보험계약자의 ʻ약관 읽을 의무ʼ에 관한 연구 - 미국에서의 Duty to Read 원칙에 대한 논의를 중심으로 -

According to the Financial Supervisory Serviceʼs statistics on complaints, there are many insurance disputes, especially those related to the duty of explanation. In insurance transactions, the policyholder claims that the insurer violated the duty of explanation, despite the fact that the policyholder signs or seals that he or she has been fully informed of the contents of the policy, leading to legal disputes. Considering that signatures or seals are prerequisites for the validity or effectiveness of certain acts, it is argued that those who acknowledge their own signatures or seals should be held accountable. Unlike Korea, which imposes a duty of explanation on insurers in the Terms and Conditions Regulation Act, Insurance Act, and Insurance Business Act, the United States tries to deter insurance disputes through the policyholderʼs obligation to read the policy rather than the insurerʼs duty of explanation. In contrast to South Korea, where insurers are required to fulfill a duty to explain under laws such as the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions, the Insurance Law, and the Insurance Business Act, the United States attempts to reduce insurance disputes by imposing a ʻʻduty to readʼʼ on policyholders rather than focusing on the insurerʼs duty to explain. While the duty to read is not stipulated by law or included in the terms, U.S. case law often renders unfavorable judgments against contracting parties who do not read the terms. It is presumed that policyholders fully understand the contract even if they do not read the terms after receiving them, and thus they cannot deny the contractʼs validity. Courts describe this as a conclusive presumption. As a self-imposed duty, policyholders are legally responsible for complying with the conditions and provisions stated in the contract and cannot invalidate or modify the contract on the grounds of not understanding it. Although a violation of this duty does not result in a liability for damages, the policyholder must bear the risks associated with such a violation. There has been intense debate in the United States regarding the duty to read. Proponents argue that it serves as a measure to reduce disputes over the interpretation of insurance policy and affirm that a policyholderʼs signature binds them to the contract. They argue that the duty to read ensures equal treatment of parties, enhances transaction speed, contractual stability, and predictability, and provides an opportunity to identify and rectify fraudulent acts by the insurer. On the other hand, skeptics argue that it is excessively harsh to treat the policyholder as having fully understood the terms simply because they signed, especially given the significant information asymmetry in adhesion contracts between insurers and policyholders. They also point out that conclusive presumption can conceal the insurerʼs wrongdoing. Despite the general acknowledgment by courts of the fact that consumers typically do not read contract terms, the duty to read has been upheld. However, recent efforts have been made to relax this duty to protect policyholders, recognizing that they should not be bound by unfair terms even if the duty to read exists. The duty to read the policy, which is widely recognized by state courts, is often modified by the doctrine of reasonable expectations. The doctrine of reasonable expectations means that if a policyholder has a reasonable expectation, the insurer cannot deny it due to the words in the policy. Courts in many U.S. states apply this doctrine to ensure fairness and equity in insurance contracts, recognizing that policyholders often do not read lengthy and complex insurance policies or fully understand them even if they do. This principle protects policyholders from specific provisions in the contract they did not negotiate, did not read, and probably would not have understood if they had read them. The doctrine applies alongside unconscionability, even if the policyholder has specific knowledge of the limiting provisions. In summary, In the United States, the legal environment seems to be very different from Korea, where information sharing is centered on the insurerʼs duty to explain. This article aims primarily to provide a basic understanding of the ʻʻduty to readʼʼ in the United States. It does not address the issue of adopting the ʻʻduty to readʼʼ in South Korea. Given the various legal regulations and the duty to explain in Korea, directly importing the U.S. model of the ʻʻduty to readʼʼ may be challenging. However, further research is needed on measures to ensure that policyholders can reasonably take responsibility for contracts they have signed or sealed.