Abstract

If the insured commits suicide due to mental illness such as depression in insurance practice, there are many disputes over whether the accident was intentional or caused the result of death without being able to make free decisions due to mental and physical loss. The target judgment is also that elementary school teacher is under extreme stress from the student's parents' verbal abuse, afterwards, she was diagnosed with depression and treated at a psychiatrist, and about three years later, she hanged herself at home after work. The Supreme Court judged that the appellate court's decision did not take into account the opinions of psychiatrists and the results of administrative litigation of survivor’s compensation by misunderstanding the law on the interpretation of the reasons for immunity in the insurance contract’s policy, therefore, the Supreme Court sentenced a ruling that was completely contrary to the judgment of the appellate court.
 In fact, mental and physical loss is the lack of discrimination and decision-making ability for objects due to mental and physical disabilities, whether there was mental and physical loss is not determined by the medical degree, but it belongs to a legal and normative judgment issue that judges should decide based on expert emotions. Therefore, considering the text and purpose of the provision for restricting suicide immunity, it is reasonable to interpret it narrowly as “a state in which free decision-making cannot be made” means a state in which there is no ‘awareness’ and ‘will’ of the consequences of death, such as mental and physical loss. In this regard, I think it is unfair that the target judgment judged that the insured's death committed suicide without being able to make free decision. Because the Supreme Court too broadly recognized the scope of death due to injury, focusing only on the protection of the bereaved families.
 I think it is necessary to revise the standard policy to define the concept of 'losing mind and body' and 'state in which free decision-making cannot be made' as a specific and objective criterion by referring to the above seven judgment elements.

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.