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 only one loss and the total repair bill for the hull had to be paid by the insurer.
A loss may be said to be caused by perils of the sea even where the seastate is that which could reasonably have been expected. The words ‘proximate cause’ and ‘direct cause’ came to be used interchangeably, and there can be more than one proximate cause of loss.
Slade LJ
[1987] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 32
Marine Insurance Act 1906 55(1)
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – 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:
Cited – 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.
Updated: 07 August 2021; Ref: scu.428479