Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Insurance - From: 1800 To: 1849

This page lists 18 cases, and was prepared on 08 August 2015.

 
Lucena -v- Craufurd (1802) 3 Bos & P 75; (1802) 127 ER 42 Ex Ch
1802
CEC
Chambre J
Insurance
Enemy ships which had been captured were insured for their return to England. A claim arose. The insurance provider said that the claim failed under the 1745 Act as a wager since the claimant had no insurable interest in the ships. Held: "It would be a strange thing if freight could not be the subject of protection by an instrument which had its origin from commerce and was introduced for the very purpose of giving security to mercantile transactions. It is a solid substantial interest ascertained by contract and arising from labour and capital employed for te hpurpose of commerce." and "The insurance of profits ascertained by positive contract may be equally just and reasonable, and is hardly to be distinguished in principle from the case of freight . . . A mere speculation on profit is not insurable."
Marine Insurance Act 1745
1 Citers


 
Hadkinson -v- Robinson [1803] EngR 585; (1803) 3 Bos & Pul 388; (1803) 127 ER 212
20 May 1803


Insurance, Transport

[ Commonlii ]
 
Lucena -v- Craufurd (1806) 2 Bos & Pul MR 269
1806
HL
Lawrence J, Lord Eldon
Insurance
Before the declaration of war, against the United Provinces, His Majesty's ships took possession of several ships belonging to Dutch East Inadiamen, and took them to St Helena. The Commissioners then insured the ships for their journey from St Helena to London. War followed shortly. The ships were declared as prizes to his Majesty, having 'belonged, when taken, to subjects of the United Provinces, since become enemies.' A loss occurred and the Commissioners sought to claim under the policies, saying the interest was in the King. Held: An insurance taken out on the profits of a ship or other goods which was in its true nature a wager was merely an attempt to evade the 1745 Act. Even though the contract did not come within the word of the Act, it came within its spirit, and was avoided by the Act.
Lord Eldon rejected the argument based on moral certainty: "In order to distinguish that intermediate thing between a strict right, or a right derived under a contract, and a mere expectation or hope, which has been termed an insurable interest, it has been said in many cases to be that which amounts to a moral certainty. I have in vain endeavoured however to find a fit definition of that which is between a certainty and an expectation; nor am I able to point out what is an interest unless it be a right in the property, or a right derivable out of some contract about the property, which in either case may be lost upon some contingency affecting the possession or enjoyment of the party." and "That expectation [of the insured in the case], though founded upon the highest probability, was not an interest, and it was equally not interest, whatever might have been the chances in favour of the expectation … If moral certainty be a ground of insurable interest, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, who would be entitled to insure. First the dock company, then the dock master, then the warehouse-keeper, then the porter, and then every other person who to a moral certainty would have anything to do with the property, and of course get something by it."
Lawrence J (advising their lordships) "A man is interested in a thing to whom advantage may arise or prejudice happen from the circumstances which may attend it; and whom it imports, that its condition as to safety or other quality should continue; iInterest does not necessarily imply a right to the whole or part of the thing, nor necessarily and exclusively that which may be the subject of privation, but the having some relation to, or concerning the subject of the insurance; which relation or concern, by the happening of the perils insured against. may be so affected as to produce a damage, detriment or prejudice to the person insuring. And where a man is so circumstanced with respect to matters exposed to certain risks or dangers, as to have a moral certainty of advantage or benefit, but for those risks or dangers he may be said to be interested in the safety of the thing. To be interested in the preservation of a thing, is to be so circumstanced with respect to it as to have benefit from its existence, prejudice from its destruction. The property of a thing and the interest devisable from it may be very different; of te first the price is generally the measure, but by interest in a thing every benefit and advantage arising out of or depending on such thing may be considered as being comprehended."
Marine Insurance Act 1745
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Harbert -v- Champion [1807] EngR 48; (1807) 1 Camp 133; (1807) 170 ER 903
1807


Insurance

[ Commonlii ]
 
Lucena -v- Craufurd (1808) 1 Taunt 325
1808
HL

Insurance

Marine Insurance Act 1745
1 Cites



 
 Livie -v- Janson; 1810 - [1810] 12 East 648
 
Brown -v- Carstairs [1811] EngR 646; (1811) 3 Camp 161; (1811) 170 ER 1341
24 Dec 1811


Insurance

[ Commonlii ]
 
Le Cheminant -v- Pearson (1812) 4 Taunt 367
1812


Insurance
The insured having carried out a partial repair folowing one incident, the vessel was then a total loss. Held: The insured could recover both losses.
1 Citers


 
Hahn -v Corbett [1824] 2 Bing 206
1824

Best CJ, Park, Burrough JJ
Insurance
The cargo, Manchester cotton goods, was insured against marine risks from London to Maracaibo "warranted free from capture and seizure." The vessel was grounded off Maracaibo and became a constructive total loss. Ninety-five per cent of the cargo was damaged and there was no means to carry it on. The day after, the goods were condemned as prize by the occupying Spanish forces and unloaded. The court was asked whether the goods had been lost by the insured peril, perils of the sea or rather by seizure, which was excepted. It was held that the goods were lost when the ship was lost. Held: The argument that the seizure should be regarded as the proximate cause of the loss was rejected by the court.
1 Citers



 
 Hunter and Others -v- Leathley; 1830 - [1830] EngR 98; (1830) 10 B & C 858; (1830) 109 ER 667
 
Paterson -v- Powell (1832) 9 Bing 329; [1832] EngR 824; (1832) 9 Bing 320; (1832) 131 ER 635 (B)
1832

Tyndall CJ
Insurance
The purpose of the 1774 Act was to prevent “gaming” in the disguise of insurance and in the sense of gambling on the outcome of an uncertain event in which the “assured” had no interest save for the interest created by the very gamble or agreement itself.
Insurance Act 1774
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Charles Ferrier, Esq, Accountant In Edinburgh, Trustee Upon The Sequestrated Estate Of John White, Late Merchant In Edinburgh -v- Francis Howden, Esq, And Others, Trustees Of The Scottish Union Insurance Company [1834] EngR 601; (1834) 4 Cl & Fin 25; (1834) 7 ER 10
21 Mar 1834


Scotland, Insurance

[ Commonlii ]
 
Robinson -v- Gleadow (1835) 2 Bing NC 156
1835


Insurance
If the managing owner insures a ship on behalf of all co-owners, they all may be jointly liable for the premiums.

 
Roux -v- Salvador [1836] Bing NC 266
1836
CeC
Lord Abinger CB
Insurance
Hides were insured for their journey. Unfortunately they were in a process of putrefaction which would have been complete by the time of arrival at the port of destination, Bordeaux, such that on arrival they could not properly have been described as hides. Held. Lord Abinger CB: "In the case before us the jury have found that the hides were so far damaged by a peril of the sea, that they never could have arrived in the form of hides. By the process of fermentation and putrefaction, which had commenced, a total destruction of them before their arrival at the port of destination, became as inevitable as if they had been cast into the sea or consumed by fire. Their destruction not being consummated at the time they were taken out of the vessel, they became in that state a salvage for the benefit of the party who was to sustain the loss, and were accordingly sold; and the facts of the loss and the sale were made known at the same time to the assured. Neither he nor the underwriters could at that time exercise any control over them, or by any interference alter the consequences. It appears to us, therefore, that this was not the case of what has been called a constructive loss, but of an absolute total loss of the goods: they could never arrive; and, at the same moment when the intelligence of the loss arrived, all speculation was at an end."
1 Citers


 
Roux -v- Salvador [1836] EngR 1052; (1836) 3 Bing NC 267; (1836) 132 ER 413
15 Nov 1836


Insurance

[ Commonlii ]
 
Yates -v- Whyte (1838) 4 Bing NC 272; [1838] EngR 396; (1838) 132 ER 793
1838


Insurance

1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]

 
 Callander -v- Oelrichs And Another; 12-Nov-1838 - [1838] EngR 915; (1838) 5 Bing NC 58; (1838) 132 ER 1026
 
Ashley And Others -v- Pratt And Others [1847] EngR 192; (1847) 16 M & W 471; (1847) 153 ER 1274
1 Feb 1847


Transport, Insurance
Insurance on ship, at and from Liverpool to ports and places in China and Manilla, all or any, during the ship’s there for any purposes, and from thence to her port or ports of calling and discharge in the United Kingdom, with liberty to call; and stay at all or any ports or places on either side of and at the Cape of Good Hope. The ship sailed from Liverpool direct to a port in China, having on board a cargo for that port and Manilla; from thence she proceeded to Manilla, and there discharged the remainder of her outward cargo. At Manilla the captain took on board, on freight, 230 chests of opium for Tongkoo, another port in China (not being thereby a tenth part laden), and sailed for Tongkoo, there to seek a freight for the United Kingdom, and on her voyage thither was lost by perils of the seas. Tongkoo is quite out of the direct course from Manilla to the United Kingdom: - Held, that the words “from thence,” in the policy, mearit not "from manilla" only, but "from ports or places in China and Manilla, all or any;" and that the sailing from Manilla to Tongkoo, for the purpose of seeking a homeward cargo, was not a deviation.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.