Tuesday, April 21, 2015

"Insurance Coverage Opinions"--An Essay



Once upon a time, Michael Sean Quinn and Kimberly Steele wrote an essay together entitled "Insurance Coverage Opinions." It was published in the volume 36 of the SOUTH TEXAS LAW REVIEW in 1995 pp. 79-152. (It was also reprinted in a periodic anthology.)

The authors have gone their separate ways. Ms. Steele is still at a large law firm in Dallas, Texas, Sedgwick Law, practicing principally insurance law,  while Mr. Quinn has bounced around some--various law firms, various kinds of law firms, expert witnessing, and various kinds of practice, though insurance law remains part of his practice.  

It is said from time to time that if one wants to learn how to do coverage work, this essay is a good pleace to begin. 


*Michael Sean Quinn, Ph.D., J.D., c.p.c.u. . . .
The Law Firm of Michael Sean Quinn et
Quinn and Quinn
                                 1300 West Lynn Street, Suite 208
                                             Austin, Texas 78703
                                                 (512) 296-2594
                                            (512) 344-9466 - Fax

                               E-mail:  mquinn@msquinnlaw.com

Sunday, April 19, 2015

INSURANCE IDEAS, CONCEPTS, GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS AND VOCABULARY




UNIVERSALS OF INSURANCE
Michael Sean Quinn
(More About Author At end)


All red objects are red, no matter what differences there may be in shades.  All actual Xs involve the same concepts, pretty much, even if not everyone uses them all in the same way.  The same point is true about vocabulary.  Some concepts and/or things are almost universal even though they aren’t quite. This essay is about concepts, characteristics, and vocabulary at the foundations of insurance and insurance law. It is an adaptation of a part of an earlier essay.  

Of course, there may be some limitations on these assertions, but not many, and when there various ideas are missing from a proposed system, there has usually been a mistaken.  Then again, Ludwig Wittgenstein introduced the idea of "family resemblances" into discourses like this one--essays devoted to semantic analysis--and his ideas reign today, even if there were articulated early-ish in the last century. 

This essay is not a systematic, scholarly, exhaustive, and/or pedantic essay of how these terms are concepts are used in an array of case law.  All the concepts are used, and some of them are formulated and applied utilizing the same vocabulary and the same system of ideas as are used here.  When there is variation, it makes almost no difference because the whole system of concept and characteristics is uniform (or very nearly so) when there is no error.


I. Universal Concepts
The fundamental universal concepts to be found in all insurance contracts are these:
·         Peril,
·         Risk,
·         Causation,
·         Injury,
·         Loss,
·         Moral Hazard, and
·         Fortuity.

These terms and the concepts expressed by them are used everywhere in the insurance industry.  It is not the case, that they are all used, in the same way, by everyone, or—in fact—always defined in the same way.   For example, sometimes “risk” is sometimes-to-often used in place of “peril,” and “loss” can be used instead of “injury.”  These diversities are conceptually insignificant, though conflicting uses in conversation, discussion, argument, and the like can be confusing. What is significant is the concepts involved here, and they are quite distinct.
                        
Since the concepts are universal, the terms may correspondingly be very roughly defined as follows:

fortuity needs to be understood in terms of an event or state of affairs, that is fortuitous and is one which is not planned, not deliberately performed or brought about, and/or not intentional. Often it is reasonable to think of a fortuitous event, as an accident, when thought of from the point of view of the insured.  (It should be remembered that acts are types of events; omissions need to be thought of as acts, and the effects or consequences of the event, whether acts or not, may be other events or simply states of affairs. Acts are not fortuitous; their consequences, however, may well be.)
 
A peril is a state of affairs that may injure an insured and cause it loss. The state of affairs may be a complex one with many parts. The idea of a storm is like that.

 A risk is the probability that a peril may cause, or participate in causing, an injury to an insured and thereby a loss.[1]

Causation is the rough idea pertaining to one empirical event—or a grouped together set of empirical events--inducing another subsequent event, substantially more probably than not.  This idea can be more easily grasped at an intuitive, commonsense level if one thinks about A causes B if A makes B happen[2] (or brings it about that B happens), or is a necessary part of a group of events which do that, or is part of a chain of events that makes B happen.  More than the last state of affairs in a chain can be a cause.

An injury is a state of affairs that is recognizably unacceptable to the insured.  It can easily be, and often is referred to as harm.  Some of those in the insurance industry associate injuries with the human body, damages with property of some sort (often tangible), and harm with property and more abstract insurable entities or processes, though the term “damages” is the use in that area as well.  I suggest that injuries hurt; they are setbacks; they damage a person; they make valued things less valuable and less valued than they were, for example, less functional, uglier, and more objectionable for some reason.  Surveying the insurance industry, the three terms—“injury,” “damage,” and “harm”—get used in all sectors of the insurable as meaning the same thing, which they do, except that “harm” may have a broader sweep.  (If I were choosing a universal system of insurance vocabulary, I would make “harm” the key general term, use injury for human bodies, and damage to everything else.

A loss is how much dealing with an injury is going to cost or how much that of value must be “kissed goodbye” as a result of the injury.  Usually this is measured by (or actually is) money. (There can be some confusion here, since what I am calling “loss”; and I when necessary called “damages.” After all, that is what plaintiffs see as their loss, their “damages.” “What were your client’s damages?” Ans. “We said 1M.” Qu. “Did you get them.” Ans. “We got more for it than its actual losses.” And so forth.)

Finally, there are the problems of moral hazards.  This is a complex concept with a number of meanings run together, some of them over time and some of them all at once.[3][i]  Thus, the concept of moral hazards is both vague and ambiguous.  (Of course, some think that all vague terms are ambiguous.)

(1) One of the usages is (or, was) that not all applicants for insurance should be insured since they are of poor character, immoral individuals.  Such people are unreliable and financially dangerous.  It is not good for society that such people are “awarded” with the safety to be found in insurance.  This was a traditional conception.

(2) That traditional concept went with another, and it went like this: since society regarded insurance as a species of gambling, or something close to it, and since gambling was regarded as filled with persons of poor character, no such person should ever be provided insurance. After all, the business of insurance should be kept far away from gambling in society.  The insurance industry needed to adopt this view, assuming its members didn’t believe it themselves if they wanted to become a legal business.

(3) Another ancient view is that the term “moral” in traditional theology, political theorizing, moral philosophizing, historically speaking; popular ethical thinking, and long ago in ordinary conversation referred simply to the realm of human actions.  David Hume, the famous empiricist philosopher of the Eighteenth Century, used the phrase “moral science” one of his famous works;[4] for him it meant a kind of what is today called sociology.  Economists to this day call what they do “moral science.” Thus, the phrase “moral sciences” might refer to considerations of immoral conduct, or it might not.  Thus, the moral hazard would be any  problems which arose out of the realm of human actions, activities, and interactions.

(4) The contemporary and prevailing view—in fact, now the only prevailing view, the explicit recognition and use of which has a history going back two centuries, or so--is that owning insurance has a tendency to encourage  a deceptive increase in sloppiness and temptation for many insureds with respect to whatever is insured.  This can easily be regarded as immoral, and so there is a “moral hazard.” What is being described here is not necessarily a temptation with respect to which a decision much be made; instead, it is quite often a kind of slippage of commitment.

Fortunately, given the timing of the genesis of the cyber world, only “Moral Hazard # (4)” is applicable here. “What the hell, we’ve got insurance, so let’s not worry about expensive network security protection.”
II. Universal Characteristics

What then are essential characteristics of all types of insurance. The nature of insurance is revealed at least in what are commonly called insurance policies. All insurance policies are now and always have been contracts.[5] As with any other bona fide contract, one or both parties to it have tried to set forth relatively clearly the applicable terms of the contract either explicitly or by the use of entailments. Like all other contracts the vast majority of the duties and rights of the relationship formed by the contract are to be “found” in the contract document, though this is occasionally subject to disputes.[ii]   There are at least ten of them.  At least they are to be found at the foundation of conceiving insurance.  They are very simple and can be listed this way:

1.                  All contracts of insurance explicitly involve the transfer of risks, though not using these words (One party is receiving, usually buying, risks facing the other party. This is the nature of indemnification.  To one degree, or another, indemnifications are future looking.)

2.                  All insurance contracts involve the transfer of the risk of dealing with having been beset by one or more perils, i.e., being beset by a particular peril that was named explicitly, something that still often (more or less) happens today,[6] though sometimes in the last couple of centuries, more general terms are used.  (Indeed, “today,” unlike “yesteryear” an insurance policy can transfer a risk of an insured to  the insurer having to deal with that insured’s having been struck by one or more perils to be found in an abstract category set forth in the contract, where only the abstraction is set forth in the contract.[7])

3.                  All insurance contracts involve the transfer of the risk of dealing with direct and immediate, immediately connected causes or with causal chains, the nature of which are sometimes specified explicitly.[8]

4.                  All contracts of insurance are restricted to a determinable set of insureds, sometimes an explicit list; sometimes they are specified by name, and sometimes they are specified by category. There is always an attempt and complete specification.  Usually this has been done, but sometimes not.

5.                  All contracts of insurance are for specified, understood, or nearly understood types of injuries.[9][iii]  Contracts of insurance do not insure against all possible injuries. Not every injury, however results in a loss; in fact, sometimes an injury can result in high benefits or profits.

6.                  All contracts of insurance exist to transfer risks of losses, and losses are tied to asset or money damages.

7.                  All contracts of insurance are based upon the idea of fortuity.  The purpose of insurance is not for paying people who deliberately perform acts that are intended to obtain compensation under the contract of insurance. Often these kinds of acts violate terms of the relevant insurance policy.

8.                  All contracts of insurance are designed to transfer risks only from persons who have a prudent or prudence-inducing[10] relationship with that which is insured.[11] This might be described as an insured’s valuing positively that which is insured.

9.                  At the same time, all contracts of insurance entail the existence of moral hazards. Some ways of them are usually parts of the insurance contracts,[12] the applications for and of them, plus some of the conditions connected to the contract. They are there, as indicated to try to eliminate, minimize, mitigate, or control at least some of the insureds’ susceptibility to moral hazard problems. The existence and power of moral hazards results from the nature of man in general. We are creatures of self-interest and temptation. Getting contracts of insurance to be clear about this point in general, i.e., in standardized and hence generalized policies, is anything but easy.[13]

            10. Proposition #10, the Moral Hazard Problem(s), as already indicated, arises because when a person is characterized, at least in part, by the pursuit of self-interest, having insurance, or a relevant paid-for source of or right to money, at least tends to diminish the wish and the will of that person to make sure that it has no loss. It makes no difference, whether a person is a human person or a corporate type person owned and/or run by human persons.

 Given this characterization of moral hazards, there is moral hazard resting upon the shoulders of the insurer as well as those of all insureds. Insurers have received premiums in advance of having to pay any claim.  Having already received money from its insureds and having put the receipt of it onto its books, an insurer is tempted (has a tendency) to keep the money to spend as little as possible paying claims. 

Since insurers, or their hirelings, with few very narrow exceptions, are the only, or the only final, drafting entities doing the central features of all modern real-world insurance policies, the fact of the moral hazards inherent in the insurers is not explicitly acknowledged.  Nor are clear rules of prevention, restraint, or other considerations deterring insurers from succumbing to that hazard—that peril--acknowledged, even impliedly, it insurance policies.  One wonders the situation would be different was drafting by “bi-party commissions” invented by both of the what I have called “families” in the insurance industry.  (Nor are the moral hazards insureds face because they are afflictions of insurers generally acknowledged outside the policies either.  Indeed, ads for insurers virtually deny any such thing or suggest that only other insurers are subject to them.)

It is important, to keep in mind that every contract of insurance has all these characteristics, and that is true whether the contract is designed for the everyday—old, long established--world, for the cyber-world or both. It is also important, to keep in mind that the idea of a loss is tied inextricably to the so-called real world. This is true because the idea of a loss is glued to the idea of money, and not just private currency[iv] like Bitcoin, a type of “virtual currency,”[14][v] since its value is determined by “coins of the realm.”


III. Nearer to Being Universals

Although there are fixed, timeless, universals at the heart of insurance—indeed, at the heart of the very idea of insurance as we know it—not all well known characteristics are like that.  This is true, at least in part because insurance is an idea or set of ideas—that had an ancient start and then a long sporadic history.

One example is that there are many, many types of policies.  Cyber insurance is just the latest in a long and now hugely diverse set.  It all started with bottomry, commercial transport insurance—camels crossing deserts may have come first but soon--including ocean marine insurance and “burial”—and maybe a bit of life insurance--for Roman soldiers.[15][vi]

Not only are there different kinds of policies insuring many different types of entities, actions and events, there are different types of jobs that policies perform and the way they do it.  Thus, there is primary insurance, excess insurance, levels of excess insurance, umbrella policies, which are both excess and primary (as umbrella policies usually are) reinsurance policies for all of those, and then reinsurance for reinsurance a/k/a and so forth.  Moreover, there are different forms, e.g., so-called “cat bonds,” bonds for various occupations, performance bonds, fidelity bonds, and there can be many sorts of different mixtures. Imagine a package policy that is primary with respect to one thing, excess to a different policy, excess to another excess policy, and reinsurance as to another.

Cyber insurance is simply the latest new substantive area, and it came into being toward the end of the most insurance-innovative century, or century and a half, of all times. Having come into being toward the end of the Twentieth Century, it has been multiplying in many different ways faster and faster. 

At the same time, it must be remembered that all new types of insurance policies are built on the terms, definitions, general exclusions, and conditions of older policies, to one significant extent or another—though, of course, never completely.  New types of policies must create or use some new terms and new understandings of what is covered, but there will be very strong continuity. A very good example of the reuse of traditional terminology coupled together with brand new terms is found in the history of aviation insurance. Property policies of the 21st century are built on policies from the 20th century, which are in turn built upon those of the 19th century, and those of the 19th are linked to those of the 18th.[16] Maritime and fire policies of early in the last century are easily recognizable as connected to policies 100 years earlier. [17][vii] This is probably true at least back to maritime policies of the Renaissance. [18][viii]

 As one might expect, as the centuries have gone by, the policies have gotten longer and longer, partly, because fire policies of yesterday insured the peril of fires only and what are often called fire policies today insure perils other than fire, as well as fire, but are developed from the original fire policies.  In addition, some of the key language found in earlier policies, for example, “accident,” dropped out of many policies as a defined term and therefore as a term of immediate and central focus.  But it was followed by  the word “occurrence,”; it  was more or less substituted for it, and it was then defined, in substantial part, by the word “accident”—the very term that has just dropped out.   The same propositions are already true of cyber-insurance, whether it is for that realm only or for both realms. Perhaps standardization of the policies will cut down on this but one doubts it.

It is also worth noting, that all insurance involves the attempted preparation by at least one party to price the product (or service) in a rational or reasonable way. Insurers now lead the way on this, assuming that the insureds actively participate at all. Of course, highly regulated markets have something to do with this as well, but there are vast efforts spend on in-advance preparation, and it spreads all over the respectable parts of the industry.

 The reverse may have been true early on, 25 (or so) centuries ago. At that point, insureds may have done the original pricing, subject to negotiation, but that changed long, long ago. As insurance policy pricing has become more and more rationalistic or scientific or empirically based, and therefore economically and financially sophisticated, insurers have relied more and more on statistics, for example, actuarial methods and results. It became even more complicated the more perils a single policy covered, in parts the value of the perils interact in some cases. Insureds and many other participants in the various parts of the insurance industry do not understand how these processes work either, including many who call themselves “risk managers.” 

(Risk managers may not be particularly involved in underwriting. They may be engineers, security specialists, or project managers.  Even if they have some actuarial knowledge, it must be remembered that some of them are in-house at insurers; some are in-house with insureds—where they might manage risk in various ways, e.g., insurance purchasing, collecting injury data, providing internal advice, and education; some are employees of insurance brokerage houses; and yet others have their own businesses.)

Naturally, it is more difficult for insureds to have a good command of all these pricing techniques, nor is it easy for them to find out. Insurers have an incentive for their pricing methods not to reach at least many insureds.

These methods are not easy to use in cyber insurance just yet because the relevant and relatively reliable data is still scarce.[19]  In addition, new techniques are being placed in the underwriting tool boxes, this being especially true now that a great deal of the economics of  insuring is now regarded as something to be found in the toolbox of international finance.[20][ix]

IV.               Another Universal: Policy Typology

            All contracts of insurance can be divided into exactly three categories.  The first type can transfer to an insurer from an insured virtually any type of risk that can be somehow specified in (or somehow brought into) a contract of insurance, save one.  

             The category that is the exception is one in which the insured itself is the peril, where certain conduct of the insured is the peril against which there is insurance, that is, where the peril to the insured is its own liability to someone or some entity it has injured or is said to have injured.  Another way to put it, is that there is a distinct type of insurance that transfers the insured’s risk resulting from it (or an entity for which it is liable) having caused specified injuries to another.

            The third type is an insurance contract is one that contains both the types of risk transfers found in the other two. Of course there are other ways to “typologize” insurance policies. For example, there is insurance for tangible physical objects, and there is insurance for rights to performances.  There is insurance for autos; there is insurance for airplanes; and there is insurance for sea ships. That is not the point here, however.

            The former type of the insurance contract is called a “First Party [Insurance] Policy” (“1PPs”), while the second is called a “Third Party Policy” (“3PPs”) and the third type is one type of that is called a “package policy,” or something of the sort. 1PPs are often called “property policies,” while 3PPs are usually called “liability policies,” though they often 3PPs contain a 1PP component, namely, the carrier’s duty to defend its insured, if sued or compelled to arbitrate.[21]

The presence of 1PP coverage inserted into a 3PP policy is extremely important to remember when we consider the cyber-policy—the Travelers CyberRisk Policy to be discussed later in Part II.  There is an issue that will be seen to arise in a policy with both 1PP and 3PP parts, where one of the parts is entitled “Third Party Insuring Agreements” while the other is entitled “First Party Insuring Agreement” but where one of the latter agreements (a 3PP) is—or appears to be--quite surprisingly incorporated, mixed, or blended,  at least in part, into one of the former type (1PP) agreements, or vice versa, where a 1PP is incorporated into a 3PP, somehow.  From the point of view of an insurance policy geek with proclivities toward cyber policies, this is an astounding and fascinating development.)

In addition, there can be both cyber-policies and real-world policies in the same joined together and be a sort of integrated packet of documents that is, the same “package policy.”  (It is a good idea to remember that a package policy can be “togethered,” if that can be a word, if that is a word, as one might say, to various degrees.  These can be real headaches when it comes to policy interpretation for lawyers and adjusters. The problems can be multiplied if both 1PPs and 3PPs of both worlds are packaged together.)

In any case, there are at least, four ways to join different types of policies together. (i) Different policies are simply clipped/stabled together. (ii)  Policies can be shuffled together with substantive portions of two or more policies overlapping with more or less true fit.  Of course, when creating package policies from the two worlds this can be difficult. One way to help is by stating which explicitly which exclusions apply to which insuring agreements.  (iii) The two or more policies can be genuinely integrated. And (iv) Packaging can be done by using endorsements.

At the same time having “integrated” policies—one policy with consecutively numbered pages, a Table of Contents that’s clear and briefly descriptive, as few endorsements  as possible, and no jumping around required—makes life easier for handlers, whether from the insurer, the agent-broker, or the risk manager from the insured. A policy can simply be this way right from the start without any shuffling or endorsements. A totally integrated policy also makes it easier for a coverage attorney to do the coverage analysis and the explanatory letter and lay it all out clearly.  Too many different parts, section, and paragraph numbers make reporting by lawyers harder to follow, but it may be necessary to foster needed precisions. Lawyer prose is often inescapably opaque.



[1] The nature of risk and dealing with it in the 20th Century is discussed in an interesting manner in Arwen P. Mohun, RISK: NEGOTIATING SAFETY IN AMERICAN SOCIETY (2013). A large number of more general discussions are referenced in her endnotes for the introductory chapter and in the discussion of insurance in the next chapter.


[2] From a philosophical point of view, the idea of to make happen may itself be obscure.  But we don’t practice insurance law at a philosophical level.

[3] See Tom Baker, On the Genealogy of Moral Hazard, 75 Tex. L. Rev. 237 (1996).  Professor Baker studies the history of this idea, and discusses all of the phases, except for #(3). Here are two forms of moral hazard--one old, one new.  For several centuries observers have been concerned about there being life insurance where the policyholder was someone other than the insured or someone close to (usually a) him. It was though that this might create the moral hazard of murder. Obviously this is correct.  More recently there is the case of "crop prevented coverage." This is a type of crop insurance where what's covered is the farmer's inability to plant a specified crop because of conditions existing at relevant times.  That might be flooding, or it might be drought. The moral hazard s that the farmer will be tempted to seek coverage for a type of crop that the farmer knows will likely be "unplantable." This has become a political controversy because of fact that some corp insurance is subsidized by the federal government.  

[4] David Hume, ENQUIRY CONCERNING THE PRINCIPLES OF MORALS (1751).

[5] Quite frequently, I will refer to both parties to contracts of insurance as entities. Thus, I am treating real persons—people—as entities, which they actually are.

[6] Here are some actual examples of “named perils”: fire, flood, hail, collision, terrorist attack, hackery, embezzlement by an employee, trademark infringement, breach of security, lock out of network system, and extortion as to lock out. Here is an example of an unnamed, general peril: an accident, a disease, health of an animal, business interruption, computer malfunction, default on a note, specified defects in a bond, and so forth.

[7] As a matter of semantics and logic, of course, all risks listed have some level of generality.  This is true even if the risk is “hail stones no larger than a dime width sphere blown into a tin roof from the west.” Semantically speaking this risk still have elements of generality built into it. Of course, taking recognition of this fact makes the idea of ambiguity much broader than it is usually perceived, and that have potentially profound implications for insurance in the cyber world, since much of the terminality invented for it is relatively new and therefore not fixed in stone.

[8]Here is an example of different types of causation: insurance for direct causation, but none for indirect.

[9] Sometimes the term “injury” is used explicitly, e.g., with respect to the human body (“bodily injury”). Sometimes the term “damage” is used instead of “injury” to mean the same thing (“property damage”). That useless distinction can be confusing and the concept of “damages” goes well with the concept of “loss.” (If asked “What were you damages?,” most people would know the question was “How much?”)

[10] From what point in time the prudence is measured, for how long it’s measured, and how much there need be, varies.

[11] Where tangible property has been involved ownership, something related to ownership (like a mortgage), or something like ownership, are used as one of the ways to limit who may be an insured. The same more or less holds for intangible property.  For example, in trade credit insurance and its near relationships a right is covered, in particular, the right to be paid. The same propositions are true in the cyber realm.

[12] Often some of these pieces of the design are built into or around the application for insurance.  For example, an insurer might require that the insured have and know how to use fire extinguishers. Some of these may be for real world policies (for example, having tires checked); others may be for cyber-world policies (having using encryption codes of some sort or a specified sort; and yet other may pertain to both worlds (like fire extinguishers).

[13] See Kenneth S. Wollner, HOW TO DRAFT AND INTERPRET INSURANCE POLICIES (2nd Ed. 2007), a mildly interesting book that actually portrays nothing an average lawyer would not know about how to draft an insurance policy correctly.  The point to the citation being that there is little helpful literature about how to actually to draft; this is now and perhaps always has been and esoteric art. 

[14] The phrase or term “virtual currency” is just another name for “private currency” devised for the “virtual world.” One wonders whether this use of “virtually” is like usage of “worlds” and “spaces” in talking about the so-called “real-world” and the so-called “cyber-world.”  Historically, the latter lead to the former, bit semantically, they are distinct.  The world “virtually” usually means “very much alike,” “can perform the same function though different in nature,” “almost alike,” or “near substitute.” The term “world” has not such meaning except, maybe referring to video games. The terminology around “virtual currency” is just another phraseology for a kind of currency devised for the one world that there is.  There is a nice example of fog and confusion arising out of the idea of there being plural worlds.


[15] [15] C.G. Trenerry, THE ORIGIN AND EARLY HISTORY IN INSURANCE: INCLUDING THE CONRRACT OF BOTTOMRY (1926) though written a while before that. (Actually, bottomry is an obvious case of what is actually insurance, and why people have resisted recognizing this is beyond me.)

[16] See H.A.L. & Edwin Green, THE BRITISH INSURANCE BUSINESS 1547-1970 (1976), Harold E. Raynes, A HISTORY OF BRITISH INSUANCE  (Second Edition1964), and Robin Pearson, INSURING THE INSUSTRIAL REVOLUTION: FIRE INSURANCE IN GREAT BRITAIN, 1700-1850), and a few others for UK.


[17] Samuel Marshall. A TREATISE ON THE LAW OF INSURANCE: IN FOUR BOOKS (1800-1805[hard to tell). Most of the sections and pages by far are about maritime insurance. The others are an Introduction, Life Insurance, and Fire Insurance. The U.S. version was apparently published in 1805, though the British version was used in the U.S. before that.  The currently available volume is a “hugely” thick one volume paperback. It is not recommendation that you drop it on your foot or on the head of your baby or grand-baby in residence or elsewhere.

[18] Giuseppe Stephani, INSURANCE IN VENICE[:] FROM THE ORIGINS TO THE END OF THE SENREISSIMA (1958) Chapters  V entitled “The Insurance Contract” pp. 57-65, including picture  (It is distressing to observe that there was a brisk trade in slave insurance. It is encouraging to note that there were strict laws against at least some forms of trading in them.  Unfortunately, the business was too lucrative (literally in ducats) to resist. See pp. 52-54.

[19] See Michael Sean Quinn,  “Underwriting and Cyber Insurance Coming of Age,” Quinn’s Commentaries on Insurance Law (June 24, 2014)[a Blog].

[20] Eric Briys & Francois de Varenne, INSURANCE FROM UNDERWRITING TO DERIVATIVES[:] ASSET LIABIITY MANAGEMENT IN INSURANCE COMPANIES (2001)

[21] For reasons of saving space, I will use 1PP to refer to a first party insuring agreement where there are other insuring agreements, and 3PP to refer to a liability insuring agreement where there are other insuring agreements in the policy.  This is done, of all things, in the interest of minimizing abbreviations and hence clarity.






The Law Firm of Michael Sean Quinn 
et
Quinn and Quinn
                                 1300 West Lynn Street, Suite 208
                                             Austin, Texas 78703
                                                 (512) 296-2594
                                            (512) 344-9466 - Fax
                                E-mail:  mquinn@msquinnlaw.com