• Journal of the Korean Institute of Navigation
• /
• v.15 no.3
• /
• pp.35-51
• /
• 1991

The primary purpose of this study is to point out the rising problem from which the insured value is remarkably different from the sound value of the ship in the Institute Time Clauses-Hulls(1. 10. 83.) and that of the ship in the Marine Insurance Act, 1906. Its secondary purpose is to suggest remedial methods for these problems and to contribute to the reduction of premium for shipowners.

• Journal of Fisheries and Marine Sciences Education
• /
• v.6 no.1
• /
• pp.45-57
• /
• 1994

One of the fundamental duty of the assured in a marine insurance contract is maintaining seaworthiness of the ship insured. Since duty of the seaworthiness of ship is a shipowners implied warranty in the marine insurance, the breach of the duty of seaworthiness by assured is recognized as immunity for the underwriter. This is a measure to protect the underwriter through prevention of unexpected casualties which may be occurred from the unseaworthiness. In the Korean Marine Insurance Act the legal character of the assured's duty of seaworthiness is not clear whether it is a legal duty or contracted one. Accordingly, in this paper the author pointed out that the duty of seaworthiness of the ship should be interpreted according to the English Law. As a conclusion, the hull insurance does not require even implied warranty concerning seaworthiness, since it is recognized as one of implied fundamental warranty of the English Marine Insurance Act. Especially, this issue pointed out is very meaningful and advisable under the consideration of the existing conditions of the marine insurance regime for the distant-water fishing vessels and the catch carriers in Korea.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.54
• /
• pp.213-233
• /
• 2012

International Hull Clauses(IHC(2003)) which have replaced the old system, Institute Time Clauses, Hull(ITCH), used more than 100 years in the shipping industry that did not fit the reality of the market and customs was announced in 01/11/2003 and was intended to supplement the existing issues to reflect the terms that had been used. IHC(2003) was composed of systematical and logical phrases to minimize the conflict which happened between the insured and the insurer after the incident. But IHC(2003) is being ignored by both the insured and the insurer in the shipping industry due to the differences in both positions. In addition, the studies about IHC(2003) in local academics are very low and many companies in the shipping industry are using both systems, IHC(2003) and ITCH so the usage of IHC(2003) is not so activated. Thus, this study will examines the main features and the compositions of IHC(2003) and compare IHC(2003) with ITCH(1983) in some provisions in both systems and then derive some similarities from the both systems and finally would suggest the necessity and validity of active use of IHC(2003).

• 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.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Navigation
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.129-149
• /
• 1994

Sea casualties may happen in ship, cargo and the others concerned with sea transportation. : the shipo-wer, marine insurer and salvage company have been endeavored to compensate salvage award with some rule and regulation such as Marine Insurance Act, York Antwerp Rules and Average adjustment rules. Once sea casualties happened, the salvage contract is established between the owners, marine insurance and salvage company, the contract are divided into so many kinds of them. In this paper, we have an analysis on the character of the salvage contract whether the characteristic contents of them are in benefit to any party or not. In this connection with these positive or negative character of the contract, it is worthwhile to compare the actual salvage expenses contract with no cure no pay contract. LOF 1990 has been revised recently, which is based on no cure no pay, expecially, the special compensation, safety net clause of LOF 1990 could be understood in the view of the prevention of sea pollution and the preservation of sea circumstances in the world. Salvage has the complicated and quality, because the adjustment of almost salvage charges have been treated through the other sea casualties which is accompanied by and mixed with. Besides of the importance of salvage contracts, we are in need to understand that what the diversified character of salvage charges are. Furthermore the owners should carefully select the insured conditions on Hull Insurance according to the type of his company, operating ocean route, loading cargo and etc. In this paper, we would try to analyze the character of the salvage award such as General Average, Sue and Labour Charges and Particular charges. We would like to propose that the uniformed system of the salvage award. Compensation should be built up for the effective and efficient salvage operation and for reducing the claims and conflicts from the concerned parties. To this end, we could expect that the uniformed system for salvage award compensation will come to be the benefit of all owners, insurers, salvage company.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Navigation
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.51-79
• /
• 1994

Section 55 (1) of the Marine Insurance Act 1906 states that the insurer is liable for any loss proximately caused by a peril insured against but is not liable for any loss not proximately caused by a peril insured against. It is, therefore, essential to determine whether it is to be recoverable under the Marine Insurance Policy attaching the Institute Cargo or Hull Clauses. But a number of important losses are excluded from the policy by subsection 2 of the same section, unless the policy otherwise provides, although these losses are proximate causes of them. The purpose of this study is to investigate the meaning of proximate cause and excluded losses in the Act. The method of this study is a literature survey. In summary, (1) if the loss is considered to have been proximately caused by a certain peril, and the peril is insured against, the claim is recoverable, (2) if there are different causes resulting in separate losses, the claims recoverable will be those due to insured perils, (3) when the effective cause of the loss is established, remote causes can be ignored, (4) when causes of loss are combined, the claim is recovera-ble if the cause which is proximate in efficiency is an insured peril, (5) if there are two causes, equal in efficiency, the loss is recoverable if one of the causes is an insured peril, but always providing the other cause is merely an uninsured peril rather than a specific exclusion, (6) although certain losses are exclu-ded by section 55 (2) of the Act, with the exception of wilful misconduct of the insured, it is permitted for provision to be made in the policy to widen the terms to include such losses.

• The Korean Journal of Air & Space Law and Policy
• /
• v.6
• /
• pp.137-147
• /
• 1994

Clearly there are many legal arguments and criticisms surrounding the proposals for change in the Warsaw Convention and the need for a radical review. The question remains is unlimited liability the answer or should there be some other form of supplemental compensation and if so, what limits should be applicable. It does seem that the adopted limits of the Convention are seen by many as the first line of defence, which, dependent on political and cultural differences, the legal interpretation of contractual wording and the legal system globally have resulted in enormous differences in compensation paid whether or not the Convention limits were imposed. An example of this is in the United States, which highlights the significance of the problem in that domestic travellers without Convention Limits can, through the American legal system, obtain compensation in the multi-million dollar area for a death claim, whereas a passenger t1ying internationally would in the first instance be subject to Convention Limits. expensive legal action through litigation. To date, we can advise that insurers have not charged additional premium for unlimited liability coverage. Insurance rates as we have stated are hardening considerably. To date, average rate increases have been plus 56% for aircraft hull and plus 45% for liabilities. Insurers last year suffered global losses of around US $ 1.1 Billion against a premium income of US $ 800,000. The target premium income for 1993 is believed to be in the region of US $1.4 Billion.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• v.25 no.2
• /
• pp.152-177
• /
• 2021

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.

• The Journal of shipping and logistics
• /
• v.34 no.4
• /
• pp.583-613
• /
• 2018

This study analyse the safe port warranty undertaking for shipowner of time charterer with the Ocean Victory Case. Litigation ensued between those in the charterparty chain. When the hull insurer, Gard, took an assignment of the rights of the vessel's owners and demise charterers in a claim against the time charterers that the vessel had been ordered by them to an unsafe port in breach of the charter. Although the claim succeeded, the Court of Appeal overturned the decision. The Supreme Court delivered its judgment on May 10, 2017, dealing with three important issues, safe port, joint insurance, and limitation of liability. Especially on the safe port issue, the court held that the port was not unsafe within the meaning of the safe port undertaking so the charterers were not in breach of it. The conditions in the port amounted to an abnormal occurrence as that expression is understood.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.37 no.1
• /
• pp.113-121
• /
• 2013

IMO(International Maritime Organization) is existed the movement for revising ISM Code so that the maintenance history and the trouble information given trading in a ship can be transferred. An empirical analysis was made on the influence that will have upon shipping industry through surveying on the recognition on ISM Code revision in employees of the relevant field and on the expected problems given being amended ISM Code as the above. In conclusion, the positive effect is judged to be more in the aspect of ship safety, which is the aim of ISM Code, rather than the negative effect, which may take place given being revised ISM Code. In other words, the clean market can be formed through this because fairness is maintained on both sides given trading in a ship by which opening the maintenance record and the trouble history is applied equally to a buyer and a seller. Ships can be reduced a loss of time and cost in preventing similar problems and seeking solution that may appear in important equipments, through this maintenance record. Also, based on these materials, it comes to be available for analyzing a risk of ship and preventing and managing a risk, thereby being increased ability of maintenance and repair in a ship, resulting in being judged to likely contributing to ship safety and environmental-pollution prevention.