• Journal of the Korean Institute of Navigation
• /
• v.25 no.1
• /
• pp.33-44
• /
• 2001

Tankers have somewhat different shapes in construction and working condition compared with normal merchant ship. If an accident occurs, normal merchant ship's damages will mostly be confined to ship and cargo, but those of tankers will result in oil spills and catastrophic loss beyond our imagination. So, first we must understand risk factors, pre-loss control and post-loss control, legal regulations about its indemnification and marine insurance for oil tanker operation. When unexpected accidents happen, despite pre-loss control, it is possible to cover those kinds of losses by insurance. To control these losses, however, it is important to establish compensation for oil pollution and arrange for oil pollution preventing system. In spite of these oil pollution preventing systems, we have rarely seen that pollution from oil tankers could be solved. So this paper was studied more fundamental and overall control measures for the risk management of oil tanker operation.

• The Journal of Fisheries Business Administration
• /
• v.43 no.1
• /
• pp.63-74
• /
• 2012

The Korean Conflict of Laws Act recently incorporated much of the European Union's recent revision in "EC Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome 1980)"(hereinafter Rome Convention). With the revision of Rome Convention applied to contractual obligations,"Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I)"(hereinafter Rome I) has taken effect on December 2009. Before the effectivation of Rome I, "Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II)"(hereinafter Rome II) has come into effect on January 2009. This means the revision of certain rules and its practical implications need an in-depth study on governing law rules under Rome I which provides newly effected governing laws applicable to contractual obligations. Moreover, uniform choice of law rules on non-contractual obligations needs to focus especially on marine insurance contract. Where policy assignment and subrogation causes, how to decide the governing law which will be applied to the insurer as a third party? This article attempts to analyze emerging legal issues in legal regimes determining choice of law, especially those in international marine insurance contracts. This will help Korean practitioners to be dialed in legal affairs under English Law as the governing law in their contracts.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.47 no.3
• /
• pp.191-209
• /
• 2022

Whether or not insurance policies are securities has been debated for nearly a century. The position of claiming that an insurance policy has securities properties is premised on the concomitant nature of the maritime cargo insurance policy to the bill of lading. However, in reality today, marine cargo insurance policies are transferred between parties involved in international trade as an integral part of the bill of lading, and the two securities go through the same distribution process. The issue of recognizing the securities properties of an insurance policy is particularly debated when the insurance policy is issued in a order or bearer form. In a normal insurance policy, the name of the right holder, such as the claimant, is written on the insurance policy, and it is not usually transferred by endorsement. In principle, insurance policies are interpreted as neither securities nor negotiable securities. Sometimes, research is being done on legal reform to respond to digitalization of securities, and bills of lading are the subject of research. If marine cargo insurance policies, which are sometimes premised on distribution, have securities properties, the status of the regulations on digitization of bills of lading currently being studied may be helpful for digitization of marine cargo insurance policies. Under these circumstances, the securities of marine cargo insurance policies are reviewed based on recent practices.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.45 no.5
• /
• pp.279-301
• /
• 2020

In the absence of any guidance under statutory law, such as the Rules for Construction of Policy, MIA 1906, judges should follow the general principles of interpretation that apply to all contracts. In simple terms, Contra Proferentem Rule means that if the contents of the terms and conditions are ambiguous, they are interpreted against the writer of the terms and conditions. In the Anglo-American Contract Law, the 'default rule' is an important judicial tool that can supplement defects in contract norms and reinforce the principle of private autonomy through gap-filling techniques related to the interpretation of contracts. In Korea, it is sometimes mentioned in case of precedent, and it has been established as a clear rule. This study analyzes the interpretation of terms and conditions is not in the form that the interpretation of other general contracts and other interpretation principles are valid, but contracts based on terms and conditions are also contracts, and as a general rule, the interpretation of terms and conditions is explained like the general contract interpretation.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.44
• /
• pp.111-180
• /
• 2009

According to English law, in a voyage policy there is an implied warranty that at the commencement of the voyage the ship shall be seaworthy for the purpose of the particular adventure to be insured. However, Unites States law affords the implied warranty of seaworthiness a great deal of latitude. In the case of voyage policies, it has been traditionally held that the assured is bound not only to have his vessel seaworthy at the commencement of the voyage but also to keep her so, insofar as this can be achieved by himself and his agents, throughout the voyage. Additionally, a defect in seaworthiness, arising after the commencement of the risk, and permitted to continue from bad faith or want of ordinary prudence or diligence on the part of the insured or his agents, discharges the insurer from liability for any loss consequent to such bad faith, or want of prudence or diligence; but does not affect the insurance contract in reference to any other risk or loss covered by the policy, and which is not caused or exacerbated by the aforementioned defect. One of the most important areas of difference in the marine insurance contract between the U.K. and U.S. is the breach of warranty. Prior to the Wilburn Boat case, the MIA was thought to hold that the effect of a breach of warranty was similar under American law -in that under the general maritime law literal compliance with all promissory warranties is required. In this case, the Court concluded that state law should apply to a marine insurance policy, and found that there was no federal rule addressing the consequences of a breach of warranty in marine polices. However, it is of the utmost importance that this case brought to a close the imperative concordance between English and American law. Meanwhile, in relation to marine insurance contracts in Korea, this insurance is subject to English law and practice;, additionally, the international trade volume between Korea and the United States has assumed a vast scale. Therefore, we believe it is important to understand the differences in marine insurance law between the two countries in terms of marine insurance contracts, and most specifically warranties.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.33
• /
• pp.191-219
• /
• 2007

Section 39(5) of Marine Insurance Act 1906 concerns the case where with the privity of the assured, the ship is sent to sea in an unseaworthy state. The underwriters argue that the assured had"blind-eye knowledge" of the particular respect in which the ship was unseaworthy. Blind-eye knowledge requires a conscious reason for blinding the eye. There must be at least a suspicion of a truth about which one do not want to know and which one refuse to investigate. What has caused greater difficulty is the broad provision in s.17 which appears to be unlimited in its scope. The expression "utmost good faith" appears to derive from the idea of uberrimae fidei, words which indeed appear in the sidenote. The concept of uberrima fides does not appear to have derived from civil law and it has been regarded as unnecessary in civilian systems. S.17 raises many questions. But only two of them are critical to the decision of the present appeal-the fraudulent claim question and the litigation question. It is however necessary to discuss them in the context of a consideration of the problematic character of s.17. In the Star Sea Case, for the defendants to succeed in their defence under this part of the case the defendants have to show that claim was made fraudulently. They have failed to obtain a finding of fraud. It is not enough that until part of the way through the trial the owners failed to disclose to the defendants would have wished to see in order to provide them with some, albeit inadequate, evidential support for their alleged defence under s.39(5). The defence under s.17 fails. The Purpose of this work is to analyze the Star Sea Case, and to explore problems of the MIA relating to the judgement of this case.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.43
• /
• pp.239-273
• /
• 2009

Marine insurance contracts, which intended to provide indemnity against marine risks upon the payment of a premium, originated in Northern Italy in the late 12th and early 13th centuries. The law and practice of Italian merchants were later introduced into England through Lombard merchants. It is, therefore, quite exact that English and Continental marine insurance law have common root. Nevertheless, some significant divergences between English and Continental marine insurance systems occurred since the late 17th century, mainly due to different approaches adopted by English courts. The rule of warranty in English marine insurance was established in the second part of the 18th century by Lord Mansfield, who laid the foundations of the modern English law of marine insurance and developed different approaches, especially in the field of warranty in marine insurance law. Since the age of Lord Mansfield, English marine insurance law has developed a unique rule on warranty. Bearing in mind the realities of the 18th century, it could easily be understood why Lord Mansfield afforded such a strict legal character to marine warranties. At that time, the 'promise' given by the assured, played an important role for the insurer to assess the scope of the risk. Legal environments, however, have changed dramatically since the times of Lord Mansfield. Of course, it is still important that the assured keep his promises to the insurer under the insurance contract, which is based upon utmost good faith. Nevertheless, the remedy of automatic discharge from liability, regardless of existence of a casual link between the breach and loss seems harsh in the realities of the 21st century. After examining the warranty regime adopted by the German and Norwegian hull clauses, it is fair to say that they provide a more equitable approaches for the assured than does English law. Therefore, this article suggests that English warranty regime needs overall reform and it is time to reform.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.46
• /
• pp.211-235
• /
• 2010

According to the commercial law in Korea, a marine cargo insurance contractor (policyholder, insured person, agent) has the duty to disclose risks before establishing an insurance contract and the obligation to notify changes in risks after before establishing the contract. Marine cargo insurance policy clauses include one about the obligation to notify changes in risks. This clause assumes that an insurance contract should be implemented according to what has been answered to the important questions asked by the insurer in connection with the insurant's duty to disclose before establishing an insurance contract, and it stipulates that, if any change in what has been disclosed should be notified to the insurer since it is regarded as a change in risks. Neglecting the obligation to notify may lead to the termination of the appropriate insurance contract by the insurer. The problems here concern the clauses about changes in risks and about the obligation to notify. The problems are like these. Can it be that the circumstances which might be seen in the past as changes in risks according to the territorial sea laws and institute cargo clauses stipulated long ago are considered as such still today? And a marine cargo insurance policy till valid when changes in risks have not been properly notified by the original discloser of risks to the insured who currently holds the marine cargo insurance policy, which, unlike other insurance policies, is a marketable security? In Korea, the commercial law has a clause the obligation to notify changes in risks established based on the territorial sea laws and institute cargo clauses. In this regard, this study aims to consider if the clause still valid today or not and, if not, to propose alternatives to the clauses.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.30 no.3 s.109
• /
• pp.247-251
• /
• 2006

By becoming 21st century which run be charactered as highly industrialized society which spreads diversification and individualization, there have been elevation of income level and increase of time for leisure activity by introducing 5 working days system. And this brings out increasing of aquatic leisure activity population and the contents of the leisure becomes very active. Static indoor activity which was the main current of the leisure activity in the past, however, it is now called for outdoor activity accompanied by the society growth and even expands towards that people get into action and experience by their own free will. With this point of view, the aquatic leisure run become a safe activity. But with a rapid growth of aquatic leisure activity, safety concerns become a serious problem. To prevent safety accident, training should be given, safety inspection and registration should be requested, and strong support of system is needed so users can have an insurance for safety accident. These complements are necessary for overall nourishment and management measure to charge in systematical safety for the users.

• Korea Trade Review
• /
• v.44 no.2
• /
• pp.83-94
• /
• 2019

Article 17 of the Marine Insurance Act (MIA) states that "A contract of marine insurance is a contract based upon the utmost good faith, and if the utmost good faith be not observed by either party, the contract may be avoided by the other party." In the Carter v. Boehm case, Lord Mansfield was the first to provide a comprehensive description of the duty of utmost good faith, which is analyzed here. This judgement not only laid the foundation for the Modern English Insurance Act, but it also influenced the draft of the English Insurance Act of 2015, which aimed at correcting distortions that occurred during the application of statue law and common law thereafter. The duty of utmost good faith, applied between Lord Mansfield's insured and insurer presents the context of information asymmetry of the insured and insurer entering contracts. In the absence of information asymmetry, in contrast to the effects of being in both sides of the duty of utmost good faith, alleviating the duty of disclosure of the insured, and it is also clear that the warning of the severity of the retrospective avoidance of the breach of duty of disclosure and the need for its limited application have already been pointed out. Furthermore, considering the principle of retrospective avoidance, the duty of utmost good faith should be understood as a concept limited to the duty of disclosure before a contract is concluded