임원배상책임보험의 청구기준에서 담보범위의 확장과 제한 - 서울중앙지법 2019.1.11. 선고 2017가합578912 판결 -

There are two main characteristics in Indonesia Safeguard Regulations. First, the WTO SThe 'circumstance' and 'notice of circumstances' under the D&O liability insurance policy that was the issue of the this jury are related to the 'claims-made basis' which are the criteria for insurance accidents. Adopting the 'claims-made basis' would, in principle, result in no insurance coverage unless claims were filed against the insured during the insurance period. In particular, an executive who is an insured will not be able to receive insurance protection if he or she is in a situation such as refusing to renew his or her insurance contract, even though he or she may file a claim after any wrongful act. The notice of such circumstance system was prepared in preparation for such cases. Namely, if during the Policy Period or Extended Reporting Period an Insured becomes aware of circumstances which could give rise to a Claim and gives written notice of such circumstances to the Company, then any Claims subsequently arising from such circumstances shall be considered to have been made during the Policy Period or the Extended Reporting Period in which the circumstances were first reported to the Company. On the other hand, under the 'claims-made basis', it is not only difficult for an insurer to determine whether an executive's wrongful act were performed long before the commencement of the insurance period, i.e., whether an insurer is liable for damages for old past history, but also has the potential to reverse the choice. In such cases, it was adopted to clarify their responsibilities by limiting the scope of the insurer's liability, such as 'Exclusion of before Commission date of Insurance' and 'retroactive date'. The first issue in the jury was whether the ‘circumstance’ existed within the insurance period of the first insurance contract. In light of the facts of this jury, it is thought reasonable for the court to judge that there was a 'circumstance in which the claim was reasonably expected to be filed'. The second issue was whether there was a proper ‘notice of such circumstance’ for the insurer of the first insurance contract. The court acknowledged its validity as to whether the notice of such circumstance was a valid expression of opinion. However, in the light of the facts, it is difficult to say that the notice contains information that the insurer reasonably requires to anticipate the insured's loss to be compensated. As a result, I do not think that the insurer is liable for insurance payments until the insured has given proper 'notice of such circumstance'.