仲裁员是否须为其民事责任投保

To Insure or Not to Insure: Should Arbitrators Be Obliged to Insure Their CivilLiability?

作者：Tadas Varapnickas (TGS Baltic)

Arbitrators’ civil liability is not a topic that everyone within the arbitration community enjoys discussing.Therefore, it is not surprising that the approach to the concept of liability differs within the arbitration community. In cases where someone may face civilliability, the possibility to insure such risk arises. This blog post, therefore,will deal with the question of whether arbitrators should mandatorily insure their civil liability and whether it should be regulated by law.1)

仲裁员的民事责任并非仲裁界人人都喜欢讨论的话题。因此，仲裁界对责任概念的看法存在差异不足为奇。当仲裁员可能面临民事责任时，就出现了对这种风险进行投保的可能性。本文将就仲裁员是否应强制对其民事责任进行投保以及是否应当由法律进行规范展开讨论。

Different Concepts Concerning Arbitrator’s Liability

There are three concepts concerning arbitrator’s liability: absolute immunity, absolute liability, and limited or qualified liability. Under the first approach, which found its place in common law countries, firstly, arbitrators should not be found liable for their acts or omissions as arbitrators because the duties they perform are closely related and similar to the ones performed by judges who enjoy absolute immunity. The absolute liability doctrine is cardinally different. Supporters of this approach claim that arbitrators should be held liable as any other service providers and their liability could only be limited by the contract, not by the arbitrator’s status.

一、关于仲裁员责任的不同观点

关于仲裁员责任有三种观点：绝对豁免、绝对责任和有限责任或限定责任。第一种观点存在于普通法国家，首先，仲裁员不应为其担任仲裁员的作为或不作为承担责任，因为他们所履行的职责与享有绝对豁免的法官所履行的职责密切相关且十分相似。绝对责任原则则完全不同。这种观点的支持者认为，仲裁员应该像任何其他服务提供者一样承担责任，他们的责任只能由合同而不是仲裁员的身份来限制。

The limited liability doctrine tries to reconcile the two other approaches. According to this doctrine, since an arbitrator is not analogous to the state judge but neither a pure service provider due to the functions performed, arbitrator’s status is somewhere in between or sui generis. Therefore, arbitrators should not be liable for ordinary negligence but could not avoid liability in case of bad faith, i.e.when they act intentionally or are grossly negligent, for example, when arbitrator intentionally fails to disclose the conflict of interest and,therefore, the award is later annulled.

有限责任原则试图调和另外两种观点。根据这一观点，由于仲裁员与法官不同，但由于所履行的职能也不是纯粹的服务提供者，故仲裁员的地位介于两者之间或自成一体。因此，仲裁员不应对一般过失承担责任，但在恶意的情况下，即当仲裁员存在故意或重大过失时则不能免除责任，例如当仲裁员故意不披露利益冲突时，其作出的裁决也将被撤销。

It is most widely accepted that an arbitrator’s civil liability should be limited. By way of example, Section 29 of the English Arbitration Act states that an arbitrator should be found liable only in cases of bad faith. Similar provisions exist in arbitration laws in Spain (Article 21 of Arbitration Act of Spain), Portugal (Article 9(4) of Portuguese Voluntary Arbitration Law), Italy (Article 813 of Code of Civil Procedure of Italy), New Zealand (Article 13 of New Zealand Arbitration Act 1996), Australia (Article 28 of Australia’s International Arbitration Act1974), Hong (Article 104 of Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance), Sri Lanka (Article 45 of Sri Lanka Arbitration Act), and others. Although regulation in these countries differs, the goal remains the same – to ensure that arbitrators would only be liable in case of their bad faith, understanding the latter as arbitrator’s intent or gross negligence. Most arbitration rules, for example, LCIA (Article 31 of LCIA Arbitration Rules), ICC (Article 41 of ICC ArbitrationRules), SCC (Article 52 of SCC Arbitration Rules), DIS (Article 4 of DIS Arbitration Rules), SCAI (Article 32 of Swiss Rules of International Arbitration), HKIAC (Article 46 of HKIAC Arbitration Rules), Vilnius Court of Commercial Arbitration (Article 47 of Arbitration Rules of Vilnius Court of Commercial Arbitration), contain the same or very similar provision, under which arbitrators are not held liable in case of ordinary negligence.

人们普遍认为，仲裁员的民事责任应受到限制。例如，《英国仲裁法》第29条规定，仲裁员应仅在有恶意的情况下承担责任。各国仲裁法中存在类似规定的国家或地区有西班牙（《西班牙仲裁法》第21条）、葡萄牙（《葡萄牙自愿仲裁法》第9（4）条）、意大利（《意大利民事诉讼法》第813（3）条）、新西兰（《1996年新西兰仲裁法》第13条）、澳大利亚（《1974年澳大利亚国际仲裁法》第28条）、香港（《香港仲裁条例》104条）和斯里兰卡（《斯里兰卡仲裁法》第45）条等。尽管这些国家的规定有所不同，但目标是一致的，即确保仲裁员只有在恶意的情况下承担责任。

大多数仲裁规则，例如LCIA（《LCIA仲裁规则》第31条）、ICC（《ICC仲裁规则》第41条）、SCC（《SCC仲裁规则》第52条）、DIS（《DIS仲裁规则》第4条）、SCAI（《瑞士国际仲裁规则》第32条）、HKIAC（《HKIAC仲裁规则》第46条）和维尔纽斯商事仲裁庭（《维尔纽斯商事仲裁庭仲裁规则》第47条），都包含相同或非常相似的规定，根据这些规定，仲裁员在一般过失的情况下不承担责任。

Status quo on Professional Liability Insurance for Arbitrators

Although not widely discussed, liability insurance is an important topic for arbitrators’ community. When the Swiss arbitration association rendered a survey in 2013, 50% of arbitration institutions claimed to have liability insurance for claims against the institution itself. As regards arbitrator’s insurance, arbitration institutions replied that they insure arbitrators rarely and mostly when they require themselves.2) This seems somewhat odd knowing that earlier an ICC working groupon arbitrator’s status concluded that arbitrators should enter into a contracton liability insurance.3)

二、仲裁员职业责任保险的现状

责任保险虽然没有得到广泛讨论，但却是仲裁员群体关注的一个重要话题。瑞士仲裁协会在2013年进行调查时，50%的仲裁机构声称自己拥有针对机构本身的赔偿责任保险。对于仲裁员的保险，仲裁机构回应其很少为仲裁员投保，即使有，大多数情况下是在仲裁员要求时为其投保。这似乎有点奇怪，因为早些时候ICC关于仲裁员现状调查的工作组曾得出结论认为仲裁员应签订责任保险合同。

Hence, although the ICC Working Group concluded in 1996 that arbitrators should insure themselves, the survey rendered by Swiss arbitration association in 2013 revealed that arbitrators rarely request insurance. In other words, most arbitrators arbitrate without any liability insurance, meaning that if an arbitrator is faced with a civilliability claim, he/she alone would need to cover the damages. The amount of damages theoretically might be so large that an arbitrator would eventually risk facing bankruptcy. So, it is the parties to arbitration that should be interested in arbitrator’s liability insurance in the first place as it is designed to protect arbitrators from potential creditors. Secondly, the states should also be interested in the issue because it may lead to distrust of arbitration in general.

因此，尽管ICC工作组在1996年得出结论认为仲裁员应该为自己投保，但瑞士仲裁协会在2013年进行的调查显示，仲裁员很少要求投保。换言之，大多数仲裁员在仲裁时没有投保任何责任保险，这意味着如果仲裁员面临民事责任申索，他/她需要独自承担损害赔偿。从理论上说，损害赔偿金的数额可能非常大，以至于一位仲裁员最终可能面临破产的风险。因此，对仲裁员责任保险感兴趣的首先应该是仲裁当事人，因保险的目的在于保护仲裁员不受潜在债权人的侵害。其次，各国也应该对这一问题感兴趣，因为这可能导致对仲裁的普遍不信任。

However, if one were to look at different arbitration laws, one would notice that there is nothing on arbitrators` liability insurance. Indeed, to the author’s knowledge, only Spain explicitly regulates arbitrator’s insurance questions. Article 21(1) of the Spanish Arbitration Act provides that arbitrators shall be required to take out insurance to cover civil liability or to make an equivalent guarantee, for the amount established by regulation. This obligation was included in the law together with the 2011 amendments of the Spanish Arbitration Act. As it was noted in another article on the Kluwer Arbitration Blog, the Spanish insurance sector reacted quickly, and Spanish insurers attempted to design a special insurance policy for arbitrators.

但是，如果查看一下不同的仲裁法，就会注意到没有关于仲裁员责任保险的规定。事实上，据笔者所知，只有西班牙明确规定了仲裁员的保险问题。《西班牙仲裁法》第21（1）条规定，仲裁员应按规定数额投保民事责任保险或作出同等保证。该义务与《2011年西班牙仲裁法》的修订一起被纳入到法律中。正如Kluwer仲裁博客上的另一篇文章所指出的那样，西班牙保险业迅速作出了反应，西班牙的保险公司试图为仲裁员设计一种特殊的保险单。

Although amendments in Spain were adopted eight years ago, other countries either in Europe or elsewhere in the world did not follow Spain’s example and there are no indications that any country is preparing to do that. As a result, in a situation where only Spain adopted a relevant regulation, the question arises if there is a need to discuss compulsory liability insurance at all?

尽管西班牙在八年前通过修正案，但欧洲和世界其他地方的其他国家没有效仿西班牙的做法，而且也没有迹象表明任何国家准备这样做。因此，在只有西班牙通过相关条例的情况下，随之产生的问题是是否仍然有必要讨论强制性责任保险。

It may be asked whether the professional liability insurance for lawyers would apply to arbitrators. Although it might depend on different national rules, generally the answer would be answered to the negative. Lawyers work in the field of representing clients before courts,state institutions, i.e., the main activity of lawyers is acting on behalf of someone else and this is the activity that is insured by professional liability insurance. Professional civil liability insurance of lawyers, therefore, is directed to protect lawyers for their main activities and not any activity performed by a lawyer. Arbitrating, on the other hand, is not an activity that would ipso facto be considered every lawyer’s activity. At the same time, auditors, architects, economists, lecturers and others may also be appointed as arbitrators. Therefore, even if professional insurance for lawyers applied to arbitrators, it would not be provided to all professions and the problem would not be resolved.

人们可能会问，律师的职业责任保险是否适用于仲裁员。虽然这可能取决于不同的国家规则，但答案通常是否定的。律师的工作领域是在法院、国家机构，即律师的主要活动是代理他人，这是职业责任保险承保的活动。因此，律师职业民事责任保险的目的是保护律师的主要活动，而不是由律师进行的任何活动。另一方面，仲裁并不是每一个律师都实际参与的活动。同时，审计员、建筑师、经济学家、讲师等也可能被任命为仲裁员。因此，即使律师的职业保险适用于仲裁员，也不会适用于所有职业，问题也无法得到解决。

It might seem surprising that the issue ofthe insurance of arbitrator’s liability is not regulated by laws, particularly,when the ICC Working Group concluded that arbitrators should insure themselves.However, more careful analysis shows that it should not be too surprising. In fact, most of arbitration laws do not regulate arbitrator’s liability at all.For example, even the UNCITRAL Model Law does not provide any guidance on arbitrator’s liability. So, it should not be surprising that national arbitration laws do not regulate the issue of insurance if the issue of liability itself is not regulated.

似乎令人惊讶的是，仲裁员责任保险的问题并没有受到法律的规范，特别是当ICC工作组得出结论认为仲裁员应该为自己投保时。然而，更仔细的分析表明这并不奇怪。事实上，大多数仲裁法根本没有规定仲裁员的责任。例如，甚至连《UNCITRAL示范法》也没有对仲裁员的责任提供任何指导。因此，如果仲裁员责任问题本身没有得到规范，那么各国仲裁法没有对仲裁员责任的保险问题作出规定也不足为奇。

Should Arbitrators Be Obliged to Have a Professional Liability Insurance?

There are opinions in academia suggesting that professional liability insurance for arbitrators would be useful.4)Furthermore, insurance is required in other professions.5)

三、仲裁员是否应投保职业责任保险?

学术界有观点认为，仲裁员的职业责任保险是有用的。另外，其他职业也需要保险。

However, as mentioned above, it is most widely accepted that arbitrator’s civil liability should be limited, i.e. even without the insurance, arbitrator’s liability should be applied only when arbitrator acts conducted in bad faith (acts conducted intentionally or grossly negligently). Therefore, an obligation to insure civil liability when the liability is ipso facto limited may be treated as a redundant requirement. Indeed, arbitrators would then need to insure their liability only for acts committed in bad faith, while normally insurers only insure risks of ordinary negligence. Therefore, the issue arises as to whether liability insurance is at all possible in arbitration.

但是，如上所述，人们最普遍接受的观点是，仲裁员的民事责任应该是有限的，即即使没有保险，仲裁员的责任也应该仅适用于仲裁员的恶意行为（故意或重大过失行为）。因此，当责任本身是有限责任时，投保民事责任的义务可以被视为一种多余的要求。确实，仲裁员们届时只需要为其恶意行为投保，而保险人通常只承保一般过失风险。因此，由此产生的问题是，责任保险在仲裁中是否可行。

Insurance would also mean additional expenses which ultimately should be covered by the parties to arbitration paying higher arbitrators’ fees. Scholars support this conclusion.6) Also, a rather small amount of insured parties may lead to higher insurance payments for arbitrators and again, ultimately, the parties.

保险还意味着额外的费用，这些费用最终应由支付更高仲裁费的仲裁当事人承担。此外，一小部分被保险人可能会导致仲裁员支付更高的保险费用，这部分费用最终也由当事人承担。

On the other hand, in Brown’s opinion,insurance would ensure fair process with a competent arbitrator.7) Yet, it is not explained what the correlation between insurance and competence is. On the contrary, knowing that any failure will be covered by insurance, arbitrators may start acting less prudently as they would not do without the insurance.

另一方面，在布朗看来，保险能够确保有称职仲裁员的公平程序，但其并未解释保险和胜任能力之间有何相关性。相反，由于知道任何失败都将由保险承保，仲裁员们可能不会像没有保险时那样谨慎行事。

Conclusion

Therefore, the conclusion of the ICC working group that arbitrators should insure their civil liability,8) cannot be supported. Of course, if the arbitrator would feel more comfortable with insurance, the voluntary insurance can be suggested if applicable law allows for same. Yet, compulsory liability insurance would not achieve the purposes it would seek. Even if an arbitrator may be faced with the civil liability claim,those situations should be rare and most attempts to get arbitrators liable should fail because the standard of liability is high enough. Therefore, it should not be recommended for national law-makers to follow Spain’s example and to implement compulsory arbitrator’s liability insurance in national legislation.

四、结论

因此，ICC工作组关于仲裁员应为其民事责任投保的结论站不住脚。当然，如果仲裁员对保险比较放心，且如果适用的法律允许，也可以建议自愿投保。然而，强制责任保险无法达到它所寻求的目的。即使仲裁员可能面临民事责任申索，这种情况也应该十分罕见，大多数要求仲裁员承担责任的尝试都应该失败，因为责任标准已经足够高。因此，不应建议各国立法人员仿效西班牙的做法，在国家立法中实施强制仲裁员责任保险。

英文原文请见：阅读原文

References

参考文献：

1.    Thisblog post is based on the author’s PhD thesis and is intended to provide someguidelines concerning the issue – Varapnickas, Tadas. Arbitrator‘s civil liability and its boundaries. Vilnius: Vilniausuniversiteto leidykla, 2018. This PhD thesis was defended at Vilnius Universityon December 3, 2018. A summary of the thesis is available in English here.

2.    HABEGGER,Philipp et al. Arbitral InstitutionsUnder Scrutiny: ASA Special Series No. 40. New York: Juris Publishing, 2013, p.32.

3, 8. ICC Working Group. ICC Final Reporton the Status of the Arbitrator. ICC International Court of ArbitrationBulletin, 1996, vol. 7(1).

4.    WESTON,Maureen A. Reexamining Arbitral Immunity in an Age of Mandatory andProfessional Arbitration. Minnesota Law Review, 2006, vol. 88:449, p. 497.

5.    YU,Hong-Lin. Who is an arbitrator? A study into the issue of immunity.International Arbitration Law Review, 2009, vol. 12(2).

6, 7. BROWN, Jenny. The Expansion of Arbitral Immunity: Is Absolute Immunity aForegone Conclusion. Journal of Dispute Resolution, 2009, vol. 2009(1), p. 236.