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
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
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 . .
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
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
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
