Legal and Financial Protection Against the Consequences of Divorce Through Insurance: An Analysis of the Legal Framework of the Republic of North Macedonia

Abstract

Marriage constitutes a fundamental institution of family law. Equally significant is the dissolution of marriage, both from a legal and a financial perspective, as divorce gives rise to various personal and property-related consequences for spouses. Considering that divorce insurance does not constitute a distinct category of insurance in most legal systems, including that of the Republic of North Macedonia, this paper examines the possibility of incorporating certain financial risks associated with divorce, such as legal representation costs, court fees, mediation expenses and other measurable financial consequences, within the existing framework of insurance law. The analysis employs the legal-dogmatic method, with particular emphasis on the classification of insurance, the concept of insurable risk, legal expenses insurance, and the terms and conditions established by insurance companies. Although, from a legal standpoint, Class 17 insurance (legal expenses insurance) may cover divorce-related expenses, the paper argues that it is the insurance company that determines which risks are covered and which exclusions apply under the terms and conditions of the insurance policy. The analysis shows that the statutory definition of Class 17 does not exclude divorce-related costs and that divorce can be regarded as an event that does not depend on the exclusive will of the policyholder; nevertheless, the insurers analysed expressly exclude divorce from their legal protection products. Data published by the Insurance Supervision Agency confirm the marginal role of this class in the insurance market. The paper therefore recommends that insurers consider covering divorce-related legal costs, subject to waiting periods and appropriate exclusions, and discusses the practical and regulatory challenges that such cover would entail, including adverse selection, the co-insurance of spouses, the lack of actuarial data and limited market demand.