使用机器人顾问的保险分销和法律问题

GW Ji
{"title":"使用机器人顾问的保险分销和法律问题","authors":"GW Ji","doi":"10.36248/kdps.2022.16.3.187","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The environment surrounding the insurance industry is likely to become even more digital than nowadays. In particular, robo-advisors are expected to be used effectively in the insurance distribution channel. Although there is no legal definition for robo-advisors in the related insurance act in Korea. Traditional insurance distribution channels can use them as sales aids. In this case, the robo-advisor type is likely to be used as a product recommendation type and an information provision type. In light of the current technological development of robo-advisors, it is not possible to equate robo-advisors with AI insurance consultant. In this case, as examined in the examples of the United States, Australia, and Germany, if insurance intermediaries utilize robo-advisors to sell insurance products within existing legal systems, there will be problems in applying existing insurance law provisions. It should be noted that the same regulatory principles apply because there is no such rule. Considering that it is premature to establish a regulatory system for AI insurance distribution channels that make fully automated decisions without any human intervention, insurance sales channels utilizing robo-advisors should be considered as regulations for traditional distribution channels. The same regulations should be set. Considering this point, this paper defines robo-advisor as an algorithm-based ``automated online insurance product advisory device''. Also the paper proposed a plan to regulate this under the insurance industry regulation. On the other hand, this paper also considered measures to establish model standards for insurance distribution using robo-advisors and discipline them in the form of self-regulation. In addition, non-face-to-face sales and operator intervention are permitted with an algorithm-based system that evaluates customer opinions through algorithms and big data analysis using computer programs as an improvement plan for related acts and makes personal recommendations based on them. A proposal was made to prepare a provision to define it as an insurance product advisory device. In the case of this kind of regulation, in addition to fulfilling the duty of explanation imposed on insurance distribution channels under the existing legal system, the details of the duty of explanation to distribution channels that use robo-advisors should be determined in accordance with the principle of good faith. Therefor it is proposed in the paper to take measures for a plan to add within the scope of the obligation. Finally, regarding the judicial responsibility system, if liability arises due to incomplete distributions using robo-advisors, the person behind it will be held responsible for tortious acts associated with breach of obligations under the principle of good faith within the current legal system.","PeriodicalId":129340,"journal":{"name":"Korean Insurance Law Association","volume":"30 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-10-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Insurance Distribution using Robo-advisors and Legal Issues\",\"authors\":\"GW Ji\",\"doi\":\"10.36248/kdps.2022.16.3.187\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The environment surrounding the insurance industry is likely to become even more digital than nowadays. In particular, robo-advisors are expected to be used effectively in the insurance distribution channel. Although there is no legal definition for robo-advisors in the related insurance act in Korea. Traditional insurance distribution channels can use them as sales aids. In this case, the robo-advisor type is likely to be used as a product recommendation type and an information provision type. In light of the current technological development of robo-advisors, it is not possible to equate robo-advisors with AI insurance consultant. In this case, as examined in the examples of the United States, Australia, and Germany, if insurance intermediaries utilize robo-advisors to sell insurance products within existing legal systems, there will be problems in applying existing insurance law provisions. It should be noted that the same regulatory principles apply because there is no such rule. Considering that it is premature to establish a regulatory system for AI insurance distribution channels that make fully automated decisions without any human intervention, insurance sales channels utilizing robo-advisors should be considered as regulations for traditional distribution channels. The same regulations should be set. Considering this point, this paper defines robo-advisor as an algorithm-based ``automated online insurance product advisory device''. Also the paper proposed a plan to regulate this under the insurance industry regulation. On the other hand, this paper also considered measures to establish model standards for insurance distribution using robo-advisors and discipline them in the form of self-regulation. In addition, non-face-to-face sales and operator intervention are permitted with an algorithm-based system that evaluates customer opinions through algorithms and big data analysis using computer programs as an improvement plan for related acts and makes personal recommendations based on them. A proposal was made to prepare a provision to define it as an insurance product advisory device. In the case of this kind of regulation, in addition to fulfilling the duty of explanation imposed on insurance distribution channels under the existing legal system, the details of the duty of explanation to distribution channels that use robo-advisors should be determined in accordance with the principle of good faith. Therefor it is proposed in the paper to take measures for a plan to add within the scope of the obligation. Finally, regarding the judicial responsibility system, if liability arises due to incomplete distributions using robo-advisors, the person behind it will be held responsible for tortious acts associated with breach of obligations under the principle of good faith within the current legal system.\",\"PeriodicalId\":129340,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Korean Insurance Law Association\",\"volume\":\"30 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-10-31\",\"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.2022.16.3.187\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Korean Insurance Law Association","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.36248/kdps.2022.16.3.187","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

保险业周围的环境可能会比现在更加数字化。特别是,机器人顾问有望在保险流通渠道中得到有效利用。虽然在韩国相关的保险法中没有对机器人顾问的法律定义。传统的保险分销渠道可以利用它们作为销售辅助工具。在这种情况下,robot -advisor类型可能被用作产品推荐类型和信息提供类型。从目前机器人顾问的技术发展来看,还不能将机器人顾问等同于人工智能保险顾问。在这种情况下,正如在美国、澳大利亚和德国的例子中所研究的那样,如果保险中介机构利用机器人顾问在现有法律体系内销售保险产品,那么在适用现有保险法规定方面就会出现问题。应该指出的是,同样的监管原则适用,因为没有这样的规则。考虑到不需要人工干预就能完全自动化决策的AI保险销售渠道的监管体系尚不成熟,应该将利用机器人顾问的保险销售渠道视为对传统分销渠道的监管。应该制定同样的规定。考虑到这一点,本文将robo-advisor定义为基于算法的“自动在线保险产品咨询设备”。并提出了在保险业监管下对其进行监管的方案。另一方面,本文也考虑了利用机器人顾问建立保险分销模型标准的措施,并以自我监管的形式对其进行约束。此外,允许非面对面销售和操作员干预,采用基于算法的系统,使用计算机程序通过算法和大数据分析来评估客户意见,作为相关行为的改进计划,并据此提出个人建议。有人提议拟订一项规定,将其定义为一种保险产品咨询手段。在这种监管的情况下,除了履行现有法律制度对保险分销渠道规定的解释义务外,对使用机器人顾问的分销渠道的解释义务的具体内容,应按照诚信原则确定。因此,本文建议采取措施,计划在义务范围内增加义务。最后,在司法责任制度方面,如果使用机器人顾问进行不完整的分配而产生责任,则根据现行法律制度的诚实信用原则,对与违反义务相关的侵权行为追究责任。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Insurance Distribution using Robo-advisors and Legal Issues
The environment surrounding the insurance industry is likely to become even more digital than nowadays. In particular, robo-advisors are expected to be used effectively in the insurance distribution channel. Although there is no legal definition for robo-advisors in the related insurance act in Korea. Traditional insurance distribution channels can use them as sales aids. In this case, the robo-advisor type is likely to be used as a product recommendation type and an information provision type. In light of the current technological development of robo-advisors, it is not possible to equate robo-advisors with AI insurance consultant. In this case, as examined in the examples of the United States, Australia, and Germany, if insurance intermediaries utilize robo-advisors to sell insurance products within existing legal systems, there will be problems in applying existing insurance law provisions. It should be noted that the same regulatory principles apply because there is no such rule. Considering that it is premature to establish a regulatory system for AI insurance distribution channels that make fully automated decisions without any human intervention, insurance sales channels utilizing robo-advisors should be considered as regulations for traditional distribution channels. The same regulations should be set. Considering this point, this paper defines robo-advisor as an algorithm-based ``automated online insurance product advisory device''. Also the paper proposed a plan to regulate this under the insurance industry regulation. On the other hand, this paper also considered measures to establish model standards for insurance distribution using robo-advisors and discipline them in the form of self-regulation. In addition, non-face-to-face sales and operator intervention are permitted with an algorithm-based system that evaluates customer opinions through algorithms and big data analysis using computer programs as an improvement plan for related acts and makes personal recommendations based on them. A proposal was made to prepare a provision to define it as an insurance product advisory device. In the case of this kind of regulation, in addition to fulfilling the duty of explanation imposed on insurance distribution channels under the existing legal system, the details of the duty of explanation to distribution channels that use robo-advisors should be determined in accordance with the principle of good faith. Therefor it is proposed in the paper to take measures for a plan to add within the scope of the obligation. Finally, regarding the judicial responsibility system, if liability arises due to incomplete distributions using robo-advisors, the person behind it will be held responsible for tortious acts associated with breach of obligations under the principle of good faith within the current legal system.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
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