• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제34권
• /
• pp.77-108
• /
• 2007

The traditional name given to the insurance of third party liabilities and certain contractual liabilities which arise in connection with the operation of ships is protection and indemnity(P & I) insurance. P & I insurance is very different from traditional hull and machinery insurance in that shipowners' hull and machinery insurance is designed primarily to protect the assured against losses to his vessel, whereas P & I insurance seeks to indemnify an shipowner in respect of the discharge of legal liabilities he has incurred in operating his own vessels. This study is to examine the background of establishment of British P & I clubs md, therefore, the identity of P & I insurance. The present British P & I clubs are the remote descendants of the many small and local hull mutual insurance clubs that were formed by British shipowners in the end of 18th century. At that time, British shipowners were dissatified with the state of marine insurance market and, therefore, established clubs together in mutual hull insurance clubs. After the removal of the company monopoly in 1824, greater competition had a good effect on the rates, terms of cover and service offered by the commercial marine insurance market and by Lloyd's underwriters, and the hull clubs became less necessary and went into decline. The burden of British shipowners on liabilities to third parties was steadily increased after the middle of the 19th century, but the amount insured under hull policy was limited in the insured value of the ship. Eventually, the first protection club, that is, the Shipowners' Mutual Protection Society was formed in 1855. It was designed to like past mutual hull clubs, but to cover liabilities for loss of life and personal injury and also the collision risks excluded from the current marine policies, particularly the excess above the limits in hull policies. In 1870, the risks of liability for loss of or damage to cargo carried on board the insured ship was first awarded by the British shipowners. After 1874, many protection clubs formed indemnity club to cover the risk of liability for loss or damage to cargo. As mentioned above, British P & I clubs have been steadily changed according to the response of shipowners under the rapidly changing law of British shipowners' liability, and so on in the future.

• 한국항해학회지
• /
• 제18권2호
• /
• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제15권
• /
• pp.119-136
• /
• 2001

The purpose of this paper is to consider how to decide the cause of loss or damage to the transport goods when maritime accident occurs. In marine insurance, the underwriter is liable for any loss or damage proximately caused by a risk insured(MIA Art.55). So it is very important to determine the proximate cause of loss or damage to ascertain whether it is to be recoverable under the policy. But there is no definite conception or rule what is the proximate cause. It was left to the tribunal as a question of fact. In this paper, I will suggest the general rules to determine the proximate cause of loss or damage of the transport goods in marine insurance. First, in MIA 1906, there is the rule of proximate causation and it has been established the effective causation by cases since 1918. Second, in Institute Cargo Clauses(B) & (C), there are rules of considerably relaxed standards to determine the causation of loss of or damage using the "attributable to" and "caused by" basis. Third, it is noted, under the complex causation situation, there are difference basises to decide the liability of underwriters between the case of successive occurrence of single risk and the case of concurrent occurrence of several risks. Forth, in practice, it couldn't be ascertained the underwrier's liability by a definite rule and it should be fully considered the circumstances and conditions of the loss.

• 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.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제26권
• /
• pp.173-199
• /
• 2005

The MIA 1906, s.78(4) provides that it is the duty of the assured and his agents, in all cases, to take such measures as may be reasonable for the purpose of averting or minimising a loss. In many cases the statutory duty will be unimportant, since rights, duties and liabilities declared by the Act or implied into marine insurance contracts by law may be modified by agreement, and many contracts contains a sue and labour clause which effectively reproduces and/or to modifies the statutory duty. The effect of such contractual provisions will, of course, be a matter of construction, though modern sue and labour clauses tend to reflect the principles contains in section 78. However, it must not be assumed that the terms of all contractual sue and labour clauses are, or will remain, identical, either with each other or with the statutory duty. The purpose of this study is to clarify the ambit of sue and labour.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제25권5호
• /
• pp.39-57
• /
• 2021

Purpose - This research uses ocean marine insurance (OMI) statistics, international emails, focus-group interviews, and surveys to fill the gap between the theory of behavioral insurance, particularly status quo bias (SQB), and the practice of OMI in Korea. The contractual forms of OMI, the oldest and most globalized form of commercial insurance, were developed in the UK as the Institute Cargo Clauses in 1906 and revised in 1963, 1982, and 2009. SQB has been academically explored, mostly in health insurance and the financial services sector, but never in OMI. Thanks to the availability of OMI statistics in Korea, we can conduct SQB research here for the first time in this field. Design/methodology - We show the existence of SQB in the OMI of Korea through Korean statistics between 2009 and 2018, email correspondence with experts in the UK, Germany, and Japan, focus-group interviews with Korean OMI underwriters, an in-depth interview with one underwriter, and a survey of 15 OMI insureds (company representatives). Findings - We find that Korean foreign traders rely on the old-type OMI contracts developed in 1963, whereas other industrialized countries use the newest type of OMI contract developed in 2009. With a simple loss ratio analysis during 2009-2018, we show that the behavior of insurers has little to do with rational profit maximization and is instead driven by irrational bias, as they forgo the more profitable contracts provided by the new clauses by keeping the old clauses. The consistent addiction to old types of contracts in the OMI market suggests strong SQB among Korean exporters, importers, bankers, or insurers, which we confirmed in our interviews and survey. Originality/value - This research has significant originality and academic value because it reports new findings with crucial implications for the development of efficient trade practices and policy. First, this research is based on actual statistics that have not been used in previous Korean research on OMI. Second, this research shows that all-risk OMI policies provide more value to insureds, in terms of coverage given premium, than partial coverage policies, which differs from arguments previously made in Korea. Third, this research reveals strong SQB in Korea, where foreign trade plays a pivotal role in economic growth. That bias could be attributable to uninformed traders, informed but idle insurers, or conservative bankers. Fourth, to further develop foreign trade, policy initiatives are needed to review the current practices of OMI contracts and move forward with the new contract forms. All of these findings and arguments are both new and important.

• 무역상무연구
• /
• 제47권
• /
• pp.337-353
• /
• 2010

On payment of the insurance money the insurer is entitled to be subrogated to all right and remedies of the assured in respect of the interest insured in so far as he has indemnified the insured. The purpose of subrogation is to prevent the assured from recovering more than once for the same loss, e.g. where goods are lost owing to a collision, the assured cannot claim the insurance money from the insurer and then sue the owners of the ship that negligently caused the collision. Under the doctrine of subrogation the right to sue owners of the negligent ship passes from the assured to the insurer on payment of the insurance money. The insurer is subrogated to the assured 'rights against the carrier under the contract of carriage. To defeat the cargo underwriters' subrogation righters, the carriers inserted in their B/L a clause allowing the carriers to have the "benefit of the shipper's insurance. But, in the Hague Rules, Hamburg Rules, Rotterdam Rules, its makes void any clause that assigns a benefit of insurance of the goods in favour of the carrier. In practice the insurer asks the assured to sign a letter of subrogation and retains the documents in order to prosecute the rights subrogated to him.

• Journal of Korea Trade
• /
• 제25권2호
• /
• 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.

• 산학경영연구
• /
• 제11권
• /
• pp.415-437
• /
• 1998

우리나라 보험통계현황(保險統計現況)에서 보면 수출적하(輸出積荷)인 경우가 최근 3년간 전위험담보조건(全危驗擔保條件)이 95%이상을 상회하고 있다는 것과 신(新). 구약관(舊約款)의 사용내역을 보면 구약관(舊約款)의 사용이 2배 이상을 상회한다는 것을 보여주고 있다. 이는 하주(荷主)의 입장에서 보면 적하보험약관상(積荷保險約款上) 입증책임(立證責任)과 손해보상범위(損害補償範圍)에 문제점이 있다는 것을 설명해주고 있다. 또한 하주(荷主)의 보험마인드에도 운송인에의 구상권행사(求償權行使)가 복잡함으로써 보험자에게 전가(轉嫁)하려고 하는 의도도 있겠다. 따라서 피보험자(被保險者)인 입장에서 입증책임(立證責任)의 원칙과 손해보상범권(損害補償範圈)에 있어서는 화물의 특성을 고려한 동업자약관(同業者約款)(Trade Clause)의 도입(導入)과 적극적인 활용(活用)이 이루어져야 할 것이다.

• 한국항해학회지
• /
• 제18권3호
• /
• 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.