The duty to disclose material facts in English Insurance Law. In Pan Atlantic case the House of Lords rejected the so-called 'decisive influence' test which made the life of an insurer easier as they no longer have to establish that they would have acted differently had the non-disclosed fact been disclosed to them by the insured. The decisive influence test was replaced by a test which merely states that the insurer need only prove that the prudent insurer would have taken the non-disclosed circumstance into consideration. However, the Lords added a further requirement - namely that the actual insurer must prove that he/she was induced to enter the contract by the non-disclosure of the circumstance by the insured. But it is said that there is no actual differences between this test by the House of Lords and decisive influence test. The decisive influence test has been adopted by Korean Supreme Court. And as the criterion for determining the materiality of information, M.I.A. s. 18(2) prescribes 'a prudent insurer test'. This test has also been adopted by Korean Supreme Court. But there have been many criticisms about the prudent insurer test. It is apparent that the test of prudent insurer imposes too heavy a burden on the insured. By this test the insurer can be more protected by the practice of accepting expert evidence. To improve several problems by the prudent insurer test, It is desirable to replace the prudent insurer test with the actual insurer test.

The duty to disclose material facts in English Insurance Law. In Pan Atlantic case the House of Lords rejected the so-called 'decisive influence' test which made the life of an insurer easier as they no longer have to establish that they would have acted differently had the non-disclosed fact been disclosed to them by the insured. The decisive influence test was replaced by a test which merely states that the insurer need only prove that the prudent insurer would have taken the non-disclosed circumstance into consideration. However, the Lords added a further requirement - namely that the actual insurer must prove that he/she was induced to enter the contract by the non-disclosure of the circumstance by the insured. But it is said that there is no actual differences between this test by the House of Lords and decisive influence test. The decisive influence test has been adopted by Korean Supreme Court. And as the criterion for determining the materiality of information, M.I.A. s. 18(2) prescribes 'a prudent insurer test'. This test has also been adopted by Korean Supreme Court. But there have been many criticisms about the prudent insurer test. It is apparent that the test of prudent insurer imposes too heavy a burden on the insured. By this test the insurer can be more protected by the practice of accepting expert evidence. To improve several problems by the prudent insurer test, It is desirable to replace the prudent insurer test with the actual insurer test.

Key words≫duty to disclose material facts, decisive influence test, induce, prudent insurer test, actual insurer test.