Two consignments of motor vehicles were protected in transit by a marine insurance. They were misappropriated at the port of landing. The insurers appealed a finding that the cars were still insured.
Held: The theft by an officer of the state did not amount to a seizure. The transit clause had to be looked at as a whole. It referred to movement to a named destination. Where the consignment was to go to one place and then another, cover only ended under the clause when collected by the consignee.
Judges:
Tuckey, Hale, LJJ, Sir Denis Henry
Citations:
Times 02-Dec-2002, Gazette 09-Jan-2003
Statutes:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Upheld – Bayview Motors Ltd v Mitsui Marine and Fire Insurance Company, Ltd and others ComC 23-Jan-2002
Two consignments of motor vehicles had been misappropriated by customs officers at Santo Domingo. The insurers under a marine insurance policy resisted payment on the basis that the cover was concluded.
Held: The occurrences giving rise to the . .
Cited – John Martin v Russell 1961
‘The third argument, however, was that that was not a final warehouse within the meaning of the clause. On that point I have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are right; that it was not a final warehouse. The first and elementary . .
Appeal from – Bayview Motors Ltd v Mitsui Marine and Fire Insurance Company, Ltd and others ComC 23-Jan-2002
Two consignments of motor vehicles had been misappropriated by customs officers at Santo Domingo. The insurers under a marine insurance policy resisted payment on the basis that the cover was concluded.
Held: The occurrences giving rise to the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insurance, Transport
Updated: 26 May 2022; Ref: scu.178296
