All
| TITLE | [Damages (Other Categories)]Supreme Court Decision 2005Da28808 Delivered on October 7, 2005 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| [1] Whether a certain clause, which determines the contents and scope of the peril insured against and is included in general conditions of insurance, shall be deemed as important contents of insurance contracts which are subject to the duty to clarify and explain, in case where the failure to perform the duty to clarify and explain them did not affect the decision of whether to enter into an insurance contract (negative) [2] The case holding that, in liability insurance contracts for multi-modal transport, which are generally entered into by multi-modal freight forwarders, limitations to the liability, or concrete contents of the perils insured by a special covenant covering separate perils insured against cannot be regarded as constituting an object of the obligation to specify and explain, i.e., important contents of the general conditions of contract, considering that the insurance purchaser would not have been willing to pay expensive premiums to enter into the above special agreement, even if the insurance salesperson had specified and explained it concretely and in detail | |
