جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « بیمه گذار » در نشریات گروه « مدیریت »

In this article, an attempt has been made to analyze the views of judges and legal writers on the functions of the principle of subrogation in insurance and the views of proponents and opponents.

The present study is a comparative study that was compiled using the library method and referring to legal texts and related sources, especially judicial opinions.

The insurance contract as a credit nature and insurance as an industry are based on the principles that together, form the insurance institution and directs it to its intended purpose. Article 30 of the Insurance Law refers to the principle of subrogation, which is one of the practical principles governing compensation insurance. That is to say, if a risk occurs under the insurance coverage as a result of personal harm and if the risk occurs, the insurer must compensate for the damage according to the insurance contract. Subsequently, the insurer will have the right to refer to the cause of the loss in order to recover the amounts paid by the insurer. The principle of the insurer's subrogation is a function of the principle of compensation. This means that the insurer does not benefit from the occurrence of the loss and the loser is not unnecessarily absolved of the responsibility that is the direct result of his/her act or omission of the harmful act, and of course the insurer should not make a bonanza profit. The result of this triangle of right for the insurer will be accompanied by a fall in the premium due to the loss factor that all of which have led to the principle of subrogation in insurance. The deputy is the only principle whose existence has been criticized in insurance, and in other words, not only its "principle" as a necessity, but also its basis as an advantage has been questioned.

The regulation of the three legal relationships among the people involved in insurance- the insurer, the insuree and the Cause of loss- is found in the principle of subrogation and its necessity for the insurance industry is inevitable. It should not be considered unnecessary to be removed. Instead, costs should be reduced by modifying and simplifying how to get to the deputy including the provision of administrative and non-judicial subrogation instead of judicial formalities which preserve its benefits and finally, the subrogation functions were achieved. It is expedient to have a subrogation in insurance to the extent that this right can be negligently interpreted as a "principle". Although the title of the principle for subrogation differs from what is discussed in other insurance principles, but opponents - whether in the position of a principle or in the position of right- is a replacement. It is basically not subrogation in this contract. If a comprehensive set of rules for succession in order to facilitate the recovery of funds from the perpetrators of the accident is prepared and approved, such as banning car traffic before paying damages or an extraordinary review of insurance replacement cases and the issuance of collateral without possible damages it can reduce the problems in reclaiming damages.

The increase fraud of some insurance companies has caused the loss of customers' trust in the choice of insurance company and has greatly affected the trust and satisfaction of the insurer. In this research, we seek to identify and design a satisfaction-trust model, which are two important indicators for customer loyalty. By identifying these factors and testing thirteen research hypotheses, insurance companies can design strategies that guarantee the success of the organization in the long run. The research model was proposed based on previous studies at home and abroad and the views of experts. The statistical population of the present study is the agencies of three insurance companies in Iran, Alborz and Asia in Tehran.The main tool for data collection is questionnaire. Finally by collecting data questionnaire based on correlation analysis and structural equation model using AMOS and SPSS 18 software were analyzed. The results indicated that 1) the insurer's ability and honesty affect customer confidence 2) the insurer's trust significantly affected It is effective 3) The costs of switching affect loyalty. And satisfaction alone is not enough and customers may not be loyal despite their satisfaction.

Life insurance policy surrender is one of the main challenges in enhancing penetration rate and life insurance development; so a proper understanding of motives, quality and process of the surrender behavior can help insurers to formulate and implement effective strategies to maintain the policyholder's loyalty and the contract. Due to the lack of a comprehensive behavioral model for life insurance surrendering, this study aimed to represent a better understanding of the phenomenon employing a qualitative research approach based on the grounded theory. Data were collected through in-depth interviews with 29 selected participants including policyholders, insurance agents, and life insurance experts, using theoretical sampling which continued until theoretical saturation. Data analysis was carried out systematically with open, axial, and selective coding mechanism, with a continuous iterative process between data, concepts, categories and the model. In this process, questioning and comparison strategies as well as memos, diagrams and paradigm tools were utilized to analyze the data. The research acceptability was considered based on the Corbin and Strauss' indices. As a research output, a cognitive-psychological model of life insurance surrender behavior was presented in the context of micro and macro environmental conditions and internal or individual circumstances in which post-purchase uncertainty affected the assessment of communication, and interactions and perceived behavioral control caused attitude uncertainty which, along with situational factors, particularly financial need and impulsive behaviors, cognitive, and psychological biases and intentions lead to life insurance surrendering.

At double insurance ,same risk is covered by some policy by insured .principle of full compensation in negative aspect ,is barred about double compensation at liability and estate policy.it is necessary to point that double insurance is bound to some terms such as same subject, same risk, same insurer ,validity of policy at time of loss ,legal of policy and not exclude of right of contribution at paying . principle of full good faith require that policy should be void due to in insured fraud. At assumption of insured good faith ,insured is free to refer to all insurer .clause of maximum liability level(insurers contribution with referring to policy cost), independent liability(independent liability of each insure) is accepted due to insurers share.in order of avoiding problems ,clauses of sharing assessment (assessment of each insurer sharing at assumption of double insurance) and discharged from responsibility( discharge of insurer liability due to existing of double insurance) and inform is cooperated(insured duty about inform other policy) at policy by insurers.

Today driving accidents developed. For this aim insurance civil liability vehicle keepers. In our country that code enacted in 1347 and retormed in 1387.Important that changes, more protection victim with revision on the third party, development on the damage payable, eliminative act of god and violence by force (Force-mayor) from exceptions insurer liability.

The parties to the contract must have good faith in their all statements and also avoid the silence which leads to the misrepresentation of the other party. What the insured asserts must be effective on the premium and the insurance subject. Informing the insurer must be done with complete and accurate answers to the questions mentioned in the insurance proposal.The Insured can not insure all potential risks that threaten the subject of contract. In this case, there are some exceptions like deliberate loss. Insurer must have good faith in arranging the proposal and contract and avoid deceiving the insured by limited and ambiguous proposal. In the situations that insurer knows the bad faith and non accuracy of the assertions and expressions of the insured party, can not invoke to this bad faith in the court. In the time of concluding the contract, that is possible that the insured party intends to insure his or her properties with a higher value than real (deliberately or unintentionally), if this misrepresentation is done in a deliberate situation, then the contract is void and if these false statements are expressed unintentional, the contract is not void, so it is valid. The insured obliges to inform the insurer in the case of risk intensification or changing the insurance subject's situation. But unfortunately in Iranian law, there is no remark about informing the insured in the case of risk mitigation, which has benefit for the Insured.