The Geneva papers on risk and insurance. Issues and practice最新文献

This article looks at COVID-19-related issues in the context of commercial and industrial insurance cover taken out against the risk of infectious disease. The focus is on government action taken and regulation passed in the U.K. and in Germany, respectively, to redress the pandemic. The insurance market offers business interruption (BI) cover (in the U.K. and internationally) as well as business closure (BC) cover (mainly in Germany) to protect against the impact of infectious diseases on commercial enterprises. The insurance law issues that came to be analysed in relation to the COVID-19 pandemic formed the subject matter of widespread litigation in both countries. Judgements were rendered in the Supreme Court in the U.K. (the FCA test case) and in the German Federal Supreme Court and now provide some authoritative legal guidance. However, the outcome of these court battles was totally different, insofar as policyholders were concerned. This article, next to offering some historical legal analysis of BI and BC insurance cover, attempts to explain why policyholders won in court in the U.K. and lost the legal argument in Germany and seeks to reconcile these diverse outcomes. The article ends with a brief outlook on how the pertinent COVID-19 insurance law issues might come to be revisited, both by the markets and in the legal community, in the context of reinsurance coverage.

The aim of this paper is to show how qualified investors in cat bonds can offer adequate pandemic business interruption protection in a comprehensive public-private coverage scheme. First, we propose a numerical model to expose how cat bonds can contribute to complement standard re/insurance by improving coverage of cedents even though risks are positively correlated during a pandemic. Second, we introduce double trigger pandemic business interruption cat bonds, which we name PBI bonds, and discuss their precise characteristics to provide efficient coverage. A first trigger should be pulled when the World Health Organization declares a Public Health Emergency of International Concern (PHEIC). The second trigger determines the payout of the bond based on the modelised business interruption losses of an industry in a country. We discuss moral hazard, basis risk, correlation and liquidity issues which are critical in the context of a pandemic. Third, we simulate the life of theoretical PBI bonds in the restaurant industry in France by using data gathered during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Physicians can prescribe medicines for different indications than the tested and authorised ones. Such 'off-label' uses expand therapeutic options but also create uncertainties. The COVID-19 pandemic triggered new off-label uses and, despite issues being reported in the literature, these have not resulted in substantial personal injury litigation in the EU. Against this backdrop, this article argues that civil liability plays, in fact, a limited role in off-label uses. In particular, civil liability may incentivise health actors to follow and react to the development of the evidence basis for off-label uses. However, it is ultimately unable to incentivise the conduct of additional research on off-label uses. This is problematic, as off-label research is key to protecting patients and is recommended by international medical ethics. The article concludes by critically discussing proposed mechanisms to incentivise off-label research. It argues that extending civil liability for unknown risks may have undesired effects on insurability and innovation, and most regulatory proposals seem ineffective. Building on the 2014 Italian reform of off-label uses, the article proposes the establishment of a fund financed by mandatory contributions from the industry, which should be used by pharmaceutical regulators to promote off-label research and develop guidelines for prescribers.

This study investigates the effects of economic policy uncertainty (EPU) on corporate purchases of directors and officers liability insurance from the perspective of capital market pressures. Using data on A-share Chinese listed firms from 2010 to 2021, our theoretical analysis and empirical tests reveal that higher levels of EPU increase purchases. The theoretical analysis and mediating tests reveal that capital market pressures play a mediating role in the relationship between EPU and purchases. This study also finds that the indirect ways in which EPU increases purchases consider the need for firms to mitigate litigation risks and take advantage of insurance governance. The heterogeneous analysis and tests reveal that EPU increases purchases more significantly in firms that have higher managerial agency costs, have lower corporate transparency, and are in industries with higher competition. The findings are significant for improving the risk management system in China's capital markets.

As of February 2023, no case has been reported in the U.K., either in the law reports or in the media, of a victim of COVID-19 suing in tort a person or organisation alleged to have caused the victim to contract the disease. This article considers the reasons this situation might have arisen. It provisionally concludes that the main legal reasons might lie in the applicable doctrines of factual causation and goes on to discuss whether uncertainty in those doctrines should be resolved in the courts.