Believer may find that his interests require not continue to cover the insured risk it exacerbated after the termination of the contract, and insured to resort in one of two cases ([1]):
First:
The gravity of the danger: If exacerbate the risk of gravity if aware of the insured when hiring oldest.
The gravity of the danger: If exacerbate the risk of gravity if aware of the insured when hiring oldest.
Second:
Reject the premium increase: If you continue to cover the risk of worsening requires only increase the premium that the insured refused to increase.
Reject the premium increase: If you continue to cover the risk of worsening requires only increase the premium that the insured refused to increase.
However, it is not permissible for the believer invoked to aggravate the danger and request termination of the contract when he had expressed his desire to continue to cover this risk under emergency conditions . It may be explicitly express this desire has been utilized implicitly continue to collect premiums or pay insurance if the risk insured him ([2]).
The dissolution of the insurance contract has no retroactive effect, because of decades of time that it is impossible to implement this impact, but a direct impact from the time of the incident.
([1]) Paragraph {3} to Article (1069) of the preliminary draft of the Civil Code provides that "3 - and may believer in both cases the advanced request terminate the contract unless by the insured at the request of the insured, an increase in exchange for insurance is calculated on the basis of tariff insurance" (preparatory work group, vol 5, p 343).
([2]) Paragraph {4} of Article (1069) of the preliminary draft of the Civil Code provides that "4 - however may not be for the believer to invoke an increase risk if after learning them in any way has shown his desire to retain the contract, or particularly if he continues to retention premiums or if the payment of compensation if the risk insured against him "(Group Preparations, vol 5, p 343)
