A Study on the Suicide in Insanity in U.K. Life Insurance Policy

Won Gak Kim
{"title":"A Study on the Suicide in Insanity in U.K. Life Insurance Policy","authors":"Won Gak Kim","doi":"10.36248/kdps.2023.17.3.055","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"According to the OECD report, the suicide rate in the U.K. in 2020 was 8.4 per 100,000 people, significantly lower than South Korea's rate of 24.1 per 100,000 people. In the U.K., however, suicide is a more serious legal topic than in other countries. In the U.K., life insurance policies can pay out for suicide. Nevertheless, most policies have provisions or clauses that limit death benefit payments. Typically, a policy will not pay for suicides committed within a one- or two-year period(commonly referred to as the exclusion period), even if the suicide was committed while in a state of insanity. In the case of a reinstated insurance contract, this period shall be calculated anew. However, if the suicide occurs after the exclusion period has expired, the insurer will pay the claim regardless of whether the suicide was committed in a sane state of mind, if the suicide was intended from the time the policy was taken out, or if the suicide was committed solely for the purpose of collecting the claim. Suicide exclusion clauses of this nature are standard in U.K. life insurance policies. On the other hand, unlike most individual policies, suicide clauses are not standard in group policies. An incontestability clause, which usually sets a two-year contestability period, operates independently of the suicide clause and allows suicide to be contested. The main difference between the U.K. and South Korea is that disputes over the payment of suicide benefits are rare in the U.K. This motivated the author to write this article. The traditional attitude of English law has been largely adopted in U.S. insurance law and practice. In Korea, in life insurance (suicide within two years) and accident insurance (suicide within the policy period), the insurer's exemption from its liability depends on whether the suicide was committed in a state of insanity. However, in recent suicide benefit litigation, beneficiaries have often argued that suicide was committed in a state of insanity, and courts have recognized insanity more broadly than in the past. This trend of interpretation by the courts goes beyond the purpose of the suicide exclusion, which is to be construed narrowly in cases of insanity. Furthermore, the socioeconomic costs of the ongoing disputes are increasing. This paper focuses on the fact that Anglo-American insurance practice has significantly resolved the problems faced by the Korean insurance industry. This paper first introduces the historical background of British society's view of suicide, dramatically influencing the insurance practice related to suicide. The paper will then analyze the Beresford decision, an essential reference in the Anglo-American literature on suicide exclusions. Based on the above discussion, the article analyzes the current attitudes of the U.K. terms and conditions and summarizes the points for our reference. The issue of suicide in U.S. insurance law and practice, similar to but different from the U.K.'s, will be introduced in a follow-up study.","PeriodicalId":129340,"journal":{"name":"Korean Insurance Law Association","volume":"200 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Insurance Law Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36248/kdps.2023.17.3.055","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

According to the OECD report, the suicide rate in the U.K. in 2020 was 8.4 per 100,000 people, significantly lower than South Korea's rate of 24.1 per 100,000 people. In the U.K., however, suicide is a more serious legal topic than in other countries. In the U.K., life insurance policies can pay out for suicide. Nevertheless, most policies have provisions or clauses that limit death benefit payments. Typically, a policy will not pay for suicides committed within a one- or two-year period(commonly referred to as the exclusion period), even if the suicide was committed while in a state of insanity. In the case of a reinstated insurance contract, this period shall be calculated anew. However, if the suicide occurs after the exclusion period has expired, the insurer will pay the claim regardless of whether the suicide was committed in a sane state of mind, if the suicide was intended from the time the policy was taken out, or if the suicide was committed solely for the purpose of collecting the claim. Suicide exclusion clauses of this nature are standard in U.K. life insurance policies. On the other hand, unlike most individual policies, suicide clauses are not standard in group policies. An incontestability clause, which usually sets a two-year contestability period, operates independently of the suicide clause and allows suicide to be contested. The main difference between the U.K. and South Korea is that disputes over the payment of suicide benefits are rare in the U.K. This motivated the author to write this article. The traditional attitude of English law has been largely adopted in U.S. insurance law and practice. In Korea, in life insurance (suicide within two years) and accident insurance (suicide within the policy period), the insurer's exemption from its liability depends on whether the suicide was committed in a state of insanity. However, in recent suicide benefit litigation, beneficiaries have often argued that suicide was committed in a state of insanity, and courts have recognized insanity more broadly than in the past. This trend of interpretation by the courts goes beyond the purpose of the suicide exclusion, which is to be construed narrowly in cases of insanity. Furthermore, the socioeconomic costs of the ongoing disputes are increasing. This paper focuses on the fact that Anglo-American insurance practice has significantly resolved the problems faced by the Korean insurance industry. This paper first introduces the historical background of British society's view of suicide, dramatically influencing the insurance practice related to suicide. The paper will then analyze the Beresford decision, an essential reference in the Anglo-American literature on suicide exclusions. Based on the above discussion, the article analyzes the current attitudes of the U.K. terms and conditions and summarizes the points for our reference. The issue of suicide in U.S. insurance law and practice, similar to but different from the U.K.'s, will be introduced in a follow-up study.
英国人寿保险中的精神错乱自杀研究
根据经合组织的报告,2020 年英国的自杀率为每 10 万人 8.4 例,大大低于韩国每 10 万人 24.1 例的自杀率。然而,在英国,自杀是一个比其他国家更为严肃的法律话题。在英国,人寿保险单可以对自杀进行赔付。不过,大多数保单都有限制死亡赔付的规定或条款。通常情况下,即使自杀者是在精神错乱的状态下自杀的,保单也不会对一年或两年内(通常称为免责期)的自杀行为进行赔付。在恢复保险合同的情况下,这一期限应重新计算。但是,如果自杀发生在免责期过后,则无论自杀者是否在精神正常的状态下自杀,是否从投保时起就打算自杀,或者自杀的目的仅仅是为了获得理赔,保险人都将支付理赔款。这种性质的自杀免责条款是英国人寿保险单的标准条款。另一方面,与大多数个人保单不同,自杀条款不是团体保单的标准条款。不可抗辩条款通常规定两年的可抗辩期,它独立于自杀条款,允许对自杀提出抗辩。 英国与韩国的主要区别在于,英国很少发生关于支付自杀保险金的争议。英国法的传统态度在美国保险法和实践中得到了很大程度的采纳。在韩国,在人寿保险(两年内自杀)和意外保险(保单期限内自杀)中,保险人的责任豁免取决于自杀者是否在精神错乱的状态下自杀。然而,在最近的自杀给付诉讼中,受益人经常辩称自杀是在精神错乱的状态下实施的,而法院对精神错乱的认定也比过去更为宽泛。法院的这种解释趋势超出了自杀除外责任的目的,即在精神错乱的情况下,应从狭义上解释自杀除外责任。此外,持续不断的争议所造成的社会经济损失也在不断增加。 本文重点讨论英美保险实践在很大程度上解决了韩国保险业面临的问题这一事实。本文首先介绍了英国社会自杀观的历史背景,它极大地影响了与自杀相关的保险实践。然后,本文将分析英美关于自杀免责条款的文献中的重要参考资料--Beresford 判决。在上述讨论的基础上,文章分析了当前英国条款的态度,并总结出几点供我们参考。美国保险法和实践中与英国相似但又不同的自杀问题将在后续研究中介绍。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信