Recently, the number of insurance accidents increase following quantitative growth of the 3rd insurance, and suicide with the intention of receiving benefits has been growing in Korea. This causes social problems. Also, disputes over interpretation of the insurance clauses has increased. The core causes of increase of the 3rd insurance conflicts are inadequate accumulation of dispute cases and precedents compared to quantitative growth of the 3rd insurance, and uncertain clauses of the 3rd insurance policy. In the insurance field, in order to prevent from increasing disputes, the clauses have been revised several times, but disputes have seldom decreased. Thus, this study focused and investigated on exception clauses of the 3rd insurance, which are in the centre of the conflicts, and suggested problems and improvement plans. Furthermore, problems and improvement plans of the exception clauses were suggested in the study in relation to the issue on growing suicide with the purpose of receiving insurance money.
Mainly controversial issues surrounding the exception clauses of the 3rd insurance are as follows:
The first is the part of suicide exception amongst intention exception clauses. It can be said that there is a possibility that two years of suicide exception period can tempt an insured person to commit suicide so as to leave insurance money for one's family. Thus, it is needed that the suicide exception period should be extended for more than three years, or a graded payment should be given annually.
The second is about the exception clause of gross negligence. It seems that there is no exception clause of gross negligence under the existing 3rd insurance policy. Under the pre-existing non-life insurance policy, there was partially the exception clause of gross negligence like 'the exception clauses of crime and violence', but it was abolished. Like this, it can be said that not existing the exemption clause about gross negligence under the 3rd insurance policy, in fact, is the reason that the exception of gross negligence in accident insurance contract is banned on the Commercial Law. However, the commercial law needs to be amended so that insurers are exempted from responsibility in case of gross negligence accidents such as a criminal act and a violent act.
The third is about exception of accident insurance caused by medical malpractice. According to life insurance policy, an insurer should take responsibility for medical malpractice and become immune from responsibility in case of medical treatment without negligence. Like this, demarcation between responsibility and exception about medical malpractice and medical treatment is obvious. However, the pre-existing exception clause on the non-life insurance, which was that 'It becomes immune from obligation in case of the insured person's surgical surgery and other medical treatment', was abolished. This abolition raises conflicts because of ambiguity of responsibility for medical malpractice and medical treatment. To avert this dispute, it can be said that the meaning in the non-life insurance policy should be precisely defined like the provision of life insurance policy.
Beside these issues, another conflicts surrounding exception clauses of the 3rd insurance have been arising. In order to prevent these disputes, related contents should be stipulated and an insurance company needs to refrain from interpreting to its own advantage. Also, it can be said that the studying this issue further will help in preventing conflicts.