Insurance Adhesion Agreements: Boon or Bane
Keywords:
Adhesion agreements, case analysis, common law lawyers, insuredAbstract
The development of the free enterprise system in the sixteenth century demanded highly elastic legal institutions for safeguarding its market. The common law lawyers transformed mass contracts into standardized adhesion contracts. The insurance industry readily welcomed the adhesion contracts to escape from the hazards of juridical risks. The corporatization coupled with mass production and distribution elevated the stereotyped adhesion agreements weakening the bargaining power of the insured. The lengthy insurance contracts with ambiguous clauses leave no option for the insured other than to sign them or leave them. The lacunae of proper legislation regulating adhesion agreements and the lack of awareness among common men strengthened the dominance of the insurance industry. Rights and remedies can be acquired by the insured through the court of law, citing the doctrines of reasonable expectation, unconscionability, and public policy. In this article, the researchers conduct a study on the past, present, and future position of the insurance adhesion agreements through case analysis of the various judgments by the Honourable Supreme Court related to the insurance adhesion agreements. The main objective of this article is to study whether insurance adhesion agreements serve as a boon or bane in this present digital society.
References
Kessler F. Contracts of adhesion—Some thoughts about freedom of contract. Columbia Law Review. 1943; 43(5): 629–642.
Harris DP. Carrying a good joke too far: TRIPS and Treaties of Adhesion. U. Pa. J. Int’l Econ. L. 2006; 27: 681.
Supra 1n.
Ramaseshan V. Adhesion contracts and the Indian law of contract. Journal of the Indian Law Institute. 1975; 17(2): 237–256. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/43950482.
Vance WR. Handbook of the Law of Insurance. Vol. 28. St. Paul, Minnesota: West Publishing Company; 1904.
Ibid.
Patterson EW. The delivery of a life-insurance policy. Harvard Law Review. 1919; 33(2): 198–222.
Abraham KS. Four conceptions of insurance. University of Pennsylvania Law Review. 2013; 161(3): 653–698. Available at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23527819 at p. 657.
Abraham KS. (2013) at p. 657.
Iron Mountain Security Storage v. American Specialty Foods, Inc., 457 F. Supp. 1158, 1167 (E.D.Pa. 1978) Diamond TA. (1980) at p. 430.
Barnes Richard L. Rediscovering subjectivity in contracts: Adhesion and unconscionability. La. L. Rev. 2005; 66: 123 at p. 134.
Karl Llewellyn. The common law tradition: Deciding appeals. New Orleans, Louisiana: Quid Pro Books; 2016. 370–371 (196).
Miller DS. Insurance as Contract: The argument for abandoning the ambiguity doctrine. Columbia Law Review. 1988; 88(8): 1849–1872. Available at: https://doi.org/10.2307/1122606.
Miller David S. (1988) at p. 1851.
Miller, David. S. (1988) at p. 1849.
Jerry Robert H. Insurance, contract, and the doctrine of reasonable expectations. Conn. Ins. LJ. 1998; 5: 21 at p. 22.
[2022] Insc 1169 (9 November 2022).
Sanjiv Agarwal. What is rule of reading down, January 30, 2015, what is rule of reading down (Taxmanagementindia.Com).
1991 SC1769 (12) 1987] INSC 92; AIR 1987 SC 1184; 1987 (2) SCR 752; 1987 (2) SCC 654; 1987 (2) JT 43; 1987 (1) SCALE 648 (1 April 1987) SCC pp. 665-66, para 14).
1996 AIR 2054 1996 SCC (4) 647 JT 1996 (6) 32, [1996] INSC 749; AIR 1996 SC 2054; 1996 (4) SCC 647; 1996 (6) JT 32 (20 May 1996).
[2019] INSC 465 (12 April 2019); CIVIL APPEAL NO(S). 3912 OF 2019 (@SLP(C) No. 25468/2016)
Kanje AA. The Principle of Uberrimae Fidei in Insurance Contracts: Analysis of health insurance contracts and their legal implications on persons living with HIV/AIDS in Tanzania [Doctoral Dissertation], Mzumbe University). 2015.
(1996) 6 SCC 428.
(2022) 4 SCC 582.
Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (Protection of Policy Holder’s Interests, Regulation 2002).
Wagner v. Benson, 101 Cal. App. 3d 27, 161 Cal. Rptr. 516 (1980): Diamond, T. A. (1980). The Tort of Bad Faith Breach of Contract: When, If At All, Should It Be Extended Beyond Insurance Transactions. Marq. L. Rev., 64, 425.p. 430.
Iron Mountain Security Storage v. American Specialty Foods, Inc., 457 F. Supp. 1158, 1166-69 (E.D. Pa. 1978); Farris v. Fidelity & Guar. Co., 284 Or. 460, 463, 587 P.2d 1015, 1018 (1978): Diamond, T. A. (1980). The Tort of Bad Faith Breach of Contract: When, If At All, Should It Be Extended Beyond Insurance Transactions. Marq. L. Rev., 64, 425.p.430.
Ben-Shahar Omri. The myth of the ‘opportunity to read’ in contract law. (2009): 1–28 at p. 2,
Omri Ben-Shahar, The Myth of the ‘Opportunity to Read’ in Contract Law" (John M. Olin Program in Law and Economics Working Paper No. 415, 2008). The Coase-Sandor Institute for Law and Economics at Chicago Unbound. The Law School, The University of Chicago. July 2008.
Samuel Williston. A treatise on the law of contracts § 1577 (Rev. Ed. 1957).
Barnes RL. Rediscovering subjectivity in contracts: Adhesion and unconscionability. La. L. Rev., 2005; 66: 123 at p. 140.
