Regulatory differences

Insurance law
In the United States, insurance is regulated by the states under the McCarran-Ferguson Act, with "periodic proposals for federal intervention", and a nonprofit coalition of state insurance agencies called the National Association of Insurance Commissioners works to harmonize the country's different laws and regulations. The National Conference of Insurance Legislators (NCOIL) also works to harmonize the different state laws.
In the European Union, the Third Non-Life Directive and the Third Life Directive, both passed in 1992 and effective 1994, created a single insurance market in Europe and allowed insurance companies to offer insurance anywhere in the EU (subject to permission from authority in the head office) and allowed insurance consumers to purchase insurance from any insurer in the EU.
The insurance industry in China was nationalized in 1949 and thereafter offered by only a single state-owned company, the People's Insurance Company of China, which was eventually suspended as demand declined in a communist environment. In 1978, market reforms led to an increase in the market and by 1995 a comprehensive Insurance Law of the People's Republic of China was passed, followed in 1998 by the formation of China Insurance Regulatory Commission (CIRC), which has broad regulatory authority over the insurance market of China.
In India, IRDA is insurance regulatory authority. As per the section 4 of IRDA Act' 1999, Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA), which was constituted by an act of parliament. National Insurance Academy, Pune is apex insurance capacity builder institute promoted with support from Ministry of Finance and by LIC, Life & General Insurance compnies.

Principles of insurance

Common law jurisdictions in former members of the British empire, including the United States, Canada, India, South Africa, and Australia ultimately originate with the law of England and Wales. What distinguishes common law jurisdictions from their civil law counterparts is the concept of judge-made law and the principle of stare decisis - the idea, at its simplest, that courts are bound by the previous decisions of courts of the same or higher status. In the insurance law context, this meant that the decisions of early commercial judges such as Mansfield, Lord Eldon and Buller bound, or, outside England and Wales, were at the least highly persuasive to, their successors considering similar questions of law.
At common law, the defining concept of a contract of commercial insurance is of a transfer of risk freely negotiated between counterparties of similar bargaining power, equally deserving (or not) of the courts' protection. The underwriter has the advantage, by dint of drafting the policy terms, of delineating the precise boundaries of cover. The prospective insured has the equal and opposite advantage of knowing the precise risk proposed to be insured in better detail than the underwriter can ever achieve. Central to English commercial insurance decisions, therefore, are the linked principles that the underwriter is bound to the terms of his policy; and that the risk is as it has been described to him, and that nothing material to his decision to insure it has been concealed or misrepresented to him.
In civil law countries insurance has typically been more closely linked to the protection of the vulnerable, rather than as a device to encourage entrepreneurialism by the spreading of risk. Civil law jurisdictions - in very general terms - tend to regulate the content of the insurance agreement more closely, and more in the favour of the insured, than in common law jurisdictions, where the insurer is rather better protected from the possibility that the risk for which it has accepted a premium may be greater than that for which it had bargained. As a result, most legal systems worldwide apply common-law principles to the adjudication of commercial insurance disputes, whereby it is accepted that the insurer and the insured are more-or-less equal partners in the division of the economic burden of risk.

Insurable interest and indemnity'

 Most, and until 2005 all, common law jurisdictions require the insured to have an insurable interest in the subject matter of the insurance. An insurable interest is that legal or equitable relationship between the insured and the subject matter of the insurance, separate from the existence of the insurance relationship, by which the insured would be prejudiced by the occurrence of the event insured against, or conversely would take a benefit from its non-occurrence. Insurable interest was long held to be morally necessary in insurance contracts to distinguish them, as enforceable contracts, from unenforceable gambling agreements (binding "in honour" only) and to quell the practice, in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, of taking out life policies upon the lives of strangers. The requirement for insurable interest was removed in non-marine English law, possibly inadvertently, by the provisions of the Gambling Act 2005. It remains a requirement in marine insurance law and other common law systems, however; and few systems of law will allow an insured to recover in respect of an event that has not caused the insured a genuine loss, whether the insurable interest doctrine is relied upon, or whether, as in common law systems, the courts rely upon the principle of indemnity to hold that an insured may not recover more his true loss.

Warranties

In commercial contracts generally, a warranty is a contractual term, breach of which gives right to damages alone; whereas a condition is a subjectivity of the contract, such that if the condition is not satisfied, the contract will not bind. By contrast, a warranty of a fact or state of affairs in an insurance contract, once breached, discharges the insurer from liability under the contract from the moment of breach; while breach of a mere condition gives rise to a claim in damages alone

Regulation of insurance companies