The Term Insuring Agreement Is Usually Applied To Statements That Introduce A Policy`s

For the vast majority of insurance policies, the only part strongly adapted to the needs of the insured is the declarative side. All other pages are standard forms that refer, where appropriate, to terms defined in the declarations. However, some types of insurance, such as. B media insurance, are written in the form of handwritten fonts that are either redone from bases or written from a mixture of standard and non-standard forms. [37] [38] As a result, policies that are not written on standard forms or whose language is adapted to the particular circumstances of the insured are called handwritten notes. Insurance contracts were traditionally concluded on the basis of each type of risk (risks were defined extremely narrowly) and a separate premium was calculated and calculated for each of them. Only the individual risks expressly described in the policy or “foreseen” were covered; This is why these guidelines are now described as “individual” or “calendar” guidelines. [13] This system of “designated hazards”[14] or “specific hazards”[15] did not proven to be sustainable in the context of the Second Industrial Revolution, as a typical large conglomerate could present dozens of types of risks against which it must insure itself. For example, in 1926, an insurance industry spokesman stated that a bakery had to take out a separate policy for each of the following risks: production companies, elevators, teamster, product liability, contractual liability (for a secondary track connecting the bakery to a nearby railway), operating liability (for a retail business), and owner protection liability (for negligence of contractors responsible for modify buildings). [13] This case shows once again the dangers of the current complex structure of insurance policies.

Unfortunately, the insurance industry has become addicted to the practice of setting up a condition or exception in the form of a language tower of Babel in policies. Together with other courts, we condemn a trend that, at the same time, plunges the insured into a state of insecurity and imposes on the justice system the task of resolving it. We reaffirm our plea for clarity and simplicity in policies that fill such an important public service. . . .