Insurance in Today’s Sharing Economy: New Challenges Ahead or a Return to the Origins of Insurance?

  • Margarida Lima RegoEmail author
  • Joana Campos Carvalho
Part of the AIDA Europe Research Series on Insurance Law and Regulation book series (ERSILR, volume 1)


In the early twenty-first century, technology-based peer-to-peer (P2P) business models have been popping up, multiplying and succeeding. These business models set themselves apart from traditional business-to-consumer (B2C) models. This paper aims at identifying and outlining the new types of technology-based business models in use in the insurance sector. We began our quest in search of the new challenges to the law of insurance brought about by such business models and found ourselves face to face with some new takes on the oldest forms of insurance known to humanity.

The new business models we have analysed can be broken down into three different classes: the broker model, the carrier model and the self-governing model. The broker model and the carrier model rely on traditional insurance players but allow customers to take on part of the risks insured by the group they happen to fall into or choose to adhere to and take back a portion of their profits, or at least make customers feel like they are taking on those risks and taking back such profits. The leading characters in such models appear to play, to a large extent, the same roles traditionally ascribed to insurers and insurance intermediaries. Whilst they may incorporate P2P elements, they are not, in essence, true P2P models. We deliver a brief outline of some of these existing models and provide a more detailed account of an example thereof: the entity best known as Friendsurance.

We then move on to examine the self-governing model, where we believed the most innovative and challenging arrangements were to be found. We analyse the entity best known as Teambrella. After identifying the contracting parties in the self-governing model and their roles, our attention falls on the new challenges this model brings forward: do contracts entered into through these platforms qualify as insurance contracts? Should insurance regulation apply to them? These questions, we find, have been asked and answered many times over in the past. Hence our research ended up providing an excellent opportunity for a look back into the origins of insurance.

We do not dispute the disrupting potential of InsurTech’s new P2P business models. From an industry point of view, they may well provide a very significant contribution to the revolution of insurance as we know it. However, from an insurance law perspective, our main conclusion is that for the most part the new business models are simply recycling and optimising the potential of some old recipes by applying them in a new, digital setting. Whilst the small scale of traditional self-help mechanisms proved too parochial to cater for the more sophisticated insurance needs, the digital revolution gave rise to a global self-help community, thereby providing the earlier self-help mechanisms with a new stage where they can compete with stock-based insurers on an equal footing.


  1. Belk R (2014) Sharing versus pseudo-sharing in Web 2.0. Anthropologist 18:7–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cappiello A (2018) Technology and the insurance industry. Palgrave PivotGoogle Scholar
  3. Carballa Smichowski B (2015) Mutualisme et Économie Collaborative: Master Thesis. MAIF/Université Paris XIIIGoogle Scholar
  4. Carvalho JM (2018) Manual de Direito do Consumo, 5th edn. AlmedinaGoogle Scholar
  5. Clarke MA (2005) Policies and perceptions of insurance law in the twenty-first century. Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  6. Clarke MA, Burling JM, Purves RL (2006) The law of insurance contracts, 5th edn. Informa LawGoogle Scholar
  7. Codagnone C, Martens B (2016) Scoping the sharing economy: origins, definitions, impact and regulatory issues. Digital Economy Working Paper 2016/01, Institute for Prospective Tecnhological Studies, European Commision.
  8. Cousy H (2012) Insurance law. In: Smits JM (ed) Elgar encyclopedia of comparative law, 2nd edn. Elgar, p 48 ffGoogle Scholar
  9. Dreher M (1991) Die Versicherung als Rechtsprodukt. Die Privatversicherung und ihre rechtliche Gestaltung. Mohr SiebeckGoogle Scholar
  10. EIOPA (2017) EIOPA InsurTech Roundtable. How technology and data are reshaping the insurance landscape. Summary from the roundtable organized by EIOPA on 28 April 2017 (EIOPA-BoS/17-165, 05 July 2017).
  11. Ernst & Young (2012) Voice of the customer - time for insurers to rethink their relationships. Ernst & Young ReportGoogle Scholar
  12. Fitzgerald JA (1920) Reciprocal or inter-insurance against loss by fire. Am Econ Rev 10:92–103Google Scholar
  13. Gatteschi V, Lamberti F, Demartini C, Pranteda C, Santamaría V (2018) Blockchain and smart contracts for insurance: is the technology mature enough? Future Internet 10(2):20 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Holly R, Greszta E (2016) Self-insurance as a formula for risk management – a new perspective. Wiadomości Ubezpieczeniowe 4:53–66Google Scholar
  15. Huckstep R (2015) Guevara, moral hazard and the future of P2P insurance.
  16. John NA (2013) Sharing and Web 2.0: the emergence of a keyword. New Media Soc 15(2):167–182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lougher G, Kalmanowicz S (2016) EU competition law in the sharing economy. J Eur Compet Law Pract 7(2):87–102Google Scholar
  18. Marano P (2019) Navigating InsurTech. The digital intermediaries of insurance products and customer protection in the EU. Maastricht J Eur Comp Law  26(2):294–315. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marin ER (2016) Economia Compartilhada e o Mercado Segurador. Cadernos de Seguros 188:36–43Google Scholar
  20. Mayers D, Smith CW Jr (1988) Ownership structure across lines of property-casualty insurance. J Law Econ 31:351–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Morrison M, Mills C (2016) Expanding the role of cooperative and mutual enterprises in delivering public services: disrupting the status quo. In: Butcher J, Gilchrist D (eds) The three sector solutions: delivering public policy in collaboration with not-for-profits and business. Australian National University Press, pp 301–317Google Scholar
  22. National Association of Insurance Commissioners (2018) Peer-to-peer Insurance.
  23. Naylor M (2017) Insurance transformed. Palgrave MacmillanGoogle Scholar
  24. Norgaard RL (1964) What is a reciprocal? J Risk Insur 31:51–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Orlovácz P (2016) The insurance opportunity. In: Barberis SCJ (ed) The Fintech Book. Wiley, pp 721–730Google Scholar
  26. Paisant G (2015) Défense et Illustration du Droit de la Consommation. LexisNexisGoogle Scholar
  27. Paperno A, Kravchuk V, Porubaev E (2016) Teambrella: a peer to peer insurance system (Whitepaper).
  28. Reinmuth DF (1964) What is a reciprocal? Comment. J Risk Insur 31:641–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sagalow TR (2016) Peer-to-peer insurance. Presented at the Insurance and Technology Event organized by the Center for Insurance Policy and Research in New Orleans, Louisiana, on 5 April 2016.
  30. Santarém P (1552) Tractatus de Assecurationibus et Sponsionibus. Originally written in 1488 and first published in 1552, translated into Portuguese, English and French by Instituto de Seguros de Portugal in 2007Google Scholar
  31. Scalfi G (1960) Corrispettività e Alea nei Contratti. MilanGoogle Scholar
  32. Scardovi C (2017) Digital transformation in financial services. SpringerGoogle Scholar
  33. Smorto G (2015) Verso la Disciplina Giuridica della Sharing Economy. Mercato Concorrenza Regole 2:245–278Google Scholar
  34. Soberón BP (2016) Las Insurtechs Dedicadas a los Seguros Colaborativos Permiten al Consumidor Obtener Descuentos en su Póliza. Revista CESCO de Derecho de Consumo 19:52–55Google Scholar
  35. Sundararajan A (2016) The sharing economy. The MIT PressGoogle Scholar
  36. Swiss Re (2016) Mutual insurance in the 21st century: back to the future? 4/2016, SigmaGoogle Scholar
  37. Talonen A (2016) Systematic literature review of research on mutual insurance companies. J Co-oper Organ Manage 4(2):53–65Google Scholar
  38. Turcotte M (2017) L’Assurance sans Assureur ou le P2P. Assurances et Gestion des Risques/Insur Risk Manage 84(1–2):77–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Wälder J (1971) Über das Wesen der Versicherung. Ein methodologischer Beitrag zur Diskussion um den Versicherungsbegriff. Duncker & HumblotGoogle Scholar
  40. Wilson JD Jr (2017) Creating strategic value through financial technology. WileyGoogle Scholar
  41. Yan TC, Schulte P, Chuen DLK (2017) InsurTech and FinTech: banking and insurance enablement. In: Chuen DLK, Deng R (eds) Handbook of blockchain, digital finance, and inclusion. Elsevier, pp 249–281Google Scholar
  42. Zwack T (2017) Peer-to-Peer-Geschäftsmodelle zur Absicherung privater Risiken. SpringerGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  • Margarida Lima Rego
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Joana Campos Carvalho
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  1. 1.NOVA University’s School of LawLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.CEDIS – Centro de Investigação e Desenvolvimento sobre Direito e SociedadeLisbonPortugal
  3. 3.FCT – Fundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations