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 that the loss was due to an inherent vice. However, in this case there were acknowledged difficulties with the structure, and these had not been addressed. The proximate cause of the loss was an insured peril in the form of the occurrence of a ‘leg breaking wave’, which resulted in the starboard leg breaking off, leading to greater stresses on the remaining legs, which then also broke off.
Judges:
Waller LJ VP, Carnwath LJ, Patten LJ
Citations:
[2009] EWCA Civ 1398, [2010] Lloyd’s Rep IR 221, [2009] 2 CLC 1056, [2010] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 243
Links:
Statutes:
Marine Insurance Act 1906 39 40 55
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Analysed – Mayban General Assurance Bhd, AMI Insurans Bhd, Malaysian International Insurance Bhd, Syarikat Takaful Malaysia Bhd v Alstom Power Plants Ltd, Alstom T and D Ltd QBD 11-May-2004
An electrical transformer was shipped from Ellesmere Port to Rotterdam and there transferred to a container vessel for carriage to Lumut. Severe weather was encountered, but not such as a commercial person would regard as falling outside the range . .
Appeal from – Global Process Sytems Inc and Another v Syarikat Takaful Malaysia Berhad ComC 31-Mar-2009
The Cendor MOPU
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 . .
Cited – NE Neter and Co Ltd v Licenses and General Insurance Co Ltd 1944
A cargo of casks and bags of china clay out-turned damaged, as a result of the stoving in of the casks on a voyage during which there had been heavy weather.
Held: The claim failed. The plaintiffs had not proved that the proximate cause of the . .
Cited – Soya GmbH Mainz Kommanditgesellschaft v White CA 1982
Where insured goods deteriorated during a passage, not because they had been subjected to some external fortuitous accident or casualty, but because of their natural behaviour in the ordinary course of the voyage, then such deterioration amounted to . .
Cited – Soya GmbH Mainz Kommanditgesellschaft v White HL 1983
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 . .
Cited – J J Lloyd Instruments Limited v Northern Star Insurance Co Ltd; The Miss Jay Jay CA 1987
The insurers insured against an adverse sea but not against defective manufacture or design. Both were found to be proximate causes of the loss.
Held: The Court of Appeal upheld the first instance judge that the owners could claim under the . .
Cited – J J Lloyd Instruments Ltd v Northern Star Insurance Co Ltd ‘The Miss Jay Jay’ 1985
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 . .
Cited by:
Appeal from – Global Process Systems Inc and Another v Berhad SC 1-Feb-2011
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: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insurance, Transport
Updated: 20 December 2022; Ref: scu.384330