Skip to main content
Log in

Does new technology put an end to policyholder risk declaration? The impact of digitalisation on insurance relationships

  • Published:
The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance - Issues and Practice Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The availability of data from telematics and wearables enables insurers to design and price products based on more information about the consumer. As new technologies develop rapidly, it is worth looking more closely at the way digitalisation changes the nature of insurance relationships. The purpose of this paper is to analyse how technology influences risk assessment and the insurance contract. Particular interest will be given to the role of traditional risk declaration. The author claims it is possible to obtain a full risk profile based merely on the information provided by ‘smart’ devices. This raises the specific question of whether the traditional policyholder’s risk declaration is still needed. The paper also discusses whether the use of telematics will alter the nature of insurance relationships in such a way that the doctrine of utmost good faith will no longer apply, or will apply only to a limited extent.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Article 2:101 of the Principles of European Insurance Contract Law (PEICL) stipulates policyholders’ duty to disclose information necessary for risk assessment, i.e. circumstances of which he is or ought to be aware and which are the subject of clear and precise questions put to him by the insurer (obligation to declare the risk). Article 4:202 of PEICL introduces the duty to give notice of an aggravation of risk (obligation to update information on the risk).

  2. For a detailed analysis of the reform of the doctrine of utmost good faith, see Farrugia (2018).

  3. For example, the theory of the obsolescence of the doctrine of utmost good faith is supported by Łopuski (2006), who claims that it is no longer applicable to land insurance.

  4. Other sources of information on risk used within the process of risk evaluation include information provided by insurance intermediaries, insurance surveys, statistical data and information provided by external service providers. See Gołębiowski (2010).

  5. The Act of 23 April 1964—Civil Code (the unified text, Journal of Laws of 2018, item 1025 as amended).

  6. For instance, the authors of PEICL highlight the superiority of the questionnaire system over spontaneous risk declaration mainly for the reason that it is usually more difficult for applicants than for insurers to appreciate what information is material to the risk (Basedow et al. 2009). On the other hand, the drawbacks of the questionnaire system are presented by Szczepańska (2011).

  7. Scientific research demonstrates that over time, incremental changes in life can even lead to the creation of memories of events that never took place. See Levitin (2015).

  8. For a comprehensive analysis of the potential perils and benefits created by new technology in insurance, see The Geneva Association (2018).

  9. It is recognised that the use of telematics in vehicles may have further consequences affecting the vehicle user’s behaviour. With awareness that the more prudent their driving habits the lower the insurance premium, the policyholder will tend to drive more safely. See The Geneva Association (2018).

  10. E.g. United Health, Cigna and Humana. See Dart (2015).

  11. See the Generali Press Release of 23.06.2016. Retrieved from https://www.generali.com/media/press-releases/all/2016/Generali-Vitality-better-health-starts-today.

  12. This is also a prime example of the use of gamification—the concept of applying game-like elements and techniques to insurance business problems.

  13. Definition provided by the International Telecommunication Union in Recommendation ITU–T Y.2060. https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y.2060-201206-I.

  14. The International Communication Union defines things as objects of the physical world (physical things) or of the information world (virtual world) that are capable of being identified and integrated into communication networks. Most importantly, things have associated information. Physical things exist in the physical world and are capable of being sensed, actuated and connected, e.g. industrial robots, goods and electrical equipment. In turn, virtual things exist in the information world and are capable of being stored, processed and accessed, e.g. multimedia content and application software. For more detailed information on the IoT see: https://www.itu.int/rec/T-REC-Y.2060-201206-I.

  15. See, for instance, Directive 2009/138/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 November 2009 on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) (OJ L 335, 17.12.2009, pp. 1–155), Directive (EU) 2016/97 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 January 2016 on insurance distribution (recast) (OJ L 26, 2.2.2016, pp. 19–59), Regulation (EU) 2019/1150 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 June 2019 on promoting fairness and transparency for business users of online intermediation services (OJ L 186, 11.7.2019, pp. 57–79).

  16. The thesis is proved in the impact assessment reports accompanying main EU insurance regulations, e.g. the European Commission, Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment. Accompanying the document Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Insurance Mediation, Strasburg 3.7.2012, SWD (2012) 191 final, p. 46. See also Malinowska (2019).

  17. The effectiveness of transparency measures are often challenged. The ongoing discussion on the utility of the abundance of information duties and customers’ ability to understand information proves that the introduction of transparency measures does not reduce information asymmetry effectively. See, for instance, Fung et al. (2008), Schwarcz (2011) and Ben-Shahar et al. (2010).

  18. Studies prove that ‘because information users have limited time and energy, they are likely to act on new information only if it has value to them, is compatible with the way they make choices, and is easily comprehensible’. See Fung et al. (2008).

  19. Full disclosure on how an AI system is developed and operated should also be questioned as it may pose risks to the security of the AI system itself by making it more vulnerable to attack. See Insurance Europe (2020).

  20. PwC found that almost half (49%) the people in the U.S. own a wearable device. Of those, 45% own a fitness band. Interestingly, PwC’s survey shows that if a wearable device was provided for free, then about two thirds of respondents would wear a smart watch or fitness band for insurance/risk assessment purposes (Dart 2015).

  21. For example, higher auto insurance premiums are charged in risky zip codes in predominantly minority neighborhoods compared to similarly risky non-minority zip codes. See Larson et al. (2017).

  22. For example, Art. 13 of the GDPR.

References

  • Azzopardi, M., and D. Cortis. 2013. Implementing automotive telematics for insurance covers of fleets. Journal of Technology Management & Innovation. https://doi.org/10.4067/S0718-27242013000500006.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Basedow, J., J. Birds, M. Clarke, H. Cousy, and H. Heiss. 2009. Principles of European Insurance Contract Law (PEICL). Munich: Sellier European Law Publishers GmbH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ben-Shahar, O., and C.E. Schneider. 2010. The failure of mandated disclosure. University of Pennsylvania Law Review 159: 647–749.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birds, J. 2010. Modern insurance law. London: Sweet & Maxwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Block, W., N. Snow, and E. Stringham. 2008. Banks, insurance companies, and discrimination. Business and Society Review 113 (3): 403–419.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Byczko, S. 2015. Zakres obowiązku deklaracji ryzyka w art. 815 kodeksu cywilnego. In Informacja w prawie ubezpieczeń gospodarczych, ed. B. Gnela and M. Szaraniec. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dart, A. 2015. The Case for Connected Wearables in Insurance. Asia Insurance Review. Retrieved from https://www.asiainsurancereview.com/Magazine/ReadMagazineArticle?aid=35855.

  • Diekelmann, S., C. Büchel, J. Born, and B. Rasch. 2011. Liable or stable: Opposing consequences for memory when reactivated during waking and sleep. Nature Neuroscience 14: 381–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eling, M., and M. Lehmann. 2018. The impact of digitalization on the insurance value chain and the insurability of risks. The Geneva Papers on Risk and Insurance—Issues and Practice 43: 359–386.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eppler, M.J., and J. Mengis. 2004. The concept of information overload: A review of literature from organization science, accounting, marketing, MIS, and related disciplines. The Information Society 20 (5): 325–344.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evenson, K.R., M.M. Goto, and R.D. Furberg. 2015. Systematic review of the validity and reliability of consumer-wearable activity trackers. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity 12: 159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farrugia, A. 2018. The reform of the doctrine of utmost good faith: A reconnaissance of the developments and outcome with particular reference to the UK. In Governance and Regulations’ Contemporary Issues, ed. S. Grima and P. Marano. Bingley: Emerald Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fras, M. 2018. The principle and criterion of reasonableness in insurance. In Insurance Challenges of Anno Domini, ed. K. Malinowska and A. Tarasiuk. Warsaw: Poltext sp. z o.o.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank, R.G., and K. Lamiraud. 2009. Choice, price competition and complexity in markets for health insurance. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 71 (2): 550–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fung, A., M. Graham, and D. Weil. 2008. Full disclosure: The perils and promise of transparency. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Generali. 2016. Press Release of 23.06.2016. Retrieved from https://www.generali.com/media/press-releases/all/2016/Generali-Vitality-better-health-starts-today.

  • Gołębiowski, D. 2010. Analiza techniczna ryzyka obiektów przemysłowych. In Ubezpieczenia w zarządzaniu ryzykiem przedsiębiorstwa. Warsaw: Poltex.

    Google Scholar 

  • Institute of International Finance. 2016. Innovation in insurance: How technology is changing the industry. Retrieved from https://www.iif.com/system/files/32370132_insurance_innovation_report_2016.pdf.

  • Insurance Europe. 2020. Artificial intelligence (AI) views of the European insurance industry. https://www.insuranceeurope.eu/views-eu-insurance-industry-artificial-intelligence.

  • International Association of Insurance Supervisors. 2017. FinTech developments in the insurance industry.

  • International Association of Insurance Supervisors. 2019. Insurance core principles and common framework for the supervision of internationally active insurance groups.

  • International Association of Insurance Supervisors. 2020. Issues paper on the use of big data analytics in insurance.

  • Jacoby, J. 1977. Information load and decision quality: Some contested issues. Journal of Marketing Research 14 (4): 569–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacoby, J., D.E. Speller, and C.K. Berning. 1974. Brand choice behavior as a function of information load: Replication and extension. Journal of Consumer Research 1 (1): 33–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joint Committee of the European Supervisory Authorities. 2016. On the use of big data by financial institutions. Joint Committee Discussion Paper. https://esas-joint-committee.europa.eu/Publications/Discussion%20Paper/jc-2016-86_discussion_paper_big_data.pdf.

  • Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1974. Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science 185 (4157): 1124–1131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, K.H., L.M. Fontanetta, M. Heintzman, and N. Pereira. 2018. Artificial intelligence: Implications on social inflation and insurance. Risk Management and Insurance Review 21 (3): 373–387.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krajewski, M. 2016. Umowa ubezpieczenia. Art 805-834 KC. Komentarz. Warsaw: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuryłowicz Ł. 2016. Usage-Based Insurance: The concept and study of available analyses. Wiadomości Ubezpieczeniowe 04/2016.

  • Larson J., J. Angwin, L. Kirchner, and S. Mattu. How we examined racial discrimination in auto insurance prices. https://www.propublica.org/article/minority-neighborhoods-higher-car-insurance-premiums-methodology.

  • Levitin, D.J. 2015. The organized mind. Thinking straight in the age of information overload. Toronto: Penguin Canada Books Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  • Loacker, L.D. 2015. Informed insurance choice? The insurer’s pre-contractual information duties in general consumer insurance. Bingley: Edward Elgar Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Łopuski J. 2006. Doktryna najwyższej dobrej wiary w anglosaskim prawie ubezpieczeniowym, jej pochodzenie, znaczenie i krytyka. In: M. Kuchlewska, ed. Szkice o ubezpieczeniach, Zeszyty Naukowe Akademii Ekonomicznej w Poznaniu, no 75.

  • Malinowska K. 2008a. Dobra wiara w umowie ubezpieczenia – zmiany w art. 815 Kodeksu Cywilnego, Umowa ubezpieczenia. Dyskusja nad formą prawną i treścią unormowań. Wydanie II uzupełnione, Wydawnictwo Naukowe Wydziału Zarządzania Uniwersytetu Warszawskiego, Warsaw.

  • Malinowska, K. 2008. Umowa ubezpieczenia w Europie bez granic. Bydgoszcz-Warszawa: Oficyna wydawnicza Branta.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malinowska, K. 2015. Transparentność w umowie ubezpieczenia - przemiana zasady najwyższego zaufania w prawo do informacji. In Informacja w prawie ubezpieczeń gospodarczych, ed. B. Gnela and M. Szaraniec. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwer S.A.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malinowska, K. 2019. Ocena ryzyka w ubezpieczeniach a nowe technologie w kontekście zasad umowy ubezpieczenia. Prawo Asekuracyjne 2: 99.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCrea, M., and M. Farrell. 2018. A conceptual model for pricing health and life insurance using wearable technology. Risk Management and Insurance Review 21 (3): 389–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nader, L., E.G. Schafe, and J.E. LeDoux. 2000. Reply—reconsolidation: The liable nature of consolidation theory. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 1 (3): 216–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nicholson, J.E. 2019. Challenges for the insurance industry in the future. Journal of Insurance Regulation 38: 6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nissenbaum, H. 2004. Privacy as contextual integrity. Washington Law Review 79: 119–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Orlicki, M. 2002. Umowa ubezpieczenia. Warsaw: C.H. Beck.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD, Task Force on Financial Consumer Protection. 2019. Effective approaches for financial consumer protection in the digital age: FCP principles 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 9. http://www.oecd.org/finance/financial-education/Effective-Approaches-FCP-Principles_Digital_Environment.pdf.

  • Reichert-Facilides, F. 2011. Comparative insurance contract law: General aspects. In Principles of European insurance contract law: A model optional instrument, ed. H. Heiss. Munich: Sellier European Law Publishers GmbH.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarcz, S.L. 2011. Information asymmetry and information failure: Disclosure problems in complex financial markets. In Corporate governance and the global financial crisis: International perspectives, ed. W. Sun, J. Steward, and D. Pollard. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Spender, A., C. Bullen, L. Altmann-Richer, J. Cripps, R. Duffy, C. Falkous, M. Farrell, T. Horn, J. Wigzell, and W. Yeap. 2019. Wearables and the internet of things: Considerations for the life and health insurance industry. British Actuarial Journal 24: E22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Szczepańska, M. 2011. Ubezpieczenia na życie z ubezpieczeniowym funduszem kapitałowym. Warsaw: Wolters Kluwers Polska sp. z o.o.

    Google Scholar 

  • The Geneva Association. 2018. Big data and insurance: Implications for innovation, competition and privacy. Author: Benno Keller. March.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marta Ostrowska.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Ostrowska, M. Does new technology put an end to policyholder risk declaration? The impact of digitalisation on insurance relationships. Geneva Pap Risk Insur Issues Pract 46, 573–592 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41288-020-00191-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41288-020-00191-6

Keywords

Navigation