A commercial fire policy which broke its warranties and provisions into sections did not evade cover when a breach of one section did not withdraw cover because that section excluded the provisions of the Act. Citations: Times 03-Feb-1999, [1999] EWCA Civ 683 Statutes: Marine Insurance Act 1906 33(3) Jurisdiction: England and Wales Insurance Updated: 30 … Continue reading Printpak v AGF Insurance Limited: CA 29 Jan 1999
Insurance broker may generally exercise a lien for an unpaid premium over the proceeds of a policy, but not over a policy of a co-assured over debt of the other assured. Citations: Times 29-Dec-1997, Gazette 28-Jan-1998, [1997] EWCA Civ 3005, [1998] 1 All ER 946 Links: Bailii Statutes: Marine Insurance Act 1906 53(2) Jurisdiction: England … Continue reading Eide UK Ltd and Another v Lowndes Lambert Group Ltd and Another: CA 16 Dec 1997
The claimants sought payment for water damage under their policies. The insurer alleged non-disclosure. The judge had found the claimants to be honest, and criticised the defendants witnesses. The claimants had been involved in companies which had been in insolvent liquidation, but the proposal from did not raise the issue. Was the non-disclosure material? Held: … Continue reading Norwich Union Insurance Ltd v Meisels and Another: QBD 9 Nov 2006
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
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
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 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
ComC Insurance – Marine Insurance Act 1906 – common law – duty not to make fraudulent claims – contractual provision – Conspiracy – injury by unlawful means – intention – combination – breach of duty – right to avoid Judges: Mance J Citations: [1997] LRLR 94, [1998] Lloyd’s Rep IR 151 Statutes: Marine Insurance Act … Continue reading Insurance Corporation of the Channel Islands Ltd and Another v Charles Joseph McHugh and Another: ComC 1 Jul 1996
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
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 plaintiff had written long term (tail) insurance. The defendant came to re-insure it. On a dispute there were shown greater losses than had been disclosed, and that this had been known to the Plaintiff. Held: ‘material circumstance’ which would require disclosure under the Act are such circumstances as would affect an insurer’s mind. Did … Continue reading Pan Atlantic Insurance Co Ltd and Another v Pine Top Insurance Co Ltd: HL 27 Jul 1994
The claimants insured their yacht with the defendants for a value as certified by an independent valuer. The defendants claimed he had misrepresented the value in the proposal. The words ‘sum insured’ indicated a ceiling on a claim on an unvalued policy. There was no indication from the insurers on the proposal form that they … Continue reading Kyzuna Investments Ltd v Ocean Marine Mutual Insurance Association (Europe): QBD 23 Mar 2000
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 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 . .
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 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
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
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
The court considered what expenses were to be taken into account in assessing whether there had been a total loss of a ship. Judges: Sir Geoffrey Vos Ch, Simon, Hamblen LJJ Citations: [2018] EWCA Civ 230, [2018] 2 All ER (Comm) 575, [2018] WLR(D) 104, [2018] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 285, [2018] Bus LR 1333 Links: … Continue reading Sveriges Angfartygs Assurans Forening (The Swedish Club) and Others v Connect Shipping Inc and Another, Re Renos: CA 19 Feb 2018
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″
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
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
Out of various claims under insurances, one claim, for the payment of a premium on a policy of reinsurance remained. It provided that it was payable 90 days after the contract and in cash. Held: The words indicated that the obligation to pay began not with the contract but after the expiry of the 90 … Continue reading Heath Lambert Limited v Sociedad De Corretaje De Seguros, Banesco Seguros Ca: CA 25 Jun 2004
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
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
The plaintiffs operated a scheme relying upon insurance. The insurers refused to renew, and they then approached and obtained insurance from the defendants, but it was alleged without disclosing the full history. Held: The plaintiffs had made representations which were both material and untrue within s20. The circumstances would have been taken account of by … Continue reading Container Transport International Inc v Oceanus Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda): CA 1984
The barge had become holed when run aground and then repaired. The repair was faulty, and it sank. The insurers rejected the claim saying that the owners had failed to disclose a report showing areas of thinning of the hull. The underwriters sought to be joined as defendants after judgment. Held: It was argued that … Continue reading Humber Work Boats Ltd v ‘Selby Paradigm’, Owners of Mv and others: AdCt 23 Jul 2004
Judges: Roch LJ, Tuckey LJ, Mance LJ Citations: [2000] EWCA Civ 220, [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 350, [2000] CLC 1534, [2001] Lloyd’s Rep IR 141, [2000] 2 All ER (Comm) 193 Links: Bailii Statutes: Marine Insurance Act 1906 33 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Citing: Cited – Forsikringsaktieselskapt Vesta v Butcher HL 1988 A contract of … Continue reading Groupama Navigation Et Transports; Continent Sa; Mutuelles Du Mans; Zurich International France SA and Gie Generali Transports (Bodies Corporate) v V Catatumbo Seguros (a Body Corporate): CA 20 Jul 2000
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
O insured their vessel for 9 million dollars under a hull policy. P bank had agreed to advance money against a mortgage over the vessel. A loss payable clause in favour of the bank was in indorsed on the hull policy. In addition the bank entered into its own MI policy with D being an … Continue reading Continental Illinois National Bank and Trading Company of Chicago v Bathurst: 1985
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
Lien on policy under Act is not also a lien on the proceeds of any claim under it; There had been no intention in the Act to provide additional protection to broker. Citations: Gazette 03-Sep-1997, Times 23-Oct-1997 Statutes: Marine Insurance Act 1906 53(2) Insurance Updated: 19 May 2022; Ref: scu.80275
The insured vessel, a houseboat, was towed alongside a tug some seven and half miles to Northam. Her topside seams were leaky and defective. The breast wave thrown up by the two vessels caused water to mount up against the seams and enter and sink the houseboat. Some four feet of water entered in 100 … Continue reading Mountain v Whittle: HL 1921
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 Marine Insurance Act 1906 did not alter the position on notice of abandonment Citations: [1915] 1 KB 922 Statutes: Marine Insurance Act 1906 Jurisdiction: England and Wales Cited by: Cited – Sveriges Angfartygs Assurans Forening (The Swedish Club) and Others v Connect Shipping Inc and Another SC 12-Jun-2019 The Court was asked as to … Continue reading Polurrian Steamship Co Ltd v Young: CA 1915
Certain insureds sought recovery of a sum which was greater than the sum which had been paid to them by their insurers. The insureds had claimed first on the policies of insurance. Their claims had been met. The insureds then pursued an action in negligence against a third party. Held: On payment by the insurers … Continue reading Lord Napier and Ettrick and Another v Hunter and Others; Same v R F Kershaw Ltd: HL 3 Mar 1993
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
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 effect of breach of an insurance warranty is automatic, rather than dependant on any acceptance or election.Lord Goff of Chieveley said: ‘So it is laid down in section 33(3) that, subject to any express provision in the policy, the insurer is discharged from liability as from the date of the breach of warranty. Those … Continue reading Bank of Nova Scotia v Hellenic Mutual War Risks Association (Bermuda) Ltd (The Good Luck): HL 1992
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 . .
Lord Wright explained: ‘There is a real difference in logic between saying that a future happening is uncertain and saying that it is unlikely. In the former, the balance is even. No one can say one way or the other. In the latter, there is some . .
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 . .
