Despite the rather clear and largely mandatory legal regulation of the insurance contract, the question sometimes arises as to whether, contrary to what the law and/or the terms of the insurance contract provide, the cover continues to apply and whether the insurer is entitled to use grounds for exemption from the performance obligation (despite the regulation being formally in favour of the insurer). The legal uncertainty described may arise for a number of different reasons: for example, the policyholder's failure to fulfil his obligations under the contract (delayed payment of premium, failure to notify of an increase in insurance risk, etc.) which are known to the insurer and which the insurer has tacitly accepted without making any changes to the insurance contract, even if the law or policy terms provided an opportunity to do so. On the one hand, the general requirement of good faith on the part of the parties to a civil law transaction in entering into and performing their obligations is intended to avoid such situations of legal uncertainty. On the other hand, because of its abstract nature, some clarification or interpretation is required in the context of the insurance contract, since limiting the exercise of rights implies an abuse of those rights. the general requirement of good faith of the parties to a civil law transaction in entering into and performing their obligations is intended to avoid such situations of legal uncertainty. On the other hand, because of its abstract nature, some clarification or interpretation is required in the context of the insurance contract, since the limitation on the exercise of rights implies an abuse of those rights. the general requirement of good faith of the parties to a civil law transaction in the assumption and performance of its obligations is intended to avoid such situations of legal uncertainty. On the other hand, due to its abstract nature in the context of an insurance contract, some clarification or interpretation is required, since limitation of the exercise of rights implies abuse of those rights.
The article focuses on the inconsistent behaviour of the counterparty (insurer) or its failure to act in certain situations. In response to such inconsistent practices of insurers and in order to protect the rights of policyholders, different legal systems use different protective doctrines or procedural methods (venire contra factum proprium, estoppel, waiver, etc.). The authors examine the prohibition of inconsistent conduct in insurance other than life insurance.