Article 7, paragraph 5, of the Rome I Regulation concerns only cases of intra-community location of risks. Footnote 75 A reference to the procedure to be followed when the contract covers more than one risk covering at least one risk in a Member State and at least one risk in a third country was included in recital 33 of the Rome Regulation I. Footnote 76 The designation of the law of law under Article 7 of the Rome I Regulation only applies to risks or risks risks in the Member States. Moreover, the legal instrument governing the treaty is defined according to the general terms of the Rome I regulation. Moreover, the provision of Article 7, paragraph 5 of the Rome I Regulation does not apply to situations where the risk is found in more than one place in the legal field of the same country. Footnote 78 In such a situation, it is not necessary to treat the group insurance contract as a combination of individual insurance agreements. However, there are no comprehensive provisions for group insurance contracts in the aforementioned legislation. Moreover, the German legislator has not decided to formulate a definition of group insurance, although this concept is used in the law. The peculiarity of the German legal framework of group insurance is the diligence of the legislator to ensure that policyholders are entitled to additional insurance coverage. It is only in this context that the new law will talk about group insurance contracts (Article 206 and LPP).
In the case of group life insurance, the employer or organization that buys the policy for its employees or members retains the main contract. As a general rule, employees who choose to cover themselves under the “Group” directive receive a certificate of coverage that is required in the event that they are available to a subsequent insurance company if a person leaves the company or organization and terminates their insurance coverage. The principles described above may refer to the group insurance policy. Such a possibility has also been identified by the General Counsel of the Court of Justice, No. 89 and the European Commission. Footnote 90 Both submitted their position to the Court in the proceedings concluded by the aforementioned decision of 14 June 2001. In the case of a group insurance contract entered into by a policyholder who is a legal entity and which provides group members with insurance coverage for the risks covered by Article 2, D.4, d) 4 of the Non-Life Insurance Directive, there is a multi-risk situation, as provided for in Article 7, paragraph 5 Rome I Regulation. In the analysis of group insurance from the point of view of legal conflicts, current trends in the evolution of private international law should also be taken into account. The fundamental function of conflict of law rules is to limit the areas of activity of isolated legal systems by determining their applicability. Footnote 46 In the traditional approach, this was not only the primary function, but also the exclusive function of private international law. The results of the designation of conflict rules of laws have been independent of the consequences of the application of the existing legislation. Footnote 47 However, in the decency of the evolution of private international law, it has been found that conflict of law rules and substantive provisions can be seen as means of achieving certain values of particular importance to The Legislature.
Footnote 48 Standards of private international law should not be axiologically neutral. Footnote 49 This trend is called “underutilization” of private international law. Footnote 50 As an insurance owner, the employer or other agency holds the effective insurance policy, the so-called “basic contract.” All policyholders generally receive an insurance certificate that serves as proof of insurance, but is not the insurance policy.