چکیده:
This research, employing a descriptive and analytical approach based on data from library studies, aims to provide a portion of the legal literature necessary for the establishment and expansion of legal expenses insurance (insurance for litigation costs, legal representation, and legal advice). Based on the findings from a comparative study of the legal regimes of this type of insurance in the European Union, Switzerland, France, and Belgium, and considering the nature, purpose, and function of legal expenses insurance, this paper examines the obligations of both the policyholder and the insurer in these types of contracts, justifying and explaining them based on legal theories, principles, and rules. According to the research findings, in legal expenses insurance contracts, the obligations of each party constitute a balanced combination of various primary and secondary, financial and non-financial, and monetary and non-monetary obligations not found in other types of commercial insurance contracts. Consequently, we face the complexity of the legal regime for legal expenses insurance contracts, an issue that makes its establishment and promotion in Iran’s commercial insurance legal system contingent upon precise and appropriate regulation.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Although after several decades of implementing this type of insurance in European and American countries, its laws and regulations have undergone pathology and have also been examined and criticized from an economic analysis perspective 2, in Iran, except for one case regarding the plan by the Central Insurance of Iran titled "Haq al-Wakala Insurance" or "Legal Fee Cost Insurance" for which implementation permits have been granted to some insurance companies 3, and Clause 2 of Article 8 of the General Conditions of the Civil Liability Insurance Contract for Domestic Transport Operators (Regulation No. 87 of the High Council of Insurance), according to which, in the form of a secondary and subsidiary obligation, the insurer shall bear a maximum of up to twenty percent of the customary litigation and defense costs of the insured in judicial authorities related to the insured risks, provided that the total amount of compensation paid and the costs subject to this article does not exceed the maximum obligation of the insurer 4, no other legislative action has been taken to establish and promote this type of insurance, and Article 13 of the Regulation on Mandatory Legal Representation in Legal Proceedings, approved on 2005/4/25 by the Head of the Judiciary, which had anticipated the Haq al-Wakala insurance scheme, also, given the unification decree 1.
(
, 
, 
)
