European regulation of the insurance contract

Author:Andrei Dutu
Position:PhD, Senior Lecturer, Ecological University of Bucharest
Pages:60-70
SUMMARY

As part of the joint effort of unifying European Private Law, separate initiatives have been taken concerning individual fields of research and regulations; it is also the case of contract law, more specifically, the insurance contract, subject to an independent initiative of creating a special European regime for all insurance. Conceived as both a tool to determine the orientation of the national legal regime of insurance law of the Member States, and a possible common EU regulation, the “Innsbruck” Group’s creation stands firstly as a unique insight on a possible mean of unifying European regulations in a given field, particularized by specific dynamics. Even though it is still considered as a part of the “soft law” that has recently emerged in the European Union, the relevance of an EU common insurance contract law is still subject to analysis by the most advised specialist in this field; but the conclusions of such research are yet to offer a definite answer on the matter at hand, given that solid argument are to be found both for and against the entry into force of such a regime.

 
CONTENT
60 ANDREI DUŢU
EUROPEAN UNION LAW
EUROPEAN REGULATION
OF THE INSURANCE CONTRACT
Andrei DUU*
PhD, Senior Lecturer
Ecological University of Bucharest**
Abstract:
As part of the joint effort of unifying European Private Law, separate initiatives have been taken
concerning individual fields of research and regulations; it is also the case of contract law, more
specifically, the insurance contract, subject to an independent initiative of creating a special
European regime for all insurance. Conceived as both a tool to determine the orientation of the
national legal regime of insurance law of the Member States, and a possible common EU regulation,
the “Innsbruck” Group’s creation stands firstly as a unique insight on a possible mean of unifying
European regulations in a given field, particularized by specific dynamics.
Even though it is still considered as a part of the “soft law” that has recently emerged in the
European Union, the relevance of an EU common insurance contract law is still subject to analysis
by the most advised specialist in this field; but the conclusions of such research are yet to offer a
definite answer on the matter at hand, given that solid argument are to be found both for and against
the entry into force of such a regime.
Keywords: insurance contract, contract law, EU law, general insurance, insurance policy.
The project for an European framework of the insurance contract, drafted by a
group of researchers from several Member States of the European Union,
informally known as “the Innsbruck group”, has triggered numerous discussions,
despite its very recent character; and that because of its target – no less than to
draft a single legal regime, common for all EU Member States – and the attention it
* Email: contact@andreidutu.net.
** This paper has been financially supported within the project entitled “Horizon 2020 - Doctoral
and Postdoctoral Studies: Promoting the National Interest through Excellence, Competitiveness and
Responsibility in the Field of Romanian Fundamental and Applied Scientific Research”, contract
number POSDRU/159/1.5/S/140106. This project is co-financed by European Social Fund through
Sectoral Operational Programme for Human Resources Development 2007-2013. Investing in people!
Law Review vol. I, issue 1, Januar
y
-June 2015, p. 60-70
European regulation of the insurance contract 61
gets from the European Commission. Thus, such project is part of the larger
domain of “the common frame of reference” in the field of private law, which
reunites the desiderata of this institution, especially in the field of contract law.
Although we are certain that this project is still in progress, being even revived
during the French presidency of the EU, the results are unknown. A constant law
or, very likely – given that the oppositions against such result are violent,
especially in France 1 a 29th (optional) legal regime; or, a minima, a simple
instrument, useful to improve the coherence of the existing Community acquis and
the future legal instruments in the field of contract law. A certain hesitation is
allowed among these three hypotheses, even if the insurance domain inclines
towards the second option, but hides behind the third one as behind a cover2.
It is true that such common frame of reference, especially in private law, has
certain innovating features that are hard to reject: it may cause the civil circuit at
European level to become more efficient, and may facilitate the development of the
single market. For these reasons, it is easily to understand that, at a certain
moment, this one will impose itself upon national regimes, and the practitioners in
this field will be able to enforce it directly, given that they are the persons who
draft the contracts, and not the consumers. However, it should be noticed that the
consumers’ protection is found at the center of the preoccupations of “the
Innsbruck group”, which wishes the project to be in their favor3. But, under such
circumstances, may the result rise to such ambition? And, more generally, may the
project gain a quality sufficient enough to avoid the situation when, under an
“Gresham’s economic law” transposed from the field of finances to the field of law,
the “bad” text, namely the 29th regime, eliminates the “good” texts, namely the
other 28, or at least some of them? Without waiting the actual achievement of the
project, it is worth asking ourselves such question. And this, taking into account
the content of the text itself, in its current form, without referring much to the
process of its drafting or to the current European context. Indeed, this one is also
important, either when talking about the interpretation of the project (which must
be with reference to the comparative context) or its numerous gaps, in relation to
which the text itself makes reference to “the European law principles”, drafted
several years ago by a research team managed by Professor Ole Lando4. But the
comparative context is unclear, and “the principles” thus imposed have not yet
transformed in a positive law. And any analytical endeavor is not limited to a
1 See, to this effect, Gerard Cornu, Un Code civil n’est pas un instrument communautaire, D 2002,
p. 351.
2 Luc Mayaux, Opportunité d’un droit européen des contrats d’a ssurance, in “Revue générale du droit
des assurances”, no. 2/2012, LGDJ, p. 311-323.
3 A. Muller, Vers un droit européen du contrat d’assurance?, in “Project Group Restatement of
European Insurance Contract Law”, European Review of Private Law, vol. 15, 2007, p. 23.
4 Ole Lando (sous dir.), Principes du droit européen du contrat, no. 2, Société de législation
comparée, Paris, 2003.
62 ANDREI DUŢU
construal aiming at clarifying any provision, but only to remarks about the text,
underlining the importance of studying it.
But the project remains salutary per se, especially in European context, where
most times more attention is paid to procedures and not the results themselves,
and where its gaps are justified depending on the vicissitudes of the
decision-making process. Afterwards, even the French Civil Code of 1804
represents a common creation, the result of a compromise, although its authors
were less numerous than the members of the Innsbruck group, and, moreover,
spoke the same language. After a simple reading, this proves to be an articulate
ensemble, as the same are, at their turn, the insurance legislations of the Member
States, given the multiple influences that concurred to their drafting. This may also
be the case of the common frame of reference in the field of the insurance contract.
But can this be a model, as the French legislation was for numerous States,
including Romania? Or is it, in fact, an anti-model? The answer must be nuanced,
taking into account that the obvious qualities of the project coexist beside its flaws,
equally visible.
I. Model of reference
As regards the qualities of the project, these may be approached from three
standpoints; thus, theoretically, this one relies on a solid doctrine; politically, it has
a liberal nature, and practically, it protects the insured in an intelligent manner.
1.1. Theoretical perspective
As a preliminary remark, it should be noticed that the project does not rely on
the doctrine to the extent it favors a pragmatic approach, especially as regards the
insured. Thus, the reproach of being a “project of professors” is unjustified.
However, some theoretical deviations betray it, especially at article 1:202 regarding
the definitions; those about “the insurance period” and “the liability period” are
too ambiguous to differentiate exactly the periods of time to which they refer to. In
addition, there are doubts about the pertinence of the plan, which opposes “the
indemnity insurance” (second part of the project) to “the insurance involving
capitalization” (third part), when it would have been more useful a juxtaposition
with “life insurance”. Or, better said, it should be taken into account that all life
insurances are insurances involving capitalization (as article 14:101 seems to show),
which is not valid as regards the existence of the liabilities to indemnify in case of
insurances for “accidents-diseases”. A solution would be to juxtapose these
liabilities with the indemnity insurances, but this should be provided expressly.
The essence is not found here though, but in the firmness of some
doctrinaire options. And this is not automatic, given the diversity of the concepts
existing in the field of insurances in all legal systems. Thus, the definition of the
insurance contract, a key matter of the frame of reference, is not what we have
European regulation of the insurance contract 63
expected. Pursuant to article 1:201, it is the contract under which “one party, the
insurer, promises another party, the policyholder, cover against a specified risk in
exchange for a premium”. The definition is perfectible, given that the person
protected under the contract cannot be only the one who contracts directly, but
also a third party, as in case of an insurance for credits. However, it is quite
satisfactory because it refers to the cover of a risk, unlike the classical definition
given, for instance, by French law that provided a simple consideration in case of
disaster. Thus, the insured is perceived as a buyer of a security, benefiting
immediately, and subsequently, from the contract advantages, after a disaster
which could occur or not. The opinion of Professor Hubert Groutel5, according to
which the insurance contract is not a random contract, is found therefore in this
project. To this respect, it is important also the fact that the term “risk” (alea) is not
to be found anywhere in the project, and the contract taking-over retroactively
previous provisions, is not void for the lack of rick, as its effects operate exclusively
in the future (art. 2:401).
Equally important is the fact that the interest of the insurance is another great
absence in the project. The French concept, which is limited to the indemnity
insurance and refuses to go from the interest to insure to the insurance of an
interest, is found established in such context. To this effect, the proof is that the
term “insured” (defined at art. 1:202 as “the person whose interest is protected
against loss under indemnity insurance”, which makes reference to the notion of
interest) is not mentioned in the section about life insurances, where it is replaced
by “person at risk”. So, the interest is not a general matter and is mentioned in only
one provision, that is at art. 8:104 regarding the multiple insurances. Such
approach may be deemed excessive, as it could be mentioned also in regard to the
under-insurance and the over-insurance, as well as in regard to the compensation
principle. But this reflects a concept very centered on pragmatism about the
insurance, according to which an insurer protects the persons or assets, and not the
interests. And this shall not be easily accepted, while other systems of law, such as
the German or especially the Belgian system, pay special attention to the interest.
Even Romanian Civil Code, for instance, expressly provides that “The insured
must hold an interest in the thing being insured”. From such perspective too, the
draft of the European contract is a work of compromise.
1.2. The “Liberal” nature
Being limited by its doctrinaire options, the project is also very liberal, due to
its options. Such nature is manifest in the provisions regarding the form and
evidence of the contract. Under such aspect, art. 2:301, through its wording, may be
deemed as a true manifesto. According to this provision, “an insurance contract
5 H. Groutel, Le contrat d’assurance, 2e éd., Dalloz, Paris, 1997, p. 5.
64 ANDREI DUŢU
shall not be required to be concluded or evidenced in writing nor subject to any
other requirements as to form”. As regards the evidence, the same text mentions
that “the contract may be proved by any means, including oral testimony”. Thus,
the contract is not only a consensual contract (as according to French law), not
requiring a certain form, but it is a contract that may be evidenced by any means.
And this avoids the legal arguments related to the absence of written deeds,
especially those signed, as it happens in France in relation to the authenticated
deeds.
The same liberal concept is found also with regard to the contract’s effects. The
contractual freedom is protected because, although article 1:103 of the project
keeps the possibility of certain imperative rules, it does not contain any for the
moment. All rules are therefore auxiliary, so one may depart from them. More
precisely, and in accordance with a text of great importance, the deviations are
possible to the detriment of the insurer in any situation, or to the detriment of the
insurer or of the insured in the presence of “great risks”, in the sense of the
Community law. Such differentiation is extremely pertinent. For “the great risks”,
namely, first of all, the large companies’ risks, it is not a question of an unbalance
among co-contractors. The insured company, holding a section specialized in
insurances or a risk management department, is equal to an insurer. From such point
of view, the project draws away from the French law of the insurance contract,
whose rules are imperative except for a shortlist of provisions, listed in a limitative
manner by the insurance code, and which does not affect significantly the
difference between great risks and mass risks.
1.3. Intelligent protection of the policyholder
The policyholder protection is, as mentioned above, at the center of the project,
and has inspired the works of the Innsbruck group since the beginning. In our
opinion, this may be deemed intelligent from two points of view.
1.3.1. First of all, the endeavor taken into account proves a lot of pragmatism. It
is especially a question of identifying the hypotheses under which the policyholder
may become victim of the insurer’s behavior or of the contractual penalties that are
excessively austere … a situation that is settled on a case-by-case basis. Thus, the
policyholder’s breach of its obligation to cooperate after the disaster occurs (which,
given its general nature, represents an innovation per se) is not penalized unless the
insurer has been prejudiced and, as a principle, only by reducing the insurance
amount (which is, pro rata to the prejudice caused). But this does not entail the loss
of the right to have an insurance unless the breach is serious (intention or at least
“potential willful misrepresentation”), thus replicating the conclusions of the
French doctrine.
European regulation of the insurance contract 65
As for the insurer, and also in case of a disaster, this one has to decide urgently
regarding the liability (as its silence for one month after receiving the documents
and information necessary to open a file will be supposed to be an acceptance). The
prescription (of three years) runs in its favor only when it is the first to take the
sand. And when it accepts the liability, the payment must be made immediately
(within one week since the acceptance, which is a very short time), under pain of
very serious penalties (interest of the European Central Bank increased by 7 points,
calculated as of the official notice, in addition to the compensatory damages). Also
after the disaster has occurred, and if a clause allows the cancellation, the insurer
can cease the contract only in a “reasonable” manner, which represents a way to
avoid abusive cancellations. The same concern for preventing abuses is found in
relation to the cancellation of the contract for failure to pay the premium. It should
be avoided the situation when the insurer delays the cancellation because this
would allow it to claim afterwards the equivalent amount of the premium
corresponding to a long period of time. For such purpose, the project provides that
the contract is deemed cancelled when a prosecution of claims has not been filed
within two months after the suspension of the liability. All these provisions,
among which some are intelligent, lead to a good direction. Behind an apparent
modesty, these ones hide an increased efficiency.
1.3.2. Secondly, the insured/policyholder’s protection is not justified to the
extent deserved. Its unlawful or abusive components must be repressed. As
regards the first ones, it was noticed that the voluntary breaches of the obligation
to cooperate after the disaster occurs were penalized by the suspension of the
liability. The same penalty is applied also to the voluntary non-execution of the
obligation to mitigate the damage or the obligations to prevent (also called
“precautionary”), which will be then at the insured’s charge. For such purpose, the
non-execution justifies both the cancelation of the contract by the insurer, and also
a clause to this effect.
As regards the abusive behaviors, we think of the hypotheses in which the
insured has abusive benefits under a protectionist regulation or case-law. Thus, as
it is the case with the French law, the restrictive regime of the exclusion clauses
(which must be formal, limited and drafted using very legible letters) authorizes
abuses, with the support of certain Courts. No such regime exists within the project
(a coherence-related aspect, as it is about imposing some very legible graphic
characters, in the absence of any formalism). However, the exclusions are not
called as such. In exchange, the project suggests the principle according to which
“all documents provided by the insurer shall be plain and intelligible” and adopts
a principle of interpretation in favor of the policyholder, of the insured or of the
beneficiary. Such protection, applicable to all clauses and not only to the exclusions
(avoiding thus the delicate issue of qualification), seems to be sufficient. In the
same train of thoughts, it should be mentioned the generalization for all insurances
66 ANDREI DUŢU
(not only the life insurances or the insurances traded remotely or at the domicile)
of a 14-days waiving term in favor of the policyholder. This provision is
protectionist towards the latter one, and this one, at his turn, cannot use it
abusively. In particular, if the moment when the term starts to run is determined to
be the day of the actual delivery of the contracting documents (general and special
conditions), this will not occur in case of missing information as this had to be
mentioned under the documentation, pursuant to art. 2:501. The policyholder
cannot claim such absence in order to exercise with delay the possibility to waive
it. According to the French law on life insurances, such abusive behavior has been
however confirmed by the Courts of law, fact that would no longer be possible
should this project would come into effect. Moreover, we believe that these rules
are of common sense, to this effect the project is a true role model. Unfortunately, it
does not lack of irregularities and that is why, in some respects, it may be deemed
an anti-model.
II. The European insurance contract, an “anti-model” for the member States
The deficiencies of the project were predictable given the work methods used
by the Innsbruck group and the anticipated target, namely to standardize the law
within European Union. This review intends to identify the causes for such
deficiencies.
2.1. Issues related to the work methods
As regards the work methods, it was decided to use English language and
especially to draft a single original version of the project, also in English, the
versions in other languages being only translations. This option was motivated by
budgetary reasons, totally unconvincing. When such project is taken into
consideration, it is mandatory to provide proper financial support, otherwise the
consequences would be extremely negative.
First of all, the project’s translations suffer, as any translation, from the
approximation defect. From such point of view, the French translation, for
instance, is a great disappointment, making us think it is rather a draft at an early
stage, than a final paper. Thus, a measure (imposed by precaution) cannot be
defined as a variety of clause, even if it has a contractual origin. To the same extent,
it is not fair to provide that “the policyholder is entitled to cancel the contract in
writing within fourteen days”, when, legally speaking, it refers to something
completely different (rescission, withdrawal, waiver) than annulment! But, it is not
possible to determine an exact translation of the wording “the policy holder shall be
entitled to avoid the contract”, used in the English version. Or what can we say about
the following wording: “subject to a clear clause in the policy providing for
reduction of the insurance money according to the degree of fault on his part, the
European regulation of the insurance contract 67
policyholder or insured, as the case may be, shall be entitled to indemnity in
respect of any loss caused by an act or omission on his part that was negligent”. It
is incomprehensible and, moreover, completely erroneous. The expression “subject
to” mean, in our opinion, “except for the case when” or „except for”. A better
wording would have been: “the insurer shall be entitled to receive compensation
for the damages caused by his negligence, except the case when it is a clause
expressly providing a reduction of the insured amount, pro rata to his fault”. It is
true that in this case, it is not question of the translation because the original
version is equally convoluted.
Secondly, such work method leads unavoidably, disguised by the language
preference, to an approach specific to the British system. A jurist with continental
training would not have accepted a structure like the one presented above, or
would not have used nine times, within the same project, the word “reasonable” or
“reasonably”. Our intention is not to impose the predominance of a certain legal
system, but it would have been useful to find a common denominator, to find
equivalences in every legal system intended to be standardized. This would have
been possible if several original versions were drafted, as it is the practice in
Switzerland or Canada. On the contrary, the translation method brings a double
complication both as regards the translation itself but also the difficulty to equal
the terms translated to those in the legal vocabulary of the beneficiary State, and
does not allow finding a common denominator.
Thirdly, this method results in a loss of accessibility of the legal text to the
detriment of those who need the most to be protected by this one, more precisely
the insured who cannot speak English and so who can understand the original
version, which is deemed the clearest. During a period when the emphasis is
precisely on having a more accessible law, what place could occupy a text that the
specialists themselves believe to be hard to understand? This deficiency risks to
aggravate the situation in which, also based on economy criteria, the insurance
policies will be purely and simply translated instead of being adapted to domestic
conditions. Moreover, it is not sure that their translation will be mandatory. Article
1:203 provides that “all documents provided by the insurer shall […] be in the
language in which the contract is negotiated”. But what happens with the
contracts, increasingly numerous, which are not negotiated? And especially the
contracts negotiated in bulk in English by a broker of an English insurer, then
distributed to all the other States? The contents of the above-mentioned article do
not require their translation. Therefore, we are far from the obligation to protect the
insured, which is at the center of this project.
2.2. Difficulties in standardization
As regards this objective, the risk is that the consent can be reached exclusively
around some precarious compromises, without having many legal grounds.
68 ANDREI DUŢU
Unfortunately, that’s what happens with this project. We shall present hereinafter
three examples to this effect, the last one being purely hypothetical.
1) In the field of declaring the risks that overall seems to be improperly treated
within the project, the choice was between the “closed questionnaire” system (in
which the insured is held to answer only the questions asked by the insurer) and
the “open questionnaire” system (in which the insured declare all known risk
circumstances). But, the authors of the project did not know to pick or, more
precisely, they chose a compromise solution, making the difference according to
the moment of the declaration. Once it was completed, it seems that they preferred
the closed questionnaire system, although the formula used at art. 2:101 is a little
bit more complicated. Instead of requiring the applicant to inform the insurer
about the circumstances subject to the questionnaire, it would have been simpler to
demand him to answers the questions asked directly by the insurer. In exchange,
in case of risk aggravation after the contract is concluded, art. 4:201 retains the
open questionnaire system (recognized, prior to 1990, by the French system too);
thus, in such context, the aggravating circumstances (of a certain serious nature)
must be declared as mentioned in the contract, and no reference should be made to
the questionnaire.
2) In the field of the obligation to inform, we absolutely agree that art. 2:202 in
the project compels the insurer, when concluding the contract, to observe an
obligation of prudence as regards the inadequacy of covering the insured’s needs.
This obligation, also set forth by French case law, is thus established through a text
that wants to be regulatory. But it’s intriguing that no such obligation is provided
in relation to the contract contents at art. 2:701, taking into account that the
insured’s needs may evolve. It may be an omission or a compromise solution
which would operate – once again – only by a splitting in time of such obligation.
3) In the field of direct action of the victim as regards the civil liability
insurance, the work on the project is not completed; it seems that the direction
tends to a compromise between the legal systems which do not recognize such
action and those which do. Thus, this one shall be recognized only for the
mandatory insurances. French jurists, who accept the direct action without any
problems since the beginning of 1970, for all civil liability insurances, either
mandatory or optional, believe that the wording is a real regression.
Finally, the result of the method selected and of the compromises accepted
indicates a serious legal uncertainty, both for the insurer and for the insured. Thus,
the insured does not know for sure which are the circumstances that must be
declared: those related to risk or those subject to a questionnaire? Reading art.
2:101, which does not refer anywhere to the risk, is not much clarifying. In
addition, also after reading this text, it results that the insured is compelled to
declare the circumstances he does not know, but which he had to know.
As for the insurer, he does not know for sure when to inform the policyholder
(when concluding the contract or during its performance), even when he is held by
European regulation of the insurance contract 69
an obligation of liability. The assimilation of the willful fault of the hypothesis (in
French law called “potential willful misrepresentation”) in which the insured acted
“in a recklessness manner and knowing a damage could result” risks to become an
infinite source of legal litigation. Only the Courts of law could decide, on a
case-by-case basis, what a “risk-taking” action means and to what probability
extent is the exclusion functioning. Equally, as regards the insurance involving
capitalization, the insurer does not know what exceptions may be imposed on the
insured. Art. 11-103 seems to assess, despite the regime of stipulating for another,
the sole personal exceptions that may be objected to him. In fact, it is provided that
“the breach of duty by one insured shall not adversely affect the rights of other
persons insured under the sane insurance contract”. But, according to the same
provision, “unless the risk is jointly insured”. We understand that the writers of
the text chose the principle “why to be simple, if it may be complicated?”. We
understand the difficulties inherent to any standardization paper. But, in a field as
the insurances, where the technique is the same everywhere and, sometimes even,
the law transcends, these are greater than in other fields. So, it would have been
possible to draft a simpler and more comprehensible project, and it is paradoxical
that a text imposing that the contractual documents be “plain and comprehensible”
is not this way itself!
In conclusion, we acknowledge the good intentions of the project’s authors –
which legislator does not have them? – to know what they want, without running
in making things ideological (their liberalism is not a generalized laissez faire) and,
a fact that does not result implicitly, to know combining skillfully the firmness of
the principles with the pragmatism of the solutions. They could be blamed for the
ambiguous nature and the compromise or incoherent solutions, which maybe are
the result of the decision-making process within the group. The consensus has its
limits, and the vote, which seems to be exercised supplementary, at random, may
be cast for contradictory standpoints, due to the fault of the people present or
absent! It is not recommended that in a reunion of scientists “the absent” be able to
make the law. The random option is also unfortunate, either in favor of the
Anglo-Saxon model (which was unavoidable), or in favor of the Euro-Continental
model (very superficial, given the assignment undertaken by the work group). In
its current form, this model cannot in any way be exported on the other side of the
Mediterranean Sea, in the States that have always been influenced by the French
law and which are, for good reasons, “suspicious” regarding the new potential
system. It is regrettable that, at the moment when Europe declares being
profoundly concerned by these ones, they risk to feel legally “orphan”.
III. Romanian Civil Code in the context of the European project for the
common regulation of the insurance contract
By comparing the findings of the European doctrine regarding the need for an
European regulation of the insurance contract under the form presented by the
70 ANDREI DUŢU
Romanian Civil Code entered into force on 1 October 2011 (articles 2199 – 2241),
we notice serious discrepancies between the European desiderata, on one hand,
and the actual manifestation of a contemporary regulation in this field valid in a
member State of the European Union6.
Romanian Civil Code, in this field, ignores completely the European common
model, and encourages a more traditionalist vision on the insurance contract,
which is true both to the French-German model, and to the national model,
established by the Commercial Code of 1887. Therefore, the new regulation cannot
be an example of the direct effect that the common reference frames on the private
law and/or the contract law have on the national legal systems; and that given the
fact that, both as regards the insurance contract, as well as other contracts
mentioned by the provisions of the new Civil Code (such as, for example, the
banking loan contract or the consumption contract), such establishment was not
required as an absolute necessity provided by the new regulation, as these were
already subject to some special regulatory deeds.
Indeed, we cannot disregard however the reunion of all these contracts specific
to some extremely specialized fields under the “umbrella” of the Civil Code, given
that one objective of the regulatory deed was to consolidate private law. But the
opportunity of such regulation is still to be proved by the practice and by the
case-law in this field.
References
[1] Gerard Cornu, Un Code civil n’est pas un instrument communautaire, D 2002, p. 351;
[2] Luc Mayaux, Opportunité d’un droit européen des contrats d’assurance, in „Revue
générale du droit des assurances”, no. 2/2012, LGDJ, p. 311-323;
[3] A. Muller, Vers un droit européen du contrat d’assurance?, in „Project Group
Restatement of European Insurance Contract Law”, European Review of Private Law, vol.
15, 2007, p. 23;
[4] Ole Lando (sous dir.), Principes du droit européen du contrat, no. 2, Société de
législation comparée, Paris, 2003;
[5] H. Groutel, Le contrat d’assurance, 2e éd., Dalloz, Paris, 1997, p. 5;
[6] Andrei Duu, Consideraii privind reglementarea contractului de asigurare în Codul civil
român, in magazine „Pandectele Române” no. 2/2015, p. 15-29.
6 See, to this effect, also Andrei Duu, Consideraii privind reglementarea contractului de asigurare în
Codul civil român, in magazine “Pandectele Române” no. 2/2015, p. 15-29.