The shipping company was insured against loss of business following Acts of war. It sought to claim after the attack on America in September 2001.
Held: The policy had a limitation which applied ‘in the annual aggregate and in all’ which therefore prevented separate sums in respect of each ship exceeding this sum in total. The single day of terrorist attacks in New York and Washington were unlikely to be called an act of war or armed conflict by men of business. The phrase ‘armed conflict’ implied continuity, but this was not essential for the present case.
Judges:
Lord Justice Mummery Lord Justice Rix Lord Justice Ward
Citations:
[2004] EWCA Civ 769, Times 13-Aug-2004, [2004] Lloyd’s Rep IR 696
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – If P and C Insurance Ltd v Silversea Cruises Ltd and others ComC 19-Mar-2003
. .
Cited – Kawasaki Kisen Kabushiki Kaisha of Kobe v Bantham Steamship Company Limited CA 1939
The case was heard against the background of an armed conflict between Japan and China. The charterparty contract included a clause providing for cancellation ‘if war breaks out involving Japan’.
Held: The court rejected an argument that the . .
Cited – Spinneys (1948) Ltd v Royal Insurance Co Ltd 1980
The court considered the meaning of ‘war’ in the context of an insurance contract: ‘The issue is not whether the events in Lebanon were recognised in the United Kingdom as amounting to a civil war in the sense in which the term is used in Public . .
Cited by:
Appealed to – If P and C Insurance Ltd v Silversea Cruises Ltd and others ComC 19-Mar-2003
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Insurance
Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.198574
