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 inherent vice or nature of the subject-matter insured. Donaldson LJ (obiter) said: ‘The only respect in which I would differ from Mr Justice Lloyd is in relation to his findings on causation. The learned Judge said: ‘The burden of proving inherent vice undoubtedly rests on the defendants. They have proved that inherent vice was a cause in the sense that without moisture, the damage could not have occurred at all; but they have not succeeded in proving that inherent vice was the cause, the proximate cause, or one of the proximate causes. It was, to use the language which to my mind still expresses the meaning most accurately, a causa sine qua non, but not a causa causans. It may be said that inherent vice must have been the proximate cause if the soya beans were in fact incapable of withstanding the ordinary incidents of the voyage; that is what inherent vice means. I do not agree. Where there is an insurance against risks of heating, and heating occurs because of the conditions under which soya beans were carried on the particular voyage, I am entitled to hold that the cause of the damage were the conditions under which the soya beans were carried, even though the conditions were normal, and even though nothing untoward occurred. I would only be obliged to find that inherent vice was the proximate cause if the soya beans were such that they could not withstand any normal voyage of that duration. For the reasons already mentioned, that was not the case here.’
I fully accept his finding that the cause of the loss was the condition under which the soya beans were carried, but I disagree with his conclusion that this does not constitute a loss proximately caused by inherent vice. As I have said, in my judgment a loss is proximately caused by inherent vice if t he natural behaviour of the goods is such that they suffer a loss in the circumstances in which they are expected to be carried. This is the test under a contract of affreightment and the shipowner in this case could have pleaded inherent vice in answer to a claim for damage to the cargo. In holding that inherent vice is only proved if the soya beans could not withstand any normal voyage of that duration, the learned Judge was introducing a different concept, namely that of certainty of loss. That is a quite different defence. It is in any event subject to the qualification that it must be a certainty which is, or should be, known at least to the assured.’
Judges:
Donaldson LJ
Citations:
[1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 136
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – 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 – Global Process Systems Inc and Another v Berhad CA 17-Dec-2009
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 . .
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.
Insurance
Updated: 02 May 2022; Ref: scu.384353