• Journal of the Korean Institute of Navigation
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.83-103
• /
• 1983

The duty of disclosure it is a preliminary requirement to effect marine insurance contract between the assured and the underwriter. The contract of Marine Insurance is called a uberrimae fidei contract, the assured, therefore, in the law of marine insurance, shall communicate a material circumstances to the latter before the policy to be effected. As growing the maritime industries in Korea, there is forming a larger marine insurance market, accordingly, and having a wide relation with the practice of the marine insurance in England. It means that the most of the legal theories of the marine insurance would be adopted by the English Marine Insurance Case Law and M.I.A., 1906. From the viewpoint of the said this author has tried out to study what is the duty of disclosure of the marine insurance based upon the English Marine Case Law.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.42
• /
• pp.275-305
• /
• 2009

Marine insurance contracts, which intended to provide indemnity against marine risks upon the payment of price, known as a premium, originated in Northern Italy in the late 12th and early 13th centuries. The law and practice were later introduced into England through the Continent. It is, therefore, quite exact that English and European marine insurance law have common roots. Nevertheless, significant divergences between English and European 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 developed and clarified 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 a unique rule on warranty. This article is, therefore, designed to analyse the overall rule of the rule of warranty in English marine insurance law. The result of analysis are as following. First, warranties are incorporated to serve a very significant function in the law of insurance, that is, confining or determining the scope of the cover agreed by the insurer. From the insurer's point of view, such the function of warranties is crucial, because his liability, agreed on the contract of insurance, largely depend on in, and the warranties, incorporated in the contract play an essential role in assessing the risk. If the warranty is breached, the risk initially agreed is altered and that serves the reason why the insurer is allowed to discharge automatically further liability from the date of breach. Secondly, the term 'warranty' is used to describe a term of the contract in general and insurance contract law, but the breach of which affords different remedies between general contract law and insurance contract law. Thirdly, a express warranty may be in any form of words from which the intention to warrant is to be inferred. An express warranty must be included in, or written upon, the policy, or must be contained in some document incorporated by reference into the policy. It does not matter how this is done. Fourthly, a warranty is a condition precedent to the insurer's liability on the contract, and, therefore, once broken, the insurer automatically ceases to be liable. If the breach pre-dates the attachment of risk, the insurer will never put on risk, whereas if the breach occurs after inception of risk, the insurer remains liable for any losses within the scope of the policy, but has no liability for any subsequent losses. Finally, the requirements on the warranty must be determined in according to the rule of strict construction. As results, it is irrelevant: the reason that a certain warranty is introduced into the contract, whether the warranty is material to the insurer's decision to accept the contract, whether or not the warranty is irrelevant to the risk or a loss, the extent of compliance, that is, whether the requirements on the warranty is complied exactly or substantially, the unreasonableness or hardship of the rule of strict construction, and whether a breach of warranty has been remedied, and the warranty complied with, before loss.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.61
• /
• pp.113-137
• /
• 2014

For a contract of insurance to be valid, the insured needs to have an insurable interest. This means that someone taking out insurance must stand to gain a benefit from the preservation of the subject matter of the insurance or to suffer a disadvantage should it be lost. Although the principle is simple, the detail is difficult. English Law Commission proposed some changes to provide certainty on the rule of insurable interest in LCCP 201. This article is, therefore, designed to examine the proposals for reforming trends in English insurance contract law. The proposals on Law Commission in summarized as following. First, LC proposed to retain the requirement for insurable interest because it was thought to fulfil four useful functions. Secondly, LC proposes to repeal the Marine Insurance Act 1788 and the Marine Insurance (Gambling Policies) Act 1909 to confirm that the requirement of insurable interest applies to all forms of insurance. Thirdly, LC proposes to retain the provisions on insurable interest in the Marine Insurance Act 1906. Finally, LC proposes to define insurable interest and thinks that full definition of insurable interest should remain flexible.

• 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.

• The Journal of Information Technology
• /
• v.7 no.1
• /
• pp.121-136
• /
• 2004

The purpose of this paper is to study the current situations of trade financial EDI based on The BOLERO system, New BOLERO system, The NACCS system in Japan and The EDEN(Electronic DElivery Negotiable document) system and problems in application of marine insurance contracts. Entwined with the contracts of carriage in international sale transactions is a contract of marine insurance by which the goods are insured against maritime perils. In the thesis I tried to explain the problems of paperless marine insurance contracts based on problems in relating to formation of the transit insurance contract and replication the functions of the marine insurance policy electronically.

• THE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCE & LAW REVIEW
• /
• v.14
• /
• pp.103-152
• /
• 2000

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 doctrine of utmost good faith in insurance law. The doctrine gives rise to a variety of duties, some of which apply before formation of the contract while others apply post-formation. This article is, therefore, designed to analyse the overall structure and problems of the doctrine of utmost good faith in English marine insurance law. The results of analysis are as following : First, the requirement of utmost good faith in marine insurance law arises from the fact that many of the relevant circumstances are within the exclusive knowledge of the assured and it is impossible for the insurer to obtain the facts to make a appropriate calculation of the risk that he is asked to assume without this information. Secondly, the duty of utmost good faith provided in MIA 1906, s. 17 has the nature as a bilateral or reciprocal, overriding and absolute duty. Thirdly, the Court of Appeal in Skandia held that breach of the pre-formation duty of utmost good faith did not sound in damages since the duty did not arise out of an implied contractual term and the breach did not constitute a tort. Instead, the Court of Appeal held that the duty was an extra-contractual duty imposed by law in the form of a contingent condition precedent to the enforceability of the contract. Fourthly, the scope of the duty of utmost good faith is closely related to the test of materiality and the assured is required to disclose only material circumstances subject to MIA 1906, s. 18(1) and 20(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. Fifthly, the 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 or misrepresentation of the assured. Sixthly, the duty of utmost good faith is, in principle, terminated before contract is concluded, but it is undoubtful that the provision under MIA 1906, s. 17 is wide enough to include the post-formation duty. The post-formation duty is, however, based upon the terms of marine insurance contract, and the duty lies entirely outside s. 17. Finally, MIA 1906, s. 17 provides expressly for the remedy of avoidance of the contract for breach of the duty. This means rescission or retrospective avoidance of the entire contract, and the remedy is based upon a fairly crude 'all-or-nothing' approach. What is needed in English marine insurance law is to introduce a more sophiscated or proportionate remedy.

• Journal of the Korean Institute of Navigation
• /
• v.18 no.2
• /
• pp.111-127
• /
• 1994

A Contract of marine insurance is a contract whereby the insurer undertakes to indemnity the assurd, in manner and to the extent thereby agreed, against marine losses that is to say, the losses incident to marine adventure. But the matter is that whether the problem of increased risk in insurance law should be understood by matching to nay state under general principle of contract law and whether that we should give any effect is more proper to the original object of the system. For this, it is understood that it is a case to be applied a "clausula rebus sic stantibus" in general today, but it is regarded as the matter that whether "clausula rebus sic stantibs" is charging any position in change of risk and whether we should understood the concept of the risk on the substance of the risk. Accordingly the recognition for the problem like this, study should examine closely into whether any system for the effect of increase in change of risk is more proper and rational system provide the supplementing points through our principle of insurance law and the study by comparing method.by comparing method.

• Journal of Navigation and Port Research
• /
• v.26 no.1
• /
• pp.66-77
• /
• 2002

Generally hull insurance is undertaken by mean of a contract of hull insurance. A contract of hul1 insurance here is a contract whereby the insurer undertakes to indemnify the assured against the loss and damage to the vessel mused by maritime perils. A contract of hull insurance is consists of printed main insurance clauses and a clause includes many sub-clauses. Now the Institute Time Clauses-Hulls (hereunder refer to as "English hull insurance clauses"made by the Institute of London Underwriters is much used as the standard from or basic from by many countries ail over the world Now Korean insurance companies hue not made our their own hull insurance clauses, they have just adopted the made-out English hull insurance clauses and the english law and practice to solve the problem related to marine insurance. On the other hand, the United States of America and Japan have made out their own hull insurance clauses based on English hull insurance clauses and used the clauses for many years. Now American is using American Institute Hull Clauses(hereunder refer to as "American hul1 insurance clauses"as its own clauses which was made out by American Institute of Marine Underwriters in 1977 and Japan is also wing its own clauses named Japanese Hull Standard Clauses(hereunder refer to as "Japanese hull clauses") which was made out by japanese Hull Insurance Association in 1990. Therefore the purpose of this study is not only to make a comparative study on English hull insurance clauses 1995, American hull insurance clauses 1977 and Japanese hull clauses l990, but also to supply on some legal materials necessary for Korea to establish and perform our own hull insurance clauses.

• 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

• 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.