Reinsurance contract as a contract of uberrimae fidei, in contrast to ordinary commercial contracts, attracts a duty of utmost good faith requiring both parties to exercise their best effort and endeavor to help each other to make an informed decision and perform the contract concluded thereon without any dishonesty or deceit. There are various forms of reinsurance which adopt different ceding methods and have specific characters in the placing progress. The unique placing process in London subscription market of such complex and complicated reinsurance contracts by specialist brokers has to certain degree modified the operation of the doctrine of utmost good faith in reinsurance context. Moreover, from partial codification by the MIA 1906 to significant changed by Insurance Act 2015, it is fair to that the doctrine of utmost good faith has experienced one hundred years long revolution. The courts have taken many opportunities to structure the doctrine, establish rules of the tests, confine the scope and clarify remedies for qualifying breach. Such development of the doctrine itself has important affect upon its operation in reinsurance context too. Modification of the doctrine in reinsurance occurs due to several reasons. First, the special placing process in London subscription market affects the formation procedure of reinsurance contracts, consequently reshapes operation of the doctrine. Secondly, the characters of reinsurance contracts distinguished from underlying insurance would have some impact on operation of the doctrine in reinsurance context. In addition, other significant common law rules such as the principle of waiver, which is in extensive use in the reinsurance market practice, will also modify the operation of the doctrine in reinsurance context. Moreover, evolution of the duty itself, from an absolutely strict duty to a duty only requiring fair presentation, and a proposal of a new proportionate regime of remedies brings potential problems of its operation in reinsurance context. Consequently, notwithstanding there has been a long history of the doctrine and clarification of many aspects of the doctrine comes from a reinsurance cases, difficulties and problems still exist in operating such duty smoothly and directly in reinsurance like in direct insurance context. Such problems extend to every specific aspect of operation of the duty in reinsurance context, from the formation to performance, and then remedies for qualifying breach of the duty in claim stage.

No / There is hardly any substantive difference between ‘utmost good faith’ and ‘good faith’. In insurance law there is not a general and independent duty to act in good faith. This is because the requirement of good faith in insurance law, although being both general and independent, is neither a statutory duty nor a common-law duty the breach of which usually gives rise to a cause of action. Instead it is an interpretative principle in the common law of insurance. Similarly in civil law jurisdictions, it is not a legal duty either but instead an interpretative principle.

As one of the most distinctive characteristics of English insurance law, the duty of utmost good faith is essentially stated in sections 17-20 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906. According to the statutory rules, both of the insurance parties must observe utmost good faith before the conclusion of an insurance contract. After one century of its application, both the judiciary and academics expressed their concerns in terms of its legislative defects and complexity in practice. Some developments have been made in recent judicial decisions and in statutory reform, e.g. the English Consumer Insurance (Disclosure and Representations) Act 2012, and Recommendations, Statutes and Explanations on the Amendments of Chinese Maritime Code of the People’s Republic of China. Therefore, debatable issues and law reform programs in both English and Chinese law are considered in the main body of this thesis. The examination is essentially based upon, (1) the materiality test of the concealed/misrepresented circumstances which can empower the injured party to rescind the insurance abinitio; (2) the duration of utmost good faith and specific issues; (3) the protective measures related to innocent misconduct; (4) the legal status of good faith and its application to fraudulent behaviour; and (5) whether the classic English utmost good faith doctrine can be extended to Chinese law. Therefore, the main objective of this thesis is to provide a comprehensive study of the current status and developments of the duty of utmost good faith in both English and Chinese law, which is of fundamental importance, not only at the negotiation stage, but also throughout the performance and at the claiming stage of an insurance contract. After identifying and analysing these crucial issues, this thesis concludes with some possible solutions.

Este estudo trata da informação que permeia os contratos e de sua aplicação ao contrato de seguro, da perspectiva do Direito e da Economia, ciências sociais que se complementam, porque aplicadas à mesma realidade, que será mais fielmente retratada se analisada sob ângulos diferentes, mas correlatos. Perquirindo a função da informação no contrato, constata que, se concernente a elemento essencial deste, a ele adere, passando a integrá-lo, o que determina sua importância nesse contexto e indica o regime jurídico que lhe deve ser aplicado. A investigação da distribuição da informação entre os contratantes e dos efeitos eventualmente nocivos da assimetria informacional, como o incentivo ao oportunismo, o aumento dos custos de transação e a obtenção de ganhos indevidos do contrato, induz à discussão dos critérios orientadores da disciplina jurídica da informação no âmbito contratual. A despeito da utilidade dos padrões para disciplinar condutas não alcançadas pelas regras, este estudo aponta que a boa-fé, em razão de suas idiossincrasias, não é padrão eficiente para reger a informação nos contratos, devendo ficar relegada à função residual. A aplicação do dever de informar com o objetivo de impor às partes transparência e veracidade conferiria mais objetividade e operacionalidade ao regime da informação nos contratos. Mas, a despeito da questionável eficiência da boa-fé como indutora da troca de informações entre as partes, foi o padrão de conduta escolhido pelo sistema jurídico para balizar a interação dos contratantes. Devido às peculiaridades do contrato de seguro, e à nocividade dos efeitos da assimetria informacional neste contexto, exige-se dos contratantes a máxima boa-fé. Se a regra é a máxima transparência e a absoluta veracidade, deverá ser restritiva a interpretação de eventuais exceções. Como a informação se prende ao cerne da operação econômica subjacente, afetando o cálculo do risco e a fixação do prêmio, e consequentemente, a mutualidade, diz respeito à função e à finalidade do instituto. Por isso, a interpretação condescendente de eventuais omissões ou distorções de informação relevante afrontaria o princípio da máxima boa-fé, que não pode ser mitigado, sob pena de comprometer o equilíbrio do contrato e afetar sua finalidade sócio-econômica. O estudo demonstrou a inadequação do tratamento da informação em relação ao substrato econômico do contrato de seguro, especialmente no que concerne à exigência de comprovação da má-fé nas omissões e distorções da verdade pelo segurado. Criticou também a aplicação dogmática da presunção da boa-fé, que reverte ao segurador o ônus da prova da má-fé do segurado, anulando o efeito sancionador da imposição do dever de informar. / The purpose of this dissertation is to analyze the importance of information in contract law, the disclosure duties and its application to insurance contracts, from legal and economic perspectives. Since Law and Economics are social sciences applied to the same environment and are mutually complementary, this bifocal approach leads to a more accurate portrait of reality seen from different but correlated points of view. The analysis of the role of information reveals that if it concerns the contract essential element, it becomes part of it and determines the legal rules that should be applied to it. The inquiry of information distribution patterns shows that it can eventually bring about detrimental effects which induce the discussion of the criteria underlying the legal regime of information in contract law. Asymmetric information can be harmful if it encourages opportunism, increases transaction costs and grants one party undue gains from the contract. In spite of the usefulness of standards to regulate conducts not reached by rules, this study shows that good faith, due to its idiosyncrasies, is not an efficient standard to govern information in contracts. Thus, it should be assigned a residual function. The application of the duty to inform with the purpose of imposing full disclosure and accuracy to the parties ensures more objectivity to the information regime in contracts. However, good faith was the standard chosen by the legal system to rule the parties interaction, despite its recognized inefficiency to induce information exchange among agents. Due to the particular features of the insurance contract, and to the harmful effects of informational asymmetry in this context, law imposes the parties a higher standard of good faith. If the legal standard is the utmost good faith, eventual exceptions to this pattern should be restrictively interpreted. Since information is connected with the economic mechanism of the insurance contract because it affects risk and premium evaluation, it is strictly related to the function and purpose of the contract. Therefore, condescending interpretation of nondisclosure, misrepresentation and fraud would violate the principle of utmost good faith. Its mitigation will affect the contract balance and its economic and social purposes. This dissertation demonstrates the inadequacy of the information legal regime, especially regarding the requirement of proving bad faith related to nondisclosure, misrepresentation or fraud. It also criticizes the dogmatic application of the presumption of good faith that lays upon the insurer the burden of proving bad faith of the insureds conduct, nullifying the sanctioning effect of the imposition of the duty to inform.

An insurance contract is a contract of utmost good faith. The nature of the insurance bargain makes the duty a commercial necessity. Duties of disclosure and representation, which were two fundamental components of the principle of utmost good faith, operate in different ways in England and China. The insured and insurer in these two countries bears distinctive good faith related obligations pre- and post-contractually. English insurance law exercise considerable influence in most common law countries and some civil law jurisdictions. The separation between utmost good faith and the duty of fair presentation, with the abolition of the avoidance remedy, under the Insurance Act 2015 could influence other jurisdictions to alter their remedies. This thesis examines the application of the civil law notion of good faith and the common law duty of utmost good faith. It covers the operation of insured’s pre-contractual duties of disclosure and representation in both countries. The thesis considers the insurer’s duties as well as the continuing duties and the effect of utmost good faith taking in account the recent legislative changes on fraudulent claims and late payment. The thesis further examines the legal status of brokers and their disclosure duty in China and England. Finally, it also provides special considerations on consumers and micro-businesses.

Este estudo trata da informação que permeia os contratos e de sua aplicação ao contrato de seguro, da perspectiva do Direito e da Economia, ciências sociais que se complementam, porque aplicadas à mesma realidade, que será mais fielmente retratada se analisada sob ângulos diferentes, mas correlatos. Perquirindo a função da informação no contrato, constata que, se concernente a elemento essencial deste, a ele adere, passando a integrá-lo, o que determina sua importância nesse contexto e indica o regime jurídico que lhe deve ser aplicado. A investigação da distribuição da informação entre os contratantes e dos efeitos eventualmente nocivos da assimetria informacional, como o incentivo ao oportunismo, o aumento dos custos de transação e a obtenção de ganhos indevidos do contrato, induz à discussão dos critérios orientadores da disciplina jurídica da informação no âmbito contratual. A despeito da utilidade dos padrões para disciplinar condutas não alcançadas pelas regras, este estudo aponta que a boa-fé, em razão de suas idiossincrasias, não é padrão eficiente para reger a informação nos contratos, devendo ficar relegada à função residual. A aplicação do dever de informar com o objetivo de impor às partes transparência e veracidade conferiria mais objetividade e operacionalidade ao regime da informação nos contratos. Mas, a despeito da questionável eficiência da boa-fé como indutora da troca de informações entre as partes, foi o padrão de conduta escolhido pelo sistema jurídico para balizar a interação dos contratantes. Devido às peculiaridades do contrato de seguro, e à nocividade dos efeitos da assimetria informacional neste contexto, exige-se dos contratantes a máxima boa-fé. Se a regra é a máxima transparência e a absoluta veracidade, deverá ser restritiva a interpretação de eventuais exceções. Como a informação se prende ao cerne da operação econômica subjacente, afetando o cálculo do risco e a fixação do prêmio, e consequentemente, a mutualidade, diz respeito à função e à finalidade do instituto. Por isso, a interpretação condescendente de eventuais omissões ou distorções de informação relevante afrontaria o princípio da máxima boa-fé, que não pode ser mitigado, sob pena de comprometer o equilíbrio do contrato e afetar sua finalidade sócio-econômica. O estudo demonstrou a inadequação do tratamento da informação em relação ao substrato econômico do contrato de seguro, especialmente no que concerne à exigência de comprovação da má-fé nas omissões e distorções da verdade pelo segurado. Criticou também a aplicação dogmática da presunção da boa-fé, que reverte ao segurador o ônus da prova da má-fé do segurado, anulando o efeito sancionador da imposição do dever de informar. / The purpose of this dissertation is to analyze the importance of information in contract law, the disclosure duties and its application to insurance contracts, from legal and economic perspectives. Since Law and Economics are social sciences applied to the same environment and are mutually complementary, this bifocal approach leads to a more accurate portrait of reality seen from different but correlated points of view. The analysis of the role of information reveals that if it concerns the contract essential element, it becomes part of it and determines the legal rules that should be applied to it. The inquiry of information distribution patterns shows that it can eventually bring about detrimental effects which induce the discussion of the criteria underlying the legal regime of information in contract law. Asymmetric information can be harmful if it encourages opportunism, increases transaction costs and grants one party undue gains from the contract. In spite of the usefulness of standards to regulate conducts not reached by rules, this study shows that good faith, due to its idiosyncrasies, is not an efficient standard to govern information in contracts. Thus, it should be assigned a residual function. The application of the duty to inform with the purpose of imposing full disclosure and accuracy to the parties ensures more objectivity to the information regime in contracts. However, good faith was the standard chosen by the legal system to rule the parties interaction, despite its recognized inefficiency to induce information exchange among agents. Due to the particular features of the insurance contract, and to the harmful effects of informational asymmetry in this context, law imposes the parties a higher standard of good faith. If the legal standard is the utmost good faith, eventual exceptions to this pattern should be restrictively interpreted. Since information is connected with the economic mechanism of the insurance contract because it affects risk and premium evaluation, it is strictly related to the function and purpose of the contract. Therefore, condescending interpretation of nondisclosure, misrepresentation and fraud would violate the principle of utmost good faith. Its mitigation will affect the contract balance and its economic and social purposes. This dissertation demonstrates the inadequacy of the information legal regime, especially regarding the requirement of proving bad faith related to nondisclosure, misrepresentation or fraud. It also criticizes the dogmatic application of the presumption of good faith that lays upon the insurer the burden of proving bad faith of the insureds conduct, nullifying the sanctioning effect of the imposition of the duty to inform.

In recent years the popularity of Islamic insurance policies has grown rapidly with many companies across the world providing this service. London is said to be the hub for Islamic finance. It is well known for welcoming innovative financial methods. The FSA have already authorised the insurance company Salaam Halal to provide policies based on Shariah principles. The FSA, however, announced that they must operate within the same legal framework as all other insurance policies. Consequently English law has to be applied in Islamic policies taken in this country. However, in many aspects, Shariah principles contradict English insurance law. This thesis aims to discover how they contradict and recommend how the Islamic insurance policies can be applied in English law without breaking Shariah principles. As Shariah principles merely provide a wide boundary within which any law can be applied, this thesis analyses English insurance law first, and then discusses how Islamic insurance policies can operate within the English framework. In many cases, English insurance law crosses the boundary of Shairah principles due to its unfair consequences. Consequently making English insurance law fairer could be the best solution to allow the use of Islamic insurance policies under English law. Pragmatically, the thesis focuses mainly on problems within current English insurance law and recommends possible solutions. In many cases, the solutions suggested by the Law Commission are found to be incapable of establishing fairness. The majority part of this thesis is spent trying to establish a fairer framework for English insurance law. This fairer English insurance law is found to be Shariah compliant in most cases. In some cases it is not complaint due to operational differences between the two legal systems. In these cases, the thesis recommends that the Islamic insurer should incorporate certain terms to make policies Shariah compliant without breaching English insurance law.

誠信原則(bona fides, good faith)之法律意義，源於羅馬法善意衡平及一般惡意抗辯原則，後成為現代大陸法系國家之帝王條款。誠信原則以其特殊具體性、補充性、限制性與修正性之功能，可作為調整智識與交易實力不對等當事人間利益之最佳方式，其適用可使雙方當事人之利益獲得平衡。於普通法系國家，美國法已接受誠信原則，英國普通法未明文承認誠信原則之適用，但其有相當多制度顯現出誠信原則之概念，於特定法律之領域亦承認誠信原則，其著名之1906年海上保險法即早已承認最大誠信原則之適用。 保險制度發始於海上保險，其發展進程係「先海上保險，後陸上保險；先財產保險，後人身保險」。海上保險於有文字記載之保險歷史，先以共同海損之危險分担，繼則為以數理統計之危險分散與轉嫁。保險具射倖性，從海上保險發展時起，保險人即受資訊不對稱之影響。當時科技、通訊設備不足，保險人欲獲得足夠資訊決定是否承保與計算保險費率，進而預測經營成本，實際係難以達成。當時被保險人掌握有關保險標的之相關資訊，而保險人卻一無所知。資訊不對稱對保險人產生逆選擇與道德危險等危害，為解決此問題，保險人遂要求被保險人就保險標的之相關資訊，依據誠信原則為主動告知，或以擔保條款等方式控制風險。如被保險人未按誠信原則盡告知義務，無須探究其主觀意圖為何、是否有因果關係，賦予保險人得解除契約之嚴厲效果。 現代保險制度始於歐陸義大利之城邦國家，其後輾轉流傳至英國，並於英國成長茁壯而成為現今之保險制度。英國自十七世紀承襲形成於義大利城邦海上保險之慣例，及拿破崙法典之規定，於1906年完成海上保險之立法。至今百餘年間雖時易勢遷、物換星移，其絕大部分條文不僅成為海上保險之鐵則，且為世界各國廣泛接受運用於保險法制。其至今未曾有所更易，並為世界各保險先進國家奉為圭臬。聯合國貿易暨發展委員會於1982年曾稱英國海上保險法及保險條款為實際之國際法，足見其高度權威性及深遠之影響力。 十八世紀當時，保險尚屬初發展階段，當時科學技術並未發達，為使保險人得就其所承保風險與收取保險費達到對價平衡，英國自1766年Carter v. Boehm案，即確立誠信原則於海上保險之適用，要求被保險人為主動告知保險標的之風險。其指出保險契約為射倖性契約，賴以估算危險發生機率之各特定事項，唯被保險人知之最稔，保險人於決定承保與否時，有賴被保險人之告知。被保險人故意隱匿，將導致保險人對危險之錯誤估計，是被保險人之故意隱匿構成對保險人之詐欺，應使契約歸於無效。某事項之不為告知或可能出於錯誤，被保險人亦不具任何詐欺之意圖，但對保險人而言，仍屬受有欺罔，與故意隱匿並無二致，保險契約於此情形不應認為有效。誠信原則對所有契約均應適用，於保險契約尤甚於其他契約。於此原則下，保險契約當事人任何一方就其個人所知有關危險之事項，不被容許對其有所隱匿。誠信原則其後經英國司法實務之運作轉變為最大誠信原則(uberrima fidei, utmost good faith)，於英國1906年上保險法第17條規定。英國海上保險法之最大誠信原則，其本即源於歐陸法律體系之誠信原則。然因英國普通法並未承認誠信原則，且海上保險原為商人間之保險，其遂借用於中世紀所演化出之商人應具有高度誠信原則之概念於海上保險之領域。誠信原則於英國海上保險法百餘年運作後，成為最大誠信原則並發展出各種具體之制度，然英國實務運作僅偏向對被保險人之嚴格適用。然按Mansfield大法官之見解與英國海上保險法之規定，保險契約雙方當事人均應有此原則之適用。 保險制度經過長期發展後，保險人經由豐富統計資料為基礎之精算技術，先進之科學設備，完善且充足之人力資源，對於各種風險加以了解，甚而其可較被保險人更清楚保險標的之風險。又保險之運作高度、複雜、專業發展後，除少數大型企業有能力與保險人洽商保險契約條款之內容外，大部分仍使用定型化契約作為保險交易之內容，被保險人對於保險契約之條款內容難以了解。保險產業已從過往對於保險人資訊不對稱，轉為對被保險人資訊不對稱之情形。因此過往法律對於嚴格要求被保險人為告知且賦與嚴厲法律效果，現已使保險契約雙方當事人利益失衡之局面，且最大誠信原則已成為海上保險人藉以逃避責任之最佳利器。 時序進入二十世紀後，各國有關保險之立法，已開始著重對被保險人之保障，尤其對消費者而言更應如此。美國Robert Keeton教授於上世紀六十年代提出之合理期待原則，德國於1976年之標準契約條款解釋之法律(後已整編至德國民法規定)、2008年修正之保險契約法，法國保險契約法、澳洲1984年制定之一般保險契約法、北歐各國保險契約法、歐洲2009年8月由學者所擬就之保險契約法重述、中國2009年10月新修正之保險法等，均朝向保障被保險人之權益，減輕其負擔，加重保險人於最大誠信原則下之義務為規範。本文認為其雖係對一般保險契約法之修正，但對於海上保險契約，尤其無能力與保險人協商保險契約條款之當事人，應可加以參酌適用。英國自上世紀中葉起，開始就該國海上保險與一般保險之法制加以檢討，並提出各種討論報告。於2009年12月已就消費者保險之改革提出草案，對於消費者保險採詢問回答之方式，其適用於訂約前與續約之時，消費者需以客觀合理之注意避免為不實之說明。過往海上保險之最大誠信原則於所有保險之訂約前適用，現於所提出之草案就消費者保險改採合理注意之義務，並應注意及各種實際之情況決定，藉以改善過往對消費者過於嚴苛之情況。本草案就訂約後最大誠信原則之適用則未有影響，而對其他種類保險之討論則尚未定案。 英國海上保險法之最大誠信原則經百餘年之實務運作、學者詮釋及各國之立法擴張後，已成為對整體保險契約條款是否公平合理之判斷準據。然最大誠信原則之嚴苛應用與法律效果，因時易變遷各國均予以緩和，並加強保護被保險人。因而被保險人除有故意詐欺或重大過失，而未盡告知義務，得由保險人主張解除契約外，於無可歸責或過失之情況，則分別規定其法律效果。且於消費者保險採取詢問回答之方式，並採用比例補償原則。於海上保險等有能力與保險人洽商保險契約條款之商人保險，則仍維持主動告知義務。然如其因不可歸責之原因而未盡告知義務，保險人不得主張解除契約。而商人保險因有諸多變動之風險因素，採用比例補償之原則尚有困難。 我國海商法規定之海上保險，就被保險人告知義務未為規定。按同法之規定，其未規定者可準用保險法規定。我國學說及實務，均肯認保險契約為基於最大誠信原則之契約，並認為保險法第64條之規定為此原則之具體表現。然國內相關就最大誠信原則之討論亦如英國法制，著重於被保險人之適用範圍。對於最大誠信原則應用於保險人之部分，則似較少觸及。有學者早期已強調保險人應依據最大誠信原則盡調查義務，其後有學者於著述中略論及保險人於最大誠信原則下之告知義務，我國法律則對於此部分未加以規範。本篇論文對於最大誠信原則於保險人之應用，以專章加以論述。本文認為加強保險人於最大誠信原則之告知義務等，對於保障被保險人之權益將有所助益，且其與保險契約之特殊解釋規則適用有重要之關連。如保險人盡其告知義務，就保險契約之爭執將可大幅減少，並可降低該等特殊解釋規則之適用。我國保險法第64條規定就故意隱匿、過失遺漏或不實說明與危險發生無因果關係由被保險人負擔舉證責任，被保險人之負擔過重。本文建議應將舉證責任歸由保險人負擔，較符公平之原則。又實務中，海上船體保險或船東互保協會保險，保險人均先行要求被保險人就其所提供之問題回答，因此本文建議於海上保險可由保險人先以詢問回答之方式，要求被保險人就保險標的之資訊為告知。但被保險人知悉保險人所未詢問之重要事項者，亦應為主動告知。如保險人證明被保險人有故意隱匿或重大過失不為告知時，始得解除契約，並保有保險費。如無故意隱匿或重大過失時，如保險人證明危險發生係因該未告知之事實所致者，保險人不附補償責任。於非使用保險人所提供之定型化契約條款者，當事人間得就此另行約定。 本文以海上保險之最大誠信原則適用為主，對相關問題加以討論。第壹章說明研究動機、目的、方法與範圍，並對於海上保險之緣起、保險之特性、保險契約之解釋、保險契約交易之特性加以討論。第貳章對於誠信原則之發展、基本概念與功能及適用、於海上保險之發展加以說明。第参章就最大誠信原則於海上保險之適用加以論述，其中就英國現行法制之部分詳為討論。第肆章則對最大誠信原則於英國法之發展，並就該國之檢討報告詳細討論說明。於参、肆章之討論，均以英國海上保險法制之規定為主軸，並輔以其他國家法律之內容。第伍章就最大誠信原則於保險人之適用加以討論，著重於保險人依最大誠信原則之告知義務、理賠程序之告知義務、告知義務之限制與範圍、告知義務與特殊解釋規則之關聯、迅速理賠之義務等。英國海上保險法就此少有論及，美國與歐陸法律對此於非海上保險加以強調。本文認為保險人於理賠程序之告知與迅速理賠之義務，亦應於海上保險加以適用，方可顯現海上保險為基於最大誠信原則之本質。第六章則綜合前揭數章之討論，對於我國海上保險法制提出修法之建議，以供未來修法之參考。