A Study on the Exemption Clauses in Insurance Contract: Focusing on the Theory of Distinction between ‘Exception to Liability’ and ‘Exclusion to Covered Perils’
Jin Tae Yang,
DOI: https://doi.org/10.36248/kdps.2022.16.3.037
2022-10-31
Korean Insurance Law Association
Abstract:Even in the case of an insured event, the insurer is exempted from liability for insurance payments if it falls under grounds for exemption clauses in insurance contract. Professor Edwin W. Patterson, a renowned American insurance law jurist, divided exemption clauses into ‘exception’ and ‘exclusion’. In Patterson’s view, ‘exception’ is excepted causes of insured event, and ‘exclusion’ is the event to be excluded from insured event. He asserted that the insurer is not liable for paying the insurance payments, because an event that falls under ‘exclusion’ is not an insured event. Patterson’s ‘exception/exclusion distinction’ influenced some Korean insurance law scholars for a long time. In Korea, scholars influenced by Professor Patterson argue that the exemption clauses are divided into ‘exception to liability’ and ‘exclusion to covered perils’. ‘Exception to liability’ is ‘exception’ from Patterson’s view and ‘exclusion to covered perils’ is ‘exclusion’. In the theory of the distinction between ‘exception to liability’ and ‘exclusion to covered perils’, like Patterson’s view, the insurer is not liable for the event that falls under the ‘exclusion to covered perils’ because it is not an insured event. Scholars who support the distinction theory argue that it is natural for the insurer not to pay the insurance payments because ‘exclusion to covered perils’ is not the covered perils of the insurance contract. Korean distinction theory take as an example the unlicensed driving exclusion, which is a exemption clause of auto liability insurance, and call this exemption as a ‘exclusion to covered perils’ that is excluded from insured event. However, an accident that occurred while driving without a license also falls under the insured event(“accident that occurred while the insured owns, uses, and manages the insured car”), under the policy of auto liability insurance. Like unlicensed driving exclusion, the ‘exclusion to covered perils’ is written so that the insurer is exempted regardless of the causal relationship. However, it is not reasonable to conclude that ‘exclusion to covered perils’ is not included in covered perils and is excluded from the scope of insured event just because it is written in a non-causal format. Therefore, same as ‘exceptions’(exception to liability), policy clauses classified as ‘exclusions’(exclusions to covered perils) are also should be subject to the control of the court. In addition, because Patterson and Korean distionction theory do not provide a clear criterion for distinction, the absolute power should not be given to the ‘exclusion’. The legal validity of the distinction theory is very questionable.