Transparency in the Insurance Contract Law of China

Jing, Zhen

doi:10.1007/978-3-030-31198-8_13

Zhen Jing³⁸

Part of the book series: AIDA Europe Research Series on Insurance Law and Regulation ((ERSILR,volume 2))

440 Accesses
2 Citations

Abstract

Transparency is an important concept in insurance law. An insurance contract must be made transparent to the parties of the contract because of its special nature of management of risks. The component and standard of transparency vary at different stage during the lifetime of an insurance contract. This chapter is concerned with the requirement of transparency under Chinese Insurance Law. It critically examines the legal rules relating to the requirement of transparency on the parts of the insureds, the insurers and the insurance intermediaries throughout the lifetime of an insurance contract from the stage of entering into the contract, the currency of the insurance period, to the stage of making and settling claims.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 149.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 199.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 199.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Carter v Boehm (1766) 3 Burr. 1905.
2.
The Insurance Law, art. 16.
3.
Recoverability may also be affected by the insurer’s solvency which is usually regulated by the governmental authorities.
4.
The Insurance Law, art. 17.
5.
The Insurance Law, art. 52.
6.
The Insurance Law, arts. 21–22.
7.
The Insurance Law, arts. 23–26.
8.
The Insurance Law the People’s Republic of China was adopted at the 14th Session of the Standing Committee of the 8th National People’s Congress on 30 June 1995 and became effective as of 1 Oct. 1995. The Law was amended three times in 2002, 2009 and 2015.
9.
The Maritime Code of the People’s Republic of China was enacted in 1992 and became effective in 1993.
10.
The statutory regulatory authority on insurance in China.
11.
It was adopted at the 19th Meeting of the Standing Committee of the 5th National People’s Congress on 10 June 1981.
12.
Ibid, art. 2. See http://www.npc.gov.cn/wxzl/gongbao/2000-12/06/content_5004401.htm (accessed in June 2018).
13.
According to articles 5 and 6 of the Stipulation of the Supreme People’s Court on the Judicial Explanation (2007 No. 12), the Supreme People’s Court stipulation, judicial explanation or decision have legal force. This means that the Supreme People’s Court stipulations, judicial interpretations, decisions or replies are of the legal sources in China.
14.
The SPC Interpretation I was published on 14 Sept 2009 and came into force on 1 Oct 2009. The Interpretation I mainly concerns the circumstances where the 2002 version of the Insurance Law should be applied and where the 2009 version of the Insurance Law should be applied. The SPC Interpretation II was published on 6 May 2013 and came into force on 8 June 2013, for more, see Han (2013), p. 189. The SPC Interpretation III was published on 25 November 2015 and became effective on 1 December 2015. For more on the SPC Interpretation III, see Jing and Jiang (2016), pp. 76–105. The SPC Interpretation IV was published on 31 July 2018 and became effective on 1 September 2018. It consists of 21 articles, concerning matters on indemnity insurance in respect of issues relating to assignment of insured subject matter, increase of risk, subrogation and liability insurance.
15.
For example, the Guidance of Beijing City High People’s Court Concerning Questions of How to Deal with Insurance Disputes 2005 (the Guidance of Beijing City HPC 2005); the Guidance of Guangdong Province High People’s Court Concerning Questions of How to Deal with Insurance Disputes 2011 (the Guidance of Guangdong Province HPC 2011); and the Guidance of Shandong Province High People’s Court Concerning Questions of How to Deal with Insurance Disputes 2011 (the Guidance of Shandong Province HPC 2011).
16.
The person who makes an application for insurance is called the proposer. When the insurer has agreed to underwrite the risk, the proposer is now called the insured or the policyholder.
17.
In contrast to the inquiry disclosure in non-marine insurance, voluntary disclosure is adopted for marine insurance.
18.
See Jing (2006), p. 681.
19.
The SPC Interpretation II, art. 6(1).
20.
The Guidance of Beijing City HPC 2005, art. 18.
21.
See proposal forms of life insurance, personal accident insurance and child safety insurance, etc., of the Ping An Insurance Company of China.
22.
The Guidance of Guangdong Province HPC 2011, art. 7.
23.
The Guidance of Zhejiang Province High People’s Court Concerning Questions of How to Deal with Property Insurance Disputes 2009 (the Guidance of Zhejiang Province HPC 2009), art. 5.
24.
This can be explained in Mr Ying Bai v China Life Insurance Company Shanghai Branch. This case was decided by the Intermediate People’s Court, Shanghai City, Civil Court Judgement (2000) No 1722. In the proposal form a general questions asked “Besides the diseases listed here, do you have any other disease?” The Appeal Court held that the insured had duodenal ulcer for more than 20 years and took medicine for the disease for the years, but failed to inform the insurer of the disease by answering the general question, thus was in breach of the duty of disclosure.
25.
The Guidance of Beijing City HPC 2005, art. 12; the Guidance of Shandong Province HPC 2011, art. 42.
26.
This case was report in the book, Peoples Court Selected Cases, vol. 4, published by People’s Court Press, 2001.
27.
See Xi (2014), p. 171.
28.
See Merkin (2016), para 7-073.
29.
(1881) L.R. 6 App. Cas. 644.
30.
Roberts v Plaisted [1989] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 341; and State Insurance v Peake [1991] 2 N.Z.L.R. 287.
31.
See Liu (2012), p. 163.
32.
The CIDRA, s. 3.
33.
The PEICL, art. 2.101.
34.
The Supreme People’s Court Bulletin, 2008 No. 8 (http://blog.sina.com.cn/s/blog_a87dad3d01016qgd.html, accessed in June 2018).
35.
This case was decided by the People’s Court, Yicheng District, Zhumadian City, Henan Province, Civil Court Judgement (2010) No 901, and the report of the judgement can be seen at (http://www.hlkdata.com/hw/?c=news3&m=view&id=3284, accessed on in July 2018).
36.
The ICA, s. 21. For more on this point, see Pynt (2015), para. 8.9.
37.
The ICA, s. 27.
38.
Roberts v Avon Insurance Co [1956] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 240.
39.
The Insurance Act 2015, S. 3(4)(b).
40.
The PEICL art. 2:103(a).
41.
The SPC Interpretation II, art. 5.
42.
S. 19(1) of the German Insurance Contract Act 2008 provides “The policyholder shall disclose to the insurer before the contract is concluded the risk factors known to him which are relevant to the insurer’s decision to conclude the contract with the agreed content and which the insurer has requested in writing…”.
43.
Economides v Commercial Union Co plc [1998] Q.B. 587 at 601–2.
44.
The PEICL, art. 2:101.
45.
The Guidance of Beijing City HPC 2005, art. 14. Similarly, the HPC of Zhejiang Province also provide that “The insured is not deemed in breach of the duty of truthful disclosure where he did not provide an answer upon being inquired by the insurer in respect of the following matters: (1) the insurer knew; (2) according to common sense, in the ordinary course of its business the insurer should have known; and (3) the insurer declared that the insured did not need to disclose” (see art. 9 of the Guidance of Zhejiang Province HPC 2009).
46.
S. 18(3) of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 provides: “In the absence of inquiry the following circumstances need not be disclosed, namely:
1. (a)
  Any circumstance which diminishes the risk;
2. (b)
  Any circumstance which is known or presumed to be known to the insurer. the insure is presumed to know maters of common notoriety or knowledge, and matters which an insurer in the ordinary course of his business, as such, ought to know;
3. (c)
  Any circumstance as to which information is waived by the insurer;
4. (d)
  Any circumstance which it is superfluous to disclose by reason of any express or implied warranty.”
47.
Inversiones Manria SA v Sphere Drake Insurance Co Plc (The Dora) [1989] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 69.
48.
Kingscroft Insurance Co v Nissan Fire and Marine Insurance Co Ltd (No. 2) [1999] Lloyd’s Rep. I.R. 603.
49.
For example, the insurer should be aware of matters of a commercial nature (Noble v Kennaway (1780) 2 Doug KB 510.
50.
The ICA, s. 21(2).
51.
See Mrs Lihong Zhao v China Life Insurance Company Puyang Branch. This case was decided by the People’s Court, Hualong District, Puyang City, Henan Province, Civil Court Judgement (2009) No 2943; Mrs Zhanxian Xue v China Pacific Life Insurance Company Jiaozuo Branch, the People’s Court, Jiyuan City, Henan Province, Civil Court Judgement (2009) No 126; and Mrs Xuexian Ye v Kang Tai Life Insurance Company Heyuan Branch, the People’s Court, Ping County, Guangdong Province, Civil Court Judgement (2008) No 341.
52.
The German Insurance Contract Act 2008, s. 19(1).
53.
Ionides v Pacific Ins. Co. (1871) L.R. 6 Q.B. 674, 684; (1872) L.R. 7 Q.B. 517; Haydenfayer v British National Ins. Soc. Ltd [1984] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 393, 398; Newbury Int. Ltd v Reliance National Ins. Co. (UK) Ltd [1994] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 83, 85. For more, see Birds et al. (2012), para. 17-023.
54.
Looker v law Union and Rock Insurance Co. Ltd [1928] 1 K.B. 554.
55.
See the Application Form for Life Insurance by the MLC Insurance Company, see http://www.mlc.com.au/resources/MLC/Superannuation%20and%20Investments%20Product/Documents/60922_request_for_insurance_form.pdf, accessed in July 2018.
56.
See the Macquarie Life Application form, see https://www.macquarie.com.au/dafiles/Internet/mgl/au/docs/forms/macquarie-life-new-business-application.pdf, accessed in July 2018.
57.
Unless informed otherwise, an insurer is entitled to assume that the answers in the original proposal for insurance apply to the renewal (Mercantile Mutual Insurance (Australia) Ltd v Gibbs [2001] WASCA 271).
58.
Any remedy for a breach of the duty of disclosure or for misrepresentation in relation to the variation is limited to the variation. It does not affect the original contract (Mercandian Continent [2001] EWCA Civ 1275; 2 Lloyd’s Rep 563).
59.
The ICA, s. 21, 21A and s. 11(9).
60.
The Insurance Law, art 16(2).
61.
The Insurance Law, art 16(3).
62.
The Insurance Law, art 16(4).
63.
The Insurance Law, art 16(5).
64.
The Insurance Law, art. 16(1), and the SPC Interpretation II, art. 6(1).
65.
The SPC Interpretation II, art. 5.
66.
The Insurance Law, art. 16(2).
67.
The Insurance Law, art. 16(2).
68.
The Insurance Law, art. 16(6).
69.
The Insurance Law, art 16(3). For more about the incontestability see Jing and Zhong (2016), pp. 253–288.
70.
The SPC Interpretation II, art. 7.
71.
The rule of reciprocal duty of good faith was derived from the English case of Carter v Boehm (1766) 3 Burrow 1905; The Marine Insurance Act 1906, s 17; the Insurance Law, arts. 16 and 17.
72.
The Insurance Law, art. 17(1).
73.
The Insurance Law, art. 17(1).
74.
The Insurance Law, art. 17(2).
75.
The Insurance Law, art. 116.
76.
Xi (2010), p. 107.
77.
Xi (2014), p. 276.
78.
The Insurance Law, art. 17(2).
79.
For more on this topic, see Jing (2017a), p. 291.
80.
Professor Clarke defines exceptions as terms of the insurance contract that reduce the extent of cover which, but for the exception, would be provided, see Clarke (2009), para. 19.1A.
81.
For example, in a building insurance, the risk of earthquake is usually excluded, thus the insurer is not liable to a loss caused by earthquake.
82.
For example, in fire insurance, the risk covered is fire. The insurer is liable for a loss occasioned by fire. But the insurer’s liability can be qualified by some events which caused the fire, such as explosion, riot, hostilities etc.
83.
For example, an exclusion clause in the motor vehicle third party liability insurance policy of Ping An Insurance Company states that “the insurer is not liable to pay for any infringement of mental distress to the third party.” Here the insured risk is the third-party liability, if the third party is injured or killed by the road accident caused by the insured driver, the insurer will pay the third party under the policy. If the third party suffers mental distress as a result of the road accident, the insurer is not liable for paying the third party for that kind of loss.
84.
The insurance deductible is the amount of money the insured will pay in an insurance claim before the insurance coverage starts paying the insured. An excess clause requires an insurer’s liability to a loss only after exhausting any other source of coverage.
85.
For example, there is often a limitation clause in a motor vehicle insurance policy to reduce the amount of payment to 80% of the current market value in the case that the motor vehicle is stolen and cannot be found within 60 days. See clause 16(6), the PICC motor vehicle insurance policy (http://www.epicc.com/cn/hkfw/bzzx/bxfw/db_bxtkcx/201207/t20120713_1799.html, accessed in July 2018).
86.
The SPC Interpretation II, art. 10.
87.
The SPC Interpretation II, art. 10 provides that where the insurer takes the circumstances which are prohibited by laws or regulations as the cause of exemption in the exemption clauses of the insurance contract and makes note of such clauses to draw the insured’s attention to the clauses, the insured, the life insured or the beneficiary claims that such clauses are ineffective on the ground that the insurer has not performed the obligation of clear explanation of the clauses, the people’s court shall not uphold such claims.
88.
The SPC Interpretation II, art. 9(2).
89.
The Insurance Law, art. 17(2).
90.
The SPC Interpretation II, art. 12.
91.
Article 116 of the Insurance Law provides: An insurance company and its employees shall not have any of the following acts in the course of conducting business:
1. (1)
  cheating the proposers, the insureds or the beneficiaries;
2. (2)
  concealing from the proposers material information relevant to the insurance contracts;
3. (3)
  preventing the proposers from fulfilling their obligation of making truthful disclosure provided under this Law or inducing them not to fulfil such an obligation;
4. (4)
  giving or promising premium rebates or other benefits other than those provided for in the contracts to the proposers, the insureds or the beneficiaries;
5. (5)
  refusing to fulfil the obligation of paying indemnity or insurance benefits agreed upon in an insurance contract according to law;
6. (6)
  deliberately fabricating insured events that have never occurred, making up insurance contracts or deliberately exaggerating insured events that have occurred to make false indemnities and defrauding the company of insurance benefits or seeking other illegitimate gains;
7. (7)
  misappropriating, withholding or pilfering premiums;
8. (8)
  entrusting agencies that have not obtained lawful qualifications to engage in activities of insurance sales;
9. (9)
  seeking illegitimate gains for other organisations or individuals by taking advantage of the insurance business;
10. (10)
  using insurance agencies, insurance brokers or insurance adjusting firms to engage in illegal activities such as siphoning off commission by making up insurance agency business or fabricating surrender of policies;
11. (11)
  damaging the commercial reputation of its rivals by fabricating and disseminating false facts or other acts of unfair competition, disturbing the order of the insurance market by other acts of unfair competition;
12. (12)
  divulging the business secrets of the proposers or the insured that they become known in their business activities;
13. (13)
  other acts violating laws, administrative regulations and provisions of the insurance supervision and regulation authority of the State Council.
92.
The Insurance Law, art. 161.
93.
New Mexico’s Insurance Code, S. 59A-16-30.
94.
The Insurance Law, art. 117.
95.
The Insurance Law, art. 118.
96.
The CIRC Provisions on the Supervision and Administration of Full-Time Insurance Agencies came into force on 1 October 2009, upon which the CIRC Provisions on the Administration of Insurance Agencies (Order No. 14 [2004], CIRC) issued by the CIRC on 1 December 2004, were repealed. The Provisions were amended twice on 27 April 2013 and on 19 October 2015 (http://bxjg.circ.gov.cn/web/site0/tab5168/info4014260.htm, access on 30 June 2018).
97.
The CIRC Provisions on the Supervision and Administration of Insurance Brokerage Institutions came into force on 1 October 2009, upon which the CIRC Provisions on the Administration of Insurance Brokerage Institutions (Order No. 15 [2004], CIRC) issued by the CIRC on 15 December 2004, were repealed. The Provisions were amended three times on 27 April 2013, 19 October 2015 and 1 February 2018.
98.
The CIRC Provisions on the Supervision and Administration of Loss Adjusters came into force on 1 October 2009, upon which the CIRC Provisions on the Administration of Loss Adjusters (Order No. 3 [2001], CIRC) issued by the CIRC on 16 November 2001, were repealed. The Provisions were amended three times on 29 September 2013, 19 October 2015 and 1 February 2018. According to the CIRC Provisions on Loss Adjusters (art. 2), loss adjusters refer to institutions which specially engage in the assessment, survey, identification, and loss adjustment, among others, of the subject matters of insurance or the insured events as authorized by clients and receive remuneration as agreed on.
99.
See art. 43 of the CIRC Provisions on the Supervision and Administration of Professorial Insurance Agencies.
The CIRC Provisions on the Supervision and Administration of Insurance Brokerage Institutions (2018 Amendment) has similar rules governing insurance brokers, see art. 43.
100.
The Insurance Law, art. 52.
101.
The Insurance Law, art. 52.
102.
According to art. 95 of the Insurance Law, property insurance includes property loss or damage insurance, liability insurance, credit insurance and surety bonds insurance.
103.
The SPC Interpretation IV on Certain Issues Concerning the Application of the Insurance Law of the People’s Republic of China was published on 31 July 2018 and came into force on 1 September 2018 (http://www.court.gov.cn/fabu-xiangqing-110571.html, access on 27 August 2018).
104.
The author has a similar view with the SPC’s approach on the definition of “significant increase of risk”. See Jing (2013), p. 842 at p. 847, it was suggested that “With reference to the test of materiality for pre-contract information, the test of material increase of risk during the insurance period should be established as such: the risk is increased to such an extent that the insurer would not have accepted the insurance, or would have accepted the insurance at a higher rate of premium, if he had known about the increase of risk at the time the contract was entered into.”
105.
For more on determining the significant increase of risk during the currency of the policy, see Jing (2013), p. 842.
106.
The Insurance Law, art. 52.
107.
The Insurance Law, art. 52.
108.
This is also the approach of German law provided in s. 25(1) of the German Insurance Contract Act 2008.
109.
That is the approach of German Insurance Act 2008, s. 25(2) states: “If the insurance premium increases by more than 10 per cent in consequence of an aggravation of the risk insured or the insurer excludes insurance cover for the aggravated risk, the policyholder may terminate the contract without prior notice within one month of receipt of the communication from the insurer. The insurer must inform the policyholder of this right in this communication.”
110.
The Insurance Law, art. 49.
111.
The Insurance Law, art. 16(1). The proposer performs his duty of disclosure by truthfully answering the questions raised by the insurer.
112.
Jing (2006), p. 688.
113.
This clause is modified from a clause in the Direct-line Car Insurance Policy.
114.
Some other jurisdictions have adopted this approach, such as the Principles of European Insurance Contract Law (art. 4:202); German Insurance Contract Act 2008 (s 26).
115.
Xie (2012), p. 143.
116.
Which stated “In the period of insurance coverage, the insured should notify the insurer in writing of any change of name or address of the insured, the change of use of the subject matter, the increase of risk or assignment of the subject matter. The insured should get approval of the insurer prior to any such change. The insurer is entitled to refuse payment if the insured fails to perform such duty”.
117.
The Insurance Law (art. 17) requires the insurer to explain policy terms, particularly the exclusion clauses to the insured before the contract is entered into. Otherwise, the exclusion terms will be ineffective.
118.
The Chinese Contract Law 1999, art. 42.
119.
For more on insured’s pre-contractual duty of disclosure and remedies for breach of such duty, see Jing (2017b), pp. 327–348.
120.
The Insurance Law, art. 16(4).
121.
The Insurance Law, art. 16(5).
122.
The Insurance Law, art. 16(2).
123.
The German Insurance Contract Act 2008, s. 23(1).
124.
The German Insurance Contract Act 2008, s. 23(2).
125.
The German Insurance Contract Act 2008, s. 26. The author also compared some other jurisdictions’ approaches. See Jing (2013), p. 842.
126.
The non-notification is intentional if the insured knew that the risk insured against has been materially increased or the change of facts or circumstances has materially increased the risk, but he did not notify the insurer.
127.
The non-notification is grossly negligent if the insured did not care whether or not the change of facts or circumstances has materially increased the risk.
128.
For example, in a hypothetical case, Mark paid £200 premium for the insured amount of £4000 of his car for private use. Later he changed the use of his car for business purpose, but did not notify the insurer. The insurer would have increased premium for extra £20 had he been notified by Mark. The car was damaged in a road accident while Mark took passengers for money, the insurer can then refuse Mark’s claim for the loss because there is a causal connection between the loss and the increase of risk. If the car was stolen at night while it was parked in front of his garage, the insurer should be liable for the loss, as no causal connection can be established between the loss and the increase of risk. In this situation, the insurer received £200 premium and paid £4000 for the loss. Had Mark performed his duty of notification, the insurer would have received £220 premium and paid £4000 for the loss. By the rule recommended, the insurer should be allowed to reduce its liability by the amount that fairly represents the extent to which his interests were prejudiced. Instead of paying Mark £4000 for the loss, the insurer should be liable to pay £3636 (£4000 × £200 ÷ £220 = £3636) for the loss which is proportionate to the ratio of the premium he received (£200) and that he should have received (£220).
129.
The non-notification is innocent if the insured did not know honestly that the risk insured against has been materially increased or the change of facts or circumstances has materially increased the risk.
130.
The non-notification is mere negligent if it is not intentional, grossly negligent or innocent.
131.
For detailed discussion, see Jing (2017a), Chapter 14, The Making of a Claim.
132.
The Insurance Law, art. 21.
133.
For example, in the Household Property Insurance Policy of the Ping An Insurance Company of China, clause 23 lists the documents to be submitted when making a claim for insurance payment, including (1) the original copy of the insurance policy; (2) the claim form completed by the insured or his agent; (3) the list of the items of property which are lost or damaged, and the list of costs incurred to the insured in taking steps to mitigate the loss; (4) invoice or receipts (or other evidence) to prove the loss of items of property; (5) other relevant evidence and information for ascertaining the nature, cause and extent of the losses. See the website of Ping An Insurance Company (http://insurance.pingan.com/baoxian/jiatingcaichanbaoxiantiaokuan.shtml, accessed in June 2018).
134.
For detailed discussion, see see Jing (2017a), Chapter 15, Settlement of Claims.
135.
The Insurance Law, art. 23.
136.
The Insurance Law, art. 24.
137.
The Insurance Law, art. 23.
138.
The Insurance Law. art. 25.
139.
As to the date when the 30-day period should start to run, the Insurance Law is silent. Article 15(1) of the SPC Interpretation II provides “the 30-day period for the assessment of a claim as stipulated in art. 23 of the Insurance Law starts to run from the date on which the insurer has for the first time received the claim and the relevant evidence and documents from the proposer, the insured, or the beneficiary”.
140.
Article 22(2) of the Insurance Law provides “Where the insurer, based on the provisions of the insurance contract, considers the relevant evidence or information supplied by the insured incomplete, the insurer shall, in a timely manner, advise the proposer, the insured or the beneficiary, once and for all, to provide additional evidence or information.”
141.
The PEICL also requires an insurer to make preliminary payment. Art. 6:104 (2) provides: “Even if the total value of a claim cannot yet be quantified but the claimant is entitled to at least a part of it, this part shall be paid or provided without undue delay.”
142.
The Insurance Law, art. 24.
143.
Article 23(1) of the Insurance Law requires the insurer to make decision for payment with 30 days and make payment within 10 days once decision is made; art. 24 requires insurer to give rejection notice to the insured if the loss is not covered; and art. 25 requires the insurer to make a preliminary payment within 60 days where the payment agreement has not been reached by the parties.
144.
For more, see Jing (2015), pp. 37–67.
145.
Guangdong Province High People’s Court, Civil Judgement (2004) No. 22. (http://www.110.com/panli_54667.html, accessed on 12 July 2018).
146.
The court should at least award interest to the insured for the late payment of the amount of insurance proceeds.
147.
The Insurance Law, art. 17.
148.
The Insurance Law, art. 116.
149.
The Insurance Law, art. 16.

References

Birds J, Lynch B, Milnes S (2012) Macgillivray on insurance law, 12th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, para. 17-023
Google Scholar
Clarke M (2009) The law of insurance contracts, 6th edn. Informa, para. 19.1A
Google Scholar
Han WH (2013) Judicial Interpretations on Chinese Insurance Act 2009 from its highest court. J BILA 126:189
Google Scholar
Jing Z (2006) Insured duty of disclosure and test of materiality in marine and non-marine insurance laws in China. J Bus Law, 681 and 688
Google Scholar
Jing Z (2013) The insured’s post-contract duty of notification of increase of risk: a comparative perspective. J Bus Law, 842 and 847
Google Scholar
Jing Z (2015) The insurer’s primary obligation to pay valid claims in a timely manner. J Bus Law, 37–67
Google Scholar
Jing Z (2017a) Chinese insurance contracts: law and practice, 1st edn. Informa Law from Routledge, p 291
Google Scholar
Jing Z (2017b) Remedies for breach of the pre-contract duty of disclosure in Chinese insurance law. Connecticut Insur Law J 22(2):327–348
Google Scholar
Jing Z, Jiang TY (2016) The latest development of the insurance law in life insurance in China. J BILA 129:76–105
Google Scholar
Jing Z, Zhong M (2016) Incontestability provisions in insurance law and policies. J Bus Law, 253–288
Google Scholar
Liu ZY (2012) Life insurance law and practice. Law Press China, p 163
Google Scholar
Merkin R (2016) Colinvaux’s law of insurance, 11th edn. Sweet & Maxwell, para 7-073
Google Scholar
Pynt G (2015) Australian insurance law: a first reference, 3rd edn. LexisNexis Butterworths, para. 8.9
Google Scholar
Xi XM (2010) Understanding and application of the provisions in relation to insurance contracts of the insurance law of the People’s Republic of China. China Legal Publishing House, p 107
Google Scholar
Xi XM (2014) Understanding and application of the Supreme People’s Court second interpretation on certain questions concerning the application of the insurance law of the Peoples’ Republic of China. The People’s Court Press, China, pp 107, 171 and 276
Google Scholar
Xie X (2012) A hundred insurance cases. Law Press, p 143
Google Scholar

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Bangor University, Bangor, UK
Zhen Jing

Authors

Zhen Jing
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zhen Jing .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Department of Legal Studies, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milano, Italy
Pierpaolo Marano
School of Law, University of Exeter, Exeter, UK
Kyriaki Noussia

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Jing, Z. (2019). Transparency in the Insurance Contract Law of China. In: Marano, P., Noussia, K. (eds) Transparency in Insurance Contract Law. AIDA Europe Research Series on Insurance Law and Regulation, vol 2. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31198-8_13

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-31198-8_13
Published: 12 March 2020
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-31197-1
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-31198-8
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics