Advanced

Tolkning av försäkringsvillkor

Thingwall, Sofie LU (2012) JURM01 20112
Department of Law
Abstract (Swedish)
Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka hur försäkringsvillkor ska tolkas när tvist om detta uppstår mellan försäkringstagaren och försäkringsbolaget. Det finns inget klart svar på denna fråga men en rad tolkningsmetoder har utvecklats genom praxis. Till skillnad från vid vanlig avtalstolkning har den subjektiva tolkningsmetoden inte någon framträdande betydelse vid tolkning av försäkringsvillkor. Detta eftersom försäkringsavtal så gott som alltid är standardavtal och det därför är i stort sett omöjligt att finna någon gemensam partsvilja. Vid tolkning av försäkringsvillkor får man därför istället använda sig av den objektiva tolkningsmetoden där man utgår från avtalets lydelse i objektiv mening. I NJA 2001 s. 750 gav HD ett direkt... (More)
Syftet med denna uppsats är att undersöka hur försäkringsvillkor ska tolkas när tvist om detta uppstår mellan försäkringstagaren och försäkringsbolaget. Det finns inget klart svar på denna fråga men en rad tolkningsmetoder har utvecklats genom praxis. Till skillnad från vid vanlig avtalstolkning har den subjektiva tolkningsmetoden inte någon framträdande betydelse vid tolkning av försäkringsvillkor. Detta eftersom försäkringsavtal så gott som alltid är standardavtal och det därför är i stort sett omöjligt att finna någon gemensam partsvilja. Vid tolkning av försäkringsvillkor får man därför istället använda sig av den objektiva tolkningsmetoden där man utgår från avtalets lydelse i objektiv mening. I NJA 2001 s. 750 gav HD ett direkt uttalande om hur försäkringsvillkor ska tolkas. HD förespråkade i fallet att en allsidig tolkningsmetod ska tillämpas och att många olika faktorer kan vägas in i bedömningen. Som exempel på faktorer som kan vägas in nämndes, utöver ordalydelsen, klausulens syfte, försäkringens och kundkretsens art, traditioner i fråga om formulering, anslutning till lagens uttryckssätt och gängse praxis. HD uttalade även att om något resultat inte kan uppnås vid en sådan prövning kan man falla tillbaka på andra, mera generella tolkningsprinciper, såsom den s.k. oklarhetsregeln. Oklarhetsregeln innebär att man vid tvekan om innebörden av ett villkor i ett skriftligt avtal tolkar villkoret till nackdel för den part som avfattat villkoret eller tillhandahållit avtalet (in dubio contra stipulatorem). Oklarhetsregeln är lagfäst såvitt gäller konsumentförsäkring och individuell personförsäkring. Vid företagsförsäkring gäller inte den lagfästa oklarhetsregeln. Den har dock använts i rättspraxis vid ett fåtal tillfällen. (Less)
Abstract
The aim of this paper is to examine how insurance provisions are to be interpreted in the event of a dispute over them arising between the insured and the insurer. There is no clear answer to this question but a number of methods for interpretation have been developed in case-law. As opposed to the traditional interpretation of contracts, the subjective method of interpretation has no important role when interpreting insurance provisions. This is due to the fact that insurance contracts almost invariably are standard agreements and it is therefore in general impossible to ascertain the mutual intent of the parties. When interpreting insurance provisions the objective method of interpretation will therefore have to be applied instead, with... (More)
The aim of this paper is to examine how insurance provisions are to be interpreted in the event of a dispute over them arising between the insured and the insurer. There is no clear answer to this question but a number of methods for interpretation have been developed in case-law. As opposed to the traditional interpretation of contracts, the subjective method of interpretation has no important role when interpreting insurance provisions. This is due to the fact that insurance contracts almost invariably are standard agreements and it is therefore in general impossible to ascertain the mutual intent of the parties. When interpreting insurance provisions the objective method of interpretation will therefore have to be applied instead, with the objective wording of the contract as the starting-point. In NJA 2001 s. 750 the Supreme Court made a clear statement on the interpretation of insurance provisions. The Supreme Court ruled in this case that a versatile method of interpretation is to be applied and that many different factors may be taken into consideration in the assessment. As examples of what factors that may be considered were mentioned, apart from the wording, the aim of the provision, the type of the insurance and the insured, usage as to wording, connection with the expressions in the law and common practice. The Supreme Court also ruled that in the event of no result being arrived at in this assessment, other more general methods of interpretation may be applied, such as the so called ambiguity doctrine or contra proferentem rule. Under the rule of contra proferentem ambiguities in a provision in a written contract are to be construed against the drafter or the person who has provided it. The contra proferentem rule has been legislated as regards consumer insurance and individual personal insurance. As regards commercial insurance the enacted contra proferentem rule does not apply. It has, however, been applied in case-law on a limited number of occasions. (Less)
Please use this url to cite or link to this publication:
author
Thingwall, Sofie LU
supervisor
organization
alternative title
Interpretation of policy conditions
course
JURM01 20112
year
type
H3 - Professional qualifications (4 Years - )
subject
keywords
Försäkringsrätt, avtalsrätt
language
Swedish
id
3217739
date added to LUP
2012-12-06 09:03:57
date last changed
2012-12-06 09:03:57
@misc{3217739,
  abstract     = {The aim of this paper is to examine how insurance provisions are to be interpreted in the event of a dispute over them arising between the insured and the insurer. There is no clear answer to this question but a number of methods for interpretation have been developed in case-law. As opposed to the traditional interpretation of contracts, the subjective method of interpretation has no important role when interpreting insurance provisions. This is due to the fact that insurance contracts almost invariably are standard agreements and it is therefore in general impossible to ascertain the mutual intent of the parties. When interpreting insurance provisions the objective method of interpretation will therefore have to be applied instead, with the objective wording of the contract as the starting-point. In NJA 2001 s. 750 the Supreme Court made a clear statement on the interpretation of insurance provisions. The Supreme Court ruled in this case that a versatile method of interpretation is to be applied and that many different factors may be taken into consideration in the assessment. As examples of what factors that may be considered were mentioned, apart from the wording, the aim of the provision, the type of the insurance and the insured, usage as to wording, connection with the expressions in the law and common practice. The Supreme Court also ruled that in the event of no result being arrived at in this assessment, other more general methods of interpretation may be applied, such as the so called ambiguity doctrine or contra proferentem rule. Under the rule of contra proferentem ambiguities in a provision in a written contract are to be construed against the drafter or the person who has provided it. The contra proferentem rule has been legislated as regards consumer insurance and individual personal insurance. As regards commercial insurance the enacted contra proferentem rule does not apply. It has, however, been applied in case-law on a limited number of occasions.},
  author       = {Thingwall, Sofie},
  keyword      = {Försäkringsrätt,avtalsrätt},
  language     = {swe},
  note         = {Student Paper},
  title        = {Tolkning av försäkringsvillkor},
  year         = {2012},
}