• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제57권
• /
• pp.137-169
• /
• 2013

This article intends to analyse some features in Exclusion Clauses of the Institute Cargo Clauses 2009 and the results of analysis are following. First, the insufficiency of packing or preparation exclusion under the revised Clause 4.3 is now more limited than before and the Clause suggest the test of sufficiency or suitability "to withstand the ordinary incidents of the insured transit". Secondly, the word "proximately" was deleted under the revised Clause 4.5 for the insurer to be identified more easily as a cause, but it remains to be seen whether that re-drafting will be successful. Thirdly, The exclusion under the revised Clause 4.6 does not apply unless the insurer can prove that, at the time the subject-matter insured is loaded on board the vessel, the assured was aware, or in the ordinary course of business should have been aware, that the relevant insolvency or financial default could prvent the normal prosecution of the voyage, and to a person who purchase the goods from the assured in good faith under a binding contract. Fourthly, the exclusion in respect of unseaworthiness of vessel under Clause 5.1.1 applies only where the assured is privy to the unseaworthiness, whereas the exclusion in respect of unfitness of container or conveyance under Clause 5.1.2 includes the privity of the employee. Finally, Clause 7 establishes the definition of terrorism, and adds ideological and religious motive to political motive.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제59권
• /
• pp.81-112
• /
• 2013

This article intends to examine main features of revision in relation to the duration of cover in the Institute Cargo Clauses 2009 and the results of analysis are as followings. First, the cover, which had been "warehouse to warehouse", has been extended to what may be called "shelf to unloading". Thus the insurance attaches when the goods are first moved within the warehouse or place of storage at the named place for the purpose of immediate loading for the commencement of transit. Secondly, the new termination Clause 8.1.3 requires an election by the assured, or their employees, to use a vehicle or container, for storage other than in the ordinary course of transit. Thirdly, Clause 10.1, which deals with the assured's voluntary change of voyage, was amended to solve the problem that the words "held covered" could be misunderstood by an assured without specialist knowledge of English marine insurance law to be a guarantee of cover, even where cover would not be commercially available. Finally, Clause 10.2 is designed to solve the so-called "phantom ship problem", arising from the harsh decision in The Prestrioka. The new Clause 10.2 provides protection for an innocent assured in the situation of a phantom ship.