Search results

Insurance presents a well-recognized preventive value. However, in recent times when it comes to the preventive function of insurance, it is about much more and this can be heard in voices of increasing numbers of experts and insurers. Three fundamental motivators prompted the pursuit of this study: (1) dynamic shifts in the risk landscape, (2) emerging technologies facilitating risk prevention, and (3) a perceived regulatory gap in addressing societal needs and technological potentials. Legal considerations related to the utilization of new technologies in insurance have been extensively discussed, albeit selectively. These discussions have focused on issues such as the policyholder's risk declaration, the potential use of sensitive data for risk assessment, and the automated distribution process (robo-advice). No comprehensive legal analysis of the preventive function of insurance in this context is available. There is a noticeable research and publication gap that should be filled by holistic considerations on risk prevention in insurance, both on the level of private law (insurance contract, duties of the insurance distributors, as well as public law, concerning the supervision over applying the risk prevention measures by the insurance carriers. Finding a new approach that could address the legal challenges is, according to the author, of great importance for the development of insurance as a protection tool for the most imminent social risks. The objectives included in the paper include showing the impact of new technologies on risk prevention, as well as analysis of what the role of the insurer in risk prevention may and should be from the legal perspective, including the potential change of roles in performing the insurance contract. The objectives of the paper involve several aspects, such as whether prevention has the potential to become a distinguished (re-) insurance service, as well as what the boundaries of the insurance contract and insurance business in terms of its compensatory and preventive function are.

Law and environment. Prevention, control, responsibility -- Global Governance of the Environment and implications for the Insurance Industry -- Environmental liabilities and Insurance Law in the EU -- Environmental Liabilities and Insurance Law in the United Kingdom -- Managing Environmental Risk through Insurance: China -- Environmental Liabilities and Insurance Law in the United States -- Environmental Civil Liability In The Mercosur Region South America -- Environmental insurance product -- Prevention in environmental insurance -- Loss adjustment in the environmental insurance and the role of the loss adjuster -- Waste insurance -- Underwriting Environmental Risks for Carbon Capture Usage and Storage (CCUS) Coverage: Challenges and Best Practices Forward -- Liability for environmental damage in aviation -- Liability for environmental damage in outer space and its insurance -- Liability for pollution damage to the marine environment.

The paper was prepared by members of the Task Force for Polish Space Law operating at the Centre for Space Studies, Kozminski University in Warsaw. The purpose of this paper was to examine the challenges associated with the adoption of a national space legislation, including an analysis of the position of professionals and entrepreneurs active in the Polish space sector on the content of future Polish legislation on space activities. The authors were tasked with presenting the essential issues of Polish regulation of space activity, i.e. its subject and scope, including establishing the spatial scope of statutory regulation and addressing the issue of liability for damage and insurance of such liability. The analysis was conducted both from the perspective of the formal foundations of national legislation on space exploration, which is supposed to reflect the international obligations of the country in this area, and from the perspective of the interests of all stakeholders who bear the main burden of carrying out this risky activity.

This research aimed to provide a more nuanced understanding of the relations between social norms, right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA), outgroup‐directed prejudice, and hostile behavioral intentions toward outgroups. Three correlational studies, conducted in two countries and three different intergroup contexts (n1 = 997; n2 = 1011; n3 = 1992), investigated the moderating role of social norms (both positive and negative) on the relation between RWA and expression of prejudice as well as behavioral intentions toward outgroups. We found that in the presence of positive (i.e., tolerant) social norms, the previously well‐established positive relation between RWA and prejudice is reduced or even reversed, whereas in the presence of negative (i.e., intolerant) social norms, this relation is strengthened. Additionally, the lower (vs. higher) prejudice of high‐RWA individuals in the presence of positive (vs. negative) social norms mediated the link between RWA and behavioral intentions toward outgroups. The present research constitutes the first comprehensive demonstration of authoritarians' potential to be less prejudiced in response to prevailing tolerant social norms.