Izvesnost ugovora i pravilo contra proferentem: kada pravilo treba da se primenjuje u sporovima o osiguranju? Studija kojom će se utvrditi kada se ovo pravilo pojavljuje u sporovima o osiguranju na Malti

Apstrakt

Pravilo contra proferentem je pravni princip koji se primenjuje u slučajevima kada postoji nejasnoća u tumačenju ugovora. U njemu se navodi da tamo gde postoji nejasnoća, ugovor treba tumačiti protiv strane koja ga je sastavila. U sporovima o osiguranju, ovo pravilo se često javlja kada postoji spor između osiguravača i osiguranika oko uslova ili pokrića po polisi osiguranja. U ovom radu se ispituje primena pravila contra proferentem u sporovima u vezi sa osiguranjem na Malti. Studija ima za cilj da utvrdi uticaj pravila i pravni ishod u tim slučajevima. Metodologija istraživanja podrazumevala je pregled relevantne sudske prakse i pravne literature o primeni pravila contra proferentem u sporovima. Pored toga, obavljeni su odgovori pravnika koji imaju iskustva u vođenju sporova u vezi sa osiguranjem. Nalazi ove studije doprinose razumevanju kako pravilo contra proferentem funkcioniše u kontekstu sporova o osiguranju,
ističući važnost jasnog i nedvosmislenog sastavljanja ugovora, ulogu sudova u tumačenju i primeni
pravila i uticaj pravila na izvesnost ugovora i rešavanje sporova. Rezultati bacaju svetlo na okolnosti u kojima se ovo pravilo primenjuje i njegov uticaj na ishod takvih slučajeva. Nalazi ove studije takođe naglašavaju neka od ograničenja pravila contra proferentem i sugerišu da pravilo ima tendenciju da rezultira povoljnijim ishodom po osiguranika. Ova studija će doprineti razvoju boljeg razumevanja uloge pravila contra proferentem u sudskim sporovima u vezi sa osiguranjem, posebno na Malti, i njegovih posledica na pravnu praksu i politiku. Rad doprinosi akademskom istraživanju sintezom
postojeće literature i sudske prakse o ovoj temi i pruža smernice za osiguravače i osiguranike o tome kako da se kreću u tumačenju i sprovođenju ugovora o osiguranju. Nalazi i zaključci u ovom radu mogli bi da doprinesu razvoju politike i regulative u industriji osiguranja i da pomognu da se poboljša izvesnost ugovora i smanji broj sporova u budućnosti.

Literatura

Boardman, M. E. (2006). Contra proferentem: the allure of ambiguous
boilerplate, Michigan Law Review, 104(5), 1105-
1128.
Braun, V., Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology,
Qualitative research in Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
Chartered Insurance Institute (CII). (2020). Contra proferentem
at a time of a pandemic. London: G. Williams.
Duncan, E. E. (2006). The demise of contra proferentem as the
primary rule of insurance contract interpretation in Ohio
and elsewhere, Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal,
41(4), 1121-1140.
Edwards, A. (2023). Limited role for contra proferentem rule in
the interpretation of commercial contracts. London: Allen
and Overy LLP. Available at: https://www.allenovery.com/
en-gb/global/news-and-insights/publications/limited-role-for-
contra-proferentem-rule-in-the-interpretation-of-commercial-
contracts, 9th March 2023.
Johnson, S.G. (2004). Resolving Ambiguities in Insurance Policy
Language: The Contra Proferentem Doctrine and Use of Extrinsic
Evidence, American Bar Association, 33(2), 33-40.
Law Teacher. (2013). Canada Steamship Lines v The King. [online].
Available at: https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/canadasteamship-
lines-ltd-v-the-king.php?vref=1, 18th January
2023.
Leib, E., Thel, S. (2015). Contra Proferentem and the Role of the
Jury in Contract Interpretation, Temple Law Review, 87, 773-
791.
Liggett, B. D. (2008). Contra applicantem or contra proferentem
application: the need for clarification of the doctrine of contra
proferentem in the context of insured created ambiguities
in insurance applications, Brigham Young University Law Review,
2008(1), 211-226.
Mack, N. et al. (2005). Qualitative research methods: a data collector’s
field guide. North Carolina: Family Health International.
McCarry, C. (2018). Clutching onto the contra proferentem rule?
Quigg Golden, London. [Online] Available at: https://www.
quigggolden.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Clutchingonto-
the-Contra-Proferentem-Rule.pdf, 2nd March 2023.
McCunn, J. (2019). The contra proferentem rule: Contract law’s
great survivor, Oxford Journal of Legal Studies, 39(3), 483-
506.
Mendelson, R. (2019). The contra proferentem rule in insurance
law: an underappreciated canon of construction, Connecticut
Insurance Law Journal, 25(1), 1-23.
Merriam, S. B. (1998). Qualitative research and case study applications
in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Merkin, R. (2016). Colinvaux’s Law of Insurance. London: Sweet
& Maxwell.
Parsons, C. (2016). Insurance Law P05. London: Chartered Insurance
Institute.
Petty, N.J, Thomson, O.P., Stew, G. (2012). Ready for a paradigm
shift? Part 1: Introducing the philosophy of qualitative research,
Manual Therapy, 17(4), 267-274.
Suen, L., Huang, H., Lee, H. (2014). A comparison of convenience
sampling and purposive sampling. PubMed, Bethesda: Pub-
Med.
Trupin, J. (2011). Who gets to keep it? Three Clues: Adhesion,
Ambiguity, and Contra Proferentem, Insurance Advocate.
Available at: https://www.insurance-advocate.
com/2011/02/21/stolen-property-is-recovered-who-gets-tokeep-
it-three-clues-adhesion-ambiguity-and-contra-proferentem/,
21st March 2023.
Precedenti
Camilleri v Mapfre Middlesea plc 92015) MTCA 33.
Cutajar v Atlas Insurance PCC Ltd (2018) MTCA 19.
Persimmon Homes Ltd and others v Ove Arup & Partners Ltd
and another (2017) EWCA Civ 373.
R v Canada SS Lines Ltd (1952) 1 DLR 49 (SCC).