• 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.

• International Area Studies Review
• /
• v.12 no.2
• /
• pp.277-295
• /
• 2008

Insurable value agreed by the parties shall be presumed specified at the time of the accident. It is nevertheless provided that where agreed value considerably exceeds certain amount evaluated at the time of insured accident, the amount shall be insurable value. It casts doubt on what constitutes such an excess in valuation in marine insurance. Because of the relatively short periods and less volatile economies, maritime insurance, with the statutory insurance value, has deemed insurable value conclusive. In other ways, the provision of default rule substitutes the amount evaluated at the time of insured accident for statutory insurance value. However, over-valuation of agreed value determined by the comparison of statutory insurance value leads to non sequitur in valued policy. Maritime insurance, in the case of over-valuation of agreed value, construes certain amount evaluated at the time of insured accident as insurable value. Accordingly, beyond the application of statutory insurance value, the amount should be considered for over-valuation of agreed value.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.72
• /
• pp.57-80
• /
• 2016

Since 2006, the Law Commission and Scottish Law Commission have been engaged in a major review of insurance contract law, finally leading to the legislation of Insurance Act 2015. According to the enforcement of the Insurance Act 2015 on 12 August 2016, ss 18~20 of the Marine Insurance Act 1906(MIA 1906) were repealed and substituted by the new concept of fair presentation. This article intends to analyze the legal implications through the comparative research between the duty of fair presentation in Insurance Act 2015 and ss 18~20 of MIA 1906. The major changes in Insurance Act 2015 are designed to (1) encourage active engagement by the insurer rather than passive underwriting, asking questions of the insured if the desired information is not provided at the stage of proposal; (2) encourage policyholders to structure and signpost their presentation in an clear and accessible way, and prevent data dumps; (3) give guidance as to how the insured should prepare a fair presentation, by undertaking a reasonable search of available information and giving examples of what circumstances might be material; (4) clarify whose knowledge in the insured's organization is attributed to the insured for the purposes of disclosure; (5) clarify the exceptions to the duty of disclosure, including circumstances "which are known or presumed to be known to the insurer"; and (6) replace the remedy of avoidance in all circumstances with more proportionate remedies. This is a default regime, which may be altered by agreement between the parties.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.2
• /
• pp.7-44
• /
• 1991

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.8
• /
• pp.84-120
• /
• 1995

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.10
• /
• pp.279-326
• /
• 1997

• Magazine of the Korea Concrete Institute
• /
• v.17 no.1 s.84
• /
• pp.44-48
• /
• 2005

• Proceedings of KOSOMES biannual meeting
• /
• 2005.11a
• /
• pp.111-124
• /
• 2005

Small vessels of less then 20 tonnage and leisure boots such as motor boots, sailing yachts, water motorcycle, etc have been excluded from the rules and regulations such as Marine Leisure Safety Act, Ship Act and Ship Safety Act for a long time in Korea As a result, these small vessels and leisure boots have remained within the blind area of maritime safety and environment protection Among these vessels and boots, some leisure boots such as motor boots of 20 horse power or more(excluding motor boots equipped with engine inside the vehicles), water motorcycles and robber boots of 30 horse power or more are incorporated into the Marine Leisure Safety Act through the registry, safety inspection, insurance early 2005 in Korea In relation to the scope of application of the national Acts concerned, I consider the conflicts between Acts and suggest the subordinate enforcement ordinance and regulations.

• 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 INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.24
• /
• pp.25-49
• /
• 2004

English contract law has traditionally taken the view that it is not the duty of the parties to a contract to give information voluntarily to each other. In English law, one of the principal distinctions between insurance contract law and general contract law is the existence of the duty of disclosure in insurance law. This article is, therefore, designed to analyse the scope or extent of the duty of disclosure and the remedy for breach of the duty in English marine insurance law. The main purpose of this article is also to seek the alternative remedy for the breach. The results of analysis are as following : First, the scope of the duty of disclosure is closely related to the test of materiality and the concept of a hypothetical prudent insurer. The assured is required to disclose only material circumstances subject to MIA 1906, s. 18(1). The test of materiality, which had caused a great deal of debate in English courts over 30 years, was finally settled by the House of Lords in Pan Atlantic and the House of Lords rejected the 'decisive influence' test and the 'increased risk' test, and the decision of the House of Lords is thought to accept the 'mere influence' test in subsequent case by the Court of Appeal. Secondly, an actual insurer is, in order to avoid contract, required to provide proof that he is induced to enter into the contract by reason of the non-disclosure of the assured. But this subjective test of actual inducement is somewhat meaningless in sense that English court takes the test of materiality as a starting point and assumes the presumption of inducement even in case of no clear proof on the inducement. Finally, MIA 1906, s. 18 provides expressly for the remedy of avoidance of the contract for breach of the duty of disclosure. This means rescission or retrospective avoidance of the entire contract, and the remedy is based upon a fairly crude 'all-or-nothing' approach. The remedy of rescission is too draconian from the point of view of the assured, because he can be deprived of all cover despite he is innocent perfectly. An inadvertent breach from an innocent mistake is as fatal as wilful concealment. What is, therefore, needed in English marine insurance law with respect to remedy for the breach is to introduce a more sophisticated or proportionate remedy ascertaining degrees of fault.