Journal of Korea Trade

Korea Trade Research Association (한국무역학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

A Comparative Study on Marine Transport Contract and Marine Insurance Contract with Reference to Unseaworthiness

  • Pak, Jee-Moon (Department of International Trade, Graduate School, Sungkyunkwan University)
  • Received : 2020.12.05
  • Accepted : 2021.02.08
  • Published : 2021.04.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Purpose - This study analyses the excepted requirement and burden of proof of the carrier due to unseaworthiness through comparison between the marine transport contract and marine insurance contract. Design/methodology - This study uses the legal analytical normative approach. The juridical approach involves reviewing and examining theories, concepts, legal doctrines and legislation that are related to the problems. In this study a literature analysis using academic literature and internet data is conducted. Findings - The burden of proof in case of seaworthiness should be based on presumed fault, not proved fault. The burden of proving unseaworthiness/seaworthiness should shift to the carrier, and should be exercised before seeking the protections of the law or carriage contract. In other words, the insurer cannot escape coverage for unfitness of a vessel which arises while the vessel is at sea, which the assured could not have prevented in the exercise of due diligence. The insurer bears the burden of proving unseaworthiness. The warranty of seaworthiness is implied in hull, but not protection and indemnity policies. The 2015 Act repeals ss. 33(3) and 34 of MIA 1906. Otherwise the provisions of the MIA 1906 remain in force, including the definition of a promissory warranty and the recognition of implied warranties. There is less clarity about the position when the source of the loss occurs before the breach of warranty but the actual loss is suffered after the breach. Nonetheless, by s.10(2) of the 2015 Act the insurer appears not to be liable for any loss occurring after the breach of warranty and before there has been a remedy. Originality/value - When unseaworthiness is identified after the sailing of the vessel, mere acceptance of the ship does not mean the party waives any claims for damages or the right to terminate the contract, provided that failure to comply with the contractual obligations is of critical importance. The burden of proof with regards to loss of damage to a cargo caused by unseaworthiness is regulated by the applicable law. For instance, under the common law, if the cargo claimant alleges that the loss or damage has been caused by unseaworthiness, then he has the burden of proof to establish the followings: (i) that the vessel was unseaworthy at the beginning of the voyage; and that, (ii) that the loss or damage has been caused by such unseaworthiness. In other words, if the warranty of seaworthiness at the inception of the voyage is breached, the breach voids the policy if the ship owner had prior knowledge of the unseaworthy condition. By contrast, knowingly permitting the vessel to break ground in an unseaworthy condition denies liability only for loss or damage proximately caused by the unseaworthiness. Such a breach does not, therefore, void the entire policy, but only serves to exonerate the insurer for loss or damage proximately caused by the unseaworthy condition.

Keywords

References

  1. Baatz, Y. et al. (2011), Maritime Law, 2nd ed., London: Sweet & Maxwell Ltd.
  2. Berlingieri, F. (2008), "Carrier's Obligation and Liability", Yearbook 2007-2008, CMI.
  3. Boyd, S. C., et al. (2008), Scrutton on Charterparties and Bill of Lading, 21st ed., London: Sweet & Maxwell Ltd.
  4. Chalmers, M. D. and E. R. H. Ivamy (1996), Chalmers' Marine Insurance Act 1906, 6th ed., London: Butterworth & Co. (Publishers) Ltd.
  5. Cho, Hyun-Sook (2010), "Comparative Study on the Liability of Ocean Carrier in Rotterdam Rules", Korea Trade Review, 35(1), Korea Trade Research Association, 335-360.
  6. Choi, Jong-Hyeon (2004), "Exemption of Liability of a Carrier based on the Perils of the Sea Defense", The Journal of Korea Maritime Law Association, 26(2), Korea Maritime Law Association, 229-243.
  7. Diamond, A. (1986), "The Law of Marine Insurance- Has It a Future?'", Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, 25-37.
  8. Gard (2020), "2.1.1 Seaworthiness-Safety-Security", available from http://www.gard.no/web/publications/document/chapter?p_subdoc_id=6224&p_document_id=6223(accessed August 28, 2020)
  9. Gepffrey, B. (1991), "Unexplained Losses in Marine Insurance", Tul. Mar. L.J., 16, 105-172.
  10. Gilman, J., M. Templeman, C. Blanchard and P. Hopkins (2018), Arnould: Law of Marine Insurance and Average, 19th ed., London: Sweet & Maxwell.
  11. Goodacre, J. K. (1981), Marine Insurance Claims, London: Witherby & Co. Ltd.
  12. Gow, W. (1914), Sea Insurance, London: Macmillan Co. Ltd.
  13. Hughes, A. D. (1994), Casebook on Carriage of Goods By Sea, SO: Blackstone 1994.
  14. Ji, Sang-Gyu (2010), "A Study on the Breach and Limitation clause for seaworthiness based on the British cases", Law Review, 39, Korea Law Association, 311-334.
  15. Jo, Jong-Ju (2010), "The burden of proof under the Rotterdam Rules", The Journal of Maritime Business, 15, Korea Association of Maritime Business, 225-250.
  16. Jo, Jong-Ju (2016), "The Applying Differences of Excepted Perils in the Rotterdam Rules", International Commerce & Law Review, 71, The Korean Research Institute of International Commerce & Law, 147-170.
  17. Kwon, Kee-Hoon (2007), "Burden of proof of the Seaworthiness on the Damage of Goods by Sea", Journal of Law and Politics Research, 7(2), The Korean Association of Law and Politics, 461-484.
  18. Lee, Phil-Bok (2020), "Maritime Case Study/Actual Claim based on Ship Time Insurance through Governing Law of English Law- Korean Supreme Court Decision2020. 6. 4. Docket No.2020da204049-", Monthly Maritime Korea, 563, Korea Maritime Research Institute, 125-133.
  19. Maraist, F. L., T. C. Galligan, Jr. and C. M. Maraist (2003), Cases and Materials on Maritime Law, MN: West Group.
  20. Menon, A. (July 31, 2020), "What is Seaworthiness And Why it is Important?", available from https://www.marineinsight.com/naval-architecture/what-is-seaworthiness-and-why-it-is-important/(accessed August 29, 2020)
  21. Merkin, R. (2002), Colinvaux & Merkin's Insurance Contract Law, Vol.2, London: Sweet & Maxwell.
  22. Merkin, R. (2010), Marine Insurance Legislation, 4th ed., London: Informa Law from Routledge.
  23. Merkin, R. and O. Gurses (2016), "Insurance Contracts After the Insurance Act 2015", Law Quarterly Review, 132, 445-469.
  24. Rose, F. D. (2012), Marine Insurance: Law and Practice, 2nd ed., NY: informa.
  25. Safewatersmarine (June 27, 2016), "Seaworthiness & Cargoworthiness", available from https://safewatersmarine.com/seaworthiness-cargoworthiness/(accessed August 28, 2020)
  26. Schoenbaum, T. J. (2001), Admiralty and Maritime Law, 3rd ed., MN: West Group.
  27. Singh, L. (2011), The Law of Carriage of Goods by Sea, London: Bloomsbury Professional Ltd.
  28. Song, M. (2012), "Rules of Causation under Marine Insurance Law: From the Perspective of Marine Risks and Losses", University of Southampton, University School or Department, PhD Thesis.
  29. Song, Ok-Rial (2009), "Legal Issues of Rotterdam Rules on Carriage by Sea", International Trade Law, 88, Ministry of Justice, 64-93.
  30. Tetley, W. (2008), Marine Cargo Claims, 4th ed, Montreal: Editions Yvon Blais.
  31. Treitel, G. and F. Reynolds (2017), Carver in Carriage of Goods by Sea, 4th ed, London: Sweet & Maxwell Ltd.,
  32. Vance, W. R. (1911), "The History of the Development of the Warranty in Insurance Law", Yale L J, 20(7), 523-534. https://doi.org/10.2307/785671
  33. White, R. (1995), "The Human Factor in Unseaworthiness Claims", Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, 221-239.
  34. White, R. (1996), "Human Unseaworthiness", Lloyd's Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly, 24-32.
  35. Wilson, J. F. (2010), Carriage of Goods by Sea, 7th ed., Essex: Pearson Education Limited.
  36. Yang, Seok-Wan (2011), "The Burden of Proof on the Damage of Goods by Sea under the Rotterdam Rules", International Trade Law, 99, Ministry of Justice, 12-45.
  37. Yang, Seok-Wan (2014), "Legal Nature upon the Burden of Proof on the Damage of Goods by Sea in Article 795 of the Korean Commercial Code", Law Journal, 47, Kyungpook National University, 175-206.