly, an insurance contract may be concluded without any physical interaction between individuals. Among other things, insurance contracts with consumers may be concluded by logging into an online system, which has resulted in a decline in the policyholder’s role in the insurance relationship owing to their inability to influence the content of the standard terms and conditions. Nevertheless, the legislator is ready to protect policyholder rights using the safeguards provided for in the relevant legislation. To summarize, an insurance contract is a unique contract between the policyholder and the insurer. In the event that the insurance contract is concluded in an automated manner, the parties are not exempted from performing their duties. There are problems with concluding insurance contracts by automated means not only by e-mail, but also directly on the insurer’s website. |
