PL EN
 
4/2023 vol. 53
Stats
CC BY-SA 3.0
Get citation
InsurTech and private international law considerations
Mariusz Załucki 1
 
 
 
More details
Hide details
1
Krakowska Akademia im. Andrzeja Frycza Modrzewskiego
 
 
Submission date: 2023-05-30
 
 
Acceptance date: 2023-11-20
 
 
Publication date: 2023-12-30
 
 
Corresponding author
Mariusz Załucki   

Krakowska Akademia im. Andrzeja Frycza Modrzewskiego
 
 
JoMS 2023;53(4):240-262
DOI: https://doi.org/10.13166/jms/175515
 
 
Article (PDF)
References (49)
 
KEYWORDS
InsurTech
AI
blockchain
smart contract
private international law
conflict-of-law
 
TOPICS
Law, legal science
 
ABSTRACT
Objectives:
InsurTech is a new and interesting phenomenon, linked to the use of new technologies, such as artificial intelligence or distributed ledger technology, in the insurance sector. The factual and legal nature of relationships in this area, due to their heterogeneous and complex international character, raises many questions. Some of these relate to private international law, where conflict situations raise questions such as which law (the law of which state) is the substantive law applicable to resolve these situations. Presenting the complexity of this area, this statement describes possible solutions and reflects on the need and potential of applying private international law in the InsurTech sector. It introduces the InsurTech phenomenon, presents its links with private international law, reflects on the adaptability of existing mechanisms of this law to highly technological legal relations, and concludes by an attempt to indicate how to combine InsurTech and private international law, and whether this is possible at all.

Material and methods:
The work was written using standard scientific methods for legal science. It is primarily a dogmatic work, but also reaches for comparative legal elements. This choice of methods is justified by the presented issues.

Results:
The result of the research is an assessment as to the possible use of private international law tools for the problems that arise with InsurTech instruments.

Conclusions:
The author points out that the currently known private international law instruments are not suited to the modern requirements of the insurance services sector, especially in the context of the use of artificial intelligence or DLT technology (blockchain, smart contract) in the sector.

 
REFERENCES (49)
1.
Aletras, N., Tsarapatsanis, D., Preotiuc-Pietro, D., & Lampos, V. (2016). Predicting judicial decisions of the European Court of Human Rights: a natural language processing perspective. PeerJ Computer Science, 19(2), 93.
Google Scholar
 
 
2.
Allam-Firley, D. (2021). Spécificités de l’innovation dans les services d’assurance. Paris: Université Sorbonne Paris Nord.
Google Scholar
 
 
3.
Aouidef, Y., Ast, F., & Deffains, B. (2021). Decentralized Justice: A Comparative Analysis of Blockchain Online Dispute Resolution Projects. Frontiers in Blockchain, 4(3), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fbloc.....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
4.
Audit, M. (2021). Le droit international privé confronté à la blockchain. Revue critique de droit international privé, (4), 669–694.
Google Scholar
 
 
5.
Basedow, J., Rühl, G., Ferrari, F., & de Miguel Asensio, P. (Eds.). (2017). Encyclopedia of Private International Law. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Google Scholar
 
 
6.
Batiffol, H. (1966). The Objectives of Private International Law. The American Journal of Comparative Law, 15(1/2), 159–163. https://doi.org/10.2307/838865.
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
7.
Beenken, M., & Noack, S. (2016). Insurtechs: Viel Schein, aber auch Sein? Zeitschrift Für Versicherungswesen, (4), 114–117.
Google Scholar
 
 
8.
Blondeau, A. (2021). L’émergence de la blockchain dans les relations contractuelles : Vers une nouvelle forme de confiance algorithmique? Lyon: HAL open science.
Google Scholar
 
 
9.
Bonomi, A., & Wautelet, P. (2016). Le droit européen des successions. Commentaire du Règlement n°650/2012 du 4 juillet 2012 (2nd ed.). Bruxelles: Bruylant.
Google Scholar
 
 
10.
Bruce, D., Avis, C., Byrne, M., Gosrani, V., Lim, Z., Manning, J., … Qin, W. (2018). Improving the success of InsurTech opportunities. British Actuarial Journal, 23, 1–34.
Google Scholar
 
 
11.
Burman, H. (2009). Private International Law. The International Lawyer, 43(2), 741–757.
Google Scholar
 
 
12.
Campo Comba, M. (2021). The Law Applicable to Cross-border Contracts involving Weaker Parties in EU Private International Law. Cham: Springer.
Google Scholar
 
 
13.
Chan, L., Hogaboam, L., & Cao, R. (2019). Artificial Intelligence in Insurance. Journal of The Gujarat Research Society, 21(7), 79–91.
Google Scholar
 
 
14.
Depreeuw, S., & Hubin, J.-B. (2014). Of availability, targeting and accessibility: online copyright infringements and jurisdiction in the EU. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, 9(9), 750–764.
Google Scholar
 
 
15.
Ebers, M., & Navas, S. (Eds.). (2020). Algorithms and Law. Algorithms and Law. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Google Scholar
 
 
16.
Finck, M. (2019). Grundlagen und Technologie von Smart Contracts. In M. Fries & B. P. Paal (Eds.), Smart Contracts. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck.
Google Scholar
 
 
17.
Frick, J., & Barsan, I. M. (2020). InsurTech – Opportunities and Legal Challenges for the Insurance Industry. Revue Trimestrielle de Droit Financier, (2), 56–88.
Google Scholar
 
 
18.
Guillaume, F. (2019). Aspects of private international law related to blockchain transactions. In D. Kraus, T. Obrist, & O. Hari (Eds.), Blockchains, Smart Contracts, Decentralised Autonomous Organisations and the Law (pp. 49–82). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
Google Scholar
 
 
19.
Hassan, S., & De Filippi, P. (2017). The Expansion of Algorithmic Governance: From Code is Law to Law is Code. Field Actions Science Reports, (Special Issue 17), 88–90.
Google Scholar
 
 
20.
Idelberger, F. (2018). Connected Contracts Reloaded – Smart Contracts as Contractual Networks. In S. Grundmann (Ed.), European Contract Law in the Digital Age (pp. 205–236). Cambridge: Intersentia.
Google Scholar
 
 
21.
Kammann, L. (2018). Digitalisierung im Versicherungsvertrieb. Karsruhe: VVW.
Google Scholar
 
 
22.
Knieper, R. (2019). Von der Vertragsfreiheit zum smart contract. Kritische Justiz, 52(2), 193–202.
Google Scholar
 
 
23.
Kosters, J. (1920). Public Policy in Private International Law. Yale Law Journal, 29(7), 745–766.
Google Scholar
 
 
24.
Koulu, R., & Kontiainen, L. (Eds.). (2019). How Will AI Shape the Future of Law? Helsinki: University of Helsinki Legal Tech Lab publications.
Google Scholar
 
 
25.
Krebs, K. (2019). Internationales Privatrecht. Heidelberg: C. F. Müller.
Google Scholar
 
 
26.
Landini, S., & Noussia, K. (2023). Insurance Develompents in the Light of the Occurrence of the COVID-19 Pandemic. In M. L. Munoz Paredes & A. Tarasiuk (Eds.), Covid-19 and Insurance (pp. 1–16). Springer.
Google Scholar
 
 
27.
Lando, O. (1984). The Conflict of Laws of Contracts. General Principles. Recueil Des Cours, 189.
Google Scholar
 
 
28.
Lessig, L. (1999). Code and other laws od cyberspace. English Journal (Vol. 346). New York: Basic Books.
Google Scholar
 
 
29.
Lutzi, T. (2017). Internet Cases in EU Private International Law-Developing a Coherent Approach. International & Comparative Law Quarterly, 66(3), 687–721.
Google Scholar
 
 
30.
Malinowska, K. (2016). Private International Law and On-Line Insurance Contracts. In P. Marano, I. Rokas, & P. Kochenburger (Eds.), The ‘Dematerialized’ Insurance. Distance Selling and Cyber Risks from an International Perspective. Cham: Springer.
Google Scholar
 
 
31.
Manes, P. (2021). Insurance and the legal challenges of automated decisions. An EU perspective. In I. H.-Y. Chiu & G. Deipenbrock (Eds.), Routledhe Handbook of Financial Technology and Law. London-New York: Routledge.
Google Scholar
 
 
32.
Marano, P. (2019). Navigating Insurtech: The digital intermediaries of insurance products and customer protection in the EU. Maastricht Journal of European and Comparative Law, 26(2), 294–315.
Google Scholar
 
 
33.
Marano, P., & Noussia, K. (Eds.). (2020). InsurTech: A Legal and Regulatory View. Cham: Springer.
Google Scholar
 
 
34.
Mckamey, M. (2017). Legal Technology: Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Law Practice. Appeal: Review of Current Law and Law Reform, 22(22), 45–58.
Google Scholar
 
 
35.
Medvedeva, M., Vols, M., & Wieling, M. (2020). Using machine learning to predict decisions of the European Court of Human Rights. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 28(2), 237–266.
Google Scholar
 
 
36.
Metzger, J. (2018). Decentralized Justice in the Era of Blockchain. International Journal of Online Dispute Resolution, 5(1–2), 69.
Google Scholar
 
 
37.
Morin, G., Nohlen, Y., & Steinmetz, M. (2022). InsurTechs – (R-)Evolution der Wertschöpfungskette. In M. Lister, B. Rolfes, & H. Wessling (Eds.), Neue Geschäftsmodelle für Finanzinstitute – Datenanalyse, Digitale Technologien und Wertewandel als Impulsgeber (pp. 49–67). Wiesbaden: Springer.
Google Scholar
 
 
38.
Neale, F. R., Drake, P. P., & Konstantopoulos, T. (2020). InsurTech and the Disruption of the Insurance Industry. Journal of Insurance Issues, 43(2), 64–96.
Google Scholar
 
 
39.
Ostertag, J., Morvan, C., Metzger, M., & Levy, S. (2022). Global InsurTech Industry Report 2022. Cologne: Drake Star.
Google Scholar
 
 
40.
Pouget, J. (2019). La réparation du dommage impliquant une intelligence artificielle. Marseille: Université d’Aix-Marseille.
Google Scholar
 
 
41.
Reyes, C. L. (2018). Cryptolaw for Distributed Ledger Technologies: A Jurisprudential Framework. Jurimetrics, 58(3), 283–302.
Google Scholar
 
 
42.
Ruhl, G. (2014). The Protection of Weaker Parties in the Private International Law of the European Union: A Portrait of Inconsistency and Conceptual Truancy. Journal of Private International Law, 10(3), 335–358.
Google Scholar
 
 
43.
Russel, S. J., & Norvig, P. (2011). Artificial Intelligence. A Modern Approach. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Google Scholar
 
 
44.
Savelyev, A. (2017). Contract law 2.0: ‘Smart’ contracts as the beginning of the end of classic contract law. Information and Communications Technology Law, 26(2), 116–134.
Google Scholar
 
 
45.
Sibony, A. L. (2020). Did you say ‘theories of choice’?: On the limited and variable appetite for theories in consumer law. Cashiers Du CeDIE, (1), 115–135.
Google Scholar
 
 
46.
Szostek, D. (2019). Blockchain and the Law. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
Google Scholar
 
 
47.
Szpyt, K. (Ed.). (2022). Insurtech. Nowe technologie w branży ubezpieczeń. Warszawa: C. H. Beck.
Google Scholar
 
 
48.
Tatar, U., Gokce, Y., & Nussbaum, B. (2020). Law versus technology: Blockchain, GDPR, and tough tradeoffs. Computer Law and Security Review, 38, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clsr....
CrossRef
 
Google Scholar
 
 
49.
Yeung, K. (2019). Regulation by blockchain: The emerging battle for supremacy between the code of law and code as law. Modern Law Review, 82(2), 207–239.
Google Scholar
 
 
Share
Send by email
RELATED ARTICLE
The use of fuzzy logic in the decision-making process regarding the use of outsourcing in companies
Indexes
 
Keywords index
Topics index
Authors index
eISSN:2391-789X
ISSN:1734-2031
Journals System - logo
© 2006-2024 Journal hosting platform by Bentus
Scroll to top