An oil rig suffered major damage in transit in rough seas. The insurers repudiated liability saying that the damages was the result of a natural vice rather than perils at sea. Held: The fact that the sea conditions were within the range of what might be expected did not mean that the court must conclude … Continue reading Global Process Systems Inc and Another v Berhad: CA 17 Dec 2009
A marine insurance contract was entered into for goods to be transported between two ports. A side note provided that cover was to start from the time the goods left the warehouse. The Act provided that the insurance was void from the time such a cargo was diverted from the route agreed. Held: The variation … Continue reading Nima SARL v The Deves Insurance Public Company Ltd; The Prestrioka: CA 30 Jul 2002
The owners of a vessel effected a obey of insurance on her, the policy being in common form and purporting to be made on the proposal of certain insurance brokers ‘as well in their own name as for and in the name and names of all and every other person or persons to whom the … Continue reading Boston Fruit Co v British and Foreign Marine Insurance Co: HL 21 May 1906
Mustill J considered liability under a marine insurance where damage was suffered when the sea state was within what might reasonably be anticipated: ‘The cases make it quite plain that if the action of the wind or sea is the immediate cause of the loss, a claim lies under the policy notwithstanding that the conditions … Continue reading J J Lloyd Instruments Ltd v Northern Star Insurance Co Ltd “The Miss Jay Jay”: 1985
The defendant made a claim under an insurance policy. The insurer made an interim payment, but then asserted that the claim was fraudulent, and sought recovery of the interim payment. Held: At common law, fraud in an insurance claim, once established, affected the entire claim. The whole claim was forfeit, and the interim payment was … Continue reading AXA General Insurance Limited v Gottlieb: CA 11 Feb 2005
The vessel had been taken by the authorities in Venezuela after drugs were found to have been attached to its hull by third parties. Six months later it was declared a constructive total loss. The ship owners now sought recovery of its value from . .
S, a retired businessman, had bought a vessel and insured it in his name, but registered it in the name of company, R. In the winter, the boat was laid up, but occupied by a workman who maintained it and kept it secure. The boat was destroyed by a . .
References: [1985] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 264 Coram: Mustill J Mustill J considered liability under a marine insurance where damage was suffered when the sea state was within what might reasonably be anticipated: ‘The cases make it quite plain that if the action of the wind or sea is the immediate cause of the loss, a … Continue reading J J Lloyd Instruments Ltd v Northern Star Insurance Co Ltd ‘The Miss Jay Jay’: 1985
1267 – 1278 – 1285 – 1297 – 1361 – 1449 – 1491 – 1533 – 1677 – 1688 – 1689 – 1700 – 1706 – 1710 – 1730 – 1737 – 1738 – 1751 – 1774 – 1792 – 1793 – 1804 – 1814 – 1819 – 1824 – 1828 – 1831 – 1832 … Continue reading Acts
Judges: Lord Chancellor Cave Citations: [1925] UKHL 1, 1925 SLT 322, 1925 SC (HL) 6, (1925) 21 Ll L Rep 265 Links: Bailii Statutes: Marine Insurance Act 1906 17 Scotland, Torts – Other, Insurance Updated: 22 July 2022; Ref: scu.279686
Insurers resisted a claim saying that fraudulent acts of the defendants to promote an otherwise valid claim, made the entire claim void. The insurance required certificates to be obtained before ‘hot’ works were undertaken as part of the ship’s maintenance. The established principle being that any attempt to boost a claim fraudulently would invalidate the … Continue reading Agapitos and Another v Agnew and others: CA 6 Mar 2002
The owners of the ‘MERCANDIAN CONTINENT’ had obtained judgment in earlier High Court proceedings against a Trinidadian shipyard for damage caused by negligent repair work. Jurisdiction in the earlier proceedings had been founded on an agreed submission to the jurisdiction of the English court. The yard’s liability insurers appointed solicitors to conduct the defence on … Continue reading K/S Merc-Scandia XXXXII v Underwriters to Lloyd’s Policy 25T 1054 and Others: CA 31 Jul 2001
The common law principle governing fraudulent claims has a separate origin and existence to any principle that exists under or by analogy with s.17 of the Act. Judges: Moore-Bick J Citations: [2002] EWHC 1558 (Commercial), [2003] Lloyd’s Rep IR 54 Links: Bailii Statutes: Marine Insurance Act 1906 17 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited … Continue reading Agapitos and Another v Agnew and others: ComC 24 Jul 2002
A proposed assured had no duty to disclose or enquire as to facts which were not within his knowledge at the time when he applied for insurance, but his duty did extend to matters which it would normally within his purview to know. Judges: Judge Diamond QC Citations: Times 21-Jul-1994 Statutes: Marine Insurance Act 1906 … Continue reading Simner v New India Assurance Co Ltd: QBD 28 Jun 1994
In marine insurance, the assured remains liable to the broker for premiums even though not paid on to insurer save in exceptional circumstances – Marine Insurance – premium warranty – liability to pay after breach of warranty. Judges: Thomas J Citations: Times 19-Mar-1998, [1998] Lloyd’s Rep IR 377, [1998] CLC 860 Statutes: Marine Insurance Act … Continue reading J A Chapman and Co Ltd v Kadirga Denizcilik Ve Ticaret AS and Others: ComC 14 Nov 1997
Charterers by demise are ‘owners’ within the meaning of section 3 of the Merchant Shipping Act 1894, and can, therefore, under that section, claim the benefit of limitation of liability, conferred by sections 503 and 504, in respect of loss or damage caused by the improper navigation of the ship by their servants. [ Cf. … Continue reading Sir John Jackson Ltd v Owners of Steamship ‘Blanche’ and Others: HL 28 Feb 1908
The Kastor Too had been lost in a fire. After substantial litigation, the insurers now appealed an order finding a constructive total loss (it was beyond economic repair or recovery). They had said that it was already beyond repair immediately before it sank. The judge had held that where an actual total loss immediately followed … Continue reading Kastor Navigation Co Ltd and Another v Axa Global Risks (Uk) Ltd and others: CA 10 Mar 2004
A policy providing a fixed level of benefit, calculated according to the degree of injury could not be avoided under the 1744 Act on the basis that the insured had no insurable interest. The insurance company said the company had no insurable interest. Held: The phrase ‘insurable interest’ had proved difficult to define, and its … Continue reading Feasey v Sun Life Assurance Company of Canada and Another: Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd v Feasey: CA 26 Jun 2003
The claimant ship owner and its mortgagee sued the defendant insurer after the loss of the insured vessel, through fire. The insurers replied that the damage by fire was so extensive that the vessel was beyond repair when she sank, and was therefore a constructive total loss (‘CTL’). They said the cause of the loss … Continue reading Kastor Navigation Co Ltd and Another v AGF M A T and others (“Kastor Too”): ComC 4 Dec 2002
Marine insurance – assured – revocation of notice abandonment – before or after commencement of action – effect : Marine insurance – assured – declaration of intention not to make claim for total loss – recovery of property – effect : Marine insurance – ‘waived claim’ – recovery in sue and labour – English law … Continue reading Royal Boskalis Westminster NV and Ors v Trevor Rex Mountain and Others: ComC 18 Dec 1995
A ship was damaged in a collision. Though their goods were not damaged, the owners of cargo on the first ship became liable to the owners of the ship for a general average contribution. The owners sued the other ship owners for their negligence. The primary issue was whether the cargo-owners had only a derivative … Continue reading Morrison Steamship Co Ltd v Greystoke Castle (Cargo Owners): HL 1946
The cargo, soya beans, was insured against heating, sweating and spontaneous combustion risks. It arrived in a heated and deteriorated condition. The insurers denied liability saying that the proximate cause of the damage was inherent vice or nature of the subject matter insured, for which they were not liable under section 55(2)(c); and that the … Continue reading Soya GmbH Mainz Kommanditgesellschaft v White: HL 1983
The Court was asked as to the construction of the phrase ‘constructive total loss’, and in particular the calculation the expenditure to be taken into account in computing the cost of recovery and or repair, where notice of loss had been served before some of the losses were incurred. Questions were asked as to the … Continue reading Sveriges Angfartygs Assurans Forening (The Swedish Club) and Others v Connect Shipping Inc and Another: SC 12 Jun 2019
An oil rig (The Cendor MOPU) was being transported from Texas to Malaysia. During the voyage, three of the four legs suffered damage. The insurers refused liability saying that the damage was the result of inherent weaknesses in the rig. Held: The insurer’s appeal succeeded. The proximate cause of the loss was not the inherent … Continue reading Global Process Systems Inc and Another v Berhad: SC 1 Feb 2011
The claimant took out insurance on its fleet of ships (the Star Sea). It had been laid up in its off season. The ship’s safety certificates were renewed before it sailed. It was damaged by fire. The insurers asserted that the ship had been unseaworthy, and that that was causative of the fire, and that … Continue reading Manifest Shipping Co Ltd v Uni-Polaris Shipping Co Ltd and Others: HL 23 Jan 2001
Claim following total loss of a mega trailer hopper dredger, the WD Fairway. The underwriters say that they had impliedly accepted the abandonment and exercised their rights to take over the vessel pursuant to Sections 63(1) and/or 79(1) of the . .
The insurance company had refused a claim after the failure of an oil rig, saying that the loss of the rig legs during transit was the inevitable consequence of the voyage, and that since insurance was against risks, not certainties, they were under . .
The conspirators purchased and manned a tanker, The Salem. They chartered her to an innocent charterer, Pontoil SA, for a voyage to Europe carrying a cargo of oil which Pontoil acquired from Kuwait Oil Co in Mina al Ahmadi and agreed to resell to . .
MacKinnon LJ said: ‘There are two massive volumes of Arnould which purport to deal with The Law of Marine Insurance. They now contain over 1800 pages, and the Marine Insurance Act, 1906, is entitled ‘An Act to codify the Law relating to Marine . .
References: [2002] EWHC 2601 (Comm), [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 277, [2003] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 296 Links: Bailii Coram: Tomlinson J Ratio: The claimant ship owner and its mortgagee sued the defendant insurer after the loss of the insured vessel, through fire. The insurers replied that the damage by fire was so extensive that the … Continue reading Kastor Navigation Co Ltd and Another v AGF M A T and others (Kastor Too”): ComC 4 Dec 2002″
