The ship was insured against the perils of the sea by a policy containing a warranty against all consequences of hostilities. While voyaging to Le Havre, she was torpedoed by a German submarine 25 miles from port. She began to settle by the head, but helped by tugs got to Le Havre and was taken … Continue reading Leyland Shipping Co Ltd v Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd: HL 1918
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 owner claimed for damage to the hull of the Jay Jay.
Held: Where there are two operative causes, one covered by the policy risks and one not, then provided that the second cause is not an excluded peril, the Assured can recover. There was . .
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
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 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 court discussed the effect of an exception clause in an insurance policy: ‘The effect of an exception is to save the insurer from liability for a loss which but for the exception would be covered. The effect of the cover is not to impose on the . .